Patch's Poll: Should There Be A Mandatory Number Of State Troopers?

The law requires Connecticut State Police to have a minimum of 1,248 troopers on staff.

On Tuesday, a General Assembly committee heard debate "on Gov. Dannel Malloy's proposal to end a state mandate requiring the Connecticut State Police to have a minimum of 1,248 troopers on staff," according to WTNH-TV.

The minimum staffing level was imposed by a 1998 state law. Malloy calls the number "arbitrary" and the Associated Press reports that the union is challenging the governor's position. There are currently 1,080 sworn members of the state police.



What do you think? Is the Connecticut State Police force large enough? Too large? Take our poll and add your thoughts in the comments.

QWERTY March 04, 2012 at 06:07 PM
I always support as many police as possible however with the cost of pension and benefits, this state has to restrict trooper staffing levels. Don't state police get to use state vehicles during their personal time also? Up the age of retirement for state police and adding staffing that way.
Don Sherman March 04, 2012 at 08:45 PM
Warren v DC, 1978 The police have no obligation to the individual unless a prior relationship exists. The police are there to protect the State, not the individual. And when seconds count, they are only minutes away.
Alex March 05, 2012 at 02:10 PM
No public job should guarantee unlimited funds for retirement. That is unsustainable with the life expectancy getting longer. There should always be a total on the amount available to pay out to the employee upon retirement. Also there should be no "25 and out" rules. If the private sector needs to wait till 67.. or whatever age when I get there to retire for full SS benefits, then that should be the same age public sector employees can retire and collect full pension benefits. This should apply to all positions, with the exception to the military. Pensions play a BIG ROLE in why our state and towns have so much debt. Our obligations become greater and greater every year.
Alex March 05, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Sorry but you are incorrect. You cannot fully fund a system where it pays out more than pays in. This is because pensions guarantee fixed payments despite what the market does. You think pensions are immune to the market forces? Despite what people may have agreed to in backrooms, the agreements were not mathematically sound. This is what happens when you let politicians and union reps work out deals without someone checking the math on whether or not it is sustainable. You can agree to anything, but if it the math does not add up, then it does not matter legal or not, it will not be sustainable. This is why many towns no longer offer pensions. The state failed to set aside additional money because they cannot burden the tax payers in the state with one of the highest effective tax rates in the nation.
Alex March 05, 2012 at 02:30 PM
Check out Stratford's police pension problem. Ctpost had an article about it awhile ago where a captain was getting over 120K/year in a pension because he could dock overtime for retirement. You see no problem with that? Stratford did, and now all new public employees are on 401Ks. Unfortunately the burden of pensions like that will be hurting the town for the next decade, maybe even longer.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »