DEAR EDITOR:

We read your recent editorial about Youngstown needing to rein in “outrageous” overtime among police, and we’re still trying to figure out the angle.

Did Kyle Miasek plant the bug in hopes of gaining an upper hand in negotiations? Of course, a police union would seek binding arbitration when the other side shows such bad faith negotiating by doing it in the newspaper opinion pages rather than across the table.

And what of the overtime cheap shot? It was a cheap shot because there’s no context. There’s a lot of possible reasons for overtime — even amounts that editorial boards find to be excessive. A news report from 2018 notes that the Youngstown Police Department was woefully understaffed, having lost 16 officers in the preceding two years. To put that in perspective, perhaps the tradeoff of overtime vs. hiring 16 new officers was a good deal for taxpayers, even as it overtaxed the city police department’s resources.

The same news reporting from 2018 also puts the final nail in the coffin of the police always “wanting more.” Chief Lees is quoted saying that the loss of officers is attributable to Youngstown’s wages not being competitive with cities nearby such as Akron, Cleveland and Columbus. Recruitment of officers and retention of ranking officers is a real problem and has a direct impact on the safety of Youngstown residents.

You should also note that the pension systems have rules to avoid the scam that the editorial suggested was underway. Officers cannot “pad their paychecks with exorbitant overtime to drive up their average salary.”

We do agree with the editorial board about one thing — residents should speak out and attend meetings. We just recommend they get the whole story and not the editorial’s half-truths before they do.

GARY WOLSKE

president, Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, Columbus