Conference back40::soapbox

    $30k doesn't sound like very much money, if they don't have real jobs
    in addition to their state posts (like in NH).

    
    
    Is the $30K a total, or minus all the perks? (ie mileage, meals, other
    allowances...etc.)
    

    So long as someone warms up my car, hauls in my groshries, and washs my
    cloths....its worth giving them a pay raise.....<not!!> ;)

    I would be open to a pay raise IF and only if there were term limits.
    
    Since I believe term limits is an insult to those of us who vote on
    substance, I say no raise!
    
    -Jack

OK - I'll be yet another Cow Hampshirite to respond.

If it includes a raise for judges it can't be voted down by the electorate?
That would be, like that arrogant SOB who's holding up five out of the nine
referendum issues by judicial order?

Yeah, right.

    Massachusetts does seem to have a remarkably docile populace.

RE    <<< Note 133.6 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

>    Massachusetts does seem to have a remarkably docile populace.

  Yup, that's us. Docile Massachusetts folk.

  Don't hardly ever put up much of a fight.

  George

	30k doesn't seem like a lot, but when you throw in all the other perks
they get, you have to be looking at a much higher figure. I heard some people
say if you pay more money, you'll get better people. I think with the lower
amount of money, you can get the better people. The one's who are out to do the
job because they want to, not get elected for the money. Although seeing it
costs so much money now to get elected, it may be a moot point.


Glen

Legislatures voting themselves a pay raise can be a hot button with the voters,
but one that usually goes beyond the financial importance of the act.

Nevertheless, wasn't there a recently adopted U.S. constitutional amendment that
interposes at least one election between a vote for a legislative pay change and
the implementation of said change?  Might be a good idea for the PRM.  Gives
incumbents another timely issue to explain to their constituents.

On this matter the Mass. legislature is, as usual, slinking around, tying the
pay increase to judicial salaries and doing the deed late in the session while
voters are busy with Christmas shopping.

It smells.

-Jerry

    55%!!!???  Good grief!

    
    A fish rots from the head....
    
    Bill Weld:
    	* Denies there is any consideration of a pay raise.
    	* Appoints a secret commission to study the pay raise.
    	* Denies there is any consideration of a pay raise.
    	* Gets a copy of the commissions conclusions after they
    	  met for, what, a whole week, which concludes,
    	  specifically, 44,261(?).
    	* Denies there is any consideration of a pay raise.
    	* He hastely puts together a bill.
    	* Denies there is any consideration of a pay raise.
     	* Announces the commission.
    	* Announces the commission's findings.
    	* Announces his support.
     	* Says he is against tying it to Judicial Salary.
    	* Sends the bill to the legislature.
    	* Says the process was open and fair.
    	* Says the legislature is going to openly debate it this morning,
    	  and said simply the legislature is "trying the prisoner and
    	  will hang him shortly after."
    	* Waffles on tying the legislation to Judicial Salary.
    
    
    Brought to you by a strong supporter of a legislative pay raise.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    ...but 55%?!  Cripes!

    
    The salary has been frozen for 16 years.
    55% is just a cost of living adjustment (COLA).
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    I see.

Thanks for .11 -mr. bill

But I heard MA has 200 legislators. Why do we need so many?

I heard on avg these folk don't put in a full day. They can recess for as
long as a couple of months.

Don't they also supplement their legislative stipends from various sources
i.e. teaching, lecturing, private practices, etc.?

And 30K with perks has to go quite a bit further...maybe 10K further?

    
    
    Gotta have the best legislators money can buy doncha know!!
    

|   Gotta have the best legislators money can buy doncha know!!
    
    Absolutely.
    
    When I follow the money, I'd like to find the path led to my
    pocketbook.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE: 17
    
    >When I follow the money, I'd like to find the path led to my
    >pocketbook.
    
    Why don't you just walk down a dark street in NYC with $20's hanging
    out of your pockets and a sign on your back stating "Mug Me"...
    
    Same results...
    

    Well... it went through quicker than you could blink!!!
    
     Boy them legislators!! When they want something to go through, it
    takes no time at all...
    
      What an obscenity!!!!
    
     Maybe they did deserve a raise....  No one has come forth with any
    info as to whether the 30K was just that or if there were additional
    perks.... I'd like to see all the cards on the table before
    deciding....
    
      but 55%!!!!!!!!!!

Heard on Jerry Williams just before lunch -

Mass legislators who live further than fifty miles from Beacon Hill are
able to deduct their entire compensation (when it was $30K, anyway) from
their federal taxable income.

That ain't a bad perq all by itself.

    Of course there are perks. We may be awhile in seeing what they are 
    exactly but, with the uproar over this, I am sure it is soon to be
    publicized by the media. Arthur Chase, who recently lost an election
    for state senator, has always been pushing for part-time legislators
    and has mentioned many times that they don't even come close to working
    a full day, that the day is often spent sitting around waiting for some
    vote on a bill. If you think these bozos are going to vote on one bill
    after another for a full day, think again. That way you can spread it
    out and justify the "need" of a full time legislature. Job security at
    its best. Chase, of course, was defeated as the average Mass. voter
    much prefers a full time legislature even if it is not necessary. The
    vote showed the Dems for and Republicans against. So, those who voted
    those same Dems in should not complain too much. But, being loyal
    almost to the point of stupidity, I am sure those same Dems  would
    reelect such legislators without a second thought. Such blind party
    loyalty never ceases to amaze me. Those Dem legislators who voted for
    the 55% raise are, of course, "friends of the working man". Right.
    That's the biggest lie they consistently get away with here in
    Taxville.

    I believe that in the "upper chamber", everyone heads a committee,
    which adds $7K to their base pay.
    
    A previous noter asserted that their entire compensation was
    tax-deductible (federal tax).  If true, that's one heck of a perq.

    See .19 for correction of .22.
    
    Notes clash!

    
    RE: .21  >...being loyal almost to the point of stupidity...
    
    Accuracy demands that the word 'almost' be removed from this statement.
    :-)
    
    Paul
    
    

    
    Very smart move by Weld.  He's got political capital to spend,
    what with a 70-30 landslide, and a 2/3 opposition party majority
    that can kill his every move, override his every veto.  He notices
    they have had no pay raise for 14 years and make less than the
    janitor.
    
    Is it a good move to spend some of that popularity to be the answer
    to "who'll bell the cat" ?  You betcha !  He is making some friends
    bigtime amongst the Democrats, and he needs to.
    
      bb

    the gov seems to be having second thoughts now that he's heard that the
    legislature passed the pay raise as an appropriations bill therefore
    not be subjectable to voter repeal, and did it after he endorsed it.
    pay raise bill still has not been signed. sort of late to be stalling
    on the bill now; sign it and the voters will rememeber if he ever runs
    for another office...it'll be weld's own "willie horton."  
    don't sign it, and the legislature will make him a lame duck before 
    his 2nd term starts.
    
    imo, it serves him right for sponsoring such a ridiculous thing in the
    first place. 
     
    
    

    
    Oops ! Just when I was congratulating him, he waffles !  Sign it, Bill.
    Take the heat.  Youre in for 4 years and you need the cretins in the
    Great and General Court more than the voters right now.
    
    How can he think of vetoing his own bill ?  What a performance !
    
      bb

>                      <<< Note 133.27 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
>                           -< Too late for this... >-
>
>    
>    Oops ! Just when I was congratulating him, he waffles !  Sign it, Bill.
>    Take the heat.  Youre in for 4 years and you need the cretins in the
>    Great and General Court more than the voters right now.
>    
>    How can he think of vetoing his own bill ?  What a performance !
>    
>      bb


He said if the bill was set up so that it could not be repealed by the
voters, then he wouldn't sign it.  Basically, the way it is being appropriated,
the voters can't do a referendum on it.  He want's to make it so they
can.

Bruce

    Weld's support of this abuse of power has cost him a huge chunk of
    his political capital. I don't accept the argument that he needed to 
    "buy" the cooperation of the Legislature.
    
    The Globe's Jeff Jacoby wrote a stinging column about Weld and the pay
    raise in yesterday's edition.
                                                 

    This mess is incomprehensible... Weld had an overwhelming mandate
    by getting 70% or so of the vote.  He was in the driver's seat, and
    didn't need to kiss up to the legislature at all.  So why do this?
    
