City vehicles: Who should get wheels and why?

Three cheers for the Plainfield City Council's scrutinizing who gets a full-time city vehicle and why.

When times were flush, it might not have seemed like such an issue. But times are not flush, so why shouldn't the Robinson-Briggs administration look at considering a little restraint instead of just piling on the poor taxpayers' backs?

First, the Big Wheel. I have no bone to pick with the Mayor having full-time use of a city vehicle. I do think, though, that the gas-guzzling SUV monster Her Honor tools around in is a bit much. Is it time to take a cue from the heads of the Big Three automakers who came to DC in their gas-sipping hybrids? Wouldn't be a bad idea.

Next, the Littler Wheels.

The question of WHO should get full-time city vehicles should, in my mind, be decided by WHY full-time vehicles should be parceled out in the first place.

They should not be seen as perks of office, but rather tools for an employee in getting their official duties done.

So, only those who are considered 'on call' twenty-four hours a day should get round-the-clock vehicles.

That means, to my mind, the Fire Chief, the Superintendent of Public Works, and -- possibly -- the OEM coordinator.

And who SHOULDN'T get a round-the-clock vehicle? Everyone else, including the City Administrator and the Police/Public Safety Director.

Just like other City employees, the City Administrator and the Police/Public Safety Director should have access to City vehicles during regular work hours for the execution of their duties, or the option of filling out reimbursement requests for miles driven on City business with their personal vehicle (which, of course, does NOT include back-and-forth from home, which wouldn't be an issue anyway for those living within the City).

Particularly egregious, to my mind, would be giving a round-the-clock vehicle to the Police/Public Safety Director.

The Robinson-Briggs administration needs to be reminded that when it pursued Assemblyman Green's agenda of abolishing the 130-year-old Police Chief's position and reorganizing the Police Division, it took on the restrictions that come with having a CIVILIAN Police Director.

Those restrictions included that the round-the-clock, day-to-day operations of the Police Division were to be entrusted to Captains that the Police Director would appoint. Those Captains, of course, have access to City vehicles while on duty.

The Police Director, as a CIVILIAN, and NOT a sworn officer, would not be allowed to carry a gun, have a police vehicle or a police radio, nor directly supervise or participate in the investigation of crimes.

Those were the restrictions Robinson-Briggs was willing to accept to eliminate the Police Chief's position. I just think the Mayor should be held to the deal she made. And that means that the Police Director's job is basically a 9-to-5 policymaker position, just like the other department heads.

Now, if the Mayor wants to propose an ordinance to reinstate the Police Chief's position, I'm all ears.

And, of course, a Police Chief, being on call 24/7, would be entitled to a City vehicle.

---

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.