Apparently The Times decided that public concerns regarding MCSO understaffing and overcharging is not worth reporting, nor is reporting inaccuracies in the pavement planning replacement report that may be overestimating annual program needs by millions per year.
MCSO reports town crime and operation statistics monthly. MCSO manpower for our town would typically be reported to validate charges, but curiously vital manpower data hasn’t been requested by Mayor Dickey nor provided to confirm accurate reimbursement billing.
I questioned this practice to the mayor in the June 16 council meeting, but she refused to justify, or even discuss, this deficiency and The Times chose not to report it being publicly questioned.
I’d obtained MCSO duty rosters that appeared to indicate staffing may be far less than required by the contract. I provided them to the Town months ago but they’ve refused to respond. Curious.
Queen Creek revised their MCSO contract to require reimbursement to the Town for MCSO understaffing. Mayor Dickey refused doing the same. I wonder why?
There were serious deficiencies in the pavement maintenance program report that I identified in the meeting. $5.5 million per year was proposed as “needed” over the next 10 years, but with assessment and pavement deterioration rate uncertainty costs may range from currently adequate $2.5 million to a few million dollars per year higher. The rates of pavement deterioration, a critical factor affecting cost, weren’t provided in the report for review.
I questioned this at the meeting. The Mayor and council refused to even discuss it. The Times apparently didn’t think this potentially multi-million dollar per year concern was worth reporting.
Remember, The Times doesn’t necessarily report many critical issues discussed and refuses to report those things it prefers you not know. A curious approach for a press that seeks respect and trust!
