Beloit Township plans to preserve police

By GAZETTE STAFF   Tuesday, July 26, 2011
ADVERTISEMENT
 

Photo

Robert Spoden

— Beloit Township appears unlikely to dismantle its police force after a presentation Monday failed to convince board members the town would be better served by the Rock County Sheriff’s Office.

Sheriff Bob Spoden and other members of the sheriff’s office met with the town board in closed session Monday evening. The board listened to a 30-minute presentation detailing how the sheriff’s office would assume coverage if the township eliminated its police department.

Town Board Chairman Rob Pavlik said the issue came up earlier this year when community members suggested the board look into it.

A public meeting on the issue is scheduled at 4 p.m. Monday, Aug. 8. The meeting will give citizens an opportunity to offer their thoughts, but Pavlik said it also would give the board a chance to explain its position.

“If there’s nothing that really stands out, we’re going to put this in the file and save it for later,” he said.

Pavlik praised the sheriff’s office presentation but didn’t believe anyone on the board was convinced it would better serve the community.

Spoden estimated consolidation would save the township $340,000 annually in personnel alone. It also would require the sheriff’s office to hire additional officers.

“I know local communities always have a strong allegiance to their police department, but the fact is the sheriff’s office could provide these services at a dramatically reduced (rate) from what they’re paying now,” Spoden said.

“At the end of the day, we’re going to be there either way to ensure that the town of Beloit has police services.”

Pavlik said citizens recommended the plan around the same time discrimination allegations were made against former Police Chief John Wilson.

The police department has improved since then, he said, and the board has faith it will continue to do so. Current Police Chief Steve Kopp was present at Monday’s meeting.

Pavlik said the board wanted to hear the report from the sheriff behind closed doors because the discussion included private matters within the township.

“We were talking about law enforcement techniques, personnel and we were talking about all kinds of wonderful contract negotiation things,” he said. “There were a lot of things there that would have required closed session.”

The exemption to the open meetings law cited on the town board’s agenda was “considering strategy for crime detection or prevention.”

Attorneys consulted by the Gazette said the sheriff’s report to the town board did not fit under that exemption.

Town attorney William Henderson disagreed.

“They requested if they could meet under closed session, and that was the only exemption I could fit it under,” Henderson told the Gazette. “It happens quite often that they would like to meet in closed session, and they ask me if they can do it.”

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(3)
The_One
Jul 27, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal

So am I to assume that the Sheriff's Department, is capable of taking over an area the magnitude of Beloit Township. When Plymouth Township, a small township, with Footville and Hanover as its main hubs, is now trying to enlist the Orfordville Police Department to assist in patroling their township to supplement the Sheriff's Department.

Come on... Some common sense please! I understand the Town of Beloit has had its share of problems with the police department, which by hiring the former Chief, and keeping him around as long as they did, was their own undoing. But let the new Chief have a chance to right the ship.

truecitizen
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:46 a.m.
Suggest removal

Save lots of money huh? Just like the idea of saving money by putting fine-owers out to work, actually costs about the same as what they claimed it would have saved the taxpayers. The township has made the right choice I think. Stop making up numbers to get a position in the community.

copperguy
Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal

"That was the only exemption I could fit it under." That's a very telling statement, and it is quite unfortunate that things appear to not have changed in the TOB. This was probably an "uncomfortable" discussion to have. Yet, the open meetings law exists for issues that are difficult, not for issues that are easy.

I really was hoping that the new regime was going to be more responsive in governance. Instead of looking for ways to keep the people's business secret, elected officials should opt for openness. The only closed sessions should be the "no brainers," and not the ones where the corporation counsel has to reach (as he obviously did in this case).

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT