Dear Editor,
In response to the Rutland Herald’s article of Aug. 4, 2016, “Killington police chief still not level III trained”: this is a “tempest in a teapot. I, for one, have advocated and lobbied for an increased public safety budget in Killington to increase the police presence in town due to the frequent break-ins in this community. Presence means officers out there patrolling and being visible so as to deter would-be lawbreakers. Given this context, taking Montgomery off the streets for four months, a third of a year, is ludicrous.
As I understand it, Montgomery enrolled and was well into the certification training when he became ill and had to suspend the balance of the training. He requested to re-enroll in the training where he left off and was denied, being told he would have to start at the beginning. I don’t recall how far he was into the training, but from what I do recall it was well beyond the halfway point.
I don’t know how the level three training works so don’t understand why it can’t be picked where he left off. A large part of this course is basic training boot camp—physical training—not investigating crime which seems to be the big deal with the level three certification.
I don’t think taking Montgomery off the streets for another four months while paying him that $46,837 salary and paying for another training makes any sense practically, logistically or financially for the town.
If he has the equivalent training and has limited, if any, involvement in the more serious crimes which require level three training, what is the point of demanding he go through the certification process. In fact, I’d rather other agencies with the resources spend their time investigating these “level three” crimes and have Montgomery making his presence felt on the streets. In fact that is exactly why I lobbied for an increased police budget in the first place!
Vito Rasenas, Killington
Letter
August 10, 2016