Saying that requests to discard correction guard weapons was a backhanded way to purchase new weapons, Sal Vega, chairman of the Hudson County Freeholders, said he wanted to see the whole request – including the expected cost to the taxpayers.
County Administrator Abe Antun submitted a request to declare 15-year-old Smith & Wesson handguns obsolete at the Dec. 11 Freeholder caucus, but only after Freeholder Barry Dugan questioned the move did Antun admit a request for purchasing new weapons would be forthcoming.
Ralph Green, Director of the county’s Corrections Department, has requested replacing the Smith & Weston handguns with newer Glock semi-automatic pistols.
The Glock model handgun is an extremely powerful nine-millimeter weapon used by street-level police officers because of its power to bring down an assailant quickly. The Smith & Wesson is considered a better crafted weapon, noted for its accuracy and dependable performance.
Dugan questioned why the administration sought to get rid of the weapons at a time when the county is in negotiations with its employees.
"This may not be a big budget item, but we need to trim as much from current expenses to avoid a possible tax increase next year," Dugan said.
Green, however, said he had solid reasons for making the request now. While none of the weapons have ever been fired in response to a hostile act in or out of the county jail, Green said each pistol had fired numerous rounds over the years as part of keeping the officers qualified.
"These weapons were purchased when we first built the Kearny facility," Green said, noting that the weapons are no longer manufactured and parts to repair them are scarce.
While Green said he preferred the Smith and Wesson to the Glock, the weapon used by Hudson County guards is out of step with local law enforcement agencies most of which have adopted the Glock. This is particularly a problem during training at the Jersey City Police Academy where instructors are unfamiliar with the Smith & Wesson.
"If it breaks down, the instructors do not know how to help our personnel," Green said.
Vega, however, was much more concerned about priorities, saying that he did not feel comfortable with the administration requesting to get rid of the old guns before laying out the cost of replacing them.
"It is very clear that once we declare the old weapons obsolete, we will have to purchase new weapons to replace them," he said. "But I don’t want to hear about that later. If you want to replace the weapons, tell us that upfront."
Freeholder Nidia Davila-Colon, whose motion to table the request failed, asked if the county would be at risk of a lawsuit should the weapons be declared obsolete before the county replaces them.
"It is clear that our officers will continue to use these weapons until we buy new ones," she said. "What happens if something happens involving these weapons. Are we creating liability for ourselves by allowing our officers to carry obsolete weapons?"
Freeholder Counsel Ed Florio said the county already has liability, whether it approved or disapproved the resolution.
"This was brought up at a public meeting," he said. "The information is already public."
Freeholder Maurice Fitzgibbons asked what will happen to the old weapons.
"I have a problem with putting these weapons onto the open market," he said. "I don’t want them to be sold to some dealer so that these guns might be used some day against one of our officers."
Antun said the weapons would likely be traded in for discounts on the new weapons, and said that a request for the purchase of the Glocks would be brought before the board in the near future.
Getting free of consultants
In other business, the freeholders continued to seek ways to discontinue excess use of outside consultants, and encourage the new county executive to look more closely at various projects with the idea of allowing projects to be done by county employees.
"I understand that the old county executive was consultant-dependent," said Freeholder Bill O’Dea. "I also think the new county executive has a open mind when it comes to these things."
Freeholder Al Cifelli said the county should look more closely at hiring its own employee to handle Medicaid reimbursements.
"We might be able to hire someone for half the $300,000 it costs us to have a consultant do it," he said.
Colon said while the county has had difficulty in the past getting qualified people to apply, she said the current downturn in the economy and fear of professionals to work in Manhattan – after the World Trade Center disaster – may have changed that.
Related to this, Fitzgibbons said the county needs to open up its hiring practices to more people, noting that he has sought to have an architectural firm considered for county work.
"The county uses the same firms again and again, despite what I’ve done to have other people apply," he said.
O’Dea said the freeholders sought to develop a list of potential professionals to whom requests for proposals could be given when various projects come up.
Bottled water or water fountains?
Freeholders also balked at the estimated $90,000 cost to supply its workers with bottled water. This was up from $75,000 spent last year.
Dugan questioned why county employees were being given bottled water when most of the county buildings have drinking fountains. He called this "a luxury item."
"My constituents can’t afford to buy bottled water, and I don’t see why we have to buy bottled water for our employees," he said.
Other freeholders also questioned the quantity of water needed in various departments, noting that employees often ask for a case at a time.
Antun, however, said not all the county buildings have water fountains, and that employees must have access to drinking water while on the job.
Vega said he would like to see the county move away from purchasing bottled water and towards providing more drinking fountains.