Parkesburg Should Reinstate Police Service. Agree or Disagree?

Here's what Friday's Daily Local News had to say on their editorial page Friday morning about the decision council faces to get in or out of the police service business.

What do you think. Thus far most people I've talked to in town are against reinstating the service. What do you think?

But remember, I'll post your opinion on Parkesburg Today but you have to tell me who you are and where you live. If I don't recognize you or can't validate your address, your comment will NOT get posted.

Here's the editorial. Let me know whether you agree or disagree and why.

Parkesburg wrong to lay off police, cut back services Daily Local News Editorial (January 18, 2008)

Whether it’s Coatesville or Parkesburg, people in charge of public safety aren’t listening: you cannot reduce the number of police. Ask any taxpayer and they’ll tell you the same thing: Raise taxes if you have to, cut some services if you have to, but do not lay off police anywhere. This is not a matter of politics nor should it be. It’s a matter of the safety and protection of people. The City of Coatesville tried it and was met with a storm of protest. These days with the amount of crime — specifically drug-related crime — cities and towns need more cops, not fewer. On Monday, Jan. 21, Parkesburg Borough Council will be making a decision that could cause major problems for not just the borough, but for the neighboring municipalities it serves. Council is expected to vote on whether it will stick to its layoff plan that cuts the Parkesburg Police Department in half and eliminates police services to neighboring municipalities. Also, council will vote on a police union contract proposal, according to Borough Council President David Jones. “We are following through with all of the promises we made at the last meeting. Our promise to the public was that we would give it our best effort to settle the labor dispute, revisit services contracted with municipalities, and also revisit furloughs. We have been doing that,” Jones said Wednesday. First, Jones said council will decide whether to approve a union contract proposal, of which the details have not been released. Then council will decide whether the police department will continue to serve three neighboring municipalities, Jones said. And finally, he said, council will decide whether to continue or abort its plan to lay off 11 police officers. The union said Monday officers are “cautiously optimistic that things are going to work out.” On Dec. 27, five days before the police union contract expired, council held a special meeting and agreed to lay off three full-time and eight part-time police officers. Council also agreed to terminate its police service contracts with Atglen, Avondale and Highland. Officials said the cuts would ease financial constraints, keep premiums down, and help maintain positive relationships with its neighbors because they would no longer be customers. We’re not sure how cutting off police services would generate “love” for Parkesburg. In fact, since then, law enforcement leaders and residents criticized the plan and accused officials of retaliating against police officers because parties could not reach a contract agreement. Under the layoff plan the department would be left with seven officers and its detective would move to patrol. The department would also not be able to participate in emergency response teams or the Chester County Drug Task Force. The layoffs will go into effect Jan. 31 unless council approves an alternative plan Monday. “I can tell you that reducing this force is going to do nothing to benefit the residents of Parkesburg,” said Les Neri, Tredyffrin police officer and vice president of the state fraternal order of police. “The timing came just prior to arbitration taking place … that is something that we do question the validity of.” We urge Parkesburg Borough Council to end this foolishness and not reduce its force or eliminate services. It isn’t about politics, it’s about protection.

Discontinuing Police Service - A Quick Response

While compiling a longer response to the opinions offered Monday night following Council's decision to get out of the police service business, I thought I would offer up this four point explanation I sent to a friend in Coatesville last week, as to why council took the action it did.

Here's what I wrote:

There were many reasons we found ourselves in the position of canceling the police service we provided Atglen, Avondale and Highland. The four primary reasons we took the action we did are:

• Parkesburg was losing money on each hour of service provided and the municipalities were either not willing or unable to pay Parkesburg a rate that at least covered the real cost of the police service we provided.
• We were unable to expand the service to other municipalities like Sadsbury, West Sadsbury, West Fallowfield, etc at a pace that made it an attractive business proposition.
• The initiative never had the support of the citizens of Parkesburg, who like most people, want to make sure they are secure and their tax dollars are used in the most economical and efficient manner possible. Asking the people of Parkesburg to underwrite Atglen’s, Highland’s and Avondale’s security could no longer be justified.
• While the initiative had the enthusiastic support of people at the county and state, Parkesburg Borough received no financial support from either entity to make the harsh realities of providing police service fathomable.

The above summary is a good explanation of my position and my opinion of why council took the action it did. I hope to have a more comprehensive response later in the week.