Pale performance at Planning Board

Plainfield's Planning Board took up again last night the matter of the proposed gunshot-detection system that has been floated by the Robinson-Briggs administration.

Public Safety Director Martin Hellwig, Capt. Steve Soltys and City Administrator Bibi Taylor were at the Planning Board last night to answer questions preparatory to the Board's adding the Shot Spotter gun-detection proposal to the five-year capital improvements plan.

I was surprised by board member Ron Scott Bey's question of Director Hellwig to explain how the cop on the beat actually learns of the gunshot. I had assumed the board would have had a complete overview in its first go-round as the Robinson-Briggs administration made its pitch.

Silly me.

The board members had a list (a full page, single-spaced) of carefully thought out and phrased questions for members of the Robinson-Briggs administration.

City Administrator Bibi Taylor came well prepared (along with a tote full of backup materials), and skillfully addressed the questions of vendor selection and financing.

Taylor explained that the state had a distaste for 'sole source' vendors, but that there was an exception made in the case of 'proprietary technology', which she explained would fit the present case with ShotSpotter.

She also explained that the search for funding for the cost of $1M was continuing (the Council had previously approved submission of a request for UEZ funding -- for which there is no guarantee).

Mr. Hellwig, on the other hand, did not seem as well prepared to deliver crisp detailed answers to the questions board members had about the new technology as to how response times would be affected, what the pressures to increase personnel would be, and comparative data from other communities (especially New Jersey) where the technology is already deployed.

In particular, I was struck by the lack of handouts for the board.

If this was the second go-round, and there was a list of questions the Board wanted answers to, why wasn't Hellwig prepared with handouts for the board and a presentation that marched succinctly down their list, answering each point at issue?

(After years of watching folks present to both Council and various boards, I am still amazed at the presumption that complicated issues -- often involving matters that cry out for charts or maps or photos -- can be addressed with WORDS ONLY. And I am NOT arguing for one of those god-awful PowerPoint abuses so much in favor; just an old-fashioned handout. For instance, the question about how the cops get the lead on the gunshots could have been addressed with one of several illustrations of the technology that surface with a Google query. Presto!)

Beyond the question of the effectiveness of Hellwig's presentation, it seems that no one is doing any real due diligence about the proposed technology.

There are questions raised about ShotSpotter's effectiveness in communities ranging from Chicago (see local TV story here) to San Francisco (see SF Appeal story here) to Charleston SC, which recently abandoned its ShotSpotter system (see Examiner story here).

Doesn't ShotSpotter offer a try-before-you-buy option which would allow everyone to see how the technology works IN A REAL PLAINFIELD SITUATION (not just a demo at the Rock Avenue ballfields) before rolling out the really big bucks?

Bernice was also at the Planning Board; for her reportage see here (2 items).

---

• CBS2 (Chicago): "Police say gunshot-location system not effective when tested here"
• San Francisco Appeal:  "ShotSpotter skepticism remains: Magic bullet or waste of dough?"
• Charleston Examiner:  "Charleston police abandon ShotSpotter system"
  
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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