Police Access Is
Fairness Issue

As most folks know by now, I'm very in favor of expanding the police district to all of Randolph and I'm willing to pay whatever taxes necessary without complaint. However, this is not about me, it's about people who really need protection, and I have another angle you may not have considered.

People of rural Randolph, like approximately 48% of all Vermonters, get their police protection from the Vermont State Police (VSP). According to a VSP spokesman: "During the hours of 2:30 a.m. until 7 a.m. every State Police office has two individuals that are "on-call" and prepared to respond to emergency or time critical calls." "On Call" is not the same as "On Duty". Considering that the VSP cover 85% of Vermont's land area, that's pretty thin coverage.

The VSP freely admit that they are understaffed and that their response times to rural areas generally can't match those of a local municipal force.

Consider a woman with some small children at home and an ex-partner under a restraining order for domestic violence. The ex shows up at 3 a.m., drunk, demanding entry and threatening to burn down the house with her and the children in it if she doesn't comply. In most municipalities with their own police force, response could be five minutes or less. Elsewhere, it could be much longer, especially if there is another emergency in progress.

This could make the difference between an annoyance for this family and a real tragedy.

If you read either recent Vermont Supreme Court decision involving the common benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution, and substitute "Police Protection" for "Marriage Rights" in Baker, or for "Educational Opportunity" in Brigham, you'll find it a much better fit to the clause than either of those concepts. I believe that most Vermont municipalities and the state itself are in egregious violation of that clause.

To think that such a basic protection is more available to some than others, based entirely on where they live, is an affront to any sense of fairness. If you support either the Baker or the Brigham decision it would be hypocritical to complain about a tax increase for police coverage.

So go ahead and vote your pocketbook on this issue when it comes up if you must. But if you have any liberal political tendencies, and voting patterns indicate that most Randolph voters do, then please think about fairness and public safety in this case. I can assure you that some day, somewhere in Vermont, a lawsuit will be filed on this issue. Two hours on the Internet have convinced me which way the Vermont Supreme Court will rule when it is.

I think Randolph should get ahead of the curve here.

Peter Magoon

Randolph Center