Kloster steps down
October 26th, 2007 by 
Alica
What do you think of Kevin Kloster resigning from the Brandon City Council after such a short time in office? He attended only two meetings as a Council member.
He said it’s because his associate pastor is leaving. Do you think he should have tried to stay on the council while covering her duties, to see if he could have done both?
The city will start taking petitions for that council seat in February. Do you think the council should just leave the seat open at this point, or should the Council appoint someone to fill that Council seat for the short time that term has left?
Posted in Uncategorized | 
October 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Something’s fishy. They had 3 interested parties in that council seat, 2 against the ambulance ordinance, 1 for. The one that was for, got appointed, voted, and poof, he’s outta here.
He led everyone to believe the night he interviewed he was there for the long haul, how quick things change! He didn’t even attempt to make it work.
The mayor doesn’t appoint, the council votes.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Alica, being a resident of ward 1 you should be pushing for the seat to be filled. The council would not be giving equal representation to all in ward 1 and of course the mayor would in a figure of speech be a lame duck as he would not be able to vote on any issue if needed.
The spot has to be filled.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Always,
I doubt that Alica would push either way via this site as it’s her job to report “just the facts, mam”
So if the mayor only votes in a tie, and there would only be 5 members,(thus no opportunity for a tie) why do you say he wouldn’t be able to vote if needed? If one member is absent maybe?
October 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Why is everything that the council does or doesn’t do a big conspiracy? I believe the Pastor, he is needed at his church. I don’t agree with everything the council does, believe me, but I also don’t think they are doing anything unethical.
I believe the council sometimes get forced into making decision they don’t necessarily want to do either. We need someone from Ward I who is going to look forward and not in the present or the past. Look at were the City is going to be in 5 years or 10 years and what is best for the City as a whole. Please give us someone that is willing to lead and make calm, rational, well thought out decisions.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Patricia, recently the council had to vote on an issue and it was discovered that a majority of the council was needed to approve. Majority of 6 members is minimum of 4 votes required. When there are only 5 sitting members a 3 to 2 vote is then a dead issue. The mayor is powerless to do anything. If the vote is 3 to 3 then he can vote to break the tie and thus a majority of 4 votes.
I think thats how it works. I can not remember for sure but I believe this was discovered on the last Seankers vote before the Rev was on the board.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I’m pretty sure I get the “quorum” issue. So if we’re down one member we still need a quorum of 4 votes to pass. So a 3-2 is a fail. But…there still can’t be a tie, so if I “get it” right the mayor still isn’t an issue. Right?
It probably won’t matter anyway. If you go back and look at most things that have gotten voted on lately. It’s Karber, Buck, Rubin, Hammond voting together and Mostek (and previously Ford) voting together. This is what happened in the Sneakers vote I think. So they still have a quorum.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
its confusing
October 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Patricia, the council didn’t need Kloster’s vote to pass the ambulance issue - they already had 4 other votes. They will need 4 votes to pass the
sneakers (or any other) conditional use variance. I don’t see how they can leave the seat open until February. The ward deserves to have two council members. Did he give a date his resignation is effective? In theory, he could vote on the Sneaker’s conditional use request and then resign at the end of that meeting. I don’t see any other major issues before the council. He would have been through the most difficult council meetings (police, ambulance and Sneakers). I can’t believe there have been many other votes that have had a lot of public participation. The bottom line it is his decision, and he must do what he thinks is best.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
To #2 AL: As Patricia says in #3, this blog is part of my job as a journalist, and as such, I do my best to remain objective. Having said that, I will say that city government has a much better chance to achieve its potential if all wards are fully represented.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I am posting this PRIOR to reading the preceding posts.
Kevin,
I also understand the committment it takes to be a public official. I understand that YOU must do what is right for your FAMILY and congregation.
Someday when you are done being a pastor you will have plenty of time to get involved in local politics and serve the community.
MOST people do not understand how much of a committment of time , sacrifice to family , and unappreciated (sometimes) decisions elected officials have to make for the constituents (voter) they serve.
I know sometimes decisions are made that clearly are not the most well received but the CORRECT decision for the betterment of the community.
Thanks for volunteering to serve in this capacity.
Closed Caption to Kevin - I remember the nice thank you note that you sent me last year when I was on the school board. I appreciated the thought of kindness.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:56 am
The city council needs to do what is RIGHT for the TAXPAYERS.
