Dear Editor:
The size of a police force needs to be based primarily upon the number of officers who are regularly out on patrol. That will drive the number of supervisors and support staff needed at HQ. When those officers are promoted to supervisory levels while younger officers continue to be recruited, if the number of police on the street stays the same, and nobody leaves for other opportunities, the organization becomes top-heavy. If municipal revenues are growing every year (because property taxes are increased at a rate far higher than the cost of living, year in and year out, by politicians who are not held accountable to make the hard decisions), this bloat is more readily absorbed in the budget. But if a city is serious about attacking taxes, it will immediately confront the reality that the vast majority of its budget expenses are for personnel, and therefore costs cannot be controlled without addressing that expense first. In the public sector, when politicians resolve to trim the budget, they know it must be done in a public forum where those who stand to lose will pull no punches to attack them, in fair and sometimes very unfair ways.
In the case of our recent debate on the matter, one of the most unfair ways included trying to convince the public that we were being made less safe, when in fact the police presence on the street will be increasing. Little notice was given to the moment at a city council meeting when Police Chief Falco would not support the claim that the police street presence would decrease. Nobody, including the council members who are prepared to face reality for our overall benefit, wants to see anyone laid off, least of all officers whose work and sacrifice we value so much. But we’ve seen too many examples in this economy that one who is competent, hard working, committed, and deserving still has no guarantee he or she will, in fact, retain a position. We can pretend that is not reality, but then we must stop imagining we will reduce our taxes.
Since the city council cannot fix our budget without being subject to hours upon hours of challenges, some of it unfair or even mean-spirited, including from fellow grandstanding council members, we need a council majority who are prepared to endure that process while sticking to their guns. When they did that while keeping an open mind, allowing for an ultimate solution that actually limited the damage a great deal, we witnessed a wisdom we have seldom seen before. Because it would have given some amongst the opposition the opportunity to hijack the debate by accusing them of being critical of our police supervisors, the majority wisely chose not to frame their argument in the following terms: Without finding fault of anyone, the simple fact is, we had too many chiefs for the number of Indians. There. Somebody said it.
Rob Scavone