CORRESPONDENCE - 19J - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 September 6, 2016 SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL The comparison with Anaheim and Long Beach suffers from the same flaw. It is not current. The downward crime rate trend that is lauded, as being responsible for a growth in property values, sales tax revenue, business licenses and employment rates must have a negative affect on those same indicators when it shows an increase. Shouldn't we be addressing the current data that shows an increase in crime? Shouldn't we be looking ahead to the future? What about staffing? The charts would have you believe that there is a huge increase in hiring. There is a huge increase, but it has to be put in context. When you eliminate 74 positions so that you can build an excessive reserve of 20%, surplus accounts, any increase looks good. Mr. Cavazos had you eliminate positions and now wants you to be excited because he has had you increase the very positions that he eliminated. My goodness, doesn't one's head feel good when one stops hitting it with a hammer? As an aside, the 733% increase that the charts glorify doesn't represent actual human beings. The pictures show increases in positions. According to this police officer's association, there are less officers actually working at the police department today then in 2012 even after this dramatic increase in hiring (292 officers in 2016 and 309 officers in 2012). Of greatest concern to the men and women who work the patrol function, the ones who are out every day and night, driving around being dispatched to calls for service and keeping an eye on the city,the ones who are asked to be the first line in reducing crime and who are first responders to emergencies, disasters, fights, shootings, and all of the other problems that they are called upon to deal with, is the misrepresentation with regard to staffing. If you accept the principle underlying the statement that there are "an average of 26 officers in the field to meet public safety concerns," you might as well believe that there are 210 officers (budget authorized police officer positions in Field Operations) in the field to meet public safety concerns, plus all the detectives, plus the officers in training, administration, etc. All officers are always subject to being called out. The average of 26 includes officers who are assigned to special duties, important to the delivery of police service to the citizens, but not"patrol" as that term is used by the people who do the job every day. On day shift, nine or ten people in uniform, riding around in a car, being dispatched to calls is the more realistic number. And, while response times to "Priority 1" calls may be good, again because of the superhuman effort by the members of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA), response times to the lower priority calls that most citizens become involved in is horrible. People wait a half hour,45 minutes,an hour or more for a police officer. These calls are the most common point of contact between citizens and the police department. Most people are not involved in shootings, assaults, or the other crimes that are "Priority 1" although they are up. They are victims of a petty theft, they have a problem with a neighbor, their kids are misbehaving. When they have to wait for an hour or more for a police officer, what is their take-away? The initial response to the "statistical analysis" of the police department budget as a percentage of the General Fund has to be "so what?" Is that chart meant to imply that less money should be spent on the police department? Providing public safety service is the most important obligation of government. It costs what it costs. There can be no doubt but that the city is getting by at the lowest cost possible. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the chart is that "things cost more today than they did four years ago" but then again they factor in "attrition salary savings' and we are back to square one. Did we really increase by that much?