ShareThis Page

Brownsville's calls back its Ace

| Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012, 12:02 a.m.

Brownsville's police dog, Ace, is back on the beat.

During a contentious meeting on Friday, council narrowly voted to approve an agreement with Lone Wolf K-9 and reinstate the dog to service.

Ace was sworn in on Aug. 15 and was partnered and trained with Sgt. John Brant.

One month later, council idled the nearly 2-year-old German shepherd.

Some council members on Friday said they were unaware of an agreement included with the dog's service.

Others questioned the solicitation of donations to help support K-9-related costs.

Lone Wolf K-9, based in McClure, Ohio, donated Ace and Brant's training to the borough.

Ace's primary function is narcotics detection, detention and tracking.

“This dog is necessary. There are drugs. It's out of control. ... I voted last month to keep the dog and asked for an immediate meeting to reinstate the dog because we need to do that,” Councilwoman Tracy Sheehan Zivkovich said.

Zivkovich made motions to approve the agreement with Lone Wolf and to reinstate the K-9. Both motions passed 4-1-2. Councilmen John Hosler and James Lawver voted no, and Tom Bush abstained.

Prior to voting, several borough residents addressed the board.

“I view Ace as another tool in the toolbox for you,” said Connie Gore.

She said Ace was a “more cost-effective way” of “keeping things in order.”

Tyrone Smith questioned whether future costs related to the program could result in borough employee cutbacks.

“If you are laying someone off in favor of the dog, I'm against it,” Smith said.

When council members brought up a motion at September's meeting to eliminate the position of borough manager, President Jack Lawver said the meeting's sole purpose was the K-9 issue.

The borough's longtime manager is Elizabeth Lawver, the mother of Lawver and Councilman James Lawver.

That motion failed, Jack Lawver said on Friday, and was followed by one that passed, eliminating the K-9 program.

Lawver said on Friday that his reason for voting against the program in September was that council had previously been unaware of an agreement associated with the dog.

He said it stipulates that, should Brant no longer act as Ace's handler, the dog would be returned to Ohio or undergo training with another officer.

“Say Sgt. Brant quit. The contract says the donated K-9 will be returned. There will be a cost of $10,500 if we don't return the dog,” James Lawver said.

Jack Lawver said that it would make no sense not to return the dog in that instance, or to request he be paired and trained with another officer.

Bush asked if the dog would be restrained while at the station.

“I'm not against the dog. I just found out about the (agreement) the other day. Can you guarantee me the dog won't bite anybody?” Bush said.

Lawver said that, following a legal opinion from borough solicitor Melinda Dellarose, the borough kept its liability insurance on the dog while his status was in limbo.

“You signed an agreement and I believe it was illegal,” Hosler said to Councilman Ross Swords.

Swords, who is the public safety committee chairman, pursued grants and donations to obtain the dog. The agreement was mailed to him, he said.

A first-year councilman, Swords called his signing it a “rookie mistake.”

“If the board does not give approval, (the agreement) is invalid,” Jack Lawver said.

Hosler questioned donations made through the Brownsville Neighborhood Crime Watch for the program's expenses.

Swords, neighborhood watch vice president, said funds raised went to purchase dog beds, grooming tools and a joint supplement for Ace, along with patrol car decals and window tinting.

“Some council members do not come to (neighborhood watch) meetings. It's all documented,” he said.

Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-5401 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.