July 8, 2009
Skolnik Article Misleads
Public on Taser Issue
“My statement is not false. It’s not sufficiently accurate.”
MARGE NIBLOCK
An op/ed piece by Portland City Councilor Dan Skolnik has
added to the confusion over the use of Tasers by the Portland
Police Department.
In a Portland Press Herald editorial that appeared on June 27th,
Skolnik wrote that councils in three cities—Baltimore, Chicago, and
Philadelphia—have prohibited the use of Tasers. His article,
however, neglected to mention that this ban refers to Taser use by
private citizens, not police officers. Police in those cities have been
using Tasers for some time, and Philadelphia’s Crisis Intervention
Team, composed of specially-trained officers who are called to
deal with people having mental health issues, has been provided
with the weapons.
When asked to clarify these discrepancies, Skolnik responded “My
statement is not false. It’s not sufficiently accurate.” (Skolnik’s
clarification brings to mind President Bill Clinton’s famous
disclaimer: “I did not have sex with that woman.”)
Skolnik also wrote that “Police technology is regulated at the
municipal level all over the country,” and refers readers to a Web
site of the Taser manufacturer, titled “TASER Weapons, Laws and
Restrictions,” which he said had been provided to him after asking
the Corporation Counsel’s office for a breakdown of Taser policies.
However, the information contained on the website is directed to
individuals who want to purchase Tasers. The explanatory
information deals with shipping, processing orders, and warnings
to potential buyers regarding legal issues they should be aware of
pertaining to the weapons.
Police departments in 49 states employ Tasers, with New Jersey
being the only place they are not in use. The Taser website offers
information on police use, consumer use, and applicable statutes
defining the weapon in various states. It also details any
restrictions there may be in a particular state.
Skolnik, who also chairs the Council’s Public Safety Committee,
feels his committee and the full City Council should have the final
say on the purchase of Tasers, even though the money will be
from a grant and will not be part of City funding.
Portland’s current Police Chief James E. Craig wants Tasers for his
department, and has referred to himself as having “grown up with
Tasers” - becoming very familiar with them during his 28 years with
the Los Angeles Police Department. The fact that their use has
become such a contentious issue here seems to have taken him
by surprise. At the June 28th annual meeting of the Munjoy Hill
Neighborhood Organization, Craig said. “I didn’t come 3,200 miles
to be micro-managed.”
The Taser topic is one that Chief Craig speaks about very easily.
“This is another tool for officers to have at their disposal. The
Police Department will have protocols in place that have a lot of
management oversight. My background and experience is a
reason why we should move forward and let officers have this
tool,” he says. “I’m a police professional.”
When West End City Councilor David Marshall was Chair of the
Public Safety Committee last year, he wanted the group to be able
to “weigh in on the issue before the Police Department did
anything.” Marshall made his feelings known to Skolnik when
Skolnik took over as Chair.
When City Manager Joseph Gray was asked whether an issue like
this ever came up previously - where the Police Department wants
equipment and it goes to Council - Gray said he couldn’t
remember a situation where this had occurred.
“Typically, it goes through the Finance Committee and the budget
process,” said Gray.
Portland’s Finance Director, Ellen Sanborn, with 25 years of
experience in that department, said it is unusual for “an individual
expenditure of funds to be taken to Council for approval. Council’s
role is to appropriate money that the City can spend. Typically, it’s
not done individually.” City Council approves funds and the City
Manager authorizes the spending of those funds.
Deputy Chief Joseph Loughlin stated: “In all my years, we have
never gone to the Public Safety Committee for approval of
purchases for special equipment.”
When asked when the last time special equipment was gotten with
a grant, Loughlin mentioned the upgrading of the Special Reaction
Team vehicle that was completed in February, and deployed
immediately after returning from the shop, and did not go to the
Public Safety Committee for approval.
The Police Department has numerous weapons, none of which
have needed Council approval in the past. Officers carry duty side
arms, pepper spray, and batons. Equipment at the disposal of
superiors are small-caliber handguns for use on animals,
PepperBall systems, shotguns with bean-bag rounds, and many
types of high-caliber rifles for use by the Special Reaction Team.
Loughlin has wanted for some time to have the less-lethal
weapons available to police here. He said a “groundswell of
information” was created by discussions at the Police Citizen
Review Sub-Committee, headed by Dr. Robert McAfee, who was
against Taser use because of concerns about medical issues.
