Friday, May 12, 2006

The Price is Wrong: 3rd District CM whistling a shortsighted tune – again.

Musically adept readers will immediately recognize the unmistakable twang of the same tired old song wafting down from Dewey Heights, across the rooftops of the city’s third council district, and coming to rest like a trite and mangy tick on the exposed leg of New Albany’s revitalization effort.

The tune is called, “I’ll Nickel and Dime You to Death, Uppity P-Pergessives,” and it is being performed ad nauseam by the district’s own Uncouncilman, whose bizarre glee at relentlessly expounding positions diametrically opposed to the interests of his constituents is matched only by a propensity to spout shopworn homilies in reference to grandma’s soiled piggy bank:

Council to review take-home vehicles; Cars may be kept within New Albany, by Ben Zion Hershberg (The Courier-Journal).

Some New Albany City Council members want to develop a policy for take-home cars that would include restricting their use to employees who live within city limits.

"A lot of the public is really complaining about it," Councilman Steve Price said, referring to the use of take-home cars by about 70 city employees, most of them in the police department.


Now really, does the public really complain about police protection?

Or, does the forever populist Uncouncilman cannily twist the take-home car message into the form best suited to receive the desired response?

Either way, the pertinent issue – public safety – is lost amid jingoistic clamor as to which policeman lives where, as though residency pertains to the performance of dangerous civic duty.

Of course, CM Price retains the services of the velvet-fogged-up Gang of Four to croon gently lilting back-up harmonies when he dismisses his own council district’s earnest efforts to move forward by drawling the chorus from the only political ditty he has ever bothered to learn:

“We can’t. We’re not. And I won’t.”

For background, see these earlier NA Confidential entries:

Running out of (t)issues? Increasingly crazed "little people" turn to cop bashing for thrills.

We return to Sunday's NA police take-home car and gasoline discussion.

24 comments:

All4Word said...

Demagogues want to make all politics the politics of envy: "He (or she) is getting something I'm not getting."

The notion that this is either and undeserved or overly generous "perk" can be set aside, however. Chief Harl has, before the council, explained how the take-home-car policy is in place to benefit the city, not the officers themselves.

It enhances response time, it increases the sense of personal responsibility for the vehicles in the fleet, and it saves money on maintenance and storage.

CM Price's parents and teachers failed to inculcate in him even the barest inkling of the word "counterintuitive."

Acting purely on intuition is a prehuman way of thinking. Understanding nuance and looking past the obvious is what makes us human. I'd like to think we're electing people able to think, but the verdict is in on Price.

Iamhoosier said...

I am not against take home police vehicles but I do not think it is ridiculous to talk about it and get more detailed information.

New Albany Police are among the highest paid in the state. They make more than the state police. I am not saying they are not "worth" it or even more. I don't make the "worth" of any police officer, the market place does.

Is there any restriction on take home police cars? Do they have to stay inside the adjoining counties? Is there any requirement to pay for personal gas usage and documentation of such? Is there a personal mileage limit? Is it in the contract? Gas is only part of the operating cost of a vehicle. Tires, depreciation, oil, etc.

I just hate the argument of "they don't know if they will come home" whenever this kind of discussion comes up. If you are one who uses this, at what amount of salary, perks, benefits etc would you begin to resist paying taxes?
Think about it. Why aren't we paying them 100,000, 200,000, or 1,000,000. Every one has a limit.

I don't think it is quite as clear cut as some would believe. I have seen a lot bogus issues raised over the last several months but I do believe this is a legitimate issue for discussion.

SBAvanti63 said...

Sure am glad I live in Dist. 4. Oh, wait a minute ... Never mind.

Here's something else for him to get his undies in a wad. What does he think about the traffic enforcement officer following the street cleaner to ticket those cars parked in the wrong place at the wrong time on the wrong day?

I'll take a cop with a car in the driveway next to me over a clean gutter any day.

Ann said...

I think the take-home car policy definitely needs to be revisited and some adjustments made. I lived in New Albany when the original policy was instituted, and it was not intended to be a "perk" or a benefit for police officers. The benefit was to be for the taxpayers and citizens, who would enjoy greater 24-hour police presence by having officers take their cars home. At that time, police officers were required to live in the city.

Times have changed. NA police officers no longer have to live within New Albany, and gas prices have increased significantly. Programs that use tax dollars can always benefit from a review, especially if about 20 years have passed since their institution.

Obviously, some members of the force must be able to respond immediately, such as the chief, assistant chief, and SWAT team, even if they live outside city limits. I doubt anyone would argue that they should have to park their cars when they're off-duty, because they are on-call 24/7.

But what about a patrolman who lives in, say, Greenville or Mauckport? Why should taxpayers bear the burden of the wear and tear and gas cost for taking the vehicle outside the city daily? I don't think that's right, nor does it serve the take-home car policy's intent, which is to increase 24-hour police presence within New Albany.