Appointing a person to fill the position w/ so little time left would be hard for that person to learn the role they are filling. The ability to understand the budget process , subcommittees , and local politics will take ALL the remaining term to come up to speed for the appointed.
I would think the appointed would then WANT to run for election. I personally know running a campaign takes time , money and energy. The appointed council member will be forced to vote on some tough topics. They will automatically alienate 30% + - of the voters making a elction more difficult.
The current council members have to decide if they get the right volunteer, if they can make the tough decisions representing ward 1 w/out the appointment, or if they need the extra member to break possible voting ties.
In a perfect world, Mayor Beesley would never get to vote unless he was needed to break a tie. How often do you see a tie vote in the US Senate?
As I have stated before — This city council and mayor have MANY important decisions that will need to be made that will impact the future of Brandon for years to come. Support them , call them and voice your positions.
Good Luck - I believe they will make the correct decision when all facts are presented.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Anonymous– I paid attention to you and friday went to the bowling alley as it sounds like there and sneakers are the places to gather info. Your right, I know who our next council member is going to be. Mr. Bastian, he was having a conversation with MR. Karber. The works plans are being laid. Yes I will have to get out more.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
So, what you’re saying is that if you don’t “form an alliance” (I watch too much Survivor) with some of the current council members, then you have no chance of being selected? That is dirty politics at it’s worst! I am personally dismayed at the blatant personal relationship and constant interaction between at least 3 of the current councilmembers. Again, dirty politics! I agree with some of your comments (Todd #10, #11), but I stress “some.” No one truly knows what motivates another, but things can sometimes appear to be suspicious. Although I personally find Kevin Kloster to be a nice guy, I disagreed from the beginning with his serving on the council. With that in mind, let me once again turn back to Todd #11’s comments: “Appointing a person to fill the position w/ so little time left would be hard for that person to learn the role they are filling. The ability to understand the budget process,subcommittees, and local politics will take ALL the remaining term to come up to speed for the appointed…” I agree, so why not appoint a temporary replacement that has already served in that role? Let me run down the list of possible candidates for your consideration from those who have held the seat within the past 5 years……
1) Tim Polzin - served until term ended and didn’t seek re-election.
2) Bob Serk - filled-in temporarily and bitterly resigned when beaten in the election.
3) Steve Kolbeck - elected to PUC, lives in Pierre.
4) Heath Tople -served two terms and lost re-election.
If I was Larry Beesley and this council, that is the list I would be looking at for this temporary seat, with such a short learning curve. If their are others interested, have the courage to take out a petition and run for the position and earn it the way our forefathers intended when they wrote election laws.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I also believe that maybe Kevin is a nice guy, who can be bad when they hang with the Gobs??? Here is the problem we should all have:
1.Council needs to stop bringing in their buddies,who have not researched the important issues for which they will vote on.When I say research, I really mean research both sides of the issues not just what the MM’s tell them.
2.Don’t go to the bar, bowling alley,steakhouse with them ever, it is a giveaway ,you will end up talking City business whether you like it or not, but the MM’s really, really like to do this,after all they deem themselves community advisors. It’s amazing what a few beers will do for them. Pretty soon they will be walking on water , turn it into wine, and then they will not have to go out at all. Boy life is good for them ,lets see how long the citizens put up with this !!!
3.The seat needs to be filled as soon as possible, with new blood.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:29 am
You have to be kidding me. Just because people have a relationship outside the council is not dirty politics. My god we all live in the same town, kids go to the same school, most of us go to the same church. I guess we need to appoint a hermit, someone who is antisocial and an introvert to serve on the Brandon City council. And this GOB stuff, I would be more concerned if they didn’t discuss these issues off council time because meeting twice a month isn’t enough time to discuss some of these issues. With all the conspiracy nuts and fickle people why would anyone want to run? Brandon is going to have some big decisions to make in the next couple years. I would like to see less emotion and more rational thought.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Did you know that it is against the law to have 4 or more council members together other than at city meetings?? I know for a fact I have seen 4 of them together at one of our fine establishments in town. Watch out boys….people are watching you!!! I’m pretty sure no one can say that they see the school board members out together at the bar. Because it’s against the law!!
