My Side of the Fence

The danger isn't going too far. It's that we don't go far enough.

Page 170 of 403

Police funding update from VML

House gives short shrift to local law enforcement

VML distributed an Action Call late Tuesday asking members to contact their delegates and senators to urge passage of a Senate budget amendment that would restore $18.7 million for the HB 599 local law enforcement assistance program in FY12.

Despite a growing state budget surplus, House budget writers showed no interest in restoring any of the significant cuts made to state assistance for local law enforcement last year.  The Senate on the other hand has proposed to restore $18.7 million in FY12 for the HB 599 program.  Unless the Senate budget amendment prevails, communities with police departments will see state assistance plummet beginning July 1. 

Background

State assistance to local law enforcement has been a partnership between the state and local governments for more than three decades as a part of the agreement that ended the general authority for cities to annex.  It attempted to do for cities and towns what the state provided counties for law enforcement assistance. 

Under the program’s 1979 enabling legislation, the growth (or decline) of HB 599 funding is tied to the growth and decline of state general fund revenues.  As such, the General Assembly has reduced HB 599 funding since 2008, when the state’s general funds began to decline.

State general funds are projected to grow by more than 4.99 percent next fiscal year.  Despite that, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s proposed budget amendments did not include any increase in HB 599 funding for FY12.   The House followed suit, ignoring a budget amendment and pleas from communities and police chiefs to honor the state’s more than 30-year commitment to assist with local law enforcement funding.

Act now

Contact your delegate and senator as soon as possible to urge their support of the Senate budget item to hold state assistance to local law enforcement at the FY11 level.  Request that your delegate and senator forward your message onto the House or Senate budget conferees.

The JM got it wrong.

I’m going to be charitable and say that there appears to have been a miscommunication somewhere. 

The foot patrols in the South Grant area started last weekend

Sgt. Neumann’s wise-guy quote in the paper notwithstanding, I have spoken directly to the Chief and he assures me that the Police department is indeed complying with the intent of the resolution that was passed by the Council:  the foot patrols are ALREADY underway in the South Grant area.  Our men and women in uniform are performing this duty on an overtime basis to get it done right now and I’m thankful.  Will we have to hire some more officers to maintain this effort?  Yes but that is NOT standing in our way of getting it done right now.

What I’m not so thankful for is the inaccurate/absent coverage by the JM.  They might argue that “this is what your guy told us” but if they were paying attention (i.e. attending the meeting and talking to Council members) they would have known better.  I’m wound up about this.  It’s a big deal, we ain’t talking about painting bathrooms at the train station.  We’re talking about a singular event in the history of our city and the leadership’s response.

« Older posts Newer posts »