Representatives from Auburn and the police union are returning to the negotiating table for one more try at a resolution. Good for them.

Talks between the two sides have been bound up since the contract with police expired at the end of June.

The union says the city’s offer would result in a loss of take-home pay for many officers. No raises, higher insurance premiums equal less money.

The city has called the characterization incorrect, but has so far refused to make details of the offer public.

Matters only got worse after the mayor was charged with operating under the influence after a traffic stop. Allegations of police impropriety flew around the community as the mayor, City Council and residents questioned whether the stop was motivated by the labor dispute.

The city manager then hired a law firm to investigate the events surrounding the arrest. Needless to say, that move added to the strain between the city and its police force.

By returning to the table, the city and the police have agreed to give it one more shot before taking their case to a mediator.

“We’ve really gotten away from talking about our contract, so we’re going to try and steer discussions back to that,” union President Chad Syphers said.

It’s a small step, in what has been a long, arduous process. But it would be a mistake to miss the most important part of the planned meeting. The two sides agreed on something, even if it is just to sit down for a last go at it. There’s reason to hope for a settlement.


Ashcroft’s tour


Attorney General John Ashcroft has unleashed what should be dubbed the “Good Surveillance Tour 2003” on the populous. Ashcroft is making the rounds trying to build support for the USA Patriot Act, a misnamed bill if there ever was one.

As the country has recovered from the shock of Sept. 11, the idea that we must trade civil liberties for security is slipping from the conventional wisdom.

Critics of the Patriot Act say the law handed government investigators too much power without enough public review of the consequences. Two particularly troubling provisions already face stiff opposition.

The House of Representatives cut funding for part of the law that permits “sneak-and-peak” search warrants that circumvent Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

And the ACLU is suing the Justice Department over another provision, which allows agents to seize personal property, such as business records and computer files, without informing the target of an investigation.

The government’s ability to monitor its citizens and secretly search and seize their property should be closely regulated. The danger of abuse is too great.

Instead of touring Iowa, Michigan and other states politically important during next year’s election, Ashcroft’s time would be better spent protecting the Bill of Rights and civil liberties.
[email protected]