|
|
|
|
 |
||
|
||
|
|
| 08/02/2009 03:01:26 PM | Update to Staffing Issues |
2008 - A new Chief: another promise of transparency!
July 30, 2009
Sacramento has 1.46 sworn officers per 1,000 residents!
In the last few days your webmaster once again feels vindicated. In the 1999-2000 budget cycle our city claimed to have 1.6 officers per 1,000 city residents. We found it to be 1.4. yet here we are in 2008 and I felt compelled to set the record straight yet again thanks to the comments sections in the Sacramento Bee. This comment is on line and was posted on September 2, 2008.
From an officer safety and improved response times on some priority calls, Sacramento Citizens Community Watch supports 2 officer units on all shifts. We continue to oppose non-sworn civilians driving marked patrol units however. The problem is exacerbated by the the Mayor and City Council refusal to properly staff SPD, eliminating minimum staffing levels and cutting the number of patrol officers year after year. Those facts are online in the annual police budget and accounts for excessive overtime costs. As of 8-4-08 authorized strength of Sac PD is: 23 Lieutenants (21 actual) 102 sergeants 90 actual) and 662 Officers (600 actual) That's a total of 711 sworn police officers to serve a population of 475,743 in 2008. That means for every 1,000 city residents, we have 1.49 officers. 2.8 officers per 1000 is the average according to FBI stats for 2006 within the largest 71 cities in the US with population of over 250,000. Our elected officials are responsible for poor public safety!
What we want: Full Disclosure about Patrol Staffing!
The Bee was right on target by posting the current patrol mapping for our city. The evidence of our city government gutting patrol for years is now a public record. In 1998 our office fell in what was known as Patrol Sector 3. The geographic area covers from the Sacramento River on the West to the county line (Watt Ave.) on the East, the American River on the North and Highway 50 to the South. In 1998 Sector 3 was divided up into nine (9) Patrol Districts. Today, the same area is divided into THREE (3).
See the Sacbee graphic http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1205691.html
Compare it to the same patrol area in 2000 with 7 patrol districts.
It was that story and these graphics that prompted this comment:
As director of Sacramento Citizens Community Watch, I met with Councilman Cohn on 3-30-2000 to refute his public testimony: "patrol districts have shrunk giving patrol officers smaller areas they have to patrol." I asked where he had obtained that information. He named then Deputy Chief Matt Powers. I provided Cohn with Sector maps from 1998 and 2000. In '98 there were nine (9) Patrol Districts. In 2000 seven (7). Was this "New Math" that suggests the pie that has seven slices has smaller pieces than one cut into nine? Yes Mr. Cohn, there was something wrong in 2000. Neither Cohn nor any other elected official would recant the deception on the public record. The Bee's graphic proves what www.crimewatch.us has reported for years along with maps. City leaders have cut patrol year after year even when the budget was in a surplus. Just the FACTS: In District 3 alone, (Formerly Sector 3) 9 to 7 and now 3 patrol beats. That's fewer officers to cover more ground then ever before. The bottom line? Nothing much has changed in our under-policed city. There is a silver lining... citizen's are learning just where the elected official's real priorities are - Not in PUBLIC SAFETY!
What follows is a decade of seeking accountability!
|
|
This is what we wrote when Chief Nájera made a
promise he later broke! While the issue hasn't changed - The resolve to fix it has! PERHAPS. Chief Nájera vows to stay on message - bring staffing up to appropriate levels! The Community is banding together to support that message! Make no mistake - understanding errors in the past insures correction in our future. To establish that change is in the works, the first step is to acknowledge you have a problem! If we have to resort to Public Records Act or Freedom of Information Act requests, then government has an obligation to honor the will of the people. by providing honest and accurate data. On July 13, 2004 the morning after another homicide on H Street in Midtown, SCCW discovered that only four patrol cars were available to work all of Sector Three. We brought that to the attention of our elected representatives. In spite of a public document available to the press or anyone else that proved this statement, an effort was made to dodge the facts and cloud the issue. One police manager wrote: "I recognize from your emails that you are concerned about staffing numbers. I would like to allay your fears in this area. As a watch commander, myself and my peers are very cognizant of the staffing needs of our areas, which are based both on call data and experience. We ensure that each shift is appropriately staffed and, when the need arises, we have other resources at our disposal."
A request of council for accurate reporting on current staffing levels, both authorized position and actual filled position count was made on January 26, 2005:
On January 14, 2005 Crimewatch directed an e-mail to the council members representing these sectors along with the proof for Sector 3:
As you'll read in the sections below, the way to solve the inability to achieve "Minimum Staffing Levels" in our city was not to hire the officers we need or fill vacancies in Patrol. The solution from the city and the former police chief was to eliminate the policy of Minimum Staffing Levels. Is it time for this city to fess up,
move on and RESTORE the MINIMUM STAFFING POLICY? |
 |
 ON
THE PUBLIC RECORD: As the Sacramento Police Officer's Association
begins the early rounds of negotiations, it seems a conflicting story comes
from City Hall and the Chief. SPOA suggested this publicly,
rank and file agrees; severe staffing shortages creates a need to back
fill, which creates extra overtime, which causes stress, hazards and management
budget woes.
Not so says the chief! Not so says the City Manager! Staffing Shortages? The Chief told KXTV-10 News, “Out of the 664 positions, in the sworn ranks, we have 14 vacancies. For this fiscal year, we're right on target.” He also went on to say, overtime wasn't a problem. Note the chart below: The source document for the chart was obtained under the Public Records Act. It contains instruction to police officers that reads: "This is an internal Sacramento Police Department document intended for the exclusive use of its employees. Questions about its distribution outside the Office of Operation shall be coordinated via Sector Captains and the Deputy Chief." This is the same report that agitated Dep. Chief Powers in 1998 when he was seeking support for Measure M and an additional $18 million in tax money for a department that has seen no net gain in officer despite $40 million in fed grants. So, here's what the Police Department shows for vacancies now in the year 2000. The Chief must be out of touch with his own management. He says 14, the chart says 60 and the Table shows 83. |
UPDATE: I met with Councilman Steve Cohn on March 30th concerning his belief that Sector 3 patrol districts had shrunk in size giving patrol officers smaller areas to patrol. I asked point blank, where he had obtained that information. He said he had been briefed by Deputy Chief Matt Powers. I provided Councilman Cohn with Sector maps from 1998 and 2000. In '98 there were nine (9) Patrol Districts. Today, there are seven (7). Is there a "New Math" that suggests the pie that has seven slices has smaller pieces than one cut into nine? Yes Mr. Cohn, there is something wrong! Press for the answer.I want to speak to officers working community policing that the councilman spoke of. Twice in the last month, we needed to speak with either POP or NPO's that are supposed to be assigned to our midtown area. In both situations, the Communications Center said they weren't working midtown. I found one backfilling on the drunk wagon. When I contacted District Officers on a burglary tip (after not finding the former) they said they didn't know the area because they were backfilling from another sector. An effort to work with swing and grave yard sector sergeants on the auto burglary series has fallen apart because several of these supervisors have been moved to backfill in other areas.
City Manager says it's not impacting public safety! The answer can be seen in the table below. You'll notice our sector is tied for second worst in unfilled vacancies. That means more backfill officers from any place they can be found.
During the midyear budget workshops, we heard that the department was depending on academy graduates to help make up some of these shortages. In a memo to Powers on that subject along with the data presented in the above table, the author warns: " A bit of recovery was experienced during March with the addition of several Phase 4 officers. This upturn is expected to be short lived, though no substantial downturn is immediately expected. Staffing levels should dip a bit during the next two or three months until the last of this year's Phase 4's are expected. After a brief upward turn in July, the outlook for the rest of the year looks pretty grim with no anticipated placements [replacements].The author of this memorandum didn't take into account the new grant obligations SPD has to RT and the School District. While we've not received an "official" number of officers to be transferred, the City Manager stuck his foot in it at the budget workshops. I believe the number could be as high as twenty made up of a lieutenant, two sergeants and seventeen officers. The bulk will come from Patrol as indicated by Thomas.
Councilwoman Hammond ought best to be watching her Oak Park area patrol shortages before touting the Old fashion beat officers that are now community cops! Her area is hardest hit by unfilled vacancies.
 Enter
the City Manager, Bob Thomas: The CM boxed my ears last year
when I questioned the shift in 15 patrol positions from the Oak Park area.
Even though four council members asked about the same move, he chose to
vent his displeasure toward me claiming I was misleading the public and
that in fact there was "no reduction in "Authorized" sworn personnel under
the 1999-2000 fiscal year budget". Thomas
took the slippery route, changing the subject, not dealing head to head
with the questioned issue. We're talking about apples, he wants to address
oranges! When vacancies soar and you take patrol officers out of
an area, it a REDUCTION! Forget "Authorized" Mr. Thomas! Let's talk about the
"actuals".
