So the people of Gloucester should indeed be allowed to decide if they are happy with a system that prevents their leaders from ever hiring a chief who actually has some experience in that role, and prevents them from being confident that they have sought out and found the best possible people for those jobs.
The people of Gloucester pay the salaries of the police and fire chiefs.
So the people of Gloucester should indeed be allowed to decide if they are happy with a system that prevents their leaders from ever hiring a chief who actually has some experience in that role, and prevents them from being confident that they have sought out and found the best possible people for those jobs.
Once all the political posturing on the issue is set aside, that is the bottom line in the debate over whether the city should remove the chief positions from civil service.
The current system prohibits anyone outside the departments from even applying to be chief. So the only candidates are junior officers.
In a world of common sense and respect for taxpayers, nobody would even argue with Ward 1 City Councilor Jason Grow, who says the only way to make sure the departments hire the best talent available is to open the job to all candidates.
Grow also says he is willing to help collect signatures to put the matter to a citywide referendum — and he deserves credit for stepping up and taking that route.
In Gloucester's system, of course — one run by parochial and political concerns — some are still finding plenty to argue about.
Ward 2 City Councilor John "Gus" Foote and police Chief Robert Beaudette contend that changing the current system would be "insulting," and contrary to nature and values of the city. They've got to be kidding.
The only perceived insult to Foote — who, despite a state Ethics Commission ruling, still seems to have a blatant conflict of interest in the matter with two sons on the police force — and Beaudette, who has benefited himself from the insular status quo, is that local officers might actually have some serious competition for the job.
And if the proposed change really would run counter to the nature and values of the city, it is past time for the nature and values to change.
The arguments against taking the job out from under the civil service umbrella are, quite frankly, all wet.
They include:
r Removing those positions from civil service will "politicize" them.
The reality is that they always have been, and always will be, politicized. Decisions made by politicians will always involve political considerations.
r The move would suggest that there is "something wrong" with local officers.
That is not what it suggests at all. It just would not assume something equally absurd — that the best person for chief will always be found within the local ranks. There are certainly candidates within the Gloucester police and fire departments who would certainly be strong candidates — and they would still deserve every consideration.
They — and more importantly, Gloucester residents — do not, however, deserve to have the applications limited only to in-house candidates. If Gloucester were to draw experienced chiefs from outside the city as applicants for the positions, the mayor should have the option of appointing them.
r A chief from the outside would need at least six months to get up to speed. That seems unlikely, but even if true, six months isn't much in a tenure that could easily last more than a decade. (Beaudette has said he plans to remain as chief for 10 years).
It is possible that Gloucester voters will agree with opponents — that they will want to keep all the top public safety jobs in-house no matter what kind of talent lies beyond the city's borders. But they should be given the opportunity to make that choice, and Grow's petition proposal would do precisely that.
Elected officials and public safety employees work for the people, not the other way around. And Gloucester's people deserve a voice in how that hiring process is carried out.
