DiConzo warns town employees

From the Lewiston SunJournal:

"In other business, Selectman Frank DiConzo asked people to refrain from posting negative comments about Rumford, selectmen and town officials on Internet blogs."

SJ Link

Surely, Mr. DiConzo must be referring to The Rumford Reporter. But....we'll never know as The Rumford Reporter blog is not open to the general public.

Yea that's top priority from one of our finest. This fellow needs some serious help. He wants everyone drug tested, he doesn't want anyone to write or post an opinion. Sounds typical for the board. Don't say or do anything against usperiod.

One should remember they are just words, you can believe in them or you can act in them. Words don't hurt, action does!

I don't think the drug testing is such a bad idea... most trucking companies have mandatory random drug screenings and many of the employees are driving heavy equipment. I'm surprised it isn't mandated by insurance companies and/or the law. I don't think it is unreasonable to have any committee members or employees who deal with town finances tested as well.

The drug testing is a great idea..... But one has to understand words happen

As far as the blogs and forums go... I think it would be fine to ask that those who post try to do it in a positive manner. In following with the "if you can't say something nice..." theory. But, on the other hand, by offering employees no outlet for discontent or frustration, making them feel they are not heard and their opinions don't count, should they expect different? Don't the taxpayers have the right to hear both sides of municipal issues? I don't think they can legally take their right to free speech away. Maybe there just needs to be more anonymity. Maybe the town needs to institute a forum solely for its employees to express their issues to the TM and select board.

But remember everybody has an opinion and dont see everything is a positive manner. Just dont read what they have to say or act on it and make it better. Honey brings them bees

Re: drug testing ...

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - JFK

"We have met the enemy, and they is us" - Pogo (Walt Kelly)

Drug testing is a police procedure, a law enforcment search. The idea is to catch people who are breaking the law.

So if Wal-Mart or some such employer conducts drug testing, they are engaging in a search for illegal activity, in other words, a police function.

In unfree societies, there are no restrictions on when and where and how the police can search citizens. In our society, until recently, a police search requires probable cause and a warrant.

The drug testing fad is a way to circumvent the normal restrictions on illegal search and seizure and has been tolerated, I think, because of the growth of profound authoritarian tendencies in American society.

Drug use is a problem. So is tax evasion. Shall employers require every new hire to submit their taxes for review before starting a job? Domestic violence is a problem. Shall employers send detectives into the neighborhood of each new hire and ask everyone if they've seen any evidence of domestic abuse? Obesity is a problem. Shall employers require employees to step on a scale every week and fire them if they go over the accepted weight limits?

Is a job they provide, or some kind of police/parental supervision?
Are we going to put the entire population into a kind of eternal probation, with your employer being your probation officer?

Yes, when there is an overwhelming public interest, drug testing makes sense, as with airplane pilots and truckers and other vehicle operators. It becomes a necessary evil. But universal drug testing is another step down the road to the coming authoritarian, possibly totalitarian America. Yes we will still have the right to vote (as long as you pass the pee test and weigh in at the polls and none of your neighbors has reported you for saying anything politically incorrect).

If volunteer committee members are required to pee in a bottle in Rumford, I will immediately cease contributing any time or effort to the town except to overturn the policy and remove the officials who put it in place.

Sounds like someone is hiding something! The issue then should be dropped if they feel that way but always remember it could be you someday that gets hurt by someone still on drugs from the night before.

Drug testing is a police procedure, a law enforcment search. The idea is to catch people who are breaking the law.

So if Wal-Mart or some such employer conducts drug testing, they are engaging in a search for illegal activity, in other words, a police function.

The drug testing fad is a way to circumvent the normal restrictions on illegal search and seizure and has been tolerated, I think, because of the growth of profound authoritarian tendencies in American society.

Drug use is a problem. So is tax evasion. Shall employers require every new hire to submit their taxes for review before starting a job? Domestic violence is a problem. Shall employers send detectives into the neighborhood of each new hire and ask everyone if they've seen any evidence of domestic abuse? Obesity is a problem. Shall employers require employees to step on a scale every week and fire them if they go over the accepted weight limits?

Phil- I fail to see how domestic violence, tax evasion or even obesity connects to the municipal drug testing issue. Federal law already mandates alcohol/drug testing of applicants and employees who are required to possess a commercial driver’s
license (CDL) (this would include dump trucks and snowplow trucks) and/or carry out safety-sensitive functions.This includes pre-employment/random testing/post accident and return to duty. This Federal law has been (to my knowledge) in effect for at least ten years. Are we not in compliance? Are you against the Drug-Free Workplace Program? I do understand that testing all municipal employees would be cost prohibitive. I simply said it would be within reason. Many financial companies do drug testing AND a credit check on their job applicants.

Drug and alcohol testing for operation of town vehicles...we need to be in compliance with federal law.

Blogging - use your head.

My understanding says that federal law requires the ramdom testing to ensure that 50% of the qualified population be tested for drugs at least once per year. 25% of the qualified population is tested for alcohol use per year.

I also don't think it's necessarily accurate to imply that anyone has something to hide if they are against it in principle. I am open to anyone's point of view on this matter, however, it is federal law. Without it in place, we subject the town of Rumford to lawsuit. There's no getting around it on a municipal level.

More clarification of how the federal government defines that qualified population is needed here. My understanding is that federal law covers Class A and Class B and bus drivers, in other words, the CDL population. If we want to extend drug and alcohol testing to additional population, this is not federally mandated. I think his point is that we need a policy or procedure to do that for other town drivers.