    One theory I've heard is that he was buying their cooperation for
    when he "goes national" in the next year or so.  For one thing, why
    does he need their cooperation for this?  And for another, more
    seriously, he has mistakenly put his "statewide reputation" in a
    box and assumed that his highly questionable ethics in this matter
    would not come out when he pursues national office.  Wrong.  And
    now it's even debatable as to whether he's even re-electable as
    governor, never mind whether he'd carry his own state in some
    position on a national ticket.
    
    How could he have so grossly misread the mood of the electorate?
    Is he really that arrogant and out of touch?
    
    Chris

It would seem to me that once his legal beagles determine whether or not
the appropriation bill is repealable he should:
   a) sign it if so
or b) not sign it if not.

Any other move on his part in case a) would be stupid, and in case b) would
be political suicide.

    >Any other move on his part in case a) would be stupid, and in case b) would
    >be political suicide.
    
    It's a moot point. Weld's not planning to be around for the next
    goobernatorial race...
    
    -b

    
    	I am totally against this pay raise.I think it's undeserved and
    obscene.
    
    That said,
    
    	Weld should not have two positions on this. He shold sign it in
    either case. If he was so much in favor of the raise, it shouldn't
    matter to him if it's not repealable. 
    
    ed

But he's already made the statement that the bill, as an unrepealable
appropriations measure, is not the bill that he proposed. He's perfectly
justified in refusing to sign it as such. He's a fool if he does otherwise.

    
    
    	I assume that the reason he filed the bill in the first place was
    because he felt they deserved the raise. On that assumption, what's the
    difference whether the bill is re-worded. Of course we all know that he
    filed the bill the way he did so the voters COULD repeal it and he
    still looks good to the legislature and he doesn't think they deserve
    the raise.
    
    ed

	I thought Weld had it so the judges were involved, which meant it could
not be repealed?

>					Of course we all know that he
>    filed the bill the way he did so the voters COULD repeal it and he
>    still looks good to the legislature and he doesn't think they deserve
>    the raise.

My feeling was that the above is exactly what he had in mind. And thus
he shouldn't sign it if unrepealable.

    He looks even worse waffling on the repealability issue, than if
    he'd either stick to his guns or jam the stick into reverse,
    admitting he'd made a mistake.  He'll "have to decide", indeed...
    one can visualize armies of pollsters and consultants and various
    cronies and frantic phone calls and meetings.
    
    Chris

    
    
    No, he should be honest.... what a minute , what am I saying. 
    
    ed
    
    PS And I voted for the boob....twice.
    

    Correct me if I'm wrong,
    
         but I thought he acted for the pay raise to intice the common
    person to want to be there and not just "those with money".
    
        Rick

    re-1
    
    that may have been the intent, but i would hardly call billy bulger a
    "common person." that would be an insult to common people. 
    
    besides, i would ask gov. waffle how many common people get 55% pay
    raises these days.
    
    

    
    
    The silence seems to be deafening as to the "perks" matter discussed
    earlier...
    

    
    Well, Bill Waffle, er Weld, skipped off to DC to dance the dance
    with the other gloating Republicans.  He left the bill on his desk.
    
      bb

    
    Talked to one of the reporters who's covering the story for the Globe
    and he gave me what he knew of certain "perks"
    
     Free Parking
    
     90/10 insurance (no out-of-pocket expense for them)
    
     Per diem mileage (He wasn't sure what the figure was, but mentioned it
                       was more than what industry pays)
    
     Free newspapers (local and national)
    
     Legislators who live 50/100 miles (he wasn't sure which was the
    correct figure) are allowed to deduct $100.00 from their salary for
    each day the are in session, so virtually they pay no income taxes.
    
     He wasn't sure if these were all of them, but opined there might have
    been a few more minor ones....
                                        

re:     <<< Note 133.42 by MILKWY::JACQUES "Vintage taste, reissue budget" >>>

>    Does anyone have a phone number to send Gov Weld a FAX ?

WRKO was frequently broadcasting a couple of numbers this AM (Gov's press
Sec. and Lt. Gov's office, I believe), however I didn't note them, not
being a PRM res. I'm sure if you called WRKO they'd have the numbers for
you.

    
    Well, good.  Once he proposed it, he might as well have seen it
    through.  The two day waffle was a blunder.
    
