Letter: Police Promotions Should Require Degree

Dear Editor,

Police promotions? Westwood, with its financial pressures is debt spending, delaying infrastructure maintenance and relying heavily on a declining surplus. Yet the Council focuses on a recently reoccurring discussion over promotion qualifications.

Council member Robert Miller seems to believe the discussion is important. He argues to demote education as a management 'qualification.' He cites state statue N.J.S.A. 40A:141-29, which states, "due consideration ... and preference shall be given to seniority in service." From there he draws a conclusion that "the law is the law;" believing the word 'preference' implies seniority should be a primary qualification for a leadership endorsement.

Eligibility 'qualifications' are simply appropriate standards, requirements and/or training for a position or task. The college degree as a qualification was apparently found acceptable in the department’s recent accreditation process. It was a requirement introduced over 12 years ago, with a delay in implementation to allow any officer not yet degreed, to obtain one through the department’s then taxpayer subsidized college program.

A college degree isn’t an end all qualification but it is a route meant to educate broadly, so that one learns how to think analytically in meeting various challenges. It cuts the chase to knowledge learned through years of diverse experiences.

Barring broad experiences or a college degree, how does one assess or introduce new efficiencies? How would one measure performance or assess budget priorities? Wouldn’t those management skills be limited by a single work experience; more likely resulting in a repeat of those experiences, good or bad?

Setting seniority as a preferential consideration after meeting basic qualifications is smart business. Suggesting that it be given a primary preferential treatment is to ignore the broader requirements of management. The State doesn’t deny municipalities the right to set basic qualifications.

Councilman Miller is not supposed to be an advocate against the best interests of the taxpayer. He participated in the negotiations for the current police contract, issuing annual 3.5% raises. An officer after 6 years of service with no promotion, today earns $123,367, and next year it’ll be $127,685. That agreement added over $190,000 to our budget this year. Over 1% of our property tax increase. The taxpayers pay those 6 figure incomes and now he argues to reduce the standards on promotions.

The issue of promotions were discussed, decided and upgraded with police participation over a decade ago. Revisiting it periodically to turn the clock back seems an inefficient way to represent taxpayers. This is especially true when you consider there are more important issues seeking solutions from flooding to rising property taxes.

Thank you,

Thomas Wanner, Westwood