Early this week when I synopsized the public meeting regarding Johnson City, New Yori dissolution, I said I would do a second entry that dealt with the public comment period.  I am not sure about the 40 plus who signed in to comment but I was expecting a give and take between the commentors and the committee/panel, particularly since there was a two minute time limit on each person’s comment.

The comments ranged from those in favor of dissolution to those against it.  Some of the repeated comments were regarding the time frame of the decision.  The committee had over 18 months to formulate its report.  As one speaker put it, the community is getting this for a little over three months, and a month of that is prime vacation time.

Another major concern, discussed in many public comments, was police protection.  Many people did not feel that the 18 dedicated officers and three detectives for investigative purposes is just not enough.  Currently, the village has 39 full-time uniformed officers and four full-time civilian employees in the police services.

One commenter stated the  plan/report had a clause similar to “unless a major incident” happened.  While reading the report, I do not recall seeing this.  I do not anticipate that this is any different that currently.  When a “major incident” happens elsewhere in the area, many different police departments respond, not just the one in that municipality.

Another commenter questioned whether the number of dedicated officers was sufficient.  He wanted to know the difference between sheriff road patrol and enhanced service.  He also wanted to know what guarantee there is that the state legistlature will create a special policing district.  This does have to be done to allow all of the plan’s recommendations to take effect.

After many comments against the police protection portion of the plan, Bill Klish, chairman of the committee, defended Sheriff Harder’s part in the study.  The Binghamton Police Department also looked over statistics from Johnson City and concluded that the job could be done with one less person that the sheriff did.

There was some concern over whether the report from the committee is binding or not.  Ms Westfall (unsure if that is the proper spelling), the attorney working with the committee, assured those in attendance that State Village Law 19, 19-14 says the Town of Union shall follow the report.  Ms Westfall says that shall means must and is binding.  This goes in direct conflict to the some area of the report – which I cannot find at this moment – that says the report is simply a recommendation to the Town of Union.

Many people also questioned the guarantee of a tax reduction.  The reasonings ranged from the fact that the Town of Union may or may not have to follow the report.  The other issue is that the report focuses on the short term, the difference between now and a one year period forward.  There is no way to focus further in the future.

Two speakers were there basically supported other agendas.  The first was a big proponent of single payer health care and the changes that either Fishkill or Peekskill had had once it had a single payer health insurance system in place.  This gentleman urged waiting at least a year or two while the Obama administration put health care reform into place.  The other was from Citizens for a Better Broome and encouraged people to help support a better Broome County as a whole.

As I said at the beginning of this, there were many comments.  There was little, if any, give and take between the committee and the commenters/public.  I had expected more of a question and answer session than I got.