But on the other hand

This blogger giveth and this blogger taketh away

Where we had to give a nod to Trentonian Columnist L.A. Parker the other day, his inaccurate statements on Friday have given us a change of mind. We agree with Greg Forester's entry on the misinformation contained in Parker's May 16 column.

Let's set the record straight on a couple of points that Mr. Parker misstated:

1) The city council has not already approved the gun purchase. If that were the case, there would be no discussion or docket item. The action that was previously approved was a budget line item to replace the aging Glocks in the city's arsenal. Just because the item is in the capital budget does not need it has to be spent in whole or part.

2) The argument that it is not a $200,000 lump sum expenditure, but rather spread out over 20 years at $10,000 per is ridiculous. Whether you accept his and former Police Director Santiago's math or not, it's $200,000. There is an offer of free guns on the table so the capital expenditure is not needed. Period.

3) The cost of $25,000 for Glocks is only if the department opts to "upsize" to a .45 caliber gun vs. the current .40 caliber (and there is, research tells us, very little difference between the two size rounds). Would you prefer to hit with a slug from one over the other? Not us. If the city stays with the .40 caliber Glock, there will be no cost for the one-to-one gun swap. Only if we swap the .40 caliber Glocks for new .45 caliber Glocks, would that $25,000 cost be incurred.

In conclusion, Mr. Parker is entitled to form his opinions and he's paid to express his thoughts.

He should, however, make sure he has his facts straight before he holds puts them out there for public consumption.

And, one other thing...the city taxpayers who will be shouldering the costs of the city's deficit should be given due consideration when council decides this issue.

The opinions of the non-resident former Police Director and the non-resident Trentonian columnist should not be given a second thought.

Oh yeah? Well how do you like this?

More spite from the spurned

In the latest round of tit for tat, "former" Police Director Santiago and the Palmer Administration have deemed it a matter of efficiency to disband the Vice (Narcotics Enforcement) Unit and fold those seven detectives in the Criminal Investigation Bureau and TAC units.

It is simply another questionable management move from the man who refuses to live in the town he purports to serve and smacks of retaliation to those who have sought his removal for that very lack of residency.

It is also a continued knee-jerk response to last year's complaints of increasingly excessive police overtime expenses.

Funny thing, how he who once spent money like there was no tomorrow is now so fiscally conservative that he'd do away with a functioning police unit that actually brought in significant revenue by earning it's share of forfeiture funds and property.

Of course, this same top notch, non-resident manager is also the one lobbying for a $200,000 expenditure for new guns that the city could get for free from another supplier.

Gee---he couldn't be upset at the fact that so many have spoken out against that purchase that he's killing of the Vice unit out of spite, could he?

Wanna bet?

Just like out thin-skinned, egotistical and too often absent Mayor, Joseph Santiago is demonstrating similar child-like attributes.

The man who insisted we needed a mounted patrol...at untold costs for boarding, vet bills, tack, training, transportation, etc. is suddenly throwing a fiscal hissy fit.

The arrogance of the "former" Police Director is exceeded only by his incompetent leadership.

His final departure from Trenton cannot come soon enough.

Biting the bullet

Early reports from last night's City Council Conference Marathon (gee, maybe they should have met last Tuesday and split the work load over two night!!!) indicate the following:

1. Trenton is faced with a $7 million budget short fall in fiscal 2009 (which begins July 1).

2. The E-Path presentation/resolution was pulled from the agenda by the Administration (why was it even being brought up again?)

3. Director Santiago and his crew defended their choice of a $200,000 plus investment in new guns for the department.

It shouldn't take more than a room temperature IQ to follow this logic: If we are looking at a $7 million deficit, we do not need to spend money on new guns (especially if we are being offered new guns for free from the current provider!).

It is that simple.

Realizing that we've been over this topic before in this blog, let's refresh every one's memory.

Checking around on-line for commentary and ratings on the two weapons in question, one from Glock and the other from Springfield Armory, the prevailing opinion is that they are comparable weapons. Preference for one over the other is personal choice.

Casual discussion with a few Trenton police officers of our acquaintance has demonstrated no urgent need or mad desire to switch guns. Upgrade, yes (if for free). Switch, no.

Questions that we would like to have answered:

Does the proposed expenditure include the cost of new holsters, etc.?
Are there people on-staff in the TPD trained to service and repair the Springfield guns?

As for arguments that have been made about the Springfields being safer: have there been any incidents of accidentally discharged weapons due to a mechanical failure on the Glocks?

Are the Springfields better weapons for women and less experienced officers? I'm sorry but if the Glock is the standard issue weapon of the force and you have trouble using it, then you are not qualified to be on the force are you?

While this topic will no doubt be fodder for forum posters and bloggers for awhile, let us put a suggestion on the table for consideration.

Accepting the Administration's calculation of a $7 million dollar shortfall in next year's budget, it is obvious that Trenton needs to severely cut expenses. Since, as Chief of Staff Renee Haynes is reported to have put it, "everything is on the table," let's start trimming the obvious fat and waste by not asking for ridiculous expenditures.

Let's withdraw the proposal to purchase new guns from Springfield Armory and take the offer of free upgrades from Glock (this presumes that the stated offer of upgrading the department's guns for free is legit and meets all of the appropriate regulations and guidelines governing such matters). Why spend money we don't have for a change that isn't needed?

Further, let's immediately draw up and put into place a realistic automobile use policy that restricts take home cars and such as much as possible. Let's face it, there are a lot of vehicles being used for little more than commuting to and from work that are costing us, the taxpayers, a lot of money. Those employees who might complain should consider this: they can give up/severely cut back on the use of their city vehicle or they can face possible layoffs or worse.

Let's settle the Police (and any other outstanding contracts) thereby mitigating further increases in the size of retroactive pay increases already incurred.

And, here's one more money saving suggestion for the Administration: no more "free" legal representation for Mr. Santiago or Mr. Palmer in the residency case. The taxpayers do not owe them a defense for their beliefs and actions. They broke the law, they should pay for their own lawyers.

Let's see how quick they are to spend their own dollars on these follies!