Despite the Star Tribune's frantic editorial "Don't experiment with public safety" (Dec. 26) the situation in the town of Foley is not about choosing whether to have a cop on every corner or giving in to frontier lawlessness.

It is about whether a community chooses to pay extra fees for extra law enforcement staffing.

Minnesota residents not served by municipal police departments are entitled to law enforcement services from their county sheriff's office. Service levels and response times are limited by the number of deputies on duty.

Depending on the nature of the calls, and on caseload, geography and weather, a deputy may be minutes, hours or days away.

Some communities choose to purchase supplemental service -- in the form of full-time or part-time uniformed deputies -- from their county sheriff's office. This practice creates a visible law enforcement presence and reduces response times.

Of course, many communities in Minnesota choose not to maintain a police department or to pay for extra service from the county sheriff.

Whether it's funding the county sheriff's office or a municipal police department or purchasing extra service, local tax revenue has always supported public law enforcement.

Professional policing has been the traditional means of maintaining public order in cities only since 1829.

Before Robert Peel's London "Bobbies," many communities granted constables limited law enforcement powers. The even older concept of a night watch was a civic responsibility frequently carried out by volunteers.

The small, peaceful community of Foley has chosen not to pay extra fees for extra services provided by the county sheriff. It has decided to experiment with an idea much like that of the old night watch.

Paid protection professionals will patrol, observe and report incidents of interest. If these security officers encounter a crime that requires immediate action by deputies with arrest authority, they will call 911.

These private security officers are not policing -- they are providing security services.

Every day, security professionals around the world, across the country and throughout the Twin Cities protect employee populations many times the size of Foley.

Even in urban centers, security officers routinely accomplish their business objectives without special powers of arrest or the application of deadly force.

Unlike relatively recent innovations like public policing, private security personnel have protected private property interests for thousands of years.

It is no surprise that public law enforcement administrators defend their vested interests when asked for advice on these issues.

Law enforcement officers and their unions have a clear conflict of interest in this debate that should be obvious to all participants.

The Star Tribune's lurid editorial closes with the non sequitur: "Recent shootings in Grand Marais and Lake City are a reminder that serious crime happens even in peaceful rural communities."

How ironic that these tragic incidents occurred in communities -- and, in the case of Grand Marais, within the Cook County Courthouse -- where the traditional public policing model is still in use.

If Foley is a notorious hotbed of violent crime and public disorder, I have not heard of it. But if the elected representatives in Foley see the need for the sort of services only a sworn law enforcement officer can provide, then they will have to find a way to pay for the service.

In the meantime, the idea of a professional night watch is an interesting one worthy of close examination as we all strive to do enough with less.

* * *

Michael Brady, of Apple Valley, is security director at Hannon Security Services.