LETTERS: A FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

To the editor:

As a citizen of the village of Tamms and a member of the Board of Trustees, I am obliged to respond to the recent letter by one of Tamms concerned citizens, Mrs. Nelson. I recognize that some of the concerns expressed by Mrs. Nelson are shared by a number of citizens in our community, as exemplified by the number of citizens present at recent board meetings and as signatories of the citizens petition.

The Board of Trustees comprises six board members and the president of the board. Each of the board members sought their seat on the board because they were compelled to work for the betterment of the Village of Tamms. In this manner we are all of one mind. However, each of the board members has a different view about how to achieve the betterment of the village, and in this manner we are all of different minds. We meet monthly, in a public forum, to express our views, hear other views and make decisions which we feel are proper and necessary if the village is to prosper.

Before taking our seat on the board, we are required to take an oath to uphold and defend first the Constitution of the United States, second the Constitution of Illinois and lastly the ordinances of the Village of Tamms. The order of this oath is no accident. It is designed to remind us that we have an obligation to look beyond our municipal boundaries when seeking the betterment of the community and to operate within the restraints mandated by other jurisdictions within which we operate. Thus, we must justify our actions locally and nationally.

It is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees to ensure that all of the services whose operation and distribution are municipally controlled are provided satisfactorily, and in a cost-effective manner. Any increase in service cost must be justifiable in terms of its effect on the level of service to the community. Until it can be shown that additional police officers will improve the effectiveness of our police force, additional police expenditures for them cannot be justified. Nationally, our nation is more than $5 trillion in debt. The issuance of a federal grant does not mean that a sum of money is removed from existing revenues and handed to our community. It means that we have been invited to increase the national indebtedness by the amount of the grant over a period of years. Currently, we are increasing that indebtedness through a number of grants, some of which I find justifiable, some I do not. Grants are justifiable, in my view, when the costs they cover are caused or elevated by federally imposed mandates, regulations or restrictions. It can be argued the rising levels of crime exist because of federal regulations and programs which result in a weakening of the criminal justice system. In many areas and to some extent in our area, this is true. The greater problems with our system of criminal justice, however, appear to be local. Until progress is made in improving the system in our village, our county, and our state, I cannot justify burdening the nation with the costs of hiring additional officers for our community.

It would be irresponsible to hire police officers whose sole condition of employment is the availability of someone else's money with which to pay them. Clearly the necessity of police protection should be determined by local events, not by the federal government's willingness to finance them. I am very concerned by the use of my tax dollars to provide police protection to distant communities, but I have no control over that. I am afforded, for the time being, some abilities to prevent governmental overreach into the pocketbook of others to serve our local desires. Overtaxation and overspending will not end until someone stands up and says "No" to the offer of federally taxed dollars for local projects. We do a poor job of educating the people that there is a direct correlation between federal grants, which everyone seems to want, and high taxes, which no one seems to want.

We on the board recognize that there exists a balance between fiscal responsibility and our responsibility to provide adequate protection to our citizens. No level of protection will totally prevent crime, nor does the proximity of police officers ensure the absence of criminal activity. Ten years ago, my grandmother was murdered. She lived in and managed an apartment complex full of residents, one block from the local police station and two blocks from the county sheriff's office, both of which are manned 24 hours a day. She was murdered on a sunny Saturday morning. Her killer still walks among us. It would bankrupt the village of Tamms to provide the level of protection my former hometown offered its citizens, yet that level was insufficient to protect her, or others like her, from harm.

Regarding the question of minority hiring, my statement stands: We will not use minority status as the basis for hiring nor refusing to hire any applicant. I believe that is as affirmative a response as can be given by anyone.

If our efforts to achieve fiscal and servile balance fall short one way or the other, it is not because the concerns, fears or well-being of the citizens are not uppermost in our minds. It is because, in any organization, differing views, fiscal and legal restraints and varying degrees of necessity result in decisions which are the result of negotiation, not unanimity of thought. The Board of Trustees of the village of Tamms has taken a stand for fiscal responsibility. The people's response to our position should serve as a measure of their fiscal proprietorship of the nation. If our efforts cannot be recognized as virtuous, then there is no hope of regaining sound budgetary control at the local, state or federal levels.

SHAPLEY R. HUNTER, MemberBoard of Trustees

Tamms, Ill.