So now Thomas shares the KXTV-10 spotlight with the chief saying there is no reason to worry, with crime rates dropping, staffing is at an acceptable level. Is that based on the Chief's number of 14 or the "Internal Document's" 83? As you review the following tables, remember Venegas said we have "664 positions" ... That may be accurate: positions are NOT bodies ON THE JOB. But the statement about 14 vacancies? So compare the numbers from 1998 to the 2000 table that follows. Draw your own conclusions. And most importantly, remember these are their internal numbers, not ours! THREE VIEWS
- You've heard each of them!
This issue is Public Safety, curtailed overtime and staffing shortages.
|
| Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Authorized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Positions Filled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vacancies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % Filled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Long Term |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TDY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Vacancies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % Working |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Authorized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Positions Filled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vacancies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % Filled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Long Term |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TDY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Vacancies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % Working |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people like the numbers game. The President's folks will use 2.9 officers per 1,000 residents when it suits them. The figures below range from 1996 to 1999. What we did, to give a realistic picture, is look at cities with a population range from 350,000 to 450,000 with Sacramento in the middle of the pack. The table reflects the highest ratio to the lowest. Sacramento Police have not updated their web site since 1995. The data that does appear in the Historical Staffing Ratios (1-29-05 update: data no longer online) shows 2.0 officers per 1,000 residents in 1975 and a steady decline thereafter. We've heard mayoral candidate Rob Kerth defend the low staffing ratio by saying we have civilians doing the work other cities use sworn officers for. We think that's anecdotal at best and in some cases a sad commentary at worst. (The Communications Center and Records for example) Those horror stories for another time. We do demonstrate at the end of this page, situations where sworn officers are doing work best left to agencies and or civilians that create the problem. Perhaps the City Council would like to address those issues if they can't cite evidence to support their other claims. Suffice it to say, the FY 1999-2000 city budget says we have 643 authorized sworn positions ( See Department Funding Summaries) (1-29-05 update: data no longer online) while the chief recently said we have 664, were we to take 83 vacancies away from the Chief's number, that would put us at 581 or about 1.4 officers per 1,000 residents. We doubt other cities do that either, so we'll use the higher numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Observations:
Most of the time, when officials talk about the number of officers in our
city, they speak in terms of "Authorized Positions". That's not what we'll
focus on here; rather, how many officers are actually on the street. When
you dial 911, that's what counts. The numbers in the tables reflect only
the staffing in the Office of Operations (Patrol and POP/NPO officers)
and are from the police department's own data. The number of patrol officers
on any given shift will vary due to sick days, vacation time or leave.
On any given day, Neighborhood Police Officers will make up for shortages
in "Minimum Staffing Levels" by changing NPO hats and "back filling" as
patrol officers. According to the Police Officer's Association, many
officers have been working 14 to 16 hour shifts every day or every other
day!
One critical issue needs to be dealt with by city government. On any given grave yard (late watch), CITY WIDE, we have a few as 28 officers on the street. This often means available resources are strained when there is a major incident like a homicide or several critical calls like armed robbery. This may mean your 911 call will have no officers to respond. There has been little or no change in Patrol. In 1998, it appears that a net gain of about 7% (mostly in upper management) had been accomplished. Overtime Issue: In the recent Mid-Year budget review, council members were treated to a $670,000 overrun in the police budget. Not one council member questioned it, nor the issue of overtime increases due to staffing shortages. The Chief and City Manager both told KXTV-10 it wasn't a problem and Venegas said he'd come in under budget! That begs another question! If Overtime is within budget, where's the money for the 63 vacant positions in Patrol/POP alone? ENTER
Deputy Chief Matt Powers: In a memorandum to all Area Captains
dated February 29, 2000 the evidence is clear:
SUBJECT: BUDGET SAVINGS OVERTIME
I expect that immediate and decisive action be taken to reduce current expenditures. RIGHT ON TARGET? Powers writes: "The Department needs to save $500,000 during the rest of this Fiscal Year to come in on budget." The City Council was presented with the following explanation of the budget overrun. The paragraph after the bullet list explains why needed cops won't be on the street for the rest of the year! POLICE
DEPARTMENT Midyear Budget City Staff Report MIDYEAR PROJECTED OVERRUN: $670,000
The department has committed to reduce spending in FY 1999-00 by $500,000. It plans to use $91,000 of carryover savings from FY99, and anticipates FY 1999-00 increased department revenues of $357,000. This results in a projected overrun of $670,000.
SOME SUGGESTIONS ON THE OVERTIME ISSUE:
|
The People, not government, should have the last word. If we don't take a stand, invite debate and demand answers, we shall become subjects of tyranny. The Legislature made it Law! "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
|
|
|
|
|
