Machesney Park is getting a good deal with sheriff’s policing contract
July 29th, 2008 at 11:58am Chuck Sweeny
 Machesney Park Trustees Mike Luke and Stan Wentland are questioning the sheriff’s department’s $2.6 million contract for policing the village.
Does anyone really think that it would make more sense to start a police department, at a cost estimated by Trustee Mark Sorrentino at from $4 million to $6 million, with mushrooming union contracts forever after??????
Does anyone think another bidder would have the capabilities to police MP? Roscoe, perhaps? Get real.
I urge Luke and Wentland to do cost comparisons. Consult Loves Park, which insists on doing everything (except bus service) all by itself. I’ll have more to say on this in my Thursday column, and intend to look at the cost of running a full-service police department in comparably-sized cities Belvidere and Loves Park.
There’s no way MP could provide the same level of police protection as the sheriff for anywhere near the price.
Why do we rail against “big government” at the national level, only to create exactly that at the local level? MP’s founders in 1981 had the wisdom to establish a village cheaply and efficiently by hiring out municipal services. It’s worked well over the years.
Other villages and cities should be consolidating services instead of building municipal empires just so they can have their own, shiny squad cars. What’s the cost of squad cars with vintage airplane symbols on the side? Too danged much.
Entry Filed under: Machesney Park
8 Comments Add your own
1. TigerShark | July 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Mr. Sweeny:
Please go back an look at the facts one more time. NOBODY is questioning the level of service or denying that there is a cost. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING THEM FOR NOT DOING. They want to find out what things cost, do some comparisons, and them make an intellegent, informed decision.
If continuing with the current service is the most cost effective option, then MP will continue with the same service.
How can anyone be against finding out what things cost?
TigerShark
2. Chris | July 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Chuck,
I agree with most of the comments that I’ve heard on this subject that the Village of Machesney Park is getting adequate (and probably excellent) service from the Sherrif’s department. In fact, it’s a good argument that the county as a whole recieves benefit from the additional training and staff that the contract provides to the WCSD. In my personal experience, the WCSD does a great job in policing the village and I have not one negative to provide.
However, it is the responsibility of good government to constantly and consistently evaluate the service level of their programs and agencies. It is the responsibility of those programs and agencies to prove their worth, and it is the responsibility of the citizens to demand it. Governmental accountability is a good thing. I’m sure that you’d agree. It’s not crazy for an elected official to demand that a popular program prove its worth, in fact it should be demanded that every level of government prove its worth every day.
I support and applaud the Trustee’s efforts. Good Government is Accountable Government.
3. Swede | July 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I’ll tell you this………
As a Rockford resident, I think that MP has it far better with the SHerriff’s Department. They’re a competent, no-nonsense bunch who follow through. Even on the small stuff.
Chief Epperson is fighting to make that change in Rockford, but it isn’t happening. I’ve actually been looking at moving back to MP.
The policing in Rockford (by the Rockford Police) is terrible, and has been in decline for the last few years. Especially as this 276 to 6 rebellion continues. They have lost their focus on policing. They could stand to spend some time working with the Sherriff’s dept.
The Sherriff’s is a class operation, and worth the contract. I think that MP is better to host that contract than create their own police department. Union dissention, etc. is short to follow.
4. POLFOE | July 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
For all who care, stop complaining and learn something. A per citizen cost analysis is done every year. It’s real easy to see the value we receive as a village. Get off your duffs and go to village hall and talk to the finance director and have him show you the analysis.
If that doesn’t work, FOIA it.
It’s is plain to see that the complainers and a couple trustees (Wentland and Luke) don’t have a clue about the situation.
Oh, and by the way, No other agency or municipality in the area is interested in taking on the village.
So stop whining and count your lucky stars!
As a concerned citizen, I sought and found the answers. It’s too bad some of our elected officials can’t do the same.
Their rhetoric is a disservice to the village.
5. Q Jordon | August 1st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Machesney Park is only a couple of trustees away from being a fascist regime that goosesteps with whatever the Village President wants.
I was a resident of Machesney Park for the majority of my life, however, I moved into the Roscoe Area in 1998 and have never looked back.
To question and petition your government, whether federal,state, or local is one of the most important parts of our constitution, but on here I find it upsetting a few citizens.
How dare you question. Get in lockstep, you rebel rousers.
6. Chuck Sweeny | August 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Please define fascism and no cheating by Googling it.
It’s my sense that Vaughn’s critics usually lack facts to back up their charges. Voters will decide next year whether they think she’s doing a good job. That’s our democratic system at work.
How dare I question, you ask.
For 20 years they have paid me to question. I shall continue to question, for I still owe Alpine Bank money on my house.
7. Chuck Sweeny | August 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
Dear Tiger Shark,
Please see my Thursday column for cost analysis done by the village’s Bob Mullins. He has compared the cost of policing per capita among Belvidere, Freeport, Loves Park and Kenny Chesney Park.
‘Chesney wins hands down, at $109 per capita.
Of course, if Trustees Wentland and Luke would like to levy a property tax to pay for an expensive police department, let them propose it.
8. Q Jordon | August 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Mr. Sweeny, I do not question your opinion. I question why the trustees cannot question or at least evaluate the cost or service the residents of Machesney Park are going to receive from the agreement with the Sheriff Department’s contract.
And as far as fascism, I believe you have certain trustees that will agree with whatever President Vaughn request without debate or dissent. And of course, you have a few that will do the opposite, whether it is necessary or not. In essence, if you lose a few that question or challenge the Village President, you will have a pseudo-dictatorship.
The only thing that keeps it from being one - people still vote in Machesney Park.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed