/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
At the Jan. 8 Holbrook City Council meeting, the council discussed making a change to the charter regarding the Holbrook Police Department. Councilman Tim Dixon presented the discussion in response to last year’s discussion to potentially dissolve the department.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“The police department should never be used as any sort of political ploy or any kind of political maneuvering. I think we should never even consider dissolving our police department. The only thing that can truly protect the police department from being abolished and turned over to another entity that is not accountable to the citizens of Holbrook is a change to the charter.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
The current section of the charter Creation of Departments reads, “the council shall provide for the organization, conduct and operation of the several offices and departments of the city as established by the charter, for the creation of additional departments, divisions, offices and agencies, and for their consolidation, alteration or abolition.” The change proposed by Dixon would add to that stating, “with the exception of the Holbrook Police Department, which can only be dissolved by a public referendum.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Dixon acknowledged that such a change could not be made by the council, but by public vote. What he sought was to have the item approved as an ordinance that would be presented on the May ballot.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Mayor Phil Cobb agreed with Dixon, stating that the consideration of the dissolution of the department last year was one of the reasons that motivated him to run for office as mayor at the recall election. “This way our police department stays where it’s supposed to be and can’t be challenged by an unusual circumstance,” he said.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Vice Mayor Richard Peterson cited two reasons that he disagreed with the proposal. He noted that twice the consideration to dissolve the department has occurred over the years he has been on the council but each time the consideration was met with such public outcry that the matter was dropped. “I don’t think there is any possibility of this happening again any time soon, so it’s not like we’re up against a timeline. The citizens of Holbrook already have a referendum right if we were to pass an ordinance to do that. The citizens of Holbrook have the right, by petition, to request it be put as a referendum to the citizens to vote on. So it’s already in place.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
The other concern Peterson had is that a citizens charter review committee was being organized and he was concerned about altering the charter “piecemeal” when a committee was to be formed in the near future to review the entire document.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Cobb used that moment to remind the public that he is actively seeking citizens to participate on the charter review committee as no elected officials or city employees are allowed to serve on it.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Dixon stated that the issue that he had with the current charter was that the options for a citizens referendum would only be possible after the council had already decided to abolish the department. “It would be extremely difficult to reverse that once the city manager made that decision. This change to the charter would frontload that, if you will, and protect the police department from even being considered for being abolished. Councils can be fickle.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Peterson noted that the city manager has no power to abolish the department; that it would have to come from the council. Dixon went on to explain that in the current situation the people would have to file a referendum to defend the police department, with the change it would be defended now.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Cobb added that he saw it as a way to avoid the confusion created when the consideration was brought up last year. “This way it becomes the responsibility of the people to disengage something as important as the police department.”
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
“You have no idea what that meeting did to our officers here. I think some of them left after that and the ones that remained I think it damaged them,” said Dixon.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Councilman Adam Marsh called the issue “proactively redundant” adding, “but if that’s what it takes for this community to get over this and heal, I’m behind it. If this is what it takes for our officers to feel they have some security here and that we support them, I’m behind it.” Councilman Mike Nilsson said that he agreed that it might seem to be redundant but that he also was in support of it.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Councilwoman Francie Payne, who was available telephonically, stated that she agreed with Councilman Peterson and also had concerns that a May election would be costly for just the one item. Interim City Manager Cher Reyes interjected that there would be a May election regardless since the proposed property tax would be on that ballot. After learning that, Councilwoman Payne also lent her support to the proposed change.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
Peterson was swayed as well and made the motion for the ordinance to be prepared for the council so that the decision could go before the voters in May. The motion was seconded by Dixon. When the vote was taken, all council members were in favor.
/wp:paragraph
wp:paragraph
The council also heard a presentation from Arizona Game and Fish regarding the programs they offer, as well as a presentation from Northland Pioneer College on the offerings to the community and the desire to work more closely with the city.
/wp:paragraph