October 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Anonymous, you are saying it is against the law to have 4 members of the council to be together at one time other then at a City Council meeting. I have a hard time believing this unless you are talking about them doing City Council business and having a quorum. What is the State Statute or City Ordinance for this, if you have one? If four members are at a game working in the concession stand that is not illegal. If they are on a bowling team, that is not illegal, if they are at church, that is not illegal. If they are out as friends have a nice supper and a drink that is not illegal. Unless you can provide a Statute or Ordinance and think you are full of it.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Once again, Anonymous, you are tossing statements of fact out there that simply are not true. (like your comment on another blog about how ‘research shows’ that two paramedics take longer on scene than an EMT and a paramedic) PLEASE…research your statements before writing something like that.
I looked through all the city ordinances and found NOTHING that states city council members cannot congregate outside of city council meetings. The ONLY thing I found was that city council members cannot take a vote (actual or straw vote) on an issue outside of a PUBLIC hearing, i.e. city council meeting.
What kind of city do you think we live in that would have laws that dictate who can be with whom?
Please, Anonymous, for the integrity of blogs like this, get your facts straight.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I found this on the web: “SDCL 1-25-1, requires that official meetings of cities, counties, school boards and all related boards and commissions be open to the public.The meetings of boards and commissions which are created by law OR which are entitled to receive revenue directly from public tax funds are also subject to the open meetings law It is a Class 2 misdemeanor to break this law. A Class 2 misdemeanor is punishable by a penalty of 30 days in jail, a $200 fine or both. SDCL 22-6-2.
While the open meetings law does not define “official meeting,” specific statutes relating to cities, counties, and school districts define what constitutes an official meeting. The attorney general has taken the position that a meeting, that must be open to the public, occurs when the following conditions exist:
A legal quorum of the entity is present at the same place at the same time; AND
Public business, meaning any matter relating to the activities of the entity, is discussed.
Openness in government is encouraged and although state law may not require an entity to open a meeting to the public, state law in no way prevents openness. When in doubt, open the meeting.” As I read through this topic, I don’t see anyone saying that elected officials can’t meet at the church picnic or ride in the same truck in the Loyalty Day parade. What is questionable is when 4 or 5 of them meet at the bars after council meetings and discuss city business. Or they are seen at the bars the night before a meeting and, coincidently, they all have their lines scripted and the vote is exactly as they discussed. If this council doesn’t want to be accused of this they should avoid those situations.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Anonymous- I would like to set one thing straight in one of your entries about Bob Serk. He resign after losing the election because the council was to vote on the issue of city employees being able to retire and then be rehired by the city to earn another retirement. He felt Kathy should make that vote since she was elected and should be part of that important decision. He personnally was oposed to allowing them to do it. He did not resign bitterly. I know as I helped him with his campaighn.
Some of the reteric you read on this site is exactly why he has not thrown his hat into the replacement issue of the seat. As he told me last week, he learned alot about the city and the way things are done, he wants no part of it.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:59 am
#18 Brandon Resident…..By the way, it is not me that stated someting about paramedics. Don’t know what you are talking about! Why don’t you get your facts straight? As Info Giver states (thanks!!!) it is a misdemeanor to have a quorum at any public place dicussing city isuues. Do some research. Its a fact. Its also a fact that there have been 4 city council members at one place dicussing city issues. Shame on them! They should know better. Do they think they are above the law?
October 30th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“Anonymous Says:
October 14th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
There is no evidence to say that one paramedic on scene vs two has any outcomes in patient care.
One medic just drives anyway. So having two paramedics on the truck makes no difference. It only lets one medic do less work on a call.
In fact, when you have two paramedics on an ambulance, the research shows that they spend more time on scene when they should be transporting.
So, while it’s nice for crews to have two paramedics on a truck, patients don’t benefit.”
There must be two bloggers with the handle Anonymous. If that wasn’t your post, then my most humble apologies. You might want to change your name so you are getting “credited” with other comments.
Concerning council members gathering to discuss city business…I think it is a very fine line we are talking about. If they are sitting over a beer and talking about how they are going to vote, and trying to form a concensus, then yes, I agree, that would be a violation of the city ordinance. But sitting around as friends and associates and talking about upcoming issues, how the football team did, racing, et cetera, I think is confusing the intent of that ordinance.
As I reread the ordinance, I suspect it was written to eliminate backroom deals, and if council members are sitting in a public place like Sneakers, I doubt seriously any laws are being violated.
I could be wrong.
Having said that, please understand that I am not in any way, shape or form advocating the performance of this city council; especially Rubin, Buck, Karber, and Hammond who are and have been ‘buddies’ for many years.
I have attended four council meetings. I have spoken to three of the four aforementioned members since they were elected. I have been at Sneakers when they were sitting together…and no, I do not like what is going on.
When the person representing my district runs for re-election, I will use my vote and do my part to ensure he doesn’t get re-elected.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Here are the State Statues that Info giver quoted. As you see read them and you will see that is addresses different meetings, not people on their private time.
1-25-1. Meetings of public agencies to be open–Teleconference meetings–Exception for Digital Dakota Network–Misdemeanor. Except as otherwise provided by law, the official meetings of the state and the political subdivisions thereof, including all related boards, commissions and other agencies, and the official meetings of boards, commissions and agencies created by statute or which are nontaxpaying and derive a source of revenue directly from public funds, shall be open to the public, except as provided in this chapter. Meetings, including executive or closed meetings may be conducted by teleconference. Members shall be deemed present if they answer present to the roll call taken by teleconference. Any vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll call. Except for executive or closed meetings held by teleconference, there shall be provided one or more places at which the public may listen to and participate in the proceeding. Except for executive or closed meetings held by teleconference of related boards and commissions of the state, there shall be provided two or more places at which the public may listen to and participate in the proceeding. Except for the Digital Dakota Network, no teleconference may be used in conducting hearings or taking final disposition pursuant to § 1-26-4. Teleconference meetings are subject to the notice provisions of chapter 1-25.
A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: SL 1965, ch 269; SL 1980, ch 24, § 9; SL 1989, ch 15, § 1A; SL 1990, ch 18, § 1; SL 1990, ch 30, § 1; SL 1993, ch 17; SL 2005, ch 16, § 1.
________________________________________
1-25-9. Limitations on participation by commission members. No member of the commission may participate as part of the commission or vote on any action regarding a violation of this chapter if that member reported or was involved in the initial investigation, is an attorney for anyone who reported or was involved in the initial investigation, or represents or serves as a member of the governmental entity about whom the referral is made. The provisions of this section do not preclude a commission member from otherwise serving on the commission for other matters referred to the commission.
Source: SL 2004, ch 19, § 4.
22-6-2. Misdemeanor classes and penalties–Restitution–Misdemeanor when no penalty imposed. Misdemeanors are divided into two classes which are distinguished from each other by the following maximum penalties which are authorized upon conviction:
(1) Class 1 misdemeanor: one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both;
(2) Class 2 misdemeanor: thirty days imprisonment in a county jail or five hundred dollars fine, or both.
The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a misdemeanor, shall order, in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28.
Except in Titles 1 to 20, inclusive, 22, 25 to 28, inclusive, 32 to 36, inclusive, 40 to 42, inclusive, 47 to 54, inclusive, and 58 to 62, inclusive, if the performance of an act is prohibited by a statute, and no penalty for the violation of such statute is imposed by a statute, the doing of such act is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: SDC 1939, §§ 13.0105, 13.0607; SDCL § 22-1-5; SL 1976, ch 158, §§ 1-3, 6-2, 6-5; SL 1977, ch 189, § 17; SL 1978, ch 158, § 5; SL 1985, ch 192, § 3; SL 1989, ch 255, § 2; SL 1990, ch 158, § 1; SL 1991, ch 186, § 2; SL 1991, ch 187, § 4; SL 1991, ch 337, § 1; SL 1992, ch 158, § 1; SL 1993, ch 172, § 1; SL 1994, ch 161; SL 1995, ch 120, § 1; SL 1997, ch 126, § 1; SL 1997, ch 143, § 6; SL 2005, ch 120, § 173.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Brandon Resident….Nope, that wasn’t me, there are A LOT of people using Anymounous. I will have to think of a clever “handle” to use of this forum! I also agree that people should be able to sit and have a beer or pop with whomever they choose. The problem arises when they begin to talk city issues, I have a hard time believing that they are not doing that!
October 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Well they’ve also been seen many times at a place in town along with Mr. Masur. (before the vote) Wrong, wrong, wrong.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Note to self, no one can out any long who is in office. They have to stay home and if they do go out and happen to come across another council member one of them is going to have to leave. Maybe they should all get restraining orders.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
“Attention Alica”
I think it would be appropriate at this time to consider changing the name of this website. Here are a couple of suggestions for you.
www.brandonenquirer.com
www.brandonglobe.com
www.brandonexaminer.com
October 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I agree with #26 and #27. I wonder sometime how uninformed and uneducated some of the people on this blog are. They just get on here spread their conspiracy and filth, with nothing to back it up. They pick only parts of articles and statues to support their arguments and then say who you can and can’t be seen with.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I don’t get this. You all asked for the proof and so someone puts the ordinance on and you still don’t see the writing on the wall.
I don’t think anyone was saying if 2 members “run across” one another in town it’s a problem, what they said was if a quorum (4) is constantly together it’s a problem.
If you do a little research on the attorney general website regarding open meeting laws you’ll see that even if proof of discussing city business isn’t obvious, he says it’s still advised against a quorum being together other than an open meeting.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Well I have seen 4 members of the County Commission together, so I guess they are breaking the law. And reference to statues, #23 put the whole statue, didn’t just cherry pick stuff out.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I think the council members should be able to mingle in public. However, I did read the brochure on public meetings and in the question/answer section it does state:
While the open meetings law does not define “official meeting,” specific statutes relating to cities, counties, and school districts define what constitutes
an official meeting. The attorney general has taken
the position that a meeting, that must be open to the
public, occurs when the following conditions exist:
1. A legal quorum of the entity is present at the same place at the same time; and
2. Public business, meaning any matter relating to the activities of the entity, is discussed.
I also read that any citizen can raise a concern with the open business commission. If anyone wants to pursue this, they can do it that way. I think you will need to be able to prove they discussed council business.
I don’t believe all the ‘conspiracy’ theories that seem to mark the GOB on the council. They feel they were elected to move the town in a certain direction and they are trying to do that. Their efforts seem to be working, but they appear to be pretty inept. The balance of power can shift in the next election. If it doesn’t, all one can do is make sure they follow they letter of the law, if not the spirit. I believe they are ignorant of the laws, not stupid. You can teach ignorance, stupid is forever.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
That reminds me of an old saying: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.
Thank you, folks, for researching the law. #31 Anonymous makes some good points. Only an informed public can elect top-notch candidates, and it’s up to the public to keep track of what their elected officials do in office.
It’s also true that anyone who gets elected to public office should research the law so he or she can do the best job possible of serving the public.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
It seems that some people expect those who run for public office to become hermits. I’ve seen council members talking with each other, so what, at least they’re doing it in front of people. Ever hear of a telephone, they could be talking all the time. People be critical of more important issue than who talks to who in public.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Always listening, A men. People have to grow up. At least the people on the council are trying to do something for the community rather then just sit in the shadows and try to sharp shoot people.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
wow,
It’s what they’re trying to do that’s the problem!
October 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
To: 33, always listening, I have read this topic from top to bottom and have yet to see the same things that you see. What most of the ‘critical’ people on this blog seem to be saying is that IF any 4 or more council people (a quorum) are meeting and discussing city business either in a local bar or cafe or church, they are in violation of the law. I don’t want these important city decisions being made without the public being present to raise questions or concerns. NO one on this blog has said that 4, 5, or 6 of them can’t meet as a bowling team, at a church picnic, or a drunken brawl, just don’t discuss city business. We also don’t want them meeting with parties who have upcoming city business and telling them “off the record” that their issue is a “done deal”. It’s behavior like that that turns people off.
Thank goodness for this blog. It allows people to voice their opinions and share ideas. What you do with those ideas is up to you!
October 31st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
According to the attorney general’s interpretation of open meetings listed in comment #31, it appears that if four or more Council members are gathered together in a public place, and a bystander happens to overhear them talking about city business, then any member of the public should be able to pull up a chair and listen to the conversation openly, and take notes and record the conversation.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
So as Alica says , if you walk by council members away from the city meeting sit and listen. I mean who knows what there talking about, I could care less, If I really want to know I’m going to attend the city council meeting. If they want to talk about issues we will never know due to the invention of the telephone. Believe it or not I’ve got a feeling this council is no different than councils before them as far as talking to each other. This community tends to alienate them from every one else.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
just thinking to my self and laughing, I can see it now any time two or more council members are together your going to see a bunch of people sitting around them and listening. Funny if you think about it. Poor people will never be able to leave there house.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I, too, am smiling as I sit here reading these responses. A number of them seem to want to take these and apply them to an extreme degree;
“any time two or more council members are together your (you’re) going to see a bunch of people sitting around them and listening. Funny if you think about it. Poor people will never be able to leave there (their) house.”
