Let us assume that since Chief Turner has been in place only three months, she is not just trying to justify past inadequacies and actually is working for what is best for the department, the city, and the taxpayers. (I will admit that the last is a stretch.) The report recommended hiring more officers with longer shifts to give them more time to "proactively" patrol the streets rather than merely "reactively" respond to crimes. (I hate the word "pro-active." It's just a newspeak euphemism for "meddle.")

If Chief Turner were interested in empire-building, she would take this report and run with it. Instead, she is collecting more data: specifically, officers are required to report the purpose of each task. Crime Analyst Phyllis Ward will review the new data. Chief Turner believes that the new data will indicate an even more "reactive" department than Matrix describes. Councilman Peter Arellano says that it seems that the Matrix report was a waste of money. I concur. It does not surprise me that the report may have been a waste of money. I cannot ever remember any recommendations ever made by any consultants ever that were worth the paper they were printed on, let alone the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they cost.

The thing that surprises me -pleasantly - is that Councilman Arellano says that he is not happy if we did not get our money's worth. It will shock me if City Council learns from this experience not to waste money on outside consultants. I will be flabbergasted if the school board, the county, or VTA take the hint.

The other thing that surprises me is that Chief Turner is disputing the report. I would be pleasantly surprised if she were saying, "We run a mean, lean efficient department, and we can live within our budget and protect the folks in Gilroy just fine. We don't need more officers or longer shifts." She is not saying that. But she is redefining as many tasks as possible as reactive while she reanalyzes the data.

If she comes back and says, " the Matrix report was hogwash. We don't need five officers; we need 10," my worst cynicism will be justified.

Is there any data that shows that pro-active procedures decrease crime? I know we all feel nostalgic about a cop on the beat, but Gilroy police officers do not walk beats. They ride around in patrol cars (and they fail to use their turn signals.) I like talking to cops in Sue's Coffee, but we can't exactly station an officer in every liquor store in town to prevent holdups. The puff pieces I have read on pro-active policing do not really seem to indicate that crime drops. They say that they reached out to 834 school children, or that 117 community leaders went through the program. But actual decreases in crime are conspicuously absent.

No, I favor a reactive police department. If I report a crime, I want an officer to take the report and catch the criminal. While I am wishing, I hope that the criminal is swiftly judged and sentenced and never commits another crime. And we'll have pie in the sky by and by.

While gas prices in Gilroy hovered at the $4.50 mark, our family took a trip to Florida and Alabama to attend our oldest son's graduation from helicopter training. Gas in Florida averaged $4.06. In Alabama we paid $3.87. The extra 50 cents is due to California's state and local taxes. Along with the rest of us, the school district is being hit hard by the increase in gas prices. Remember this when we have bonds and taxes on the ballot, or politicians who say that they must regretfully raise our taxes.

Cynthia Walker Cynthia Anne Walker is a homeschooling mother of three and former engineer. She is a published independent author. Her column is published in The Dispatch every Friday.