|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
July 12, 2002City police, fire proposals should be on the ballotAt first glance, two proposed amendments to the Traverse City charter look like a solution without a problem.They would require the city to operate a police and fire department. That's always been the case, so why should the two measures go on the city ballot in the Nov. 5 election? There are several good reasons. - Talk of consolidating police and fire departments in Grand Traverse County is not out of the realm of possibility as our area grows. - County and city law enforcement are different. The Traverse City Police Department utilizes community policing more because of the denser population, the downtown, the college and civic center. - There is nothing in the city charter or city ordinances that says the city has to run its own police and fire department. The charter calls for a fire chief and a police chief but not for an actual fire, police or public safety department. - An administrative order signed by the city manager calls for the two departments, but administrative orders can be rescinded. - Dick Thomas, chairman of the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners, has said at public meetings that a joint city-county police operation ultimately is what may have to happen to ensure efficient countywide enforcement. County officials are concerned about stable funding for police officers in most of its townships. Many deputy positions are paid for out of federal policing funds, but those could dry up as deficits grow. The two ballot proposals put the question to city voters again. In fast-growing areas such as ours, memories of what's been tried before can be short. City Commissioner Anne Melichar recommended the two ballot proposals because she does remember the early 1980s attempt to merge the Traverse City Police Department and Grand Traverse Sheriff's Department into the Grand Traverse Law Enforcement Confederation. She sat on a blue-ribbon panel that studied the consolidation experiment to determine whether it should continue. The panel recommended that the merger not become permanent. The confederation started in 1982 and came to an end in 1986 when then-sheriff Jack Canfield decided he no longer wanted to be part of it. The confederation was controversial from the beginning in some circles. Though legally organized under the then-new federal urban cooperation act, it was looked upon with suspicion by the Michigan Sheriff's Association, and critics claimed it was unconstitutional because it received state funds but had not been approved by the governor. In 1984, the state attorney general's office agreed that the confederation was legal but said the contract wording that set it up wasn't because it allowed the sheriff to delegate his constitutional county patrol and investigative duties. Some good things came out of the experiment. The two agencies combined dispatch operations, records and detective bureaus, a practice that continues today. Commissioner Phill Orth cast the lone vote against placing the proposals on the ballot. He brought up good points about flexibility that should be aired in detail by proposal opponents. He said mandating separate city departments by charter could tie the hands of future commissions from finding more efficient ways of providing public safety services. He used the regional sewer system as an example of a service that started with the city only but now also serves adjoining townships. The pros and cons can - and should - be brought before city voters before Nov. 5. Talk of consolidating police and fire services is a major city issue, and city voters should have a say on that - before elected officials bring it up. |
|
