Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. idic5
   Member

   the Landmark editorial this week said

   But to suggest that Riverside's police department is the place to start looking for a couple of spare dollars is foolish.

   http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=4826&TM=12625.35

   When I read this, a couple questions came to my mind:

   1) Which Village trustee candidate or party, if any, said this?

   2) What would prompt the Landmark to have such an editorial, which states the obvious, a week before the election?

   To the casual reader, it might seem that some candidate or Party actually said that they were going to cut police to save dollars, or for "economies" as is written in the Landmark. Who talks about such "economies" relative to to police coverage? For less confusion, if the editorial would be written at all, it should have been something like...

   But to suggest that Riverside's police department is the place to start looking for a couple of spare dollars would be foolish.

   That is, IF someone on the Village board were to say that cutting back on police to save money, it would be foolish. But who is suggesting this? If no one suggested this, why write the editorial?

   Again, on arguably the most important, the most read, issue of the Landmark's year, the week-before-the-election issue, why have this editorial?

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 18:10 #

2. CuriousResident
   Member

   I can't recall, but I'll look for it...somewhere someone *was* saying that we have been living "a man down" without issue and should not spend the money to get back to the level budgeted.

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 19:01 #

3. JohnM
   Member

   THe topic of police staffing was addressed at the Landmark's candidate forum on March 4. Per the Landmark article:

   One specific area where Gorman said the line might be held is within the police department. The village has budgeted for 19 sworn officers, but has within the past several years operated at less than full strength.

   Gorman stated that the department has worked with an average of 17.85 officers over the past seven years with outstanding results.

   "We've had 18 for the past six years," said Gorman, who indicated he would seek input from residents on what the optimum number of officers should be. "I don't know how many officers we need. We'll decide what's best for the village. We'll ask what you need."

   Smith, meanwhile, said the department was not fully funded and that an understaffed police department was not feasible in the long run. He said the village's one detective was not sufficient to handle a case load that in 2008 saw the number of property crimes skyrocket.

   I think the Landmark editorial was timely. While the number of serious crimes that have occurred in Riverside over the past two weeks is likely an aberration, it seems reasonable to discuss this before an election.

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 20:30 #

4. Catherine
   Member

   I know this was why one trustee was puzzled that the Board was asking for a tax increase and for rec and historical spending and what not when we did not even have the 19 police officers considered appropriate by the DOJ to a community this size. Maybe Uphues is referring to the fact that they did not get the tax increase, they did not cut the budget as they threatened they would, and therefore more of the same may not have enough money for another police officer.

   So why is it that we have had 18 officers since 2003? Why can we not recruit officers? This seems like a good place to work. I think Gorman was simply stating the obvious: that this board has not been able to get to the 19, for whatever reason. Saachi said that if the Chief wanted to make his extra headcount a detective he would certainly defer to that judgment, and that he certainly would not replace his judgment for that of the DOJ.

   Maybe Uphues is wondering how you can deny you are looking for a tax increase, say you are not cutting the budget, yet do not have the money to hire another officer. Why did they transfer those funds between accounts instead of hiring another detective? I don't know; it's a mess to me.

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 20:55 #

5. spatny
   Member

   That's perfectly illustrative of this whole system. They sit and cry we need another detective. Well if that is the case, if you absolutely need him, you have the power, hire one. You had the same million and could have done it a year ago - two years ago. Why didn't they do it? They transferred a million from the General Operating fund to the Cap Improvement Fund where it is just sitting. If they think we are inundated with crime, then they should have gone out and hired someone. They have had this money at their disposal from day one. This is complete hypocrisy. They just didn't want to face the electorate with a bigger budget and they wanted an issue to misrepresent.

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 21:48 #

6. idic5
   Member

   So it was the RCA that the Landmark was referencing ? I do see not a statement that the RCA would cut police in Gorman's 3/4 remarks.

