Clinton Herald Editorial
January 29, 2007 11:32 am
—
The Clinton City Council’s Internal Operations Committee meets on an as-needed basis, meaning it sits idle for months, if not years, at a time. So it was a bit surprising to see an agenda posted for last Tuesday’s meeting of the committee, and a bit shocking to see the reason: members of the police union looking to air complaints over management of the police department.
And yet, when the officers detailed a laundry list of complaints, it seemed on the surface that many were valid points that ought to be taken to heart:
Officers feel the department isn’t progressive. They worry about a lack of training and new equipment. They’re upset with a choice to reorganize the department by reducing the number of captains and sergeants, thereby cutting chances for promotions. And they’re frustrated that, after bringing the issues up to the police management team, the response to complaints has been less than satisfactory.
At the apex of their discontent, officers took a secret ballot no confidence vote, with 38 — 88 percent — saying they do not support police administration.
An individual’s reaction to the story might be based on a person’s lot in life. A career laborer is much more likely to see things as the union does, while perhaps someone who has spent a lifetime in management would tend to see the officers’ complaints as nothing new under the sun. Of course, those in middle management may feel a bit of empathy for both, realizing that the workers ultimately must do with the chief tells them to, but also that the chief’s hands sometimes can be tied by City Council action.
Truth be told, there probably are private businesses in this city with similar or worse relations between the white- and blue-collared folks. Many is the workplace with an hourly employee who tells anyone who will listen how much better things would be if he were running the show. But just as common is the CEO who has little time to hear the valid concerns of the little people.
Yet in the world of private business, such things almost always remain private. The police department is a very different situation, given that everyone working there lives on the public’s dollar. That’s true of all of the city, of course, yet only the police and fire departments traffic full time in public safety. Not to besmirch anyone, but a librarian who feels the fines for overdue books are too lenient is not as much of a community concern as a police officer who is worried the squad car he’s driving won’t hold up in pursuit of a criminal.
So where do we go from here? Hopefully somewhere in the direction of a solution. Low morale at the police department is a serious issue. We want the people tasked with protecting our lives and property to be giving their best. Furthermore, we want the department to be seen as a good place to work, a place where officers from smaller towns aspire to make their career mark.
We believe each person who works for the department — as well as the people on the City Council — want this department to be the best it can. Unfortunately, the ways to make that hope reality may be as varied as the number of people involved.
As taxpayers, residents and property owners should see themselves as investors in a stable police force. Far be it from us to pose a solution to such a complex issue, only to request a way to approach the problem. Please try to see this issue as more than black and white, as one where there is no absolute right or wrong.
Acknowledge that officers have some valid complaints, and also that management has equally valid justification for the conditions that officers find unacceptable. Remember not to excuse the overall city administration from blame, but also that the City Council has many, many difficult financial decisions to make in the best interests of the city as a whole, not just one department.
Once one-dimensional thought is out of the way, perhaps all concerned parties will be able to hammer out reasonable compromise. Only then will we feel the situation has been resolved as best as possible.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.