Welcome to our new web site!
To give our readers a chance to experience all that our new website has to offer, we have made all content freely avaiable, through October 1, 2018.
During this time, print and digital subscribers will not need to log in to view our stories or e-editions.
To the Editor :
Conversations I’ve had with citizens these past few months, and remarks I’ve heard, have convinced me that many voters are ready to make a change in how …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had a login with the previous version of our e-edition, then you already have a login here. You just need to reset your password by clicking here.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
Conversations I’ve had with citizens these past few months, and remarks I’ve heard, have convinced me that many voters are ready to make a change in how the city fills the position of City Marshal, or Chief of Police. The decision to make a change like this is not an easy one, so it is reasonable that questions or concerns continue to linger. The most frequent I hear are:
I don’t want to give up my right to vote for a candidate of my choice. Changing the law does not give up your right to have a voice on who is hired as Chief. Instead, it gives you more influence in the hiring process because the responsibility will now fall on the mayor and alderpersons you have elected to be on the city council. The Chief of Police hiring process will be open and transparent. You are free to express your concerns either personally with your alderperson or at council meetings held twice a month at city hall.
It’s been like this for years and has worked. Why change? State statutes are rigid when it comes to the election of a city marshal. The number of eligible candidates for City Marshal of Fayette is very small. Qualified candidates for the office of City Marshal are not inclined to relocate to Fayette merely for the chance to run in an election. Local officers are enticed to join other cities for better pay, better benefits, or other personal reasons which work to keep the number of eligible candidates small. The appointment of a Chief of Police puts the burden of good law enforcement on all elected city officials, not just an elected City Marshal. The mayor and council are only interested in funding and providing the best possible law enforcement services to the citizens of Fayette.
Would the city consider turning over law enforcement duties to the Howard County Sheriff’s department? If the ballot measure passes November 4th all options for providing comprehensive law enforcement services to the city are on the table. Turning over policing duties to the sheriff’s department is one option the city would have. Before those steps are taken any such arrangement will be the result of extensive negotiations resulting in a detailed contractual agreement.
Why make this change now? Let’s face it, the city is changing. What worked for Fayette for a long time may no longer be relevant in this day and age, or work in the best interests of the city long term. Voting Yes November 4th will afford the mayor and the council the greatest opportunity to manage a successful transition in policing here in Fayette.
Sincerely,
Grafton H. Cook
Alderman, Southwest Ward
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here