New Britain herald., 1915-04-26
COMMUNICATED.
Ex-Office Holder Opposes Splitting
Safety Board.

Editor Herald
Your article in Saturdays issue III
reference to dividing the safety de-
partment was timely and we'll put. 1t
| brough to mind occurrences of the
| past when we had seperate manage
ment for the police and fire depart
ments. We then had joint commit
| tees and common council action to
| smooth over and straighten out de-
! lays, (almost deadlocks) differences of
opinion and which arose in matters
requiring joint action or action of one
| branch in which the other was con-
cerned, so that it was a relief to the
city authorities when both depart
ments were placed under one board,
although it became a four and is now
a five-headed one.
Some of the trouble was due to the
joint occupancy of the city building
on Commercial street. Questions arose
! as to which board had charge who
appointed the janitor, who pald Tor
his services, paid for repairs ana
changes required as time went by.
We're some of the wants justlhed?
Neither board had the money TO ex-
pend as they were kept down on their
appropriations then the same as now.
Ihere was the question of fire police,
their services, pay and the proper au-
thority to obey. One department was
not satisfied with the care their quar-
tiers received if the other was in con-
troll. In winter there was not heat
enough; repairs were not properly at
tended to and so on. Now we have
the patrol and ambulance on hand
which both departments are liable to
want at any moment The police are
required to turn in fire alarms, to
keep back crowds, preserve order and
protect property at fires, besides saw
ing lives if they are endangered. All
these matters can be better regulated
and more satisfactory service secured
by one executive head than two.
Formerly difficulties and differences
were smoothed out mainly because
those in charge did not have higher
political ambitions and were not in
terfered with by the mayors then hold
ing office as to appointment and die
tated to in regard to their general de-
partme lent management. 1t seems to
me there is a continued chance for
clashes and chickering's between the de-
partments if separated as long as they
are SO closely connected as at present,
ana until they nave entirely separate
quarters and their size materially in
creased it will be bad policy to change
unless in the line of a three member
board or single headed management.
AS you aptly say the trend of the
times is towards Capitalization in man
agement, both as to government and
business. That is the way to get
efficiency and results.
If you will investigate the demand
for two boards YOU will find it's main
advocates are those who are looking
for and expect to get appointments
for the positions which will be created
or are working because they believe
their friends will.
Possibly there are those who also
expect that it will add political
strength to the party or some indi-
vidual If it can be pushed through.
What good argument has been ad-
vanced for this change? Has there
been any specific and tangible reasons
given for it? All I have heard has
been generalties and expected eff
cheney. All past experience has
proven that such a proceeding will
lead towards inefficiency.
Thanking YOU for the space given
= sign myself as an
EX-OFFICE HOLDER.