Sir: The recent decision by council to not allow an OPP presentation has the blueprint for a breach of public trust, a violation of any fiduciary relationship between this municipality and its taxpayers, and a violation of the municipality’s pricy $1-million service review.
The review has objectives to reduce taxes by ensuring our services and departmental costings are sustainable – valuable information that would have been provided, at no charge, by the OPP. This would have let council make an informed decision on a potential major cost savings without jeopardizing local policing.
As a past police service member, I know the work involved to deliver a responsible service –I’m proud of what they do.
The municipality has published the severity of our financial crisis and acknowledges something has to be done, but failed to make the changes needed to meet the objectives and intent of their own service review and what our community needs to survive.
Part of council’s rationale is that the police service is not incompetent or corrupt. With that being said, then dismantle the service review project because no department will be viewed as corrupt and incompetent, and save taxpayers the $1-million-plus for the review.
What seems to be a pattern by council to protect our police budget every year; taxpayers should challenge if any other municipal departments would be so protected.
The Chatham-Kent Police Service cost will hit $30 million next year.
The $1-million-plus, taxpayer-funded municipal service sustainability review is clear with its objectives: contain or reduce taxes; create opportunities to strategically reinvest for financial sustainability; and identify potential improvements to service efficiencies.
C-K claims to be a leader in responsible fiscal management and thru managing taxes. Actions of council and administration would dictate the opposite. Reviewing comments of council would clearly show council either didn’t understand what they were voting on or acted with disregard of the public purse, in order to protect, what appears, a “teacher’s pet” department.
In the entire financial scheme, OPP and municipal salaries are similar, for the most part we retain our local officers, our community liaison people, our police board, and are strictly guarded by the province under the Police Act to maintain a wholesome, efficient and professional police service that molds itself to the respective community. It would be done without incurring the following costings: millions in management salaries, and costs associated with independent IT, canine and marine units; fraud, counterfeit and drug units; fleet purchasing; communications; court services; retention pay; etc.
And paying for expensive tax-supported vehicles for the chief and deputy chief doesn’t speak well for council’s remarks to our current police service being fiscally responsible.
An OPP police governance package would generally only see a change of uniforms, badges and underwear. Other than a different and perhaps better way of policing, all would remain the same with more advancements for our officers and with a healthy potential for significant savings to meet the expressed statement of the service review. If a multi-million savings couldn’t be secured each year, I would not favour a policing transition.
But remember, unless significant changes are made there shall be no change to Chatham-Kent.
John Cryderman
Chatham
