01-06-95 Health & Public Safety - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PJCommittee Report Health ry and Public Safety Committee anua 6, 1995 age 3 Sentiment with regard to giving a officer his or her service weapon was the key driving force then and that he did not in any way mean to neglect the Fire Department back in 1988. He supports the current Bill and requests that the Council Members support Council President Ladewski's version of the Bill. Council Member Puzzello stated that a service weapon and a fire helmet are unique gifts and they are perceived through the years as life saving devices. She stated that she could not go along with a $1,000.00 retirement bonus since there are sentimental values involved as well as emotional issues involved with regard to the closeness of the equipment used by the individual Fire fighters and the Police Officers. She stated that because of the respect that she has for the Police and Fire Department personnel that the service weapons and fire helmets are an appropriate and fitting tribute to these hard working men and women. She further stated that most of the Council Members would not trade positions with any person working in the Fire and Police Departments and that these gifts are appropriate for people who sacrifice so much for the City of South Bend and its residents. Council Member Luecke noted that the helmets are probably obsolete upon retirement. He observed that he thought during the appropriation for the new guns that the Council was advised that they would not be given. He noted that he voted for the Bill in 1988 and that the strongest argument was the attachment to the weapon as being symbolic. In light of officers having other weapons he did not believe that the argument of disarming an officer upon retirement was valid. He also voiced concern whether there was a history of Police Officers being pursued after retirement by individuals once they have left institutions of incarceration. Chief Marciniak noted that in today's society you never know what is going to happen. He questioned whether disabling the weapon would be a possible compromise. Chief Marciniak noted that in no way did he intend to mislead the Common Council with regard to the appropriation process and that the trade in value of the guns was always a part of the contract.He further noted that before 1988 an armorer retro-fitted each revolver so that it could be reissued to new officers. He further noted that the reason for the City of South Bend changing to semi-automatics as the primary City issue was a safety reason. Council President Ladewski noted that he attends many of the Police retiree lunches and almost all of those members carry a weapon with them. He stated that from discussions that he does not believe that money would be appropriate as a retirement gift, and that of the individuals who have spoken to him that the gun would be preferred in light of the safety reasons involved. He stated that if the State of Indiana is in the gun give away program and have not had problems, that the City of South Bend should maintain its policy which has been in effect for over 6 years in this area. He stated that the issue is one of responsibility and that the officers of the Police Department are responsible individuals. He further noted that he did not want money to cause someone to retire. Corporal Leszcz noted that the City of Elkhart policy is to allow their officers to receive their service weapons upon retirement upon retirement also. Council Member Slavinskas stated that he agrees with many of the remarks of Corporal Leszcz and Chief Marcinick. He stated however that he is bothered by the disparity between the proposed gifts to the retiring Police Officers and Fire fighters and,that he was looking at a win-win position.He would like to give more if at all possible.