Enforcement of a city policy calling for termination if anemployee is determined to be at-fault in two accidents in afive-year period seems to be getting workers’ attention.

At last week’s board meeting, Ward One Alderman Dorsey Cameronsaid some longtime, dedicated employees are “scared” that theycould lose their jobs over the accident policy.

During a conservation with the city’s insurance agent, Cameronintimated a possible need to relax the policy. Later, he saidaccidents could still be possible even if an employee is payingattention.

Cameron’s concern for employees is commendable.

However, we don’t see where a policy that forces employees to bemore safety conscious and alert to avoid possible accidents is abad thing. From a financial standpoint, it is only being fiscallyresponsible for the city to not have employees who’ve had excessiveaccidents or other traffic violations.

Taxpayers should not have to pay higher insurance costs becausethe city may have some bad drivers.

Many drivers operate their vehicles for years without so much asa traffic ticket.

We trust that most city employees fall into this category. Someemployees, unfortunately, do not live up to that high standard andhave to be replaced.

Like other citizens, city employees should want to strive toavoid accidents and follow traffic laws. Consistent enforcement ofexcessive accident and other traffic-related policy violationsshould be the goal of the city’s leaders.