Yeah, that’s right, Public Safety Review Board (ahem, Committee). I think I freaked a few people out by showing up. You might be wondering why I attended, but think police staffing report and aggressive panhandling. I was lucky to get a few glimpses of other amusing things like a radical change in the 911 “contract” and an odd election process. Plus, I think I busted them! 🙂
Ok, so I won’t make you read all the way through this to figure out what the screw up is. I’ll just let you know up front – its about how many police officers we need. Then, you can read the rest if you want to be educated and somewhat amused. Trust me, the secret election, the reason for the panhandling penalty increases and the 911 “contract” are very revealing.
Anyways – back to the “busted” part. The way the police figure how many patrol officers they need is a formula (explained further below during their presentation). The formula goes like this:
Workload & leave data + attrition buffer = number of patrol officers needed.
Here’s the rub. When counting the workload, they said they include incidents addressed by the neighborhood officers, the EROs (cops in schools) and the CPTs (Community Policing Teams) [Ooops, and TEST officers]. If I understand their chart right, that is 43 additional officers whose workload is counted to figure out how many officers they need.
However, when they count the number of patrol officers, they don’t count the 43 neighborhood officers, the EROs and CPTs. [Plus 8 TEST officers, who’s traffic incidents are counted in the workload so its up to 52 officers not counted.] So, they don’t have 199 officers to do the workload they identified, they already have 242 [250] officers to work on the workload. Which looks like it is 18 [26] (but you need to subtract leave time and attrition calculations) more officers than they need to meet their goal. If you don’t believe me, check out the bolded portions below. Unless someone mis-spoke or didn’t understand the methodology set up by an outside company or explained it wrong, it seems they have a fatal flaw in their calculation.
I also think that if they measure the workload based on the number and time needed to respond to incidents that the patrol officers, neighborhood officers, CPTs and EROs enter as a record into the system, the more officers you have the more incidents you can [volunteer to?] respond to and the more time it takes, the more incidents you record, the more workload you have, the more officers you need. Unless there is more to it that they didn’t explain.
I think they call that having your cake and eating it too. I only wish that the media would, instead of just reporting what the talking heads say, PAY ATTENTION!!! to what they are saying in the meetings. And then take the next step and think critically about what they have to say. And challenge them on their statements.
Perhaps, that is why I’m sort of stuck on reporting the details of the meetings . . . so, you can see what I see and think about it. I know it can take a while to read, but its shorter than sitting through the meeting. And so, without further adieu, the Public Safety Review Board/Committee meeting.
Oh, wait, one more thing. The committee members, especially Bell, Judge and Eagon asked really good questions, but then still rubber stamped everything. It was kind of disappointing to watch. Ok – now . . .
1. 14682 Election of Board Members: Chair and Vice-Chair
Chair Smith nominates Scott, seconded by Bell.
Eagon nominates Judge, seconded by Skidmore.
Next, Skidmore instructs the staff to hand out ballots. Staff wasn’t aware they were supposed to do this so they tear up blank pieces of paper and hand them out. [Ok, I don’t think that is the process! In fact, it might violate open meetings laws.] Even tho there are six people present to vote, the Chair announced vote is 5 votes, 3 votes Scott, 2 votes Judge.
[I can’t tell who didn’t vote. My guess is Skidmore, not wanting to vote against Judge or force a tie, opted not to vote. Is that why he wanted a secret ballot? Was this all set up ahead of time? Upon hearing the vote, Rosemary Lee is visibly upset by this, Chief Wray seems very, very pleased.]
Vice Chair, Scott nominated Judge, Skidmore seconds and moves unanimous consent. Passes.
ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
2. 15003 Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a second amendment of agreement with Dane County to extend the existing agreement for dispatch operations for not more than thirty (30) days.
Skidmore moves approval, seconded by Scott. Skidmore says coming for a long time, but not soup yet. Asks Joel Plant from the Mayor’s office to comment.
Plant says that they are moving with deliberate speed on 911 dispatch services, a year ago passed a two part extension, 6 mos with an additional 6 mos and that expired in July, with hiring of John Dejoung they asked for an got a 30 day extension. They have had quite a few conversations with Chief Wray and Amesqua and City Attorney Carolyn Hogg. They have decided that they no longer need to enter a contract for services, which was suggested by Dejoung, but instead they would create a scope of services and talk about mechanisms to make changes to protocols. This would be a countywide protocol for all user agencies. It’s a clean document, no exchange of money for services, universal for all users. We are the only one who has a contract at this point. Original agreement was about city property and employees transfer to county. We don’t pay and never have, we gave them space, equipment and transfer of employees to staff the center. Never been a fee paid by any user agencies. Resolution will be modified, Mayor comfortable moving in this direction, but some points need to be ironed out such as the authority of the 911 center board, staff training, etc and that is all in the scope of services. Slightly different direction but universal and regional.
Skidmore asks if Dejoung is promoting this? Has PP&J reviewed this? Plant says County Exec supports, doesn’t know about PP&J. 911 Center board will be vetting the scope of services and voting on it.
Skidmore asks about practical problems it might cause? Plant says business as usual. Dejoung has made some changes administratively. Nothing will change for us as users or for community members.
Scott asks about how uniform agreement will work for City of Madison given City needs certain procedures customized for the City of Madison. Plant says that one of the things missing is exactly how a customized protocol is handled by 911 center and the new scope outlines how those protocols would be made, who to make the request to, who makes decision and how it communicated, instead of being ad hoc.
Scott clarifies that it is ok to have a customized service. Plant confirms.
Smith asks about others beyond City? How do they feel about this? Plant says it is not universal. Welcome very consistent nature of the scope of services. Not a protocol manual, but a framework on how those decisions are made. 3 page document
Will it change how Middleton does things? They say no. It allows for independent service if they want. Middleton, Fitchburg, Sun Prairie, UW and Capital police still have their own dispatch center.
Smith asks Plant about document. She says there is a gap in coverage right now. What is in force right now? Plant says there was an extension until Aug 3 and resolution that council will get next Tuesday outlines the changes and shifting course about the vehicle they are going to use. Affirmatively state that services will continue until the scope is changed.
Skidmore asks if they are being asked to vote Tuesday and when will they get it – Plant says tomorrow (That would have been yesterday at noon) at noon it will be out.
Skidmore asks Chief – since police and fire are 62% of workload of 911 center, this comes out of left field and does chief have any concern, because our noise complaints are more important then rural park? Wray supports the direction. Corp Council just gave opinion on role of Center Board. Procedures and scope of services is being developed by us and they will be used county wide. Chief also says that we have a method or process to make changes. For those three reasons he supports.
Fire says that Chief Amesqua is in agreement and no reason for concern from an operational points of view. Fire Dept has fewer variations because they use priority medical dispatch and priority fire dispatch and processes are in place already. As long as not changing our operational response, he doesn’t see any problems or cause for concern.
Scott asks if Mr. Dejoung is a good working partner? Wray says it is an “excellent” working relationship and a week as not passed where he hasn’t met with him once a week. Says it was their discussion that turned it around from contract to scope of service. Executives help solve that. Fire says Chief Amesqua is also working with him on a regular basis and there is a great deal of respect. Mayor’s office agrees as well.
Discussion ends – motion carries. [I don’t understand why they just voted on something they did not see and would be changed the next day. Not a very good review by their committee.]
3. 15061 Amending Sections 23.07(10) and 24.12(8) of the Madison General
Ordinances to increase penalty range amounts for Unlawful Trespass and
Menacing or Aggressive Panhandling Prohibited.
Skidmore moves approval, Scott seconds.
Eli Judge asks why they are doing this. Skidmore says aggressive panhandling at intersections on the west side. Vic Wahl says that it came from City Attorney and Chief Davenport. Also says it is at the top end of the range so no wiggle room for the municipal judge. Widen the range for judge for cases where it is appropriate.
Skidmore says that not looking to go after more people, just gives more leeway and another tool. [Great, a tool. This usually means trouble!]
Eagon clarifies that it is leeway for court not a greater deterrent? Wahl says push is from city attorney’s office and court.
Scott says more significant change is judge has greater latitude. What advantage does it offer? Vast majority of people charged won’t pay cuz won’t have money.
Eagon clarifies again – Smith says drafters analysis isn’t correct, maximum is changed. Smith says that her interpretation is that the lower amount still stands. $10 to $200 is what it was and not they can make them pay up to $500 and the previous classifications are gone.
Skidmore says municipal judge is neighbor and constituent and gives him more latitude. More ability for him to do his job. He doesn’t typically go to maximum allowed to be charged but gives him latitude.
Scott says does away with sentencing guidelines, but that’s ok cuz have reasonable municipal judge.
Skimore says this is what the judge likes, leeway and discretion.
Smith says that serial offenses is hard because has to be same offense and may be seeing these folks for other things and if they are repeat folks, they can get charged more, even if this is their first offense of this kind..
Eagon says that changing the maximum fines from $200 to $500 doesn’t make much of a difference if the judge doesn’t like to go to top anyways. Can see why remove steps but not change the fee from $200 to $500 is impactful.
Skidmore says he can’t speak for the judge, but he is reluctant to go up to max.
Eagon asks if the judge doesn’t go to $200 yet, why would he go to $350? Skidmore says that’s his discretion.
Scott says he can see need for higher amount for trespass, but not panhandling. Scott asks when they use city vs state tickets. City is used alot says Wahl especially in challenged neighborhoods and multi-unit apartment complexes. Focus on residents or nonresidents causing trouble, good tool, Scott points out it generates warrants for failure to pay. [That’s what gets people arrested and tossed in jail until their debt is paid off.] Wahl says judge is opting to go to collections and tax intercepts but some will go to warrant. That is not routine. Trespass is written alot.
Eagon asks about panhandling. Wahl says he is not as familiar. Far less frequent than trespassing, most likely downtown and State St. On periphery there is usually other types of offenses. Wahl talks about connections to other crimes for trespass.
Scott says city controls panhandling not through ordinances, but other methods and Memphis just sent people to Madison to see what we were doing.
Despite the concerns, it passes unanimously.
4. 15186 Repealing Section 12.26 of the Madison General Ordinances which created
restrictions on opening vehicle doors in traffic.
Skidmore moves, seconded by Scott. Not as onerous as it seems. State was considering it when it passed, time to repeal because state is pre-empting it. Ped Bike Motor Vehicle Commission already approved it.
Judge is concerned that the state statute applies only to highways, and the city passed it because of city streets. Wahl says that highway is all public roads. Smith says that it is the same for drunk driving.
Judge is concerned that there a different restrictions on bikers based on speed. Skidmore says it is any street in the state code.
Despite questions, passes unanimously. [I guess I’d like a city attorney opinion on that instead of relyig on Skimore to answer the question. Seemed like people in the room weren’t real sure.]
PRESENTATIONS
5. 15395 Madison Police Department Patrol Staffing Report – Captain (Vic) Wahl
[The report was sent to some of the committee members around 2:00. They hand out copies of the report and the power point presentation. I have to walk up to the front of the room and ask for a copy for myself an Rosemary. Not sure the reporter got one. And its not available on line as of this morning, two days later.]
Wahl does presentation, goes over powerpoint presentation that is printed in full color. [Wow, most departments can’t afford that!]
Wahl says police didn’t have good benchmarks to measure needs and didn’t have good methodologies. Talks about Etico and jow they look at officer time spent on incidents, not number of incidents. He says it is possible to pull data out of the CAD to find out time and then you have to factor in things like reports. .50 hr for noise complaint plus add report time and then determine average officer time by call type. Can find out what the actual workload is. [However, he admitted that some officers count their report time in the incident and others don’t, so they may be double counting report time in some cases.] Doesn’t count administrative time spent on checking out squads, making computers work, downloading video, downloading citation data and gassing up the car.
Also look at how much time they take off.
Proactive time vs Reactive Time – by having proactive time each hour it improves level of service to community. Traffic enforcement, foot patrol, etc.
Also factors in attrition.
They did their report a few years ago and they have the tools to repeat it and this is the 2008 data.
Incidents increased. Calls for service are about 150,000 per year typically, and so this looks like a decrease. He explains the imperfection in calls for service data, counts every incident and some of them might not be patrol related (drug investigation) and have nothing to do with patrol. Information or other calls might not get assigned to an officer, that counts as a call for service, but they aren’t called. False alarms as well.
Skimore asks if it includes dropped calls. Wahl says yes.
Skidmore says has asked for number of dropped calls and never gotten it. Wahl says working to id dropped calls.
Smith asks how confident that 2007 to 2008 is apples to apples. Wahl says methodology he is very comfortable with. Have changed internal procedures to capture more, workload didn’t go up 8% but maybe now they are capturing more. 08 to 09 will be more accurate.
Wahl goes over workload curve over the day. Midafternoon is peak every day. Shows consistency between 07 and 08.
Goes of over work by district and reminds them that this is “patrol only”, not parking enforcement or detectives work.
Skidmore asks about neighborhood officers, EROs, neighborhood officers and CPT are included. He says yes, they stayed consistent with what Etico did.
Talks about workload by district by hours. He says Central bar time is purely weekend bar time. Have tried to address through downtown safety initiative, no other efficient way to do it.
Smith asks about if they have charts that compare the incidents by time and the staffing of patrol. Wahl says they are moving to 5 shift patrol. And they tried to do that when coming up with that plan. He says it is close to how the districts are staffed by number of calls.
Average time for patrol incidents went “down a little bit”
He talks about how they try to keep reactive time 28 – 30 so have 30 – 32 minutes of reactive time to be responsive to public. Not there yet. 32.5 to 32.4 time is result of increased staffing.
Scott asks what typical range is. Wahl says 28 – 30 is recommendation from Etico, nationally they are all over the board up to where reative is 50 – 55 minutes, and level of service is very low. Basically only run to emergencies. 25 – 35 is more the range of others. Scott suspected that they might have a more aggressive goal. Scott suggests 25 and Wahl likes that.
Scott lobs a softball and asks “Is one reasonable inference that we’re understaffed?” Wahl says yes.
Next Wahl talks about staffing efficiency. Red line is daily staffing. Parts of the day where they are off, and this is why they are moving to 5 shift plan. Power shifts will be noon – 8 and 8 p to 4 a shift. He points out that right now they are at 78% efficiency.
Leave time is admin and benefit time or non-patrol time and sick/vacation time. Training, inservices, etc is non-patrol time. Wahl says not big change in practice but more accurate data collection.
Scott looks at 2008, says that biggest perception by public has a greatly inflated sense of how many are out there at one time. If 50% of officers are patrol and this says need twice as many police officers as you can put out there, so only 100 officers per day, which is only 33 cops per shift is pretty normal, for most citizens that is a pretty big gap. Don’t see detectives and administrators. He says we need more like 6 police officers to have 1 on the street. Scott reminds them half are not patrol. Scott says most people think there are 10 times more cops on teh street than there are. Smith says that might act as a deterant.
Bell asks if that changes with 5 shifts, Wahl says it will stay the same. He says there may be some impact on time off and overtime, pools are smaller, one injury or leave can have a big impact on the shift.
Neighborhood, CPT, ERO now are in the other category, not counted as patrol officers when talking attrition.
Limited duty and medical leave is all built in to shift relief factor. So, that is all there, except for attrition.
Talks about attrition.
Wahl says that he has given this presentation to all the officers at the district briefings. [I get the feeling this powerpoint was shown to all the officers to get them to lobby for the 12 – 25 more officers.]
Smith asks about succession planning, Wray says that they track retirement projections, but probably on the younger or inexperienced side of that. Early 90’s lost many experienced officers who had 17 – 18 years experience on average and that has gone down to 7 – 8 year average for patrol. Wray says it took 20 years to get 1st shift patrol when he was an officer an it is and now less than 8 years. They have been hiring and expanding at the same time. So we have a less experienced police force.
Scott questions the attrition numbers in working with younger people. Wray says haven’t seen the change. Some leave and come back.
Range of need for more officers is for proactive and reactive time. 24 is 28 minutes, 12 is 32 minutes.
Wahl says workload doesn’t count the self reporting unit, ideally we would respond to those things, if you lump that workload into this, we would have a different calculation. This is a snap shot. Plan to do this calculation every year. Applied for COPS grant, requested 6 for next three years, if granted that would address needs.
Scott says could reallocate from non-patrol to patrol. Smith points out there is a contract. Wray talks about work load and that would operationally would eliminate CPTs or TEST. [Ooops, looks like I need to add in the 8 TEST officers who are also not counted.]
Skidmore asks if the will be any changes from CPTs and Neighborhood officers, and they say no.
Skidmore asks about neighborhood officer spending time on non-neighborhood [i.e. patrol] work. Wahl doesn’t seem to think they can track that, but they could approximate it.
Bell asks about CAD data and asks what cops are doing when sitting in the park. Wahl says CAD is tied to an incident. Bell asks where briefing time is? 15 minutes every day. Wahl says it is not built into this because it is overtime. They explain that is part of the contract. Bell says that is news to him. When he sees someone in the squad car working, is that admin time? Wahl says if doing a report, not captured, [well, except he says some cops count that in the incident time] but they have ways in methodology to estimate that. With dictated reports they know how long they are dictating. If on radar, they are doing traffic enforcement, that is an incident. Bell asks about false alarm, when they send out 2 officers, where is that time? Wahl says if they go to the alarm, it is an incident, if it is a pure boroadcast and file then that is not seen in the system. Broadcast and file is the way the call comes in and the officers volunteers to go to the call anyways. Wray justifies due to the burglaries.
Scott asks if they complete their report before clearing the call or not, so the CAD system may or may not capture that time. Wahl says there is no CAD code for reports. Varies by officers. Scott points out there is a little uncertainty.
Skidmore asks if just patroling, that is not recorded right. Wray says they asked officers to create an incident, and that is considered proactive work. Problem solving, community policing are starting to show up.
Graffiti going throught he roof.
Smith asks about the next steps. Asking if they will be asking for more staff and that seems to be agreed to and changing to 5 shits. Wahl says will look at leave time and non-patrol time as well as importance of training. But that’s about it. Transition to 5 shift plan is significant. Etico report had recommendations and they have done some of the recommendations such as tracking dropped calls, monitoring times when only do emergency calls, etc.
Smith asks about staff reaction to power shifts. Wahl says he has presented at all district in-services so all have seen a version of this. He explains another change is that there is a transition geographically from beats to zones. Every shift has beats that are unique to the shift and changes every year and its a moving target and officers have too much ownership over that and they have found it to be problematic. He says the “officer ownership” impacts level of service and its complicated esp with 5 shift plan. They are moving to 15 patrol zones, 3 per district and staffing built around those zones. The way they had been doing it was “unique” and this will be more consistent. Most of questions and concerns from patrol were about the zones and not the shifts and specifically how will work be allocated.
Smith asks if lose intelligence that beat officers have developed. Wahl says that in practice the beats are large and much of the time officers are still reactive driving from call to call. Zone will be larger but officers can be assigned to focus on areas in depth. Shift relief factor and so much shifting and don’t get alot of consistency anyways.
Bell asks about 5 shift system is going to scale over time in half. Wahl says he doesn’t know. Hasn’t put that forth as a benefit. Doesn’t know the impact and hope is by having more officer will increase staff time. Wray jumps in, when reduce size of shift, more pressure on maintaining minimums and may increase over time. More officers out when they need to be out – routine an hold over overtime will have a good impact, but staffing minimums need to be closely monitored.
At this point I left. All they had left to do was talk about their committees.
