As usual, the Truth or Consequences City Commission avoided substance and gave us cheerleaders’ pablum.
Mayor Rolf Hechler was possibly spurred to address police department retention and recruitment by public reaction to Sentinel owner Frances Luna’s editorial and my Monday analysis, both of us claiming it’s not working and it’s expensive. https://sierracountycitizen.org/the-city-should-change-pd-recruitment-and-retention-practices/
“I don’t know how much the people are willing to spend on safety and service,” Hechler began. Uh, that’s what the yearly budget is about, sir. The city commission’s main duty is establishing and holding to a budget that reflects public approval for spending. What we the people are willing to pay shakes up and establishes the community’s values. When those expenditures are not working or go way beyond what was budgeted, the public is owed a factual and evidenced-based explanation why or why not that policy is being continued.
As my article showed, there is no evidence that allowing officers to commute with city-owned police cars to as far as Las Cruces has resulted in attracting certified officers or in retaining officers.
I suggested that the city instead put the $476,000 a year we are spending now on vehicle repairs, gas and training costs directly into police officers’ pockets. This was Police Chief Patrick Gallagher’s intent, who convinced the people with facts, research and evidence. A dozen years ago, Gallagher got a .25 percent gross receipts tax passed. Way higher salaries would attract certified officers and would convince them to move their families here. And their salaries would circulate and stay in town. Their wives and husbands and children would add to our community instead of Las Cruces’ community.
As I pointed out in my article, the city commission has never used the PD GRT as it was intended.
But Hechler didn’t address that point. “We had to go outside because we couldn’t find the people here,” Hechler said. Uh, no one refuted that. But once they are hired, why not insist they live here? Induced by a higher salary then they could get elsewhere?
“It’s expensive,” Hechler acknowledged. But is it uselessly expensive? A waste of money? No evidence given to the contrary.
Hechler then thanked the people for paying more.
Chief of Police Luis Tavizon, who initiated the car take-home and commuting policy two years ago, when he was hired, said he checked with the Sierra County Sheriff. Their fuel and vehicle costs are “comparable” to T or C’s police department, he said. Uh, Sierra County is 4,181 square miles and T or C is 28 square miles—less than one percent its size. The waste of money on fuel is emphasized by Tavizon’s comparison.
Tavizon also said the out-of-town police officers are very dedicated to our community. Uh, no one impugned their work-service ethic. But no way are officers as enmeshed with our community if they and their families live elsewhere.
Other cities are having trouble getting and keeping officers, Tavizon said, another argument that no one brought up or refuted. It’s the solution to the problem we are questioning, and its enormous expense. And it doesn’t look to be solving the revolving-door problem.
If Tavizon had evidence the commute solution was working, it would be front and center.
Instead, what we got was the whole police force in attendance at the city meeting, each one thanked, put on camera and introduced.
Can’t we put aside boosterism and cheerleading tactics? It hasn’t increased staff or citizen morale for the many years it has been employed by the city commission. We are not children. And neither are the police officers. I bet they would rather have a $30,000 boost in their salary than to be paraded on the city’s Facebook live steam.
How about we try using the PD GRT for higher salaries, as it was intended and as it was sold to the community? If not, show us how the current recruitment-retention policy is working, with real numbers.