Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
guest1
Guest
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 10:05 am EST    Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? Reply with quote
Just because some other towns charge more is no reason for Cranbury to up the rates. The service being provided [directing traffic] is the same service provided by Public Service employees and other utility contractors who seem to do an excellent concientious job for the most part and it sure isn't at $60. + per hour. We need to start somewhere to try to reduce the costs and I'm sure the crossing guards would love the extra work and would certainly do a good job, remember we entrust the care of our children to them.
Back to top
Guest
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 11:35 am EST    Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? Reply with quote
guest1 wrote:
Just because some other towns charge more is no reason for Cranbury to up the rates. The service being provided [directing traffic] is the same service provided by Public Service employees and other utility contractors who seem to do an excellent concientious job for the most part and it sure isn't at $60. + per hour. We need to start somewhere to try to reduce the costs and I'm sure the crossing guards would love the extra work and would certainly do a good job, remember we entrust the care of our children to them.



Crossing guards, like utility/construction company day laborers(who are often undocumented aliens or ex convicts and paid under the table) are fine for some jobs.They have no authority to enforce motor vehicle law. We trust crossing guards with our children. They receive some formal training in crossing from our police officers. They have also had criminal and mental health background checks conducted by police officers. They have no training or authority to enforce motor vehicle law. At our busiest intersection not controlled by a traffic signal, School Lane, a Police Officer is still required.
Back to top
Guest
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 2:46 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? Reply with quote
Who cares, there are $0.00 tax money used. If a gas line needs to be run or electric run or sewer, then the utility company pays it. It is worked into their bid and we consumers would be charged for it regardless if a cop or an illegal alien directed the traffic.
I'd rather have a cop then some guy who can't speak English !
Back to top
guest 4
Guest
PostPosted: Mon, Dec 27 2010, 4:22 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? Reply with quote
If the police officers are going to use the Cranbury Patrol cars we would hope they would set a good example and do their job in a most professional manner. For the privilege to make side money at a very good pay rate, they should not be on the cell phone, talking to each other endlessly and should get out of the patrol car and actually direct traffic. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?
Back to top
Guest
PostPosted: Mon, Dec 27 2010, 6:30 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? Reply with quote
guest 4 wrote:
If the police officers are going to use the Cranbury Patrol cars we would hope they would set a good example and do their job in a most professional manner. For the privilege to make side money at a very good pay rate, they should not be on the cell phone, talking to each other endlessly and should get out of the patrol car and actually direct traffic. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?


I sense underlying resentment against Cranbury Police Officers. Your remarks are nasty and not constructive. As a previous poster stated when there is a police officer in a marked car, people do slow down and drive more cautiously. Most times this is why the contractor wants a police officer. I'm sure that when the officers need to direct traffic for safety purposes, they do. The idea that the officer should be constantly standing in traffic, when it is not neccesary, does not make sense.
Back to top
Guest
PostPosted: Mon, Dec 27 2010, 10:22 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
guest 4 wrote:
If the police officers are going to use the Cranbury Patrol cars we would hope they would set a good example and do their job in a most professional manner. For the privilege to make side money at a very good pay rate, they should not be on the cell phone, talking to each other endlessly and should get out of the patrol car and actually direct traffic. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?


I sense underlying resentment against Cranbury Police Officers. Your remarks are nasty and not constructive. As a previous poster stated when there is a police officer in a marked car, people do slow down and drive more cautiously. Most times this is why the contractor wants a police officer. I'm sure that when the officers need to direct traffic for safety purposes, they do. The idea that the officer should be constantly standing in traffic, when it is not neccesary, does not make sense.


Well said
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2