Police to contract with the City?

Will the City of Woodstock and the police officers finally end up with a contract? Only time will tell. At what cost will contract negotiations continue? Is it true that the City is paying $250.00/hour for a mediator and, if an arbitrator is needed, the cost will be $650.00/hour? Are costs borne evenly by the City and by the union representing the police officers?

Earlier this week I received a message that a sticking point in negotiations was the issue of drug testing. What? There is no drug testing at the Woodstock Police Department? And then I heard that the drug-testing issue was agreed to. Okay, so what's the agreement? I didn't find out whether this meant at the time of hiring or during the course of employment. Will someone enlighten me (and the other residents interested in this issue)?

If at the time of hiring, I cannot imagine why drug screening would not be an routine requirement at the time of employment. Is there any major business in the United States that does not drug-test applicants for jobs or that makes a negative drug test a condition for employment? Now, if I were applying for a cop job (and I'm obviously not), I would refuse a drug test until I was offered employment. Once they know they want me and offer me a job, then I'll fill that little bottle on the spot. (Well, you know; in that little room where the faucet handles have been removed and the toilet won't flush.)

If the sticking point was drug testing after employment, then I'd want to be sure that I was being treated fairly. I would agree to random testing, as long as it really was random. And as long as everyone got tested, from the chief on down to the custodial staff. And random, as long as everyone got tested sometime in a reasonable time-period, such as two years. (But maybe that's not really "random.")

And I'd agree to periodic testing, as long as everyone got tested in the period. And I do mean, everyone. And the results ought to be posted. They could be posted by confidential code, known only to the independent drug administrator and the person tested.

Also, earlier in the week, I heard the salary mentioned of a patrol officer in the Woodstock Police Department with seven (7) years' experience. $75,000/year. Gasp! Assuming 30% for benefits (health insurance, retirement, etc.), that's almost $100,000 annual cost to the City. What's the total annual cost to the City for its 38-member police department (and I don't know what the count is today); well, you figure it out. And we have a bunch of officers with more than seven years, and we have a bunch with titles above Patrol Officer.

Maybe it's just "sticker shock", when I think back to cop pay ranges in the 1960s-1970s. Maybe it's thinking that, "Why shouldn't an officer earn a decent rate of pay?" And then it's wondering, "How can the taxpayers afford this?"

The packet going to the City Council this week indicates that the Deputy Chief position vacated by Deputy Chief Neuzil's retirement in 2008 will not be filled.

The City's HR Department and the Police Department should be taking a close look at pay ranges and forecasting the next 25-30 years. Many of the younger officers could stick around and spend their entire law enforcement careers at the Woodstock Police Department. What expense will the City incur, should this happen?

If City revenues are expected to drop, then ALL City employees may share in the absence of pay increases and maybe even in pay cuts. Either ALL will share in compensation adjustments in tough economic times, or some can wave Good Bye to those who lose their jobs entirely. Which way will it be?