Skolnik was also a member of the SubCommittee. Loughlin said
the Department of Justice did a study after that and determined
that the Taser was a good tool.
Craig went to the Public Safety Committee on May 12th with
Captain Vernon Malloch, where an overview of Tasers was
presented. He will return on July 14th and make a presentation at
that time, after which the committee will vote on the issue.
June 24, 2009
Jockeying for Position at the
Portland Charter Commission
Shaping the City’s Future
By ED KING
June 24, 2009
Regulation of Motorcycle Noise
Critical to Neighborhood
Character
By ANDY FORD
When someone says the word "motorcycle," many of us
immediately think "loud."
That's unfortunate, considering the many thousands of bikers who
ride their motorcycles well within the parameters of legal decibels.
These folks recognize the importance of keeping their noise level
on par with the average car so that we all may enjoy our homes,
our neighborhoods and our communities free of loud noise. This
mode of transportation is being eyed by even more folks, due to its
efficiency in fuel consumption.
However, there are folks we all know who feel that their need to
show off their bike far supercedes the tranquility of our
neighborhood - and even the law. And they're not hard to find –
you can usually hear them well before you can see them. The
excessive noise that most people consider a significant annoyance
is actually illegal under both federal and Maine laws.
Since January 1, 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency has
required that all new motorcycles sold in the United States have a
noise compliance label installed on the chassis at the factory, and
a matching label engraved on the muffler. The noise level
permitted for these motorcycles is 80 decibels. Any 1983 or newer
motorcycle that is operated on a public way without the matching
labels, or has a muffler modified to make more noise, is in violation
of federal law. (This link, http://noiseoff.org/pipes/section.09.01.
shtml, will access more detailed information on the Noiseoff
website.)
The noise label is also an air emissions label and when a legal
muffler is replaced with an illegal one, or the legal muffler is
modified to make more noise, the toxins released into our air
greatly increases.
Federal law allows states, cities and towns to adopt the EPA label
system, and two years ago, Denver enacted a motorcycle noise
ordinance based on the EPA compliance system. If a Denver
police officer hears a loud bike, it's pulled over and a standard
check for a driver's license, registration, inspection sticker and
insurance is done. In addition, the muffler is inspected for the EPA
label. If that's lacking, the biker is given two weeks to bring the
machine into compliance or pay a $500 fine. The EPA label system
doesn't require an expensive noise meter.
We sometimes hear the myth that loud pipes save lives. A number
of years ago, Hugh Hurt Jr., published an extensive study
(ironically, the Hurt Report) of motorcycle accidents. The study
showed there were many ways to reduce motorcycle accidents, but
loud pipes was not one of them. The American Motorcycle
Association (AMA) now encourages bikers to ride quieter and more
respectfully. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation has followed with a
similar request. Harley Davidson publishes a statement on their
website that encourages their customers to ride quietly. And the
United Bikers of Maine's website asks bikers to ride safely and
lawfully. Of course, it's impossible to ride lawfully with an illegal
muffler.
There are neighborhoods in Portland where it's not unusual to
hear a very loud bike at 11 p.m., midnight, 1, 2 or even 3 a.m. In
fact, when City Councilor Kevin Donoghue asked his constituents
their thoughts on ice cream truck noise last summer, many
responded that motorcycles were a greater problem.
While Portland passed a motorcycle noise ordinance about four
years ago, it's not well enforced. The lack of enforcement of
Maine's muffler law in regards to loud motorcycles is also
widespread.
Representative Diane Russell of Munjoy Hill introduced a bill, LD
920 “An Act to Reduce Noise Pollution” that would have enabled
Maine's police departments to use the EPA label system to enforce
laws concerning illegal motorcycle mufflers. Unfortunately, LD920
died in committee.
As the need and desire for fuel-efficient vehicles increase, our
community must also have a serious conversation about the need
for stricter enforcement of existing motorcycle noise laws so that
we can reduce our fuel costs while preserving the sanctity of quiet
neighborhoods.
New York City is considering enacting a motorcycle noise
ordinance based on the EPA label system that would enable its
police to enforce it and also allow its parking enforcement
employees to ticket motorcycles that don't have the label.
Portland should do the same.
Andy Ford is a lifetime resident of Portland and advocates for
noise pollution reduction.
aford@maine.rr.com