Letters to the Editor

A matter of priorities To the Editor:I am responding to Ms. Robin Sullivan’s invitation in the July 28 Santa Paula Times to comment on recommendations made by SPPOA supporters, which recommendations are intended to fund a pay increase 2% greater than that now being offered by the city.Ms. Sullivan is correct when she says the difficulty is basically one of “priorities” and “percentages.” Let me first address the question of “priorities.” It is urgent, in my opinion, for the City Manager, the City Council, and the citizens of Santa Paula to recognize that public safety and law enforcement are always the top priorities for city government - that city government exists, first and foremost, to provide the conditions under which citizens can pursue life, liberty and happiness for themselves and for their loved ones. Law enforcement is “prior” (“first”) in a very basic sense: without it nothing else is possible. All other functions of city government, while important, are secondary.A strong, visible, and unequivocal recommitment to public safety is essential at this particular point in Santa Paula’s history. Anyone who has lived here for awhile and is reasonably alert knows that Santa Paula suffers from a reputation for relatively high crime and gang activity. People tend not to choose Santa Paula when they can live in Ojai, Camarillo, East Ventura or Thousand Oaks and this for understandable reasons: nothing is more important to citizens than public safety and education and when a city is perceived to be relatively weak in these areas nothing else it does to attractresidents, business or tourism will be to much avail. And Santa Paula is perceived to be relatively weak in public safety (education is another matter). This is why a strong and unequivocal signal must be sent by city government and the citizenry: without this, all other attempts to boost Santa Paula - as worthy as they might be - are doomed to fail.In light of the fundamental importance of law enforcement it is nothing short of scandalous that the city will not fund the full 4% raise for our police officers and that the City Manager and City Council have demanded that the SPPOA come up with ways to fund the salary increase. The centrality of public safety as a function of city government dictates, rather, that the City Manager and the City Council take the initiative in this matter and show the kind of leadership and courage that is necessary. Anything short of this is a dereliction of duty.Since I haven’t seen anything that I would consider constructive coming from you, Ms. Sullivan and the other City Council members, or the SPPOA and its supporters (at least as portrayed in Ms. Sullivan’s article) on the question of “percentages” let me turn to that issue and make a modest suggestion of my own. If we look at the pie chartaccompanying Ms. Sullivan’s article in the July 28 edition of the Times we see that funding for the police department is almost exactly 50% of total appropriations if we subtract the appropriations for the fire department from the total:$6,748,729 (total) - 722,065 (fire) = 6,026,664 (remainder)$3,026,572 (police) = 50% of 6,026,664 (remainder)All talk, in Ms. Sullivan’s article and elsewhere, about “eliminating” city services, taking salary surveys, using the reserve account, etc. to fund the additional 2% is a waste of time, as is talk of increasing sales tax revenue over the long term. This problem must be addressed now and the simple fact is that if each department - except fire and police - cuts its operating budget by only 2% the additional 2% needed by the police department becomes available. The math makes this easy to see: if appropriations forpolice constitute 50% of total appropriations, then cutting the other 50% by only 2% yields the amount needed to increase police appropriations by 2%.You [City Manager Cosentini] and the City Council should require each department (again, except fire and police) to submit ASAP a revised budget decreasing appropriations by 2%. This is the way to testify to the importance of public safety relative to other city functions; we do not need to say that other city functions are unimportant or ought to be eliminated, but that they should be cut back by a verymodest 2% in a time of urgent public need. Only when we have corrected our thinking about “priorities” and adjusted our“percentages” accordingly can we turn with some hope of success to the question of increasing city revenues over the long term.Michael F. McLeanSanta PaulaP.S. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if we wanted to send an even stronger message about Santa Paula’s commitment to public safety, as well as bring the salaries of our police officers more into line with those in neighboring cities, we could trimdepartment budgets by the still modest amounts of 3%, 5%, 7% or 10% - whatever it takes to improve the city’s public image, address our public safety needs, and achieve fairness.Distorting eventsTo the Editor:Once again a small group of trouble makers are trying to distort city events for personal and political gain.They blame our four responsible, rational, hard working council members for the fact that the city’s current tight, but balanced, budget cannot pay for everything our underpaid police officers want. Why anyone with half a brain thinks these four council members want this conflict with the police union is beyond me. These are the very four council members that worked to pass a utility tax in order to increase police and fireman’s pay. Unfortunately, it wasn’t approved by the citizens...including councilwoman Espinosa’s lone “No” council vote.How about doing something constructive to increase city funds so we can pay officers more? Everyone I know would like to see our police officers paid what they’re worth.Yes, it will cost us taxpayers, so it’s up to us to talk to our responsible council members about our ideas. How do we make more funds available for officer pay increases?One idea is to cut trash collections to every other week and supply an extra trash container to families of four or more. The savings in labor and truck operating costs would be substantial. Also, increase rates for those citizens who choose not to recycle.You can help with your ideas. Talk to your city employees and support the people that work so hard for our city’s good.Jerry SchmidtSanta PaulaThanks for the memoriesTo the Editor:I would like to thank all the Ventura County Condors for sharing with me their knowledge of track and field and giving me self-confidence while competing against some of the best athletes in and around California.I will forever remember my experience with the Condors with fond memories, the new friends that were made, the new place I visited and the daily workouts that were applied.Even though my coaches made me work very hard, I plan to do this again next year, and I encourage kids to work hard in any sport because the results can be very rewarding.Marizza BerringtonSanta PaulaThese are the factsTo the Editor:This is my last letter or column that I intend to write on the subject of the ongoing stalemate between the City of Santa Paula and their Police Officers. As President of the SPPOA, I invite those City Council Members who have printed articles and written letters to end this verbal jousting. If they are willing, I will do everything in my power to persuade my board to do the same. If desired, an open public discussion would be preferable to this printed dispute.Now for the facts:1) Santa Paula Police Officers/Sergeants are paid between 35% to 45% less than the average for police in this county. The City is offering us a 2% raise, we are asking for an additional 2%. We do not think that this is unreasonable, as this equals only $34,000.2) Santa Paula has the highest overall crime rate and the highest violent crime rate in Ventura County. We spend a significantly lower percentage of our budget on public safety than neighboring cities. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?3) We have not added additional sworn personnel to the Police Dept. since 1974 (with the exception of the DARE officer that is funded through a grant). The population has risen by over 10,000 people since that time.4) The City Council has agreed amongst themselves not to discuss negotiations directly with the POA. I invite them to sit down and talk about this with us, let’s get this thing settled and move on. This is bad for the City Council, the Officers, and the Community.Let’s work together to make this a better place.Gary MarshallSPPOA PresidentAppreciation for supportTo the Editor:To the Citizens of Santa Paula:I am thoroughly overwhelmed by the positive response to my editorial in Wednesday’s (August 4) Santa Paula Times.On behalf of the Santa Paula Police Officers, I would like to express our heartfelt appreciation for the countless numbers of citizens who have contacted us (stopped us on the street and even came down to the station) with their kind words of support in agreement. Your efforts were encouraging to say the least.John CoffeltVice President