What about Oakland's 'structural deficit?' (Community Voices)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vic_acid/4829055999/
If you watched last Thurday night's City Council meeting, you will remember that the phrase 'structural deficit' was mentioned repeatedly by almost all the Council members. Yet, none of the ballot measures they are putting to the voters in November seek to address this fundamental issue.
But we have only to look at the public safety portion of the City's General Fund, about 75% of the budget, to identify some possible remedies for this unsustainable imbalance. The focus has been on the laying off of 80 officers, with the potential for even greater lay offs later on, as well as the related issue of the OPOA's unwillingness to contribute to their pension funds. Yet, little attention has been given to how these massive expenditures, particularly in the police department, might be reduced and how the limited number of sworn officers might be used to better advantage.
Toward the end of the discussion, Council person Desley Brooks raised the question of civlianization - namely, using civilians in certain capacities instead of sworn officers. Civilians not only receive a much lower starting salary, they are not paid overtime and have a less generous benefits package. The Council last year approved in principle the idea of transferring complaints against police to the Citizens' Police Review Board so that the Internal Affairs intake personnel could be re-deployed to patrol or criminal investigation assignments. But the program has not been implemented because the City has been unable to identify start up funding, even though this program becomes cost-neutral within three years and offers increasing cost-savings thereafter. What's needed is only $1.2 milion - a very small percentage of the annual police overtime expenditures- and, in exchange, we would see at least ten Internal Affairs personnel on the streets, instead of sitting at a desk.
In addition to the Internal Affairs personnel that could be tranferred to public safety duties, there are many other assignments currently performed by sworn officers that could easily be done by qualified civilians much more cheaply, allowing sworn officers to be used more strategically. Some of these duties include monitoring 'special events' (parades, festivals, sports events, rallies, etc.), observing at construction sites, helping direct traffic, taking police reports, and other administrative and clerical jobs. Many of these duties involve considerable overtime pay, which only compounds the already overbloated police budget.
By reducing the millions of dollars a year spent on police overtime and using those cost savings to hire civllians to perform desk jobs that can be done much more cheaply, we will be making a smart, structural adjustment that makes the most efficient use of our sworn personnel and offers long term savings to taxpayers.
Can you think of any reason these changes shouldn't be made immediately? Let City officials know that it's time to start doing the work of addressing the structural deficit, not just talking about it. Mayor Dellums should make the first of what should be many more efforts to address the serious imbalance in our budget and maximize police service delivery with the limited resources we have.
We shouldn't need to mandate this structural re-alignment on the ballot; the Mayor can initiate these changes immediately. If you agree, let the Mayor's Office know that it's not our job to address the 'structural deficit' -- it's the City's.
- rashidah grinage's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
I have heard the problem with the Oakland PD is that the citizens have no respect for them because of the way they teat the juveniles or what stories are told to them by their peers. Remember the "Riders" Oakland cops out to rule by fear...True enough there is an ignorant element in Oakland that needs to be addressed. Families that don't have strong male figures. Families that suffer from slavery mentality. Lets look at the ratio of citizens to police , then we can determine if we are on the right track! Oakland is at the bottom of sworn officers per 10,000 residents, with Los Angeles and San Francisco right above them! Ok, so we have established a fact OPD numbers are not very large. We are not taking into account the square area to be covered! Thus the reason for the overtime. Let's look at pay! Oakland PD average is $65,000. Their Baltimore, MD counterpart makes average $55,000. Wow, the difference is from the cost of living in the Bay Area. Lets establish another fact; pay is comparable!Now, we have to examine the death rate of officers on duty to determine if they compensated sufficiently...this data I don't have. I can conclude that the City of Oakland is badly managed!! We have the wrong people in key positions and they are doing a lousy job!
If and when a civilian review board is put in place to investigate and adjudicate complaints against OPD officers, remember -- those officers have a huge advantage in those cases. They are assigned representation, doesn't cost them a thing. They can see all statements by the complainant and witnesses, even before making their own statement. Complainants can't.
Not that Internal Affairs investigations lean toward complainants, or away from the officers. But Internal Affairs are cops, and know all the ins and outs.
Anybody thinking that civilian review boards will hold police feet to the fire is going to be very disappointed.
The phrase "structural deficit" is the city council members' euphemism for the $One $Billion and climbing total under and unfunded pension and retirement medical benefit obligations for ALL city employees.
if the funding cost for those obligations were reported under full implementation of GASB 45 or GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), we would be showing at least a 100 million annual deficit and possibly much higher for the next 10 to 15 years. That would be true even when the economy comes back to pre dot com, pre real estate bubble levels.
Civilianization is nothing new and has been proposed by many budget activists for several years.
The savings are important but trivial compared to the "structural deficit".
How it is done, and whether most of the investigative function should be taken away from OPD is a totally separate issue.
As long as we talking saving millions, why not petition Federal Judge Thelton Henderson to end the NSA monitoring that has cost us millions in fees for outside monitors who have made a living, like a few plaintive attorneys, off of Oakland for many years.
-len raphael
temescal
Re: "Some of these duties include monitoring 'special events' (parades, festivals, sports events, rallies, etc.), observing at construction sites…"
Although OPD officers are used at special events and to monitor construction sites, my understanding is that the officers' time in those cases is not paid for out of police budget but rather by the organizers of those events or by the entity doing the construction. In that case, civilianizing those particular uses of OPD officers wouldn't help the police part of the budget.
Can the OPD investigate itself? Isn't there a raging in-your-face conflict of interest there? The OPD is a tight fraternal organization. Complaints against officers will surely be seen as a threat against the institution and OPD investigators will close ranks to protect each other. The cops need this fraternal culture to operate well in emergency situations, but the trade-off is that they can't be expected to investigate each other. It would be seen as betrayal, what on the street is called "snitching".
Special event monitoring is one job that the OPD cannot do very well. Only community insiders understand what the threats are to their particular community. And frankly, many communities in Oakland that have been devastated by the criminal-justice system, see the OPD itself as a security threat. OPD has a big role to play in emergencies, accidents, violent crime, etc., but if a task requires sensitivity to the community, forget it!
Locals who must adapt to scarce resources resent the generous compensation that officers receive from Oakland. That many officers live in affluent suburban communities that are culturally anathema to Oakland, further alienates locals. Civilians that actually live in Oakland and are economically and culturally closer to many of the locals, will be trusted more.
DO, perfectly reasonable question to question the inherent conflict of interest in having cops investiigate complaints against cops. But it has nothing to do with saving money and structural deficits.
Aren't you curious why Judge Thelton Henderson, a tough experienced Federal judge famous for protecting civil rights of minorities, didn't require a stronger civiian review board? You might even wonder if the millions of $ spent on outside monitors might have been better wasted on having both a beefed up IA staffed by civilians and an independent Civilian Review Board.
If anyone asked, they asked very very quietly. Nothing from your incumbents on the city council, nothing from two different Mayors.
-len raphael
"Can the OPD investigate itself? Isn't there a raging in-your-face conflict of interest there? " Good question-- When Batts first started, he hired an outside firm to review OPD conduct and policies around the Lovelle Mixon case and released the report publicly. Will be see the same transparency and professionalism this time? Hope so.
LR, the point is to move as much work as possible from OPD to civilians to save money and in many situations, be more effective. These financial problems are just going to intensify over time, not only because of the structural problems but also because of the ongoing decline of the economy. Citizens will have to organize in creative ways, to solve their own problems, and not expect the City to do everything. Think third world.
dave