If you read the law, it says a quorum, not any two. And what would be wrong with the public listening in on four of them when they are gathered at the local watering hole.
Far too many decisions have been made in the old smoke-filled rooms where the press and public were not privy to what went on. THAT is the purpose of sunshine laws.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
#39 I think this would be a good project for the new police chief. Kind of like the school resource officer. I think they should have a special officer assigned as the “Quorum CSI”. LOL.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
All joking aside, this council is spending your money people, AND making life and death decisions such as Police and ambulance. We better be watching.
Karber said at the meeting with the police issue that the budget only had $500 left over, I say….show me the money then because where did it go. We used to run (with the old council and mayor)with a million bucks to spare. Oh that’s right, we spend more than we need to to make Brandon “look good” We pay extra for fancy colored stamped intersections on Holly, we hand out 60,000 for new tennis courts when we’ve had plans for baseball and soccer for years, we give 7 police officers cars to take home at night instead of having enough to cover a shift, an 85,000 budget increase for the golf course (shouldn’t that come out of their profits?)
November 1st, 2007 at 7:06 am
Talk about Police and life and death, someone should asked Assistant Chief Wade how many Officers on working from 3am to 6am and how many are on per shift. Maybe the council members should also check this, I know it is not three officers like Wade was saying
November 1st, 2007 at 8:03 am
Why would we need 3 on in Brandon? That seems like overkill.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:17 am
Because that is what they promised the staffing was. You may be ok with someone on call or just one on duty but I am not ok with that, it is not over kill. Again they mislead us and don’t tell us the whole truth, just what they think we want to hear.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:20 am
Well, why not 2? What could 3 possibly have to do in the middle of the night in a town the size of Brandon?
November 1st, 2007 at 8:41 am
I agree with you Kent, how about 2 officer on at all times. It is safer for the community and the officer with at least two on.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:45 am
Talking about the officers on at night, You need more than one. and I personally am ok with 3. My husband works out of town alot so when I had some freak in my backyard last summer, I called for help. If we only have 1 officer something “could” have happened to me & my kids while the 1 officer dealt with the drunk that he pulled over.
When it comes to the safety of my kids, I will gladly have 3 officers on duty.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Well I was at the City Council Meeting on that fateful Monday when they voted to stay with the BPD and not go with the Sheriff’s Office and they assured everyone there, that we would be so much safer with Brandon PD. They said we would have better coverage and better response times. My question is, if we have no one on shift who’s going to respond to calls? And if we have one on shift what happens if there is more then one call. I know the City Council member check this blog, so what do you have to say about this.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I am glad that someone has pointed out that the PD is only providing one Officer from 3am to 6am. I know that the County was going to provide 2 Offcers 24hrs a day seven days a week. Anyone thought of what happens when that 1 Officer make an arrest and he or she has to transport that person to the jail, who is providing Police protection at that time? Thats right no one is!!! The town is EMPTY…Great plan!
November 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
there are 3 officer’s that are night shift and only 1 of them works until 6am. now of 11 officers’ that leaves 9 on days. now take away 1 that is all the schools so that leaves 8 for the day shift. sounds to me like very very poor schedualing. the solitary officer that works until 6am has been a problem for ohh 8 years or more? give or take. Wade does the scheduling, so again this shows what type of profession skills he has, NONE. Cant get his Cheif app in on time to thats extended, can’t manage personnell to optimize 24 hr coverage.. tssk tssk tskk
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 am
I thought this blog was for Kloster?
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 am
Hijacking occurs often on this blog.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 am
I think it is all kind of tied together
November 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
with Wade being the new interim police chief we may want to look at the perks that he is already getting. on Saturday night NOV. 3rd what do you see pull up in front of sneakers bar a police cruiser with (2) officers in it and the interim chief get in the back to get a ride home from the bar. Good for him for not driving home, but why cant he call home to get a ride from his wife. so if i need a ride home from the bar does that mean that i can call the police department and get a ride since i am a tax payer also. if thats the case that is great. i see this as a new policy on public relations. GREAT IDEA WADE
November 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Oh, I see another Hijacking has taken place? Sat it ain’t so? #55