# Town officials stress override for Mello is 'one-time, permanent'



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

By Curt Brown, Standard-Times staff writer 
DARTMOUTH - Town officials emphasized yesterday that a proposed Proposition 21/2 override tapped to pay the medical expenses for an injured police officer will permanently raise the tax levy by $750,000. 
Voters will decide Aug. 15 whether the override will aid Officer David Mello. 
"It doesn't increase the levy by $750,000 each year," said Edward F. Iacaponi, director of budget and finance/treasurer. "It's a one-time permanent correction." 
Michael J. Gagne, the town's executive administrator, town counsel Anthony C. Savastano, Select Board members Nathalie Dias and Diane M. Gilbert, and Mr. Iacaponi met yesterday at Dartmouth Town Hall with a reporter from The Standard-Times to clarify issues about the proposed override. 
Officer Mello, 47, is paralyzed from the neck down and on a ventilator from a spinal cord injury following a two-car accident on Nov. 26 at Russells Mills Road and George Street. 
The 12-year veteran had just finished working the midnight to 8 a.m. shift and was held over to work a holiday traffic detail near the Dartmouth Mall, according to Mr. Gagne. 
Mr. Gagne said no police car was available and the accident occurred when the officer used his private car to drive home and get his equipment for the detail. 
If the override passes, the $750,000 will be placed in a dedicated account and be used only for the purposes of paying the officer's medical expenses, Ms. Gilbert said. 
Taxpayers are expected to pay $40 more per year on a home with an assessed value of $320,000, according to Mr. Iacaponi. 
Dartmouth is also borrowing $850,000 for the medical expenses incurred by Officer Mello during the 2006 fiscal year and it will be paid within the levy limit. 
Mr. Iacaponi said he knows of no other city or town in the state that has had to face a catastrophic injury like the one to Officer Mello. 
State Police Trooper Ellen E. Engelhardt, 56, of Marion, suffered a severe brain injury in an accident on July 26, 2003. She was on-duty and parked in the breakdown lane on Route 25, Wareham, when her cruiser was struck from behind by a drunken driver. 
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which Mr. Iacaponi said isn't restricted by the provisions of Proposition 21/2, is paying for the trooper's medical bills. 
Dartmouth has taken several measures in the aftermath of the accident. 
Town officials said the insurance limit for municipal employees has been raised from $100,000 to $200,000 at a cost of $65,000 a year; each of Officer Mello's medical bills is carefully scrutinized; insurance for catastrophic injuries is being investigated and researched; and a lien has been placed on the insurance of the second driver who has been charged in the accident. 
"The town has done every single thing within its control to lower the costs," Mr. Iacaponi said. 
Town officials said passage of the ballot question for the operational levy is imperative. 
"The town doesn't have the ability to absorb this amount of money at the level of services it provides," Mr. Iacaponi said. 
Mr. Gagne said the town just doesn't have the money without the override. 
Ms. Gilbert and Ms. Dias said if the measure doesn't pass the town will have to go into departmental budgets and make hard choices. 
"It would really have an impact on the largest departments," Mr. Iacaponi said, specifically mentioning the Department of Public Works, the Police Department and the School Department. 
Contact Curt Brown at [email protected] 
Date of Publication: August 08, 2006 on Page A09


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Anti-police views defeated override*

*Another attempt was made this year for the overide and defeted*

By KYLE COSTA
Mr. Costa is a patrolman with the Dartmouth Police Department. He lives in Fairhaven.
April 09, 2007 6:00 AM

I am writing in response to the recent defeat of the Proposition 2½ override question regarding David Mello. Having been raised in the town of Dartmouth, I cannot recollect a time that I have felt more disappointment in the citizens that turned out to vote solely against this question.
Since the first moment I sat in the auditorium at the Gidley School and was introduced to "Officer Bob," I knew that I wanted to become a police officer. Admittedly, at first, like any 10-year-old, I was drawn to both the badge and gun, and the respect that they demanded.
However, after working hard through high school and college, and dedicating the last 15-plus years of my life to working as a police officer, I know now that respect is not something that you command. It's something that you earn by caring about others' lives more than your own, reporting to duty at midnight during a snow storm, taking a dangerous individual either off the road or from a home with no regard for your own personal welfare, or by leaving your children, not knowing if by shift's end you will return home to read them a story or get them on the bus.
Make no mistake, I love this job, and do it to the best of my ability every day that I report for duty. However, between the hours I have to work to make ends meet for my family on a civil service paycheck, and the time spent dealing with what some of you only see on television, it has taken years off of my life, and in many ways, the enjoyment out of certain facets of life.
Since the moment that this question was formulated, it was defeated. I say this not because it revolved around an estimated $43 per year increase in your taxes, but, instead, because it revolved around a police officer - yes, in some of your opinions, one of those donut-eating, coffee-drinking individuals who just wrote you a parking ticket at the Post Office for illegally parking in a "No Parking" space for five minutes, or pulled you over for speeding when, of course, you were innocent.
For those of you who think and voted this way (and you know who you are), I have a bulletin for you: Most, if not all of us, do not enjoy ruining your day. On the contrary, at times, we feel a great deal of remorse over this, and wish, at times, that part of our job description could be redefined. But, like I cannot ask a bank teller to put more money in my account than my paycheck allows or ask a teacher to give me a higher grade than I deserve, you cannot ask me, at times, to "cut you a break."
The failure to pass this override will most likely yield devastating, long-lasting affects on the town of Dartmouth. For those of you who voted with the mentality that "they have to pay the medical bills anyway," last time I checked, the town planted oak trees, not money trees.
This $750,000 has to come from somewhere, and coupled with an existing deficit, this "somewhere" is a 15 percent reduction in the operating budgets of the various town departments, such as the Department of Public Works, the School Department, and, yes, the Police Department. And though you have all read and/or heard about this a number of times, what this means for the general public is a fee-based system for things such as trash pickup and after-school programs.
I would like to commend the Select Board, the various department heads who supported this issue, and the Yes for Officer Mello Committee, for their commitment in attempting to bring notice and validation to this issue.
In summation, I would be remiss if I did not close by saying that next time you vote based on your personal feelings instead of the long-term ramifications, think about the effects that it could possibly have on you or a member of your family. And, for those of you (and, again, you know who you are) who voted against this question based on its sole affiliation with the Police Department, when you get your first bill for trash pickup, don't call the Police Department for assistance, because we have enough trash to deal with already.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070409/OPINION/704090306/-1/NEWS


----------

