Dec 12, 2003 By April Straughters 5 min read

CALIFORNIA – Despite the pleas of residents, who said they would prefer a tax increase to laying off the entire borough police force, the council voted Thursday to lay off the department for a month. The borough’s entire police department, composed of five full-time and eight part-time officers, a secretary and a parking meter attendant, will be laid off from Dec. 14 to Jan. 12.

Residents were not pleased and voiced their concerns about the safety of the borough before the council voted on the matter.

Vito Dentino, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, and Joy Walmsley, a borough resident and senior planner at Mackin Engineering, the firm that prepared the borough’s comprehensive plan, both spoke emphatically against the council’s decision.

“I really feel we need to do whatever we can to keep the police force on duty. I don’t believe the state police can adequately cover the borough. At least keep a partial force,” said Dentino, a local business owner.

Dentino said he realizes the council planned the layoff during a time when California University of Pennsylvania is on winter break, but he said the borough has incidents that require police attention that don’t involve Cal U students.

“We have domestic incidents, accidents and many things that require the police besides the college. You know I own more than one property, and I speak for other property owners. We’d rather see a mill or two added to the budget than see the police force laid off,” Dentino said.

One resident said an elderly woman was robbed at knifepoint in her own bedroom Wednesday at 12:10 a.m. on Park Street. Police believe the same man who robbed her may have stolen her credit cards a month ago.

Council President Arthur Harris said he is well aware of the robbery because it happened down the street from his home, adding that it was the fourth such robbery.

Walmsley asked repeatedly if the council was sure that they had considered every option.

Walmsley grew emotional over the matter and wept after council approved the layoffs.

“I’ve studied this community for over a year and I know the service demand here,” Walmsley said. “I live in this community. I believe in this community. I bring this up because I’m scared.”

When the motion came up on the agenda, council members hesitated to make a motion. Finally Councilman Robert Sepesy made the motion, with Amelia Gajan-Mitchell seconding it.

The motion passed, with councilmen John Greenlief and John Difilippo voting against it.

“I have never sat on a council who has laid off the police department,” said Greenlief, who said he has been on the council since 1970. “I think it’s appalling. I think there is a way to keep them on. I don’t believe we should put the community through this and make them come out here with fear in their eyes. …I cannot support this.”

Solicitor Keith Melenyzer defended the council’s decision, saying that increased lawsuits and lawyer fees have put the borough in a financial bind. The borough is involved in six lawsuits, including four federal suits. The borough laid off two full-time officers last year because of budget constraints they said were caused in part by increased legal fees, decreasing the police budget by $108,366. Those two police officers have since filed suit against the borough, adding even more financial woes.

“I’ve seen more litigation in California in the last two years than I’ve seen in 20 years here. It’s a shame. It takes a portion of the budget that could be used for other things,” Melenyzer said.

Harris said that while he does not want to lay anyone off, the decision was necessary for the betterment of the entire community.

“The borough is in one heck of a bind. …We can’t raise the mills enough. This is where we have to make a decision,” Harris said, adding that the council would have to raise the millage by 10 to 15 mills to keep the police force on for the month. “We started out with a $159,000 budget deficit. … It’s very possible there will be more layoffs next year.”

Greenlief told the public that the budget can be reopened once two new councilmen take office in January, but Harris said he doubts if that will happen.

“The budget is a done deal, unless they have enough votes to reopen it, which I don’t think it will be reopened.

“That scares me,” Walmsley said.

The council passed a 2004 budget, a $1.3 million plan that included a $56,288 cut in the police budget.

Walmsley said she hopes the council will consider reopening the budget and volunteered her services to help find other ways to offset the borough’s spending woes. She said she can find ways to save money, like using liquid fuels to fund the borough’s lighting fund.

Councilman-elect Patsy Alfano, who will take his post in January, said the borough can cut expenses without such extreme measures.

“We need to find a common ground and try to work together between the union employees and borough management for the betterment of the borough. I’m sure there are ways we can cut expenses without extreme layoffs, at least of the entire department. I feel our public safety is too valuable to scrap the whole thing,” he said.

Dan Swartz, who spoke out against the council decision, thanked Greenlief and Difilippo for their vote.

“I just want to thank you for having the courage to vote the right way on the police issue,” he said.

In other business, council agreed to hold its reorganization meeting at 6 p.m. Monday, Jan. 5. The council thanked outgoing Greenlief and Councilman Jon Bittner for their services and presented them with plaques.