The Holbrook City Council took the surprising step to vote against its own risk pool recommendation to not allow city personnel to carry firearms (other than law enforcement officers) in public view or in their city-owned vehicles while on the clock, citing employee safety as the reason. While work place violence certainly exists, and all reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure that employees are safe and understand how to deescalate a situation, I have a difficult time understanding how the city can determine that permitting a gun to be fired by an employee in response to a volatile situation while under duress, is not putting the entire citizenry at risk. Who would be determining the mental state of an employee and permit them to carry a weapon on duty? The city manager, according to Personnel Policy Section 207, a policy already in place. I imagine very few city managers are also mental health professionals or would want to be associated with such an incident if it should occur.
I’m all for citizens arming themselves for personal protection, both in their home and within their privately-owned vehicles, but the City of Holbrook is putting its entire population at risk by having a policy that would introduce a weapon into a situation where one may not otherwise be involved. These employees work on streets and in parks, where children could easily fall victim to a stray bullet. If an employee is dealing with a disgruntled former partner or a similar situation, then that should be something dealt with through the city’s own police department, and if the council doesn’t believe these officers are capable, perhaps that’s the issue they should be addressing. I commend Councilwoman Teri Tafoya for voicing her support of the risk pool recommendation. If the council thinks the city wouldn’t be held financially liable for condoning an incident, their wrong. An employee may pull the trigger, but the city would essentially be handing them the gun that allowed them to do so.
