A few observations on this issue.
Until a Study Session scheduled for July 8, the Council voted 5-2 (Kunisch & Abbott) to have the Police Chief & Town Manager come up with a plan to reduce take home vehicles by 25% which is estimated to be a savings of approximately $35,000.
I would think that anyone either at the May 20 Council meeting, or watching the streaming video (as I did) would have no problem seeing that Council Member Al Kunisch was the self appointed shill for the police.
The Deputy Chief of Police seemed to be a good spokesperson, but too many questions could not be answered. One example was when Vice Mayor KC Carter asked how many times in the last year or more did any officer need to respond to an emergency call with their take home vehicle?
The response by the Deputy Chief was non responsive as he indicated that this policy has been in effect for perhaps 25 years.
Our friend John Musolf addressed the council and indicated he was confused as to how the eight officers assigned to the schools needed a take home car in case of an emergency. John wasn't the only one confused on that point.
To be continued----at least until July 8.
47 comments:
Well all we need is one time for them to have responded and that one time would be one time too many in my humble opinion.
I don't think the school resource police vehicle's have to be taken home but I can understand the benefit of some officers taking the vehicles home.
In the event of a natural type disaster or emergency I would imagine we might wish we spent the extra 25 or so thousand.
What do other agencies do?
But I do think this issue needs to be looked at closely.
I sort of like how the town's spending is being put under a microscope. Makes sense to me.
When nobody in authority can tell you if any police officer ever had to drive to an incident from his home for any emergency in the last year or more, that tells me, this policy is no more than a perk, disguised as a necessity.
Others can think what they will. To me, it's a charade, and it's time the council started thinking seriously about fiscal responsibilities.
How would you like to tell a public works guy --- a father and husband,as an example, "I'm sorry, but you're getting fired as we need to save money, and besides 68 cops need to take police cars home?"
Give me a break!!!
I had asked a question about the officers assigned to Amphi School district. Amphi is a big school district and covers more then OV. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
So do other towns contribute to having OV police working at the Amphi schools or are there other officers assigned?
Artmarth, No I would hate to tell anybody they were being let go. Just not in my nature .
We are lucky in Ov that we have never been hit by any big disaster but it can happen. In such an event, minutes could mean the difference of life and death to some. Hopefully it never happens.
Without knowing everything involved except the possible savings, I am not against some officers taking the patrol vehicles home. Should this be looked at very closely? Yes of course.
You ask about having to tell the public works guy he is getting fired to save money while cops take cars home.
How about telling that to the council members who voted to contribute 277,00 dollars to agencies who don't seem to do much for the town. At least the cops do perform a function/job.
Perhaps we need to elect some candidates that know how to say that one important word---- "NO!"
Like, "No." we don't have the funds to give tens of thousands of dollars to outside agencies. "No," we don't have the funds to allow police cars to be driven all over southern Arizona.
Is there anybody out there that speaks that language?
I know of one.
Ms. Coyote,
It's really hard for me to believe that a resource officer at an elementary school needs to take home a vehicle at night to some other town to keep us safe. Maybe they do. It's just hard to believe. Also hard to believe that their PR person needs a take-home vehicle and on-call pay. That is just over the top. It seems like there are many other examples like that. The "risk manager" takes home some kind of SUV, etc. Where does it end?
Artmarth has it exactly right.
When hard questions are asked, the OVPD and Town Government cannot come up with a good answer.
The eight cars for school resource officers is a boondogle!
Oro Valley Mom,
Yes I agree I don't see any reason why a police officer assigned to a school needs to take a car home.
But since I am really "old school" I am not even sure why we need to have a police officer in a school. This is not that much of a high crime area, or is it? And if some of these kids are that out of control they don't belong in school. Just my thoughts but I went to Catholic School, need I say more ? :))
And No a Pr person or risk manager does not need to take home a town car.
I would only think about officers in specialized area's like the swat or similiar job assignments having a need for a car to take home. And maybe a few others who have a legit need
Ok, anybody out there, why do weneed to have a police officer assigned the job of a school resource officer?
Did Councilmember Gillaspie have it right about his statement relative to [living in a police state]? It seems to me that 'police powers' in Oro Valley include having substations - at will, volunteers - at will, take-home cars - at will, personnel - at will, cache (pun intended but not funny)- at will; all of this reeks of a police department gone wild.To whom do they answer - or is our Council in fear? Police in schools? Are we turning our 'parenting' over to the police, too?
Incidentally, several weeks ago, after John Musolf, the OVPD, and Council had seemingly come together in the spirit of cooperation, I felt that a new era of 'doing business' had finally come into being; I wrote Town expressing my elation, but now, I am not so sure that my feelings weren't perhaps a bit premature.
More and more I believe that EVERYTHING - all issues relative to the PD, should have been resolved AT ONCE instead of being addressed in a piecemeal manner and that is deceptive. I guess I'm headed back to one of my original tenets - give the OVPD a budget, period, and tell them to deal with it. Who do they serve - the People or themselves?
We need officers in schools because parents refuse to be parents and dump them off to the schools to do thier job. This makes the kids respect no authority. If there was a resource officer in Columbine, the incident could have been prevented or the damage and lives effected could have been greatly reduced.
No I dont think that they need the take home cars. They should have to pick up their cars from the station like all of the other patrol officers.
SWAT officers, detectives and other investigators on an on-call basis should be the only ones with the take home vehicles so they could respond to the incident they were called to in a hurry.
Im sure that there have been plenty of events that these on call officers have had to drive their take home vehicles from their house to the event.
YOU PEOPLE are just nit-picking at any little thing you can against the police department.
Ohh and the council's actions as of late seem to be retaliation for the way the police department didn't just roll over and take what was being shoved ........
languageborder,
I am not against having some type of resource officer or similar position in school, I just don't think we need a full fledged police officer on duty in a public school.
I know in some cities it's necessary but don't think our area is that bad that we need a police officer in a school.
Yes I do agree that some parents expect the schools to do it all, teach their kids and babysit them all day.
We call those "parents" breeders.
lbc09 is back, and as usual sees things that aren't there and doesn't see things that jump right out to most of us.
The last two sentences in lbc09's comment are too ludicrous to refute.
I think that having officers visit elementary schools is fine, but having one assigned there, with a take-home car and "special assignment pay" (yes, they get EXTRA pay for working at an elementary school)--that's over the top.
I'm not sure why the Chief didn't offer cutting the school resource officer program instead of the Community Action Team when he was asked to cut a program. Maybe he thought that the latter would get more attention from the union and the media, especially since he had his own PR person doing stories on the Community Action Team after the Chief offered to cut them.
Five years ago, there was one lieutenant in the OVPD. Now there are seven. I'm not sure why the Chief didn't offer six lieutenants instead of the Community Action Team, but he did.
And no, I don't think the Council's recent actions are "retaliation" for the Chief's poor management decisions or the police union's smear tactics against them, although I'm sure that none of those things are helping matters. I think that the Council is concerned about balancing a very tight budget, of which the police department makes up nearly 50%. It seems like some of the Council members have worked very hard at balancing that budget and saving jobs, and the police department has fought every step of the way to keep every position and every perk. If we as taxpayers can't afford that, then we need to quit wimpering and start cutting.
I guess it's okay for the OVPD to
swarm Council meetings in order that officers, uninformed and perhaps uncaring relative to the 'greater picture', can attempt to instill fear and guilt with their sappy rhetoric but it's not okay for certain citizens and/or Town Councilpersons and Staff, who have knowledge in fact by the use of studious involvement, to express their concerns about too much police. Is that about right LBC09?
Take lessons (no matter your political bent) from the FACT that in 1967 and 1973, a small but SMART and WELL TRAINED Israeli army ROUTED a much larger coalition of forces determined to 'wipe them out', in the latter case dealing with a SURPRISE ATTACK by the MUCH HIGHER numerical forces of Egypt and Syria.
POINT - smaller forces with brains, commitment, and technique will outperform larger ones whose cumbersome numbers and vague applications disallow for a 'tight ship'. History proves this time and again. NUMBERS DON'T WIN - SMARTS DO!
I agree that the School Officers in the elementary and middle schools should have been offered up first. In highschools they are needed.
And no artmarth, I don't see things the way that you do. As I have said before, what fun would it be if everyone thaught the same exact thing with no type of argument or discussion? I have noticed on the blogs on this site where there are those that argue against the normal 4 people that seem to think the same, there are a lot more people inputting their ideas and there is much greater discussion.
You say,
"The last two sentences in lbc09's comment are too ludicrous to refute."
Are they ludicrous? Or can you not refute them? This seems to be a common sentence that I see appearing below your pseudonym .
Will the "4 normal people that think the same" please stand up. Explain yourself, lbc09.
languagebordersculture09---
Yes, your statements are ludicrous. Almost as ludricrous as suggesting I use a pseudonym.
Well, you're welcome to read who I am on the left column of this blog
"Read About Love"
Art Segal
Now, why don't YOU let our readers know your identity----or is it too embarrassing with you making such ludicrous statements?
To add to Zev's comment about how it isn't the SIZE of the force that matters, it's the SMARTS...
Cinco de Mayo, anyone? On May 5, 1862, 4000 Mexican soldiers defeated 8000 French soldiers (an army TWICE their size).
Artmarth, for shame, you are chastising a 'tin man'. I welcome opposing commentary as you do, but, like you, I cannot accept gibberish; get your brain in order, lbc09, and then tell us what you are thinking in a reasonable and understandable format and do so without the unfounded inferences that you proffer.
It appears that there are those who, when called to task relative to their questionable assessments, instead of a putting out simple and forthright explanations, simply backpedal into the cocoons of their anonimity.
VC, you are so right in your bringing forth the truth of Cinco de Mayo. And, too, going all the way back to the Biblical story of David and Goliath, the underlying message of that portrayal, carried forth through the annals of history, is that [battles are won with brains and ideology not by bloated brawn and puff].
Do any of you who oppose police officers in the public schools in Oro Valley have any clue as to the amount of drug abuse there is in our schools?
Do any of you know how many students at Ironwood and CDO have died in the last year as a result of illegal drugs?
We have a huge heroin problem in CDO and an equally huge illegal prescription drug problem in Ironwood.
The education and awareness of these problems needs to be addressed at the middle school level but we also need to alert our children about these issues before that. There are physical and mental abuse problems in the elementary schools.
I recently attended a presentation by the OVPD School Resource Officers. It was shocking, sobering but most of all enlightening. If you would like to see a presentation, I would be more than happy to schedule one in the near future
I too wish we didn't have to have police officers in schools. But the reality is, as was stated so accurately, because too many parents refuse to parent.
We simply cannot stand by and allow this to go unchecked.
PS...The OV officers are assigned only to Oro Valley schools....not Amphi wide.
PPSS...Ms Coyote
I couldn't agree with you more. The budget should be under a microscope every year. Unfortunately there are few of us who do so.
OV Objective Thinker made a comment on the LOVE blog concerning the school resource officer:
“Do any of you who oppose police officers in the public schools in Oro Valley have any clue as to the amount of drug abuse there is in our schools?
The education and awareness of these problems needs to be addressed at the middle school level but we also need to alert our children about these issues before that. There are physical and mental abuse problems in the elementary schools.
I recently attended a presentation by the OVPD School Resource Officers. It was shocking, sobering but most of all enlightening. If you would like to see a presentation, I would be more than happy to schedule one in the near future.”
I am as concerned as OV Objective Thinker about the instances where drug, alcohol, substance abuse, and physical/mental problems are happening in our elementary, middle, and high schools. No one opposes education in our schools for dealing with these problems.
The subject being discussed was the need for “take home cars” for these school resource officers, not the need for these school resource officers.
Also, I did a little research on the school resource officer position using the Town of Oro Valley “request for records” from the Town Clerk’s office. This is a good way to obtain factual information.
I requested a job description for the School Resource Officer.
Sandra Abbey, our human resource director gave me this response: “School Resource Officer – This is an operational assignment that can be made to any current Police Officer – please see Police Officer job description.”
Police Officer Job Description 2760
POSITION SUMMARY: Under general supervision, performs a variety of Police work in an assigned area of patrol in order to protect life and property, prevent and investigate crimes and apprehend criminals through the enforcement of Federal, state and local laws and ordinances to maintain public safety within the community.
ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS:· Knowledge of applicable Town, state and Federal statutes, rules, ordinances, codes, regulations, administrative orders and case law governing municipal law enforcement.· Knowledge of Town and Department policies and procedures. · Knowledge of modern law enforcement trends and practices.· Skill in interpreting laws and regulations, making decisions, maintaining composure and working effectively under stressful conditions and emergency situations.· Skill in the use of firearms, assigned weapons and first aid practices.· Skill in oral and written communication.· Skill in establishing and maintaining effective working relationships.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:· A high school diploma or equivalent.· Completion of police academy.· Must possess at the time of application and maintain an AZPOST Certificate and Arizona driver license.· Successfully complete background investigation and polygraph examination.
This means that the school resource officer does not require any minimum qualifications or essential knowledge and skills for this critical education position. OVPD can take any police officer without any prior qualifications or teacher training in the areas of drug, alcohol, substance abuse, and mental (psychological) problems and place them in our schools to provide this critical education.
Let’s stick to the subject. Do these school resource officers have a real need to have a “take home car”? In my opinion, there is no justification for the “take home cars”.
John Musolf
John-- Thanks for putting the issue back where it belongs.
While some amongst us would rather cloud the issue, you brought it back to where it belongs.
Oh! By the way, the officers working the schools don't need a higher education, but I would guess they do need a drivers license!
John and Art.
My comments were in response to others who posted on this blog opposing officers assigned to the schools. "While some amongst us" believe that interaction amongst us "cloud(s) the issue", I disagree. If we wish to strictly "stick to the point" I question the introduction of the job description of a police officer. One can only draw the conclusion that since the job description did not contain instruction to take home a police vehicle, a vehicle should not be taken home.
But I will expand on my comments to respond to the latest postings. In my opinion SRO's should be at the top of the list for take-home vehicles. In addition to their daily duties as law enforcement officers and educators and counselors they attend many of the extra curricular activities (on and off campus, nights and weekends)that are held. There are many other instances where the SRO is expected to respond to "after hour" needs. It just doesn't make sense to require the officer to drive from home to a police station to pick up another vehicle and then respond to the scene. In some cases time is a critical factor.
While I agree that the number of take home vehicles may have been excessice there are specific needs and I believe the SRO's fall into that category.
Attending after-school events does not justify a take-home vehicle. Responding to emergencies should be performed by officers on duty. It does not justify SROs having take-home vehicles.
I think John posted the job description to show that there is no particular training in education, mental health, or drug prevention required to be an SRO. Also, I'm not sure there's any evidence that the absense or presence of an SRO affects drug use or other criminal activity amongst youth. The drug deaths that Don mentions occured while there was an SRO assigned to the schools.
Wow, OVOT, a clear and reasonable assessment of the picture as you see it; and, yes, tightly pertinent to the original post.
Overall, aside from the 'take-home' vehicles, their numbers, to whom, and so forth, this stream seems to, in part, address the use of drug use within the schools or the sale of same stemming from the 'dealing' within them. Unfortunately, having observed how this abomination can and will occur outside of the schools, within neighborhoods, parks, parking lots, etc., though a police presence can have an effect within the confines of a school perimeter, there is much, much more of drug dealing and usage going on OUTSIDE of the grounds. I illustrate this by using my former, 'upscale' subdivision in which I lived, as an example. Here we have a beautiful, custom home area, replete with doctors, lawyers, CEOs, business owners and so on.
At the age of 16, their kids were all GIVEN either a Jeep Grand Cherokee, BMW, Lexus, etc. as birthday presents. These kids took great pleasure in 'turfing' the lawns, contaminating the swimming pool, breaking into and partying in the clubhouse, having sex in the woods, AND the community found syringes, booze bottles, prophylactics, and stashed drugs of several varieties either hidden in trees or simply lying about. MY POINT - parenting itself, society itself, AND some teachers themselves do little or nothing to take responsibility for this degradation. Can any PD truly 'police' these situations? I maintain that, in reality, they cannot. Yes, they might catch a few situations here and there, but putting a stop to it - no way. They do what they can but they can't do it all. The OVPD in schools may make a SLIGHT dent in penetrating this problem but the large picture appears to indicate that that's about all they can do.
My hat is off to what the police try to do and it is not their fault that they can only do so much. My gut says that parenting is where the big failure is. Many simply slough off what should be their responsibilities to the schools, the police, and to whomever they deem can 'babysit' their kids.
So, the big question is - while we can put police in the schools, what is the true impact they have in stemming the problem(s)? And, why should local public funds be used to watchdog a federal, state, county and parental responsibility?
Bloggers:
Chief Sharp was asked in November '08 to present a trimmed budget for the Council to oonsider. May 2009 is six months after the request.
In your opinion, how timely did he comply?
While Garner and Latas used reason and conscience to elicit from Asst.Chief L Stevens, Sharp's response, the Chief was still unprepared. Yet all other Town departments submitted their recommendations.
Some administrators call disobeying a superior's request insubordination, a reason for firing.
With all due respect to Asst. Chief Stevens, "Time is needed to do a proper study" this response blatantly ignores all other TOV's departments' financial pressures.
It hints at the OVPD's feeling more important than the others.If a needs' assessment was done originally, the Chief could explain the necessity this expense.
However, Asst. Chief Stevens could document only one incident when an emergency warranted the PD using a squad car from home. Does that one event justify gas, maintenance, depreciation, insurance and a "free car" to the other 67 officers who have use of the same?
In my opinion, no,never.
Other municipalities require officers to live where they work. If OVPD required all PD officers to have a local address, it would not be necessary for this differential in pay, in budgeting to occur. Now that would save lots of bucks!
Bill Garner and Salette Latas diligently reasoned why the OVPD should continue to trim its budget, KC Carter offered his "no nonsense" experience in construction, but Barry Gillaspie was the surprise of the night. He simply suggested that if the Council wanted a 25% reduction, the Council should demand it and let Chief Sharp decide where he will make the cuts. While Councilman Gillaspie's style is cautious, this was a very clear, decisive, unequivocable statement.
Kudos to Garner, Latas, KC Carter and Gillaspie for demanding that the PD conform to the needs of the Town.
They exercised their political privlege...now let Chief Sharp conform. Administratively the Council rules, not OVPD.
Just want to say that hope we all take a moment to say a prayer or remember those who lost their lives serving our country.
All good points being made by both sides of the issue.
I will say that surprising thing to me is this issue of the pd taking cars home is raising more blog controversy then the issue of the council voting to give away approximately 277,00 to "special" interests.
My idea would be to have the pd do some type of chart that analyzes cost, etc, need and then justify each car that is taken home. Would like to see a real justification in detail for that 277,00(?) also.
Not sure how residency requirements are handled in OV. My understanding of residency requirements are they vary from town to town, etc.
Do we want to see a residency requirement for all police & fire personnel? Then should it also apply to all town employees?
Ms Coyote....
THANK YOU for reminding us of the significance of the holiday we are about to celebrate.
Your comment about the interest in this subject is shared. Frankly the amount of money in savings we are talking about is insignificant when compared to the entire budget.
Cox--- Which part of the 50% of the total OV budget that comes from the police department do you consider "insignificant?"
Is it the total number of police?
Is the the 68 take home vehicles?
Is the the "top heavy" management?
Is it the frivolous spending?
Is it the number of substations?
Is it the fact that 3 cops are needed to hand out one citation?
From your standpoint, I'm sure none of this is applicable.
Art...
Your comment indicates that you either did not read my post, or did not understand my post.
Allow me to break it down to a level which you may be able to understand.
Ms. Coyote stated in her post, "I will say that surprising thing to me is this issue of the pd taking cars home is raising more blog controversy then the issue of the council voting to give away approximately 277,00 to "special" interests." I followed with, "Your comment about the interest in this subject is shared. Frankly the amount of money in savings we are talking about is insignificant when compared to the entire budget."
Now what about that don't you comprehend? Help us out here Art.
The topic, as you so 'eloquently' pointed out earlier was "take home vehicles".
LOVE!!!
Yeah! I understand all that.
Do you have any idea how many total vehicles from all employees in OV are "take home?"
Do you have any idea of the total, how many of the police vehicles travel well beyond the limits of Oro Valley?
No! The $35,000 savings that's been tossed around is not "insignificant" even when you're talking about the "foolishness of operating the town as if we, as a community are comparable to Warren Buffett.
He's a philanthropist. We're a small community operating with a budget deficit we're trying to overcome.
Giving away tens of thousands of dollars makes no sense, whether it be to the likes of TREO, or cops driving town vehicles all over the place.
The town received $487,154 in community funding requests. Garner and Latas did an excellent job of paring that down to $236,717--a reduction of an incredible 51.4%.
Loomis, Kunisch, Carter, and Abbott then proceeded to undo some of those savings and gift $25,000 to the Critial Path Institute and an additional $16,000 to TREO--a total of $41,000 not recomended by the subcommittee.
Garner, Latas, and Gillaspie did a great job negotiating another $35,000 in cuts from the police department, but you all are correct. It doesn't make up for the $41,000 given away unnecessarily by the other four.
OVOT,
"Significant" versus "insignificant...
Art expansively reiterated the realities of the PD half million dollar budget. Thank you, Art.
OV Mom restated that the "savings" was $35K and credited the council for taking charge. Thank you for recognizing the Council's postive movement and restating the amount.
You elaborated that you were comparing this savings to other "giveaways". Perhaps, your expression of that was unclear. Many zero in on the biggest fraction of the budget, ie OVPD.
And what I am focusing on, is not the dollar amount alone but the action, the behavior change by Council regarding its nonconforming police department.
Do you understand the meaning of what the four councilpersons did?
Do you understand the monumental "significance" of the step they initiated?
Until Wed May 20 OVPD ran a very independent enterprise. Chief Sharp chose not to produce budget cuts, a needs' assessment study in a timely fashion,not to answer legitimate questions about his department. He expected that an extension would be automatic. He believes that he has special status, inspite of the growing negative feedback he is getting. He acts as if he believes he, and he alone, runs the PD and he is accountable to no one.Consulting the Town Manager before submitting requests to Pima County Attorney General's office, was suggested to the Chief on Wed. David Andrews is his administrator superior.
No other TOV department ignored Council's requests, asked for extensions, nor did they quickly move to use their "discretionary" cash, ie Seizure fund's balance of $300K dropped to $108K in just two months.
If he were a cooperating member of the TOV team, he might have allocated the $200k he spent between March and May 12, 2009 before anyone suggested that he cooperate and use that for the Town's benefit, but he did not.
Instead he quickly spent it.
Surely, OVOT, you see $200K as more "significant" than $35k?
The present Council dared to challenge his decisions, examine his fiscal management and then they took charge as their role demands and decided.
Message: Garner, KC Carter, Latas and Gillaspie will provide fair opportunity to the Town departments to comply but if the Staff in question does not meet its commitments, THEY WILL ACT.
Second message: Accountability is expected or decisions will be made without their invited input. Since the OVPD is that largest department, each employee knows that procrastinating important fiscal decisions will not be tolerated.
Significance?
This Council acts fairly,studies the issues responsibly, looks for constituent input and then will act decisively, unintimidated by police presence, setting the bar high for fiscal responsibilty.
They expect staff to respond in a similar manner.
Significance?
OVPD, take heed, the Council is in charge.
NS...Sounds like a personal rant against Chief Sharp. I happen to believe he runs a very good police department. The crime stats and the morale of the department would indicate he is doing something correctly.
My use of the term "insignificant" was solely in reference to the topic at hand which was the savings realized by cutting the take home cars by 25% when viewed in relationship to the entire budget.
Just a couple of brief footnotes:
Isn't the person with the title "Chief" supposed to run the police department?
Does Pima County have an Attorney General?
Lastly, It sounds as though, although you believe the Council should be managing the town departments. I base that statement on the following two quotes
"Garner, KC Carter, Latas and Gillaspie will provide fair opportunity to the Town departments to comply but if the Staff in question does not meet its commitments, THEY WILL ACT."
"And what I am focusing on, is not the dollar amount alone but the action, the behavior change by Council regarding its nonconforming police department."
Under our current system of town management, the Town Manager is responsible for the overall management of the department/division heads and their performance. The Town Council should limit itself to setting policy.
In my opinion, this and previous councils, do far too much micromanaging of the day-to-day operations of the Town. We could have some great discussions surrounding this topic.
OVOT and others:
Is it not that the Council serves at the pleasure of the People?
Is it not that the Town Manager serves at the pleasure of Council?
Is it not that the Chief of Police
serves at the pleasure of Council?
Is it not that ALL underlying departments of Town serve at the pleasure of the Council?
Therefor, in reality, is it not that Town, wholly, serves at the pleasure of the People, in essence by and through the granted authority of a Council ELECTED by the People?
No one should have higher authority than the PEOPLE and THAT should be understood without condition.
Zev,
Thank you for brilliantly reminding OV how the Council takes office, ie backing of its constituency. More power to the people.
OVOT,
Please elaborate for the blogsite how you feel Chief Sharp's tenure satisfies you. How do you set the bar for this evaluation?
NB: While you feel there is "low crime rate" in OV, a significant number of constituents dispute that impression. It is one of "image making".
You allege that I'm personally attacking the Chief.
The CEO of any country, state, local administration has accountability for its organization's productivity. This is not personal but an observation about Sharp's performance in his role as Chief.
Sharp publically demonstrated his lack of cooperation in front of the Council. He, not I, takes responsibility for these actions.
Your tax dollars and mine pay his salary. $140K and perks is a healthy salary. We, citizens have a right to measure his performance to justify the expense.
In addition, his dismissive attitude about the Town's requests provides a negative role model for his staff of 100+. Although hard to measure, I find this more dangerous, more corrosive to healthy community functioning than his irregular spending habits.
NS....I am not trying to be argumentative or dismissive but your last post is extremely difficult to follow and therefore even more difficult to provide you with a coherent response which you deserve.
Without some of your elaboration what questions do you have of me?
OVOT,
Please tell us why you think Chief Sharp is doing a good job.
Is that clearer?
NS....
Crime rate.
Department morale.
Turnover rate.
Public support.
Relationship w/unions.
Involvement within the community.
Accessability.
I could be wrong, Zev (and you'll let me know if I am) but: The Town Manager, the Chief of Police and the Town Attorney serve at the "pleasure" of the Council. All other department heads serve at the "pleasure" of the Town Manager. So, no, the Council cannot and should not provide direction to department heads other than those three named. All direction must go through the Town Manager.
No city manager should ever allow a Council member (or members) to manage individual departments. (The exception is in the "Commission" form of government, rarely used these days--and nowhere in Arizona). Oro Valley has a Council liaison policy which rotates members among the departments, but it's hard to assess what actually comes out of this arrangement (except when former Council member Parish was the Police Department liaison and thought he was the Chief!).
OVOT,
We have to agree to disagree.
Crime rate-skewed statistics because of incomplete reporting as you've read on the blog.
Dept morale-If the boss provides staff with a fully covered car for its use, the staff should be very happy.
Public support-Are you "hearing" what bloggers are saying?
Involvement in community-not where I live. Where do you live? Maybe it makes a difference.
Accessibilty-There is a massive roadblock to the Chief by phone, in person, email. So how have you gained access?
NS...
I read a lot on 'the blog'. I must say most of what I read is unfounded accusation, personal opinion stated in the form of fact and just outright false statements. Some of the latter are simply made through ignorance of fact and others are intentioal errors spoken only to incite or sway the 'kool-aid drinkers'. I have yet to see any factual information to support a statement that there is false reporting of the crime statistics. In one of the monthly reports to Council I discovered a number that way completely out of line with other monthly statistics and they discovered that a digit was omitted. These types of human errors will occasionally occur.
The overall morale of the department does not hinge on take home vehicles.
Most bloggers (on any blog) will speak only when they have something to gripe about. The number of people who actually post on this blog is quite small.
I live in Copper Creek and my comment was not limited to my neighborhood. I am speaking about community wide involvement. Chief Sharp, and members of his family, are very active in the community on many levels.
I have e-mailed the Chief on numerous occasions and he has responded to every one. That's something that can't be said about many of our elected officials. I have requested an in-person meeting with Chief Sharp on several occasions. He has yet to turn me down. Now I will say that the Town e-mail system is very tight when it comes to accepting e-mails. I had difficulty a couple of years ago getting responses and when I brought it to their attention (IT Dept) it was corrected immediately.
Hopefully this helps.
OVOT,
As previously stated, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for your suggestions about how to access the Prince of Police. None of my many efforts have been successful.Perhaps, you have a special charisma that makes you hard to turn down. I appreciate your suggestions.
About the "unfounded" accusations of unreported crime in OV, let's go head to head. With other constituents I can document not one or two but many events that have never been documented as well as destroyed evidence.
Copper Creek is a great neighborhood...Mine does not garner his interest at all. Yet both your subdivision and mine pay taxes, right? Constituents have a right to expect equal service delivery for all.
You write "Chief Sharp and his family..." Does he employ his own family in the PD? If so, that smacks of nepotism...long ago outlawed in my home state. Could the reason he has accessibility in your subdivision be because he has family there? Are you a relative of his?
Might this be a "family town"?
NS...Once again your most recent comments indicate more than a mere interest in Chief Sharp and the OVPD. It would be nice if you just came clean and told us about your personal vendetta.
I am not a family member of the Sharp's.
As an objective observer of the last comments listed on this subject. I would like to add these comments:
I was speaking to a business owner and former Police Officer, who was annoyed about the fact, that it took several Police cars to pull over a "pretty young thing", and was upset and thought the other officers should be doing their job patroling his neighborhood.
Chief Sharp's absence from the Town Council meeting, letting his assistant deflect the flack, that should have be addressed directly to Chief Sharp was unprofessional. The Town Council could have rearranged the order of the meeting to accommodate Chief Sharp. so he could attend his son's graduation.
Listed several articles above, it is obvious that Chief Sharp is trying to circumvent dealing with the Town Manager directly. Also trying to use Department funds, for his very expensive "COMANDO CAR", rather than keep hard-working personnel employed.
Does his "family" volunteer their time, which I believe to be commendable, or is the a case of "nepotism"?
These are just a few concerns that I and others that I have spoken with, share.
This has gone from silly to just plain stupid.
The alledged business owner/former police officer should know that there are several reasons why more than one officer responds to a traffic stop. I really doubt the dispatcher dispatched other cars because there was a "pretty young thing" in or driving the car. In fact the term is somewhat instructive of the individual(s) using the term.
Secondly, The Sharp family volunteers their time to various local activities.
So should the some of the folks posting rather than submitting silly comments.
ov thinker
I, on one occasion was stopped for a minor infraction, color of left turn signal. It took THREE police cars to pull me over. Don't you think that is a bit foolish and I agree with you SILLY. This gentleman said 6 cars were pulled over to the side of the road, he was curious and checked it out. Minor ticket with this many OVPD, was this a training class?
You never addressed the foolish use of funds for an expensive "COMANDO CAR" when so many of OV's best are trying to SAVE their jobs in this economy. All you have to do is watch the video or come to the Town Council meetings to see how many of the OVPD are concerned about their jobs. Chief appears to have the attitude his CAR is more important than these wonderful gentleman.
It appears he doesn't want to accept his responsibility but rather pass it on to his Assistant.
The implication was not his family volunteering at various venues, but at the OVPD.
Apparently I am not the only individual mentioning groups of OVPD pulling over individuals. Check out May 27 Letter to the Editor by Michael Allum.(sp)
Post a Comment