   I see that the RCA has made a response to the Landmark's editorial on their website.

   http://www.rca2009.com/police-understaffed-for-years-yet-smith-and-the-caucus-backed-board-did-nothing/

   Police understaffed for years, yet Smith and the Caucus-backed board did nothing
   Yesterday’s Landmark editorial about police staffing and the budget shortfall that Riverside faces begs the question: why has the Riverside police department, according to Chief Weitzel, “not been at full staff since 2003“?

   Kevin Smith, the Riverside Party/Caucus candidate for Village President, has been a trustee for 8 years. Mr. Smith has been a position to do something about our police staffing since 2001, yet Riverside has had the same number of police officers the entire time he has been on the board.
   ...

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 22:24 #

7. JohnM
   Member

   Actually Don, your statement is perfectly illustrative of the fundamental flaw in the RCA's willingness to spend reserves.

   Reserves, whether they are maintained in the general fund or in the capital improvement fund, are there for a specific purpose--to meet unanticipated, one time expenses. By utilizing reserves to meet payroll obligations, you spend them down. When you spend them down, you run out of money. But even before that, once they reach a certain level, you run the risk of lowering the Village bond rating.

   Let's say we hired a new police officer in January 2005 and decided to pay for him with money from the reserve fund. I don't know how much one cop costs the village per year, but for the sake of argument, let's say 75K--salary and benefits. Assuming that these numbers remain constant, that's a total of 300K in 4 years. If the fund isn't replenished, it won't take long to spend it down. That's why municipal personnel budgets are generally tied to specific revenue sources--property taxes pay for a certain amount of personnel, sales tax for another group.

   I do think that the police manpower shortage is significant, and I wish it had been addressed more comprehensively during the campaign, by both parties. However, spending reserve funds on personnel costs is not smart management.

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 22:28 #

8. spatny
   Member

   "Kevin Smith, the Riverside Party/Caucus candidate for Village President, has been a trustee for 8 years. Mr. Smith has been a position to do something about our police staffing since 2001, yet Riverside has had the same number of police officers the entire time he has been on the board."

   If it is proven that you need more manpower, and you have only one source of funds, then anyone would have to use that, wouldn't they? This is not alchemy. Our problem is they may have needed to do this and they spent too much on stuff that was wasteful. Now they want to blame someone else for it.

   They had an undesignated reserve of over $2 mil. They spent on nonsense. We are buying software for the police that costs more than that. You can't have it both ways. If police are primary, then why did they hire consultants for crap-ola projects that went nowhere and neglect the cops? These people have been in charge. They had the power of the purse. In the coming years, anyone in office will have to spend some of this - electing Smith and his slate or Alex will not bring new businesses to Riverside next week. People are not flocking to invest ANYWHERE. No matter who comes to the Board they will face tough times and have to spend some of the reserve. Maybe the audit will save us some. But any group will have to use the tools they are given.

   It is a question of direction and priorities. Which way you want to go and what you do first. RCA wants to audit to see what we spend and what we get for it, what potential savings we might glean from this mess. Then - maybe simultaneously - we try and develop new revenue streams. These people have not done that - so let some others try.

   Posted Thursday Apr 2, 2009 22:39 #

9. Catherine
   Member

   We are talking about the 1M dollars that was transferred between accounts in order to -as even the Landmark observed - create a sense of paucity in order to achieve the tax increase. Please inform yourself or refrain from falsehoods.

   Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 08:23 #

10. JohnM
    Member

    We are talking about the 1M dollars that was transferred between accounts in order to -as even the Landmark observed - create a sense of paucity in order to achieve the tax increase. Please inform yourself or refrain from falsehoods.

    I presume that this was directed at me. I understand that 1M was transferred from the general fund to the capital improvement fund. I believe that this was a prudent fiscal move that ensured that the village has adequate reserves to meet unexpected expenses. I don't believe that reserve funds should be spent on personnel costs. Your opinion differs, and I can appreciate that. I would also appreciate it, however, if you would refrain from accusing me of spreading falsehoods.

    Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 08:42 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.