Chipping away at the Thin Blue Line

Council between a rock and a hard place
By Kelvin Wade January 21, 2010

Who thought it would come down to cutting police officers? I guess I thought we'd let our parks be overrun with vegetation and critters, our roads crumble into dust and have every city employee earning minimum wage plus tips before we'd make cuts into public safety. But it appears our financial situation has left us with little choice.

Of course, this is never where you want to have to cut.

If you ask people on the street what are the last two areas they'd want to see cut, it's going to be police and fire protection. We understand that Thin Blue Line. We know the value of first responders in our hour of need. And we're a city nervous about containing our gang problems.

While it's never a good time for a city to lose police, at least this comes in the midst of a downturn in crime. We've seen the numbers decline. It may not be full consolation to a citizenry fearful of gang violence, but it's something.

And it tells us that perhaps now is the time to get more involved with volunteer activities such as down at the Matt Garcia Youth Center and things that don't cost money such as Neighborhood Watch.

We're not going to make up for nine officers that way, but we'll be doing something to improve the community.

Other labor groups have made full concessions during these difficult budgetary times when the police unions have not. Would it be fair to go back to those groups and request they sacrifice even more at this point?

Part of what makes these cuts more palatable is they are what the Fairfield Police Officers' Association and the Fairfield Police Management Association agreed to. Plus, when a retired police sergeant-turned City Councilman Chuck Timm supports the cuts, we know this is what has to be done.

It's easy to grandstand on this issue. Who isn't for retaining police officers? But if you take that position, then it's incumbent on you to show where you'd make the additional cuts.

While I've talked to people and seen blog posts of people who don't want to see these cuts happen, just how serious are we about law enforcement? Sure, it would be ideal to be able to afford as many cops as we need to fight crime here.

But years ago, the council went to the public for a tax to pay for more officers and we soundly rejected that idea.

Of course, perhaps the mood has changed despite the economic fragility we're experiencing. Is there anyone out there who'd like to pay additional taxes to hire more officers? Is there a group that wants to get behind this idea? I didn't think so. And that points out the fact that we're all hurting for money and tough choices have to be made.

I don't believe there are any bad guys in this process. Fairfield needs the same thing every community needs. We need an economic rebound, so we can restore the officers, restore compensation to our employees and provide quality services to our people.

The council had to make a hard call. Give them a break. Peace.