    Of course, it's a bribe.  So ?
    
      bb

    re-1
    
    i agree 100%. but, what we need to do is to have this issue given
    national exposure as well. in 2 years, gov. weld might throw his hat
    into the presidential ring. i can just see him pulling this crap as
    president! unless america knows more about weld, then alot of them will
    blindly follow if he does well in new hampshire. remember gov. dukakas
    when he ran; mass was going to h*ll in a hand-basket, and he was
    telling everyone outside of the state how great things were going 
    and they beleived him.  
    
    

    Pssssssst.
    
    Weld proved he could not be trusted before the first tuesday in
    November.
    
    But you voted for him, didn't you?
    
    Pssssssst.
    
    Finally there was a legitimate effort to replace Bulger, I voted for
    someone who was opposed to Bulger.
    
    You voted for a Bulger supported, didn't you?
    
    Pssssssst.
    
    WAKE THE bleep UP!
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Local TV newsrooms have been running "on the street" interviews with
    PRM serfs, and it's surprising how many of them actually support
    a 55% pay increase.
    
    

    
    just out of curiosity where is Mr Bulger's constituency?

    South Bawston.

    
    In "safe" Southie.
    
    The Senate President, however, can not be elected Senate President
    without the will of the Senators.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Bulger's primary constituency is Southie, but a few years ago he did
    a gerrymandering deal with Bruce Bolling, I think it was, to get a piece of
    the South End/Back Bay beat, in exchange for I don't remember what.
    
    
    

    
    
    	Of course its bribery, but if you went to the legislature and said
    "Here's $16K for each of you if you pass xxx bill, you're next address
    would be MCI Walpole". He does it be filing a bill and its perfectly
    legal.
    
    ed

    
    RE: .51
    
    What a bunch of assuming arrogance....
    

    
    Oh, I get Mr. Bill's drift. You have to get the mindset.  The
    typical member of the G&G court can be slipped a fifty and a
    wink, and there's quid pro quo, to be sure.  Boston politics
    is of the hybernean form, don't ya know ?  Weld, the token
    Brahmin, knows this, knows he hasn't got the votes "to turn a
    codfish" as the Yankees say, and once he gets the silver spoon
    from his lips, tosses them 3.2 million, like popcorn to pigeons.
    
    It's dirty, it's traditional, and it works here.  And Mr. Bill's
    righteous moralism will never garner the votes on the Hill.  How
    Bulger hated sanctimonious Dukakis.  He'd prefer Ed King, he of the
    can-do and the Parker House trysts.  But Bill, the mighty hunter,
    Weld can do business.
    
    Can you say, "death penalty legislation" ?
    
      bb

    
    Heard this weekend that after patrician Bill flew to DC, Bulger's
    senate found a capital gains taxcut the governor had submitted
    three years ago just sitting around in committee.  "Oh, gee, look
    what we found."  They passed it in dead of night without debate !
    Whereupon Weld flew back and signed the raise, repealable or not.
    
    You have to pity Weld.  Re-elected 70-30 in a state with effectively
    no Republicans, he'd ordinarily be the toast of the town by the
    national GOP.  Instead he goes down there and they ask if he can
    walk the walk : "Have you snatched any welfare babies ?  Fried any
    psychopaths ?  Cut any rich folks taxes ?  No ?  What kind of
    Republican are you, anyway...."
    
      bb

    Billy Bulger and the Southie supporters. Do you have to prove you are 
    totally stupid and diehard Dem to live in Southie? Proof that you can
    fool most of the people most of the time. Wasn't it Alexander Hamilton
    who proposed only property owners could vote on issues that affected
    taxes on their property? That's one I would love to see on the
    referendums. Too bad there isn't also an intelligence test to determine
    if you are bright enough to vote. Dems would hate that, Bulger would
    most likely lose a lot of votes, and Kennedy would have been gone a
    long time ago. Although I will have to admit Weld is beginning to make
    me think of who is the next Dem candidate for governor? I will never
    vote for the party but for the man. Weld just hung an anchor around 
    Celucci's neck with this one. Dems could have a chance next election if
    they can find a way of eliminating Bulger and his gang of thieves.
    Proof that crap floats to the top.
    

> Wasn't it Alexander Hamilton who proposed only property owners could vote
> on issues that affected taxes on their property?

Being a poor student of American History, I'm unsure as to whether or not
that's correct, however, if it is, where is the shrine built in the man's
memory? I feel the need for a pilgrimage.