The city owns several vacant lots, so if a secure area to park cars is needed, it could easily be done by installing a fence with a security gate.

The council is supposed to review the budget and look for ways be good stewards of the public's funds. I don't see how a review of this program could be considered inappropriate.

Iamhoosier said...

Ceece,
Thanks for the info. This is the way a real discussion is supposed to work. In my opinion, of course.(smile)

G Coyle said...

New Albany Annie is soo clear on this and I agree, an NA police car parked overnight in Georgetown does little for the city folks. I'm a bit frightened to think the police are not able to secure their cars overnight in the city...what does that say about the level or preception of security here. My driveway as an extra spot every night and it might make the crack-house next door uneasy.

The New Albanian said...

The crux of the argument as presented by Gina and Ann is that police officers should not live outside the city limits, and if they do, they should not be allowed to put gas in the cars with money from their own pockets.

Isn't that what it reduces to?

East Ender said...

Something I've not seen mentioned in any of the pleas to just leave the take-home cars in place is the way the law regards this type of 'perk'.
Any operator of a vehicle that is utilized for public and personal use must keep and maintain a detailed mileage log that denotes personal use from on-duty use.
To my knowledge, none of the officers, administration, or other city-owned vehicle users could produce such a log-book if asked to do so today.
At a minimum, this should be a requirement.
Still, these vehicles belong to the City of New Albany and its citizens and should remain within the City limits. That's just plain common sense.
The only ones trying to "politicize" this issue are the ones who have brought it up in a political context.
That would be All4words comments.
Otherwise, this should just be a budgetary, dollars and cents decision.
Park 'em.

Iamhoosier said...

Ali,

Every job's pay is judged against similar jobs. That is how the marketplace works. Surely you know that.

What does police pay from years ago have to do with the pay now?

How much do you think policemen should make? What about firemen? What about ER nurses and staff handling bloody victims? The police are not the only people who risk their lives.

By the way, just to be clear, I never said they were overpaid or even paid enough. According the marketplace(Indiana, 100's of governmental units) the NA police are actually almost the highest paid. Enough or not enough.

From what I have gleaned from the discussion so far, my position is as follows:

With certain exceptions city police vehicles should remain in New Albany. The exceptions would be pretty much how Annie listed them. Police who do qualify for a take home vehicle should contribute and document.

The best argument for take home cars I have seen in this discussion is about increasing the sense of personal responsibility for the vehicle. It is a strong argument.

Does anyone have any idea how many officers live outside of New Albany?

G Coyle said...

New Albanian - to clarify my position on this rousing discussion of where the police cars should park(TGIF) I agreed that having the cars interspersed amongst the population was a benefit. I have no opinion on where police officers should live or whether they should pay their own gas pass the city limit. I notice when I see a police car parked somewhere, so I assume others do too and that increases our sense of security. Otherwise it's just part of the benefit package cops get, and that's fine by me too, as long as it's accounted for on all the appropriate ledgers. Each police car is a pricey little piece of resource and we should hope to maximize our use of the resource. I really have to idea what the answer is, just weighing in.

Rick Carmickle said...

does Dub-Ya really need a 747 to get around? Can't he fly Southwest with the rest of us?

Iamhoosier said...

Clarification.

The best reason for take home cars is response time. Sense of personal responsibility is close.

Surely there are enough resident officers to respond promptly if needed.

All4Word said...

Iam, your asking for old ground to be covered, and in your attempt to solicit "reasonable" discussion you are giving credit to a council that pretends this has never been addressed.

No one has said it can't be discussed, but because it has been discussed, those who have heard the arguments have pretty much made up their minds about it. Covering old ground is wearying when you are one who actually attends council meetings and listens to the arguments...and then, posts the gist of those arguments and explains why you find them compelling.

Just over one-half of the NAPD lives outside the city. The economics of the matter demonstrate clearly that this policy saves the city money by extending the life of the cars.

NAPD is the tenth-best paid force in the state. New Albany (particularly in the density of population nearby) certainly qualifies as an enforcement zone that deserves the tenth best force in the state.

Price in particular chooses to ignore the fact that a majority on the council found the chief's presentation compelling. And since he has nothing better to do, he brings it up yet again. His position loses because it has been proven harmful to the city in relation to today's policy.

The cops who leave the city are contributing to the costs today, where they weren't a few years ago. What more do you want in the way of discussion?

Think about it this way, Iam. If one someone has demonstrated credibility by telling the truth to you, and another has repeatedly done the opposite, what's reasonable about your lending credence to the liar and scolding the truthteller?

The rule at NA Confidential has always been that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. What makes you think NA Confidential hasn't reported the facts accurately?

This simply isn't a matter of jumping to the defense of the cops (on our part). It is reality-based.

