Yesterday’s Durham Herald-Sun carries a story about the City of Durham’s proposal to increase fees charged to residents and businesses when police or fire respond to a false alarm. The city is particularly concerned about repeat offenders. I don’t have a problem with that. Scarce public safety resources should be deployed as efficiently as possible to legitimate calls, and in 2003, the story reports, 6 percent of Durham police dispatches were to false alarms. What I have a big problem with is what doesn’t get reported until late in the story. Turns out the city’s Finance department wants to add a full-time staff person to handle administration of the crackdown. And, in an acknowledgement that a full-time person really isn’t needed, Finance Director Ken Pennoyer told the paper that if false alarms drop, the new staffer will work on other things. If this effort truly is a priority, then the administration of it should replace other work that delivers less of a return. That seems to be a concept unheard of in government. What’s more, I don’t understand the news judgment that relegates a key point — and a taxpayer expense to boot — to the lower 1/3 of the story.