This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Westwood Police Promotion

Dear Editor,

Westwood's police promotion process is evolving, from a basic matter of policy to an employer's rights to set leadership standards. Seniority or education, which is more important in a promotion process? Who decides policy?

There's a quotation by Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." It seems an insightful caution as one reads a recent PBA statement on this endless saga. (That statement is offered separately to allow their viewpoint its own standing.)

Mayor Birkner and Councilman Robert Miller support the PBA perspective for seniority, believing as members of a "police committee," their opinion somehow carries a Good Housekeeping seal for approval. But is that support in the best interests of the taxpayers and the community? The Council majority sees it differently.

The facts as presented by Councilman Miller in the media have been baseless. Yet the rhetoric is pressed forward. Why? Mayor Birkner is the president of Utility Workers Local 534. In a political fund raising request to his union he noted he was, "working hard to ensure the working conditions of our Borough employees are not compromised due to draconian cuts." No spending cuts in Westwood. Is it possible he may be bias in his union views when balancing Westwood's priorities?

Councilman Miller is purportedly a human resource professional. One function of such an individual is to assist employers in developing staff competencies to enhance organizations with innovation and efficiency. In this case, he's defining a singular experience cultivated with seniority as deserving more value then critical thinking augmented with education. This may serve the camaraderie of an organization; or it may nurture a corrosive management practice of unequal treatment and favoritism. Either way it's unlikely to improve innovation and efficiency.

All police departments are not created equal. Their operations are nuanced by differing priorities varying from legalistic to watchman, proactive to reactive, service oriented to observer. The goals of the department are guided by the governing body and ultimately the taxpayer, to assure the executive culture coincides with the community it serves. The leadership positions represent those goals, and are responsible for day to day operations.

Right now the department is operating with stand-ins at positions of leadership, as advised by the Chief, and they're not being compensated for the responsibility. In a litigious environment those positions are potential lawsuits. Seems reasonable then that the Council would affirm its policy and direct the Chief to move forward.

The fact that a Council majority prefers to value education over seniority is not a negative toward any individual, but rather the recognition of a policy that respects the community. No fault was cited in the department's accreditation process to suggest the current policy is deficient or needed to be modified. It makes you wonder why then, after a decade where no one objected, we would now open Pandora's Box? How does it create value for the taxpayers?

Thank you,
Thomas Wanner

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?