And it isn't simply a matter of others being more vigilant guardians of the public purse. The facts show that no matter how steamed off with envy are some people, their demagoguery is a political play, not a policy play.

It's all part of the game plan. And Iam, you're playing right into their hands. The Chicken Littles keep screaming that the sky is falling so as to drown out any and all news to the contrary. They are relying on the New Albany Syndrome to kick in once again, knowing full well that the "mayor" (whoever that may be) will be the scapegoat for New Albany's permanent bad mood.

Did you ever try to have a picnic downwind of a paper plant? It stinks, and it diminishes your enjoyment of your meal.

The Gang of Four and their knights and ladies errant are your paper plant. Enjoy your picnic!

Ann said...

Like Gina, I have no opinion regarding where New Albany police officers should live, nor did I state such.

The issue of take-home police cars has been presented in this forum as a police "perk". It was never intended to be. It was supposed to be a citizen "perk". Back when NAPD officers had to live in New Albany, the policy was introduced to give residents of the city enhanced police presence WITHIN THE CITY.

While the points about a better sense of ownership, etc., etc., have some merit, I still do not see the justification for regular patrol cars being taken out of city limits by officers who live outside them. Budgets and policies always need to be reviewed/revised periodically, especially in the face of the inflated gas prices we now have.

Ann said...

One other thing:

If the owners of this blog believe that the city's voting districts should be reviewed and revised, and they think that the city's building ordinances should be reviewed and revised if necessary, and they do not take issue with the review and revision of the old requirement that police must live within city boundaries, why, therefore, is the review and possible revision of the take-home car policy unacceptable?

The New Albanian said...

Ann, you may not have stated such explicitly, but that would seem to me to be the practical implication of your argument.

On more than one occasion, I have heard the chief of police explain the adjustment of rules so as to require officers to spend their own money on gas.

If the city's gas money is not being spent, then what is the basis for the argument that the cars should not go out of the city limits, if not to implicitly suggest that the officers should not live there?

I'm more than willing to revisit anything so long as the motives of the debaters are on the table and in view. However, this isn't always the case, and if those with less than transparent motives insist on casting this discussion in political terms, fellow travelers need to be aware of the rocks in the path of sensible navigation.

G Coyle said...

"If the city's gas money is not being spent, then what is the basis for the argument that the cars should not go out of the city limits, if not to implicitly suggest that the officers should not live there?" I don't see in annie's statement an implicit desire to see that all officers live in the city, so much as a desire for an accurate accounting of the cost/benefit to citizens of the city when the cars (1/2?) leave the city after hours. The biggest cost I see is not gas, but mileage and the depreciation of the resource as a result. You'd have to keep mileage logs, but if say half of the miles accuring to a police car are "personal" miles, then as a tax-payer, I might want to revisit that policy so I'm seeing a better return on my investment, in this case a police car. It's just a cost/benefit analysis, there isn't anything political about it as I see it.

All4Word said...

Sorry KT, city council won't allow reimbursement beyond 35 cents per mile, although the feds will allow a deduction for any unreimbursed mileage costs.

G Coyle said...

http://www.tacomapolice.org/News_and_Information/AVP%20Executive_Summary.htm?redir=no

I needed some "compare and contrast" on this police car discussion and found an excellent summary of a consultants report for the city of Tacoma 2 years ago. PLEASE read this short report - it covers all areas of the points discussed and then some...really helped me decide where I come down on this...esp. the concept of "excess" commuting.

Iamhoosier said...

All4Word,

First, I sense a rebuke in your statement about those who attend council meetings and have it heard it all before. Rebuke taken and accepted. But...

For many reasons, good and bad, people do not attend council meetings. I was under the impression the blogs, and this one in particular, were a place for discussion and information. I have found the blogs to be a source of information that I have not had before about New Albany and it's government.

I am sorry. I do not see everything as truth and lie. Just because I do not immediately follow in lockstep with someone does not mean that I think that person is lying. Sometimes I just need more information and I have been trying to get it here. I have had a hard time getting some on another blog to understand that. I did not think that I would have to fight that battle here also.

All4Word said...

No rebuke, but a plaint.

What does it gaineth to report, to attend, to offer up month after month of credible reporting, and then to have you question our credibility on a matter long-settled?

You were giving credence to known liars, and questioning our credibility. That's all.

Iamhoosier said...

Where did I question your credibility?

What is wrong with re-opening issues?

All4Word said...

I clearly am not making my point with you, Iam. I'd be happy to discuss it in person, at your convenience.

Who brings the craft beer?

Iamhoosier said...

I'll bring the beer. Sierra Nevada for me. Coors Lite for you. You can outwrite me but you can't outdrink me. Ah, you can probably do that too.

Credibility? You are right, I am not getting your point. Surely you did not expect me to jump up and say "All hail Eas..err All4Word" did you?