    Where is Guy Fawkes when we need him?
    
    Dick

	Weld expects to get a job if the repubs take over the white house.
maybe he will be an ambassador or somethin.... :-)

    Mebbe he'll be where Clinton is now.

    
    Well, let's see what we bought.  Time to consider the megaplex, with
    or without the domed stadium.  Weld has been trying to put this
    together for years, and now has appointed a "blue ribbon" team of
    nine, including I think six from the house and senate, to come up
    with a plan.
    
    Flaherty (Mass State House Speaker, a dem of course) was on the other
    night's local news.  He has been more of a stumbling block than Billy
    Bulger in the past.  He didn't sound bought-and-paid-for to me.  There
    are many hurdles ahead.  The financing, the siting, etc.
    
    Why does it seem like Boston/Massachusetts will never bring it off ?
    
      bb

WBUR said Flaherty is against using public funds, but for using an increased
hotel room tax.  Once a tax is collected, the funds are public, right?

	If they put it in the South Bay area, I will either be real close to
it, or be part OF it. Depending on how much area they take.... err.... use.


Glen

    
    Well, Glen, is that a good or bad thing ?  I've seen some of the
    ones in other cities, and we look dowdy and provincial.  Several
    orgs I belong to have taken Boston off their normal annual
    convention site rotation.  Unthinkable a few years ago.  Bu the
    Hines, the Northeast Trade Center, Bayside - these are not flashy
    facilities.  And the pro football team is out in Foxboro !
    
    I think it's like Hudson.  You either put up the hundreds of millions,
    or you get out of the microprocessor game.  Being a big-time city is
    not for pikers.  I always felt vaguely embarassed when in town, that
    it wasn't more of a place to go.  But then, that's a suburban speaking.
    So you urban guys don't want it ?
    
      bb

    You do this, and only wealthy people will be running state/country. Is
    that what you want?

    I'm against all these salary cuts and perk cuts, it favours wealthy
    people and shuts out people who do not have the financial resources or
    disposable income to tie down such a position.

    If you want to cut the budget, do it some other way. These are not the
    big expenditures.

Hold on, Glenn - these thieves in the MA legislature aren't rich unless
they were rich a year ago before they gave themselves this bloated raise.
This will only restore parity (barely). If they were "good enough" to serve
a year ago, they should still be so - one year at a huge raise shouldn't
have irreparably changed their lifestyles.

Of course, I'm sure they'll all be crying in their IPAs to their
constituencies about how much less will have to get done if they
can only work half time. Yeah. Right.

    Well, perhaps MA is a bad example, but in Canada they've cut out enough
    to make it impossible for the average person to make it work.

    The message is still being sent to would-be politicians though, don't
    expect any money from your constituents, they believe you should do the
    job but they don't want to pay you for it.

    Why did the lMA egislators want such a big raise, and how do they compare
    to other states?

    
> Of course, I'm sure they'll all be crying in their IPAs to their
> constituencies about how much less will have to get done if they
> can only work half time. 
    
    Jack, you say that like it's a bad thing ! ! !
    

    And for 2,000 a year, who goes for the job, lawyers?

>    And for 2,000 a year, who goes for the job, lawyers?

Prolly a few. Also retired people, and folks that have other full time
employment who are interested in participating in running the state.
There are several points to be made, one of which is that people do it
not for the money, but because they _WANT_ to, and not since they can
hope to make a career of it.

And, as for the quality of their work - you won't find too many NH residents
complaining. Well, except for the Democrats, anyway, but they're outnumbered,
so, who cares ....

Don't overdo it. We've got toll roads in NH. If Gerald weren't in
Europe, he'd remind you of that.

    Doesn't NH have an Everett (sp?) Turnpike?
    
    Not that I would know or anything.

Yes - that's one of them. The Spaulding is the other.

    Is it also a reasonable comparison? NH is way more rural than MA.

re .79:

>    		New Hampshire			Mass
    
>    toll roads		none			Mass Turnpike
                       ^^^^^^			Sumner tunnel
    						Calihan tunnel	
                                                Soon-to-be 3rd harbor tunnel
    

Huh? At least 3 that I know of, and another stretch on the way!

    We have more cow farts than MA.
    
    (Source Dept of Agriculture, Musicology Division)

        re: toll roads

	yeah, they charged us 75 cents to go camping even though
	it was raining.  that's a fine kettle of fish, i must say.

    You didn't give them a rain check?

> NH is way more rural than MA.

Well, Eastern MA, as in "the Greater Boston Area" is more Urban, but the
rest of the state isn't all that much different from most of New Hampshire
less Nashua/Manchester. Heck, you go out to a place like North Adams and
you'd think you were in Upstate NY or Vermont, muchless New Hampshire!

(I'm including Worcester in Eastern MA for the purposes of this comparison.)

    Yabbut Boston must be very costly to the state of MA. NH doesn't have
    that kind of urban decay to deal with.

Ya got me there, Glenn. But one cheap solution to urban decay is less
legislation and a very high concrete wall.

-Jack
    (who moved away from New York State partially because he was sick of
         throwing his money at New York City's problems)

>     <<< Note 133.76 by MILKWY::JACQUES "Vintage taste, reissue budget" >>>
>    Why do we need a full-time legislature?

To wear us down.
They know we won't stand for some of their crap, but if they keep hammering
away at it year after year, sooner or later we won't come up with the
signatures to get it on a ballot, and presto, it's in.

How many times did we go around on: bottle bill
                                    seatbelt law
                                    blah blah blah...
and these are trivial things...

>     <<< Note 133.93 by MILKWY::JACQUES "Vintage taste, reissue budget" >>>

Hey Mark, we're in violent agreement!

Bureaucracies with nothing to do will come up with something, and probably
something that doesn't need doing, rather than simply adjourn... bottle bill
and seatbelt law are prime examples.

    
    > I don't think the turnpike commision is hiring right now!
    
    eeerrr....uuummmmm it all depends on who you're related to.  If you're
    related to someone "important", then they are hiring.  If you're jes a
    shmoe, they ain't hiring..... hhhmmmm I wonder why that is?
    

    re: Note 133.93 by MILKWY::JACQUES
    
    County Gov't.  I got into a discussion about this sunday with a yankee 
    from Mass.
    
    He commented that county gov't is big down here and they were thinking
    of junking county gov't up there.  If you are against big gov't you
    SHOULD KEEP county gov't.  Force some of the crap down from the
    federal/state level back to your county.  If you eliminate county
    gov't you move the power further away from you, which is probably
    completely opposite of what you want to achieve.
    
    The real issue is how do you force the power away from the federal
    and state level and bringing it back to the county.  Obviously if you
    junk your county gov't if you live in east bumfork Mass you will
    be steamrolled by Bawston if you only have state gov't.
    
    Something to think about.
    
    MadMike

>    <<< Note 133.96 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
>    If you are against big gov't you
>    SHOULD KEEP county gov't.  Force some of the crap down from the
>    federal/state level back to your county.  If you eliminate county
>    gov't you move the power further away from you, which is probably
>    completely opposite of what you want to achieve.

Fine, except for things like the fact that the county seat for Middlesex
county, which my hometown of Marlboro[no ugh when I grew up there] is on the
edge of, is Lowell of all places? Might as well be Boston for all the
difference it makes... why the hell would someone in Lowell give a rip about
Marlboro, or vice versa?

Yes the current counties are too large and bizarre to be of much use
for a strong county government to make things more local.  Cambridge
and Ashby (wherezat?) are both in the same county (Middlesex) and
I don't think a "local" government would do a good job of properly
taking care of both places.

On the other hand the current system (strong towns) isn't very good
either, the towns are often too small.  I don't see how a place like
New Braintree or Ashby can afford their own police department.  Where
I come from (upstate NY) only the cities and largest towns and villages
had their own cops, smaller towns relied on the county sheriff or state
police.

>      <<< Note 133.98 by EVMS::MORONEY "DANGER Do Not Walk on Ceiling" >>>
> either, the towns are often too small.  I don't see how a place like
> New Braintree or Ashby can afford their own police department.  Where
> I come from (upstate NY) only the cities and largest towns and villages
> had their own cops, smaller towns relied on the county sheriff or state
> police.

Likewise here. I own some land in Barre, MA - up until a few years back,
state police were the only law enforcement. Not much policing needs to be
done in Barre. Barre is in Worcester county, which includes the city of
Worcester, naturally. I can imagine what Barre would get out of a county
gov't.

    
    This one's for Terrie....
    
    
    Hi Mark
    
    
              S N A R F ! ! ! !
    

    
    Yabbut... the county sheriffs in Mass aren't really part
    of law _enforcement_... they handle the prisons, prisoner
    transport and delivery of summons. That's about it. Your
    county government isn't doing much for you in Barre
    I'm afraid.
    
    -b
    
    P.S. I was stopped, I'd guess 15 or 16 years ago,
         when I inadvertantly failed to "keep right"
         around a traffic island in the center of Barre.
         It was a Barre cop who stopped me, and it was
         around 2:00 AM... so the State Police were not
         the only ones patrolling the town...

       re .102:
       
       Do you oppose the prison in New Braintree because the proposed
       site isn't a good one, or because you happen to live in or near
       New Braintree?
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.:
       
       > The prison Became a ball and chain around the neck of Mike
       > Dukakis as he tried unsuccessfully to run for president. Locally,
       > it was worse than the Willie Horton fiasco for Mike. 
       
       You lost all credibility when this showed up in your note. 
       Absolutely no one outside of the New Braintree NIMBYs hold this
       against Dukakis, and no one outside of Mass ever heard of the NB
       prison.  And, if it escaped your recall, Dukakis had no trouble
       winning Massachusetts.
       
       As a digression, the Duke lost the election during the 1st debate,
       when he was asked what if a Willie Horton were to rape his wife. 
       He gave the expected boring-egghead answer; he would have swept
       the election if he'd gotten mad and said something like "If that
       happened, I would have like to kill the guy with my own hands, rip
       him to shreds and carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey.  But,
       as President, I also recognize that I have to put the Constitution
       and the welfare of the country ahead of any personal feelings,
       blah blah blah."  Of course, he couldn't have said this, because
       it just isn't the guy's character.

    .101
    Fort Devins is a federal facility and perhaps New Braintree is more
    state owned. It is very difficult to have the federal government give
    the state the property.

RE: Fort Devens site for prison or state police

I live in Lancaster(Fort D took 2-3 thousand acres of Lancaster years ago to
expand) We have within 5 miles the Shirley prison (supposedly)medium security
but folks walk away about 8-10 per year. We have in our town MCI Lancaster
which is minimum security/pre-release center. with an appropriate number
of walk-aways there. There is also a DYS facility with 
troubled/criminal/deranged youth who also "skip".

Those who live in Bolton/Lancaster/Lunenburg/ are not: 1) affluent 2) ready
for another set of bad-guys. 
The original land taking (by the feds) said that the land would revert to the 
towns _IF_ the fort was ever abandoned. We are fighting to regain some of it
for wetland preservation/wildlife.

New Braintree should share the wealth. :-} 

Actually putting a new max security prison in Boston area would make sense 
the state would not need to provide transportation for families to visit their
relatives. I would like to see prisons in Springfield and Worcester for the 
same reasons. imprison them close to home. A large building complex complete 
with barbed-wire and gun-turrets might also act as somewhat of a deterrent to 
folks if viewed every day. :-}

     
    Re no prison at Ft.Devens
    
    Hey, we've already got one right next door in Shirley - we don't 
    want to be greedy! 

    
    There's something oddly discomforting about the thought
    of being imprisoned in Shirley.
    
    -b

    
    I'd want to go to Concord.  Much classier, don't you know.

    I was just in Lancaster and Shirley recently and I agree.  Put the
    prison in the larger cities since they contribute most of the
    residents.
    
    Mike

    Perhaps put them next to hospitals where the contributions begin.

	Mike in Shirley..... how nice. Deb, you enter Shirley everyday, right? 

    
    I enter Shirley at least once a day, and often twice or more.
    
    

	How sweet.

RE: 133.113 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of OhOhOh/OwOwOw"

> I enter Shirley at least once a day, and often twice or more.

You better not let the Merrimack,  NH school board know about this...

    Shirley you jest ?

    I entered Lancaster too, so what's the big deal?  

    
    I think that you ought to put a new LARGE maximum security prison in
    Lynn.  a) we provide a fair share of the prisoners b) it would force
    property values even lower c) the residents in general a VERY CAPABLE
    of handling undesirables who get outta line. ;-)

       The prison n Concord has sure done a job on property values there.