Troopers: Rell's plan for car markers a waste of money

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Troopers: Rell's plan for car markers a waste of money

By Noelle Frampton

Danbury News-Times

April 4, 2009

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has earmarked $600,000 in federal stimulus money to put "high visibility" markings on State Police cars in the name of trooper safety, but troopers are calling that proposal a waste.

The presidents of both the union that represents 1,160 troopers, sergeants and master sergeants, and the union that represents lieutenants and captains said they spoke for their membership when they said there are better ways to spend the money.

I'm kind of torn on this story. There's some aspects to both side's arguments. The unions have a point, there are a lot of other projects the CSP needs other than this, but it is a safety issue. What's everyone else think?

[x134 46]

If it keeps them safe,and make the vehicle more visible and saves just one Trooper it is worth it. Now another question would be are Police / Troopers required to wear a high visibility vest on a traffic stop?

Edited April 5, 2009 by x134

[SageVigiles 1,194]

As the Trooper Lieutenant in the article stated, if they don't see the lights (and some CT Troopers pay on their own to put A TON of extra lights in their cars) why would they see the chevs?

Why not put the money towards overtime to put more troopers on the road doing traffic enforcement? Or narcotics? Or gang investigations? Or homicide? There definitely might be some better places to put the money.

To your other question, they are required under the new OSHA rules to wear them, but some do and some don't based on what I've seen lately.

Part of me thinks it could be some Troopers not wanting to lose their unmarked cars, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since I can't prove that.

[firebuff08 29]

Here is the problem....and why the troopers are upset. Would you want State Police or Safety markings on your PERSONAL car? Each and every one of the 1200 member CT State Police has a PERSONAL vehicle paid for by the taxpayers. They use it for police work, for 9 hours on each of 5 days out of every 8 days and then as their personal car the remainder of the time. They do not want to have to drive a vehicle with State Police markings or chevrons when they go to the store or go out with the wife! That is why the Whelen Light Bars and the State Police Emblem above the rear bumper can be removed in a matter of a couple of minutes.

I say hooray for the Governor. If I had my way they would be driving Black and Whites with Connecticut State Police in Bold Reflective Letters on All Four Sides of the Vehicles. I'll bet that would limit their personal use of state owned cars. Most other states that allow or require troopers to take their cars home, do have fully marked cruisers. Vermont is a nearby state that comes to mind. Many other states, like NY do not have take home cars. Troopers drive to work in their own personal cars just like local police officers do. While they are working they drive one of the Marked Cruisers assigned to that Station.

Take home cars at taxpayers expense are a perk that the CT State Police are not likely to give up easily. Just think how inconvenient it would be on their days off for troopers to have to drive to a barracks to get a car and then drive to a Highway Construction Site to earn Pension Boosting Overtime and then back to the barracks to return the car at the end of the overtime shift!

[helicopper 1,050]

Here is the problem....and why the troopers are upset. Would you want State Police or Safety markings on your PERSONAL car? Each and every one of the 1200 member CT State Police has a PERSONAL vehicle paid for by the taxpayers. They use it for police work, for 9 hours on each of 5 days out of every 8 days and then as their personal car the remainder of the time. They do not want to have to drive a vehicle with State Police markings or chevrons when they go to the store or go out with the wife! That is why the Whelen Light Bars and the State Police Emblem above the rear bumper can be removed in a matter of a couple of minutes.

I say hooray for the Governor. If I had my way they would be driving Black and Whites with Connecticut State Police in Bold Reflective Letters on All Four Sides of the Vehicles. I'll bet that would limit their personal use of state owned cars. Most other states that allow or require troopers to take their cars home, do have fully marked cruisers. Vermont is a nearby state that comes to mind. Many other states, like NY do not have take home cars. Troopers drive to work in their own personal cars just like local police officers do. While they are working they drive one of the Marked Cruisers assigned to that Station.

Take home cars at taxpayers expense are a perk that the CT State Police are not likely to give up easily. Just think how inconvenient it would be on their days off for troopers to have to drive to a barracks to get a car and then drive to a Highway Construction Site to earn Pension Boosting Overtime and then back to the barracks to return the car at the end of the overtime shift!

Clearly you have no strong opinion on this subject, huh? I'd offer this as a counter-argument... In many parts of the state, troopers also serve as "resident troopers" and get called from their homes to respond in their area and/or back-up other units. They turn out from their homes, in or near their prescribed patrol area, reducing "commuiting" mileage on both their personal vehicle and the State vehicle (there's an environmental benefit there too but that's for someone else to say). Rather than spending an hour of their duty day driving from the barracks to their post and back at the end, they have negotiated the right to drive a State owned vehicle on off-duty time. There are rules governing this and they have to abide by them or face disciplinary action.

Another philosophy about take-home cars is that the officers operating them are always on duty and when properly equpiped in an official vehicle they are more apt to take action when technically not on the clock. Yet another point in favor of them is that cars last significantly longer when they're assigned to a single person and that person is resposible/accountable for its condition and upkeep. Replace 200 cars a year for six years and you've replaced the whole fleet. Having "pool cars" runs up the miles on them and burns them out much faster resulting in having to buy 400-600 cars per year instead. That's a fleet management nightmare and big bucks!

As for highway safety overtime, that too was negotiated over the years and is a state mandate at all highway work zones. It isn't to bloat pensions, it's to make us safer and I for one prefer seeing a trooper in a work zone than not. NY is only just starting to follow CT's lead and it's long overdue. Work zones are inherently dangerous and the presence of a police officer may cause one idiot driver to actually slow down a little!

Many departments around the Country use take-home vehicles for their members and have justified to their administrators and elected officials why/how they will benefit from it. You're not a believer - I get it.