BAY CITY ATTORNEY'S BROADSIDE ON BAYANET GETS PROFESSIONAL REPLY, BUT
NO FORMAL DEBATE

What usually is a rubber stamp process to continue Bay County
participation in a multi-jurisdictional undercover drug task force
became quite a stink this month, thanks to Bay City attorney Edward M.
Czuprynski.

While we don't always agree with Czuprynski's tactics, Bay County and
our region are better for the rousing debates that often ensue when he
launches one of his broadsides.

In a strongly worded ad in The Bay City Times published on Dec. 4,
Czuprynski's target this time was BAYANET, the Bay Area Drug
Enforcement Team. He questioned Bay County's participation in the
longtime drug-busting team headed by the Michigan State Police.

To his credit, BAYANET's commander, Detective 1st Lt. Jeffrey Anthony,
publicly addressed Czuprynski's concerns, professionally and with courtesy.

Czuprynski said Bay County should withdraw participation in BAYANET,
"a roving band of cops," to save money. He urged people to attend a
Bay County Board of Commissioners meeting earlier this month on the
county's budget and provided telephone numbers of all commissioners
and for County Executive Thomas Hickner.

Approve or disapprove of this position on the issues, we can't argue
with this effort to get more people involved with local government.

BAYANET leader Anthony, though, said Czuprynski was wrong in his claim
that the team costs Bay County money. Actually, he said, Bay County
gets more than $60,000 a year in federal grants to pay half the cost
of a sheriff's deputy assigned to BAYANET and for costs associated
with an assistant prosecutor's time on BAYANET criminal cases.

Anthony and Bay County Sheriff John Miller said neither a deputy nor
an assistant prosecutor were hired to meet federal grant requirements.
So, they said, the BAYANET funding is extra money to help pay for
those positions.

Bay County money pays for the remaining costs of employing those
people.

This is where the argument disappears into semantics. Czuprynski
claims BAYANET is an extra burden on the county; law enforcers say
it's extra money for the budget.

Take your pick.

On Tuesday, the Bay County Board voted to approve he county's annual
budget, without commenting on the part continuing the arrangement with
BAYANET for another year.

This isn't an issue that was confined just to Czuprynski or to Bay
County.

Over the years, and in this year of budget cuts especially, other
communities and their citizens have questioned similar arrangements,
either with BAYANET or with similar drug task forces, such as FANG,
the Flint Area Narcotics Group.

It's a fair question of any publicly funded activity: Is the service
provided worth the taxpayer money spent on it?

On the police side for BAYANET, Sheriff Miller and Lt. Anthony argue
that yes, it is. BAYANET targets drug dealers, they say. And, Anthony
adds, it goes after "individuals who conduct a criminal enterprise
under the guise of a legitimate business."

That sounds a lot like some state officials' increasingly hard line on
medical marijuana dispensaries. Those operations, by the way, to sell
marijuana to patients registered with the state to receive it, aren't
mentioned anywhere in the 2008 law in which voters approved the
cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Czuprynski in his ad calls medical marijuana users some of BAYANET's
"most popular targets."

It's worth mentioning, too, that neither Czuprynski nor BAYANET say
their past history has anything to do with their present spat. In
2001, BAYANET raided the attorney's office and discovered marijuana.
Charges were later dropped against Czuprynski after a visiting judge
deemed the raid improper.

Miller and Anthony declined Czuprynski's demand early this month to
publicly argue BAYANET's activities and funding in a meeting
Czuprynski tried to arrange.

Fair enough. Given their history, a date of Czuprynski vs. BAYANET
might be long on argument and short of reaching any conclusion.

But that doesn't mean such a topic isn't worthy of public debate.