So to set it up, it would need two pools of drivers to select from. CDL's in one pool, all other town drivers in another.

The place this type of proposed policy gets complicated is in relationship to union contracts, non-paid or volunteer positions, or other towns who might use our town equipment.

Drug and alcohol abuses continue rising across the nation.
Seventy-one percent of all drug users over the age of 18-more than 10
million workers-are employed full or part time, according to the
Department of Labor. Drug abuse affects such financial areas as sick
leave, medical costs and workers' compensation costs. Substance abusers
file three to five times more workers' compensation claims than the
average employee and account for 38 percent to 50 percent of all
claims. "Employed drug abusers cost their employers about twice as much
in medical and workers' compensation claims as their drug-free
coworkers," according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In
addition, substance abuse leads to higher rates of violence and
contributes to the increasing problem of violence in the workplace. It
is important for policymakers to enact legislation that balances the
need for safe and productive workplaces with upholding individuals'
rights to privacy.

In response, states have taken action to promote drug-free
workplaces as well as to deny benefits to employees who are injured or
terminated because of alcohol or drug use. Most states allow an
employer to deny or reduce workers' compensation payments if alcohol or
drugs are found to be the proximate cause of the employee's injury.
Recently, however, states have taken action to promote drug-free
workplace programs by offering a premium reduction for all employers
who comply with the regulations. The regulations typically require
companies to have a written substance abuse policy that is distributed
to all employees, conduct drug and alcohol testing, and provide
employee assistance programs for those testing positive. Today 11
states including Florida, Hawaii and Washington offer such insurance
reductions.
States also are combating this widespread problem through what have
been coined drug-free workplace programs for state contractors. These
laws require any individual or company receiving a grant from the state
to have a drug-free workplace program. Only six states have enacted
such legislation-California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois and South
Carolina. Although only a handful of states have implemented drug-free
workplace programs for state contractors, 20 states regulate drug
testing procedures to ensure that employees' rights are not violated.
Some states like Alaska, Mississippi and Utah have taken this a step
further by providing legal protection to employers who establish drug
and alcohol testing programs.

Maine: Title 26 §681 (1993)
Places restriction on types of testing and
places specific requirements that must be met for drug testing
procedures. Maine Department of Labor must approve all programs.
Workers' Compensation Title 39-A §202 (1993)
Denies benefits to an employee whose injury
was the result of his or her intoxication unless the employer knew at
the time of the injury that the employee was intoxicated.

Good info, Vigs!

I see they pulled the comment section on the SJ...it was really nasty. That's the stuff that gives bloggers a bad rap. No one deserves to have hatred thrown at them...it destroys people. I think anger is okay, but some of the comments crossed that line into hatred...geez!

From the SJ comments. A good post.

Posted By:Mel at January 12, 2009 8:41 AM
If they want us to stop posting negative things then quit giving us so much material to work with. The purpose of the blogs is to offer opinions and as we are still free( for now) in America, we should be able to say what we think. I, for one, will not blow smoke up Frank's @$$ but will offer my opinion as it is. Agree or disagree that is your right as well.

has anyone here stopped to think that that comment could have just as easily been directed at TRR/JSN? (not that it was.... just a thought). Her site is a blog. This site is a forum. there is a difference.

In other business, Selectman Frank DiConzo asked people to refrain from
posting negative comments about Rumford, selectmen and town officials
on Internet blogs.

A blog or Web site log is a personal online journal which is frequently updated and intended for the general public.

DiConzo warned town employees that they shouldn't be blogging if all
they were doing was posting negative comments about municipal
government matters. No blogs were identified.

I would guess they must be referring to TRR, we most definitely are not a blog. I can't think of any other current blogs that reference our area except for the Lisbon Reporter. Oh there is the Rumford Monitor, but that one appears to avoid the controversial subjects...

c, i DO think they were referring to us, despite the fact that they got the nomenclature wrong. but in terms of attacking public officials in a nasty personal way, i think TRR has us beat hands down.

From today's SJ:

"Greaney joined in with DiConzo, briefly, asking bloggers in general to be factual when commenting."

This is obviously directed at JSN.................her 20 minute drive to South Paris, for instance? Her digs at Chief Carter? Her incorrect financial "reports"?

dr wrote:From today's SJ:

"Greaney joined in with DiConzo, briefly, asking bloggers in general to be factual when commenting."

This is obviously directed at JSN.................her 20 minute drive to South Paris, for instance? Her digs at Chief Carter? Her incorrect financial "reports"?

And she changed her "editor's note" regarding the possible closing of the district court (4 times) because she was "criticized for technicalities by the powers that be in Rumford."

DiConzo said one blog contained "a lot of misconceptions about why
Rumford selectmen dropped discussing regionalization" with neighboring
Mexico.

"This board pushed for advertising to get a committee going and one
person stepped forward. Mexico did nothing . . . It's not a dead issue.
Rumford feels it can look at this and get a committee going. I think
it's very important to get citizens to weigh in on this," he said.

Okay so what does he think we've been doing on this forum....exactly what he calls important....weighing in on regionalization. Mr. Diconzo if you are so concerned why not actively join this forum and discuss it with us?

ok, let's call a goose a goose. he was clearly trashing THIS forum, not the " OTHER one". If he wants input, he should be reading them all, and not just the ones that kiss his butt. people on this forum post some very knowledgeable comments and questions, and to disregard their value because some of them may be deemed " critical" is really stupid.

Xmashen, why do you think he was referring to this forum and not TRR? JSN is the one who has posted the inaccuracies.