subscribe to current local breaking news The News Review
Search Current Week
NEWS | SPORTS | COMMENTARY
For SUBSCRIBERS:
  Top Stories  
  Business
  Police Reports
  Sports
  Education
  Editorials
  Columns
  Letters to the Editor
  Community News
  Calendar  
  Real Estate
  Health
  Food & Wine
  Back Issues
  Digital Edition

FREE CONTENT:
  Obituaries
  Slide Shows
  Movie Listings
  Community Links
  Classifieds
  Legal Notices  
  Public Meetings  
  Service Directory
  Antiques & Such
  Local Businesses

FORUMS:
  Community
   Bulletin Board

  All Boards

  Send Letter to Editor
  Submit Obituary
  Email us
  Subscribe Now
  News Tips
  Site Help

times/review online

  Contact/About

  Staff Roster

  Rates/Circulation


  The Suffolk Times

  Shelter Island
  Reporter

  The North Shore Sun

  The Wine Press

Updated: 7/2/2009 - 4:04 AM



911! Town unsure of dispatcher wording
Questions on referendum structure
  0 comments below

While the Town Board has decided to put on the November ballot the question of whether to keep town-controlled police dispatchers, it still hasn't decided how the referendum will be worded.

The main argument centers on whether the language on the ballot should ask voters if they want "to pay $950,000 to keep the dispatchers," or if they want "to transfer the function to the county."

The difference is that a voter who wants to keep the dispatchers would have to vote 'yes' on the former question, but 'no' on the latter.

"So, in order to keep them, you'd have to have a 'no' vote?" Councilman John Dunleavy asked at a recent public work session. "I think it's confusing. I think people will think the affirmative vote will keep them."

The Town Board voted last November to shift the dispatcher function to Suffolk County as of June 30. Supervisor Phil Cardinale included the change in his proposed budget for 2009, saying that town residents already pay for county dispatching services that they don't use.

In adopting the 2009 budget in November, only Councilman Jim Wooten opposed the shift.

'I think it's confusing.' Councilman John Dunleavy
But in May, the board voted unanimously to rescind that decision and instead let voters decide the issue in November.

The board also decided in May that the referendum should read: "Should the Town of Riverhead add the sum of $950,000 to the 2010 Town Budget and succeeding Town Budgets, through the collection of taxes from Riverhead taxpayers, to retain the Town of Riverhead safety dispatch function, a function for which Suffolk County taxes Riverhead taxpayers and is legally required to provide based upon the taxation of Riverhead taxpayers?"

The board later had second thoughts about that language and was ready to change it last Tuesday, but a resolution to that effect was tabled so the employees' union could review it, according to Mr. Wooten.

"The original wording sounded like we were saying, 'You don't really want to do this, do you?'ââ" Mr. Wooten said.

The revised language, which has yet to be approved, is as follows: "Should the Town of Riverhead transfer the dispatch function to the County of Suffolk?"

An abstract that accompanies the referendum states that "if the referendum is approved, the Town of Riverhead will transfer the safety dispatch function to the County of Suffolk. If the referendum is not approved, the Town of Riverhead would add the sum of approximately $950,000 to the 2010 town budget and succeeding budgets, through the collection of taxes from Riverhead residents, to retain the safety dispatch function."

The $950,000 figure was based on what the town spent on dispatching last year, including overtime costs paid to police officers who filled in as dispatchers when no dispatchers were available, according to town officials.

Initially, town officials said the cost of the dispatchers was $710,000, which accounted for salaries and benefits for nine dispatchers.

Mr. Wooten said he also has questions about whether the $950,000 figure is accurate.

According to the Suffolk County Board of Elections, the town must submit the final wording of the referendum no later than 36 days before the Nov. 4 election -- or Sept. 28.

tgannon@timesreview.com

Notice about comments:
The Riverhead News-Review is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Riverhead News-Review does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Riverhead News-Review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Service and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.




Add your comments below:










captcha 82b9947e18644af59489f5e9481252ce





0 comments found


Most Popular



Voice your opinion

Start a discussion, join a discussion or make a comment.

Click "Community Bulletin Board" link on the left or "Discuss this story" link at the top of every story to get started.



summer wine press 2007

© Times-Review Newspapers
Terms of Service - Privacy Policy