The approval of the fund transfer for the police department’s firearms was the primary focus of the Southwick Finance Committee meeting held on October 21st. The chief of police and a lieutenant addressed the committee, emphasizing the need to replace the current P320 firearms due to significant liability and officer safety concerns. The firearms had been purchased two and a half years ago, and issues such as potential unintentional discharges during routine duties were highlighted. Although an FBI investigation into similar incidents with the Michigan State Police could not replicate the problem, the existence of such reports raised liability alarms.

The lieutenant elaborated on modifications to the P320 model, which included a transition to a pistol-mounted optic, colloquially known as a red dot sight. This design aimed to improve accuracy, particularly for officers less skilled with traditional iron sights. However, concerns about the firearm’s safety persisted.

Committee members explored the possibility of recouping costs from the manufacturer, with discussions about trade-in values and the manufacturer’s response—or lack thereof—to safety concerns. The lieutenant expressed frustration with the manufacturer’s stance, noting that the company claimed the firearm was “the safest pistol on the market” without supporting evidence. He further cautioned that the department was exposed to significant liability by continuing to use the P320, stating, “We’re opening ourselves up for a giant loss.”

The potential for legal action against the manufacturer for defective firearms was raised, as was the question of how many other police departments had opted to remove the P320 from service. An alternative strategy of holding onto the firearms in hopes of future value appreciation was also considered, but the trade-in agreement offered minimal returns. The department was contemplating a switch to Glock pistols, known for their reliability, to replace the 39 P320s currently in use.

Despite budget constraints, the committee approved the fund transfer, though there was debate regarding the categorization of the expense. Questions were raised about why the funding was allocated as weapons maintenance rather than as a capital line item, prompting a dialogue about budget and line-item allocations to ensure proper categorization of expenses.

In addition to the firearms issue, the committee also discussed the reconstitution of the committee itself, focusing on the appointment of a chair and vice chair. With three members absent, the decision was postponed until a full board was present. One member, Alita, expressed a desire to remain on the committee despite potential work conflicts preventing her from serving as vice chair.

The committee addressed upcoming dates in the budget process, reflecting on last year’s schedule challenges. To alleviate end-of-season pressures, an earlier start was planned, with budget submissions requested by early November and completed books returned by the end of December. Proposed meeting dates for February were considered.

A significant conversation emerged about budget cuts, particularly the feasibility of asking departments to cut an additional 5%. Skepticism was expressed, referencing last year’s approach described as “nickel and dimeing.” Health insurance costs exceeding budgeted amounts raised further concerns. Members debated the implications of cutting budgets when some departments managed surpluses while others struggled to stay within limits, highlighting tension between fiscal responsibility and maintaining essential services.

The committee also discussed the liaison list, detailing oversight assignments for various departments and boards. While no changes were made, a suggestion was made for all liaisons to attend at least one meeting of their assigned department to establish rapport. The importance of proactive outreach was emphasized, with agreement that engagement in town affairs should begin sooner rather than later.