10 Comments:

• I am glad to see that local law enforcement is working together to make our schools and community safer. Having said that, I have a real problem with Ann Motte.
  
  Ann Motte on her own web site openly condems her own police department and other local police agencies for doing exactly what they should be doing.
  
  I can't believe that an elected official would make such a stupid comment as "a publicity stunt..." or "a waste of tax dollars...!"
  
  In the wake of Virginia Tech, 9/11, Columbine, and Hurricane Katrina, you would think our public officials would welcome our public safety taking pro-active steps to prepare for disasters.
  
  But NO, Ann Motte has to use this terrific oportunity to publicly critisize her own law enforcement, Riverside Sheriff, CDF, and others for trying to prepare for the unthinkable.
  
  Shame on you Ann Motte!! I know who I won't be voting for next election! And I also know that once the State-Wide Police, Sheriff, Fire, and Public safety Unions see these outrageous comments made by you, they will rally to make sure you are never in a public service position again.....

  By  Anonymous, at June 05, 2008 10:26 AM  

  ---

• Ann Motte thinks its a waste of tax money. Hmm. I see it like this. The more they sweat in practice the less they bleed when an event happens. So the district has to put out a little overtime for training. Gee I guess Ann would prefer the district put out tax money in overtime for a body count if an event did happen and the district police were unprepared for it. My tax dollars can go towards the overtime training. I tried to post a comment to Ann's website but it conveniently crashed when posted. I am an MSJC employee and hope the police get as much training as possible for these events.

  By  nunyo, at June 05, 2008 11:09 AM  

  ---

• Glad to see out wonderful police and emergency personell in training! I appreciate each and eveyr one of them. Im glad to know those close to me are prepared!

  By  Anonymous, at June 05, 2008 7:45 PM  

  ---

• Sounds like Motte has no clue on public safety and the training that needs to take place between agencies every year. I am going to make sure that every board member and the ASB of MSJC gets a copy of her statements. This will fire up some people when her seat is up for re-election. This lady needs to go.

  By  Anonymous, at June 06, 2008 6:31 AM  

  ---

• Here is Motte's response on her webpage about the college police.
  
  "It should not be the charge of a college police force to patrol Menifee or other communities for general law enforcement off campus. That is the public safety charge of the County not MSJC. Don’t complain when students can’t get class sections because msjc police bought a “Crown Victoria”."
  
  
  
  Here again Motte is showing how short sighted she is on issues at the college. The drill I assume is something along the line of a Mass Casualty Incident. I am thinking this considering the agencies involved. Something that could really happen on college campuses these days. The MSJC Police is the lead agency because the exercise is being conducted in their jurisdiction (Menifee Campus).
  
  Our tax dollars are paying for the MSJC Police Department. Patroling around the campus is a good thing. Responding to mutual aid calls with other agencies (RSO) is what all police and fire agencies do. Does this mean that if MSJC Police is not available (after hours when they are shut down) RSO should not respond to incidents at the college because it is the public safety charge of MSJC Police?
  
  I am not worried about students not getting classes because of the purchase of a police car. I am worried about students not getting classes because of the MSJC College Board of Trustees mismanaging money on things like lawsuits against other school districts (Menifee) and Azusa Pacific University. I remember well MSJC fighting the school district on purchasing the land and building of Bell Mountain Middle School. And by the ways, it is good to see the Azusa Pacific University building being put to good use. We could have had a 4 year school serving our area and yet you fought to take over a building that does not meet the building code requirements of a "public school".

  By  Anonymous, at June 07, 2008 9:09 AM  

  ---

• Ann Motte has been cackling about the cost of the event and taking away money for classrooms. What do these people get paid to sit on a board meeting once a month?

  By  Anonymous, at June 09, 2008 2:18 PM  

  ---

• Elected Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to direct college revenues to provide the highest benefit/educational opportunity for students. MSJC is an underserved district, having the lowest full-time faculty percent in the state. It is critical to fulfilling the educational mission of the state for transfer, etc., to have MSJC revenues directed towards increased access (class sections) and the hire of more full-time faculty. The cost benefit of the PD should be an open board discussion. It is not. Without knowing PD costs, no one can determine what the trade offs are for our students. A college PD is not mandated by the state. The question remains, at what cost does the PD affect our students in the ability to offer more/less class sections and hire more/less faculty? No one knows.

  By  Ann, at June 09, 2008 3:35 PM  

  ---

• Ann, this is why you cannot do a cost benefit analysis on this issue-
  
  Cost-benefit analysis is incapable of delivering what its proponents (Ann Motte)promise. First, cost-benefit analysis cannot produce more efficient decisions because the process of reducing life, health, and the natural world to monetary values is inherently flawed. I don't know what your life is worth but mine is priceless.
  
  Efforts to value life illustrate the basic problems. Cost-benefit analysis implicitly equates the risk of death with death itself, when in fact they are quite different and should be accounted for separately in considering the benefits of regulatory actions (a police department).
  
  Cost-benefit analysis also ignores the fact that citizens are concerned about risks to their families and others as well as themselves, ignores the fact that market decisions are often very different from political decisions, and ignores the incomparability of many different types of risks to human life. The same kinds of problems arise in attempting to define in monetary terms the benefits of protecting human health and the environment.
  
  More problematic is this step in the analysis:
  
  monetizing the benefits achieved by the regulation. Since there are no natural prices for a healthy environment, cost-benefit analysis requires the creation of artificial ones. Economists create artificial prices for health and environmental benefits by studying what people would be willing to pay for them. One popular method, called "contingent valuation," is essentially a form of opinion poll. Researchers ask a cross-section of the affected population how much they would be willing to pay to preserve or protect something that can't be bought in a store.
  
  An alternative method of attaching prices to unpriced things infers what people are willing to pay from observation of their behavior in other markets. To assign a dollar value to risks to human life, for example, economists usually calculate the extra wage - or "wage premium" - that is paid to some workers who accept more risky jobs. If workers understand the risk and voluntarily accept a more dangerous job, then they are implicitly setting a price on risk by accepting the increased risk of death in exchange for increased wages. What does this indirect inference about wages say about the value of a life?
  
  A common estimate in recent cost-benefit analyses is that avoiding a risk that would lead, on average, to one death is worth roughly $6.3 million. (Some estimates are much lower than this, and go as low as $1 million or less; some are much higher, reaching $10 million or more.)

  By  Anonymous, at June 10, 2008 1:19 PM  

  ---

• The lack of concern Ann Motte has for the physical well being of her constituents is disturbing. She will not receive my vote, or the vote of anyone I know. It's not a good political move to fail in supporting any public safety agency, no matter how small. I fully support MSJC PD in their proactive approach to protecting the college community. This will undoubtedly lead to their department having to be less reactive.

  By  Anonymous, at June 16, 2008 3:24 PM  

  ---

• I'll bet you if Ann Motte was leaving a store, bank or gas station near the campus and was suddenly overcome by an attacker demanding her purse at gun point, she would sure not mind having the college police rolling by at that time.
  
  Or how about some crazed sex offender who tried dragging her into an alley behind the target shopping center to have his way with her. I see the college PD sitting there alot and guess what, college students use that shopping plaza too and if my daughter was walking from there at night after picking up a cup of coffee or ice cream in between college classes, You can bet I have no problem with the College PD being there.
  
  Ann Motte is like every other critic of law enforcement: "She will trash talk the police until she needs them one day!" This is sad because these men and women risk their lives everyday for people like her.

  By  Anonymous, at June 24, 2008 11:52 PM  

  ---

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage