---
Chief Sharp's "Know Your Oro Valley Police Department Budget" alleges that the Department has reduced its headcount by a bit over 13 equivalent full time positions.
So, I tested his numbers. Rather, than a decrease, I found a net increase of 5 employees from 2009 through April of 2011:
Total Added Employees: 26
Total Reduced Employees: 21
Net Added Employees: 5
(Source: Town Manager’s Report to Councilman’s Barry Gillaspie dated 4-26-2011.)
So, I wonder, from where did Chief Sharp derive the numbers to support his claim?
John Musolf
---
23 comments:
John,
I know you are better than this. "Equivalent full-time positions" is not equal to "number of employees." You and I both know that. I am neither doubting your nor the Police Department's numbers. Rather, I know you are aware that you are comparing apples and oranges. Why are you doing this?
OV Dad
Why am I doing this?
Chief Sharp spent his department’s time and taxpayer money to publish a document called “Know your Oro Valley Police Department Budget” which he sent to a number of Homeowner Associations in Oro Valley. It is also posted on the Town Web Site and the OVPD department printed “glossy” sheets that are available in the Town Clerk’s Office. Chief Sharp asks his own questions about his OVPD budget and then answers them. There is no third party assessment of the correctness of any of his answers. Using the budget document and “Requests for Information” I am providing an alternate factual answer to his questions.
Your reference to using positions or FTE is comparing apples to oranges does not apply.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a way to measure a person’s involvement in a job or task. An FTE of 1.0 means that the person is equivalent to a full-time worker, The Chief has 129 full time positions.
Some organizations may split their time across different tasks and need to have a method to make sense of the many ways that salary costs accumulate. One method is to convert hours worked into full-time equivalents, or FTEs. An FTE of .63 signals that the workers are only part time.
Starting on page 164 of the FY2011/2012 Chief Sharp uses FTE since he says he will have 129.63. The .63 is a method used to designate FTE. In his records program he has an office assistant FTE of 1.25 and under the Training/Reserve Program he has reserve officers FTE of 2.38. The .25 and .38 add up to .63 FTE.
John Musolf
John,
Please spare me the accounting lesson. If you knew what I did for a living, you'd know I don't need it. I'm still not sure what you did for your calculation.
1) Did you use FTE's or number of employees? From the wording of your entry, it seems that you used the latter while the PD used the former. As I am not familiar with the Town Manager's Report, I hope you can clear this up for me.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would also like you to answer two more questions - if it's not too much to ask of you.
2) What exactly is your baseline ('2009' is rather vague)? It seems to me that the PD's report used FY 08/09 as baseline. Did you use the same?
3) Did you adjust the numbers for the Fleet/IT issue?
here we go with the funny math argument. solution-- approve the outside and independent management study of the police department.
The problem is that there is not independent verification of the Oro Valley Police Department Budget.
It's 47% of the Town's budget. The police budget should be examined in detail by an independent (from the town) third party to insure that it is proper.
----
Zeeman......
How many municipalities do what you suggest? I'll give you a hint....it's real close to zero.
Unknown.....That's not a fiscally prudent exercise at this time, in my opinion
Remember the guy in New York who ran on the "Rent is too damn high" platform?
Well someone should run on "the Police Budget is too damn high"
All these numbers make my head hurt. Just look at the pie chart. "too damn high"
Thinker,
You are wrong.
I spent many years as a Consultant with a substantial consulting and accounting firm; the biggest in the world. My firm did many studies of Police Departments throughout the nation. Every study identified areas of improvement, from systems support to improved deployment. The studes more than paid for themselves.
An independent study of the Oro Valley Police Department by a top quality firm, reporting only to the Council or a specially appointed committee, might provide confirmation that the Police Department budget is justified; or that it is too big or too small. There is no preordained answer.
So, I ask, why are some so afraid of an independent look at 47% of the Town's Budget?
----
I am not the least bit afraid. But I see absolutely no reason to spend that kind of money at this time. IF there were glaring problems with the PD then I would be all for it.
You and others on this blog can not come up with ANY basis for the study other than you "feel" or you "think" the cost is too high.
We are getting what the majority of the people of this community want from our Police Department...a safe community.
We pay so little taxes to Oro Valley as it is as a household, I don't know why you are complaining. As I have said so many times before, Pima County is ripping you off and you say absolutely nothing. There is a message there and it is that it is not the dollars. So what really is it?
"You and others on this blog can not come up with ANY basis for the study other than you "feel" or you "think" the cost is too high."
Thinker....
The basis of the request is that the the police department uses almost half the town's financial resources. There is no on qualified in the town to asses if this spending is the right level or not. So, an independent look would be good.
---
Zeeman....First of all I must ask what qualifications do you have to make the determination, "There is no on qualified in the town to asses if this spending is the right level or not."
I would counter that we have a very qualified finance director, a Town Manager and one of the most respected Chief's in the state. We also have 7 elected officials who we gave the authority to make that determination on our behalf. I would also present that we have 41,000 citizens who can make that determination.....and there about 50 of you that think we spend money too much but you cannot come with a single concrete indicator.
I would also submit that we are and have been one of the most fiscally sound towns in the state which would indicate that our fiscal policies are historically sound.
So what's your real beef?
How much money does your household pay to the Town of Oro Valley for the services provided to you? Do you even know?
Hey thinker.
Once upon a time I had a FEELING that the US did not need to invade Iraq. But FEAR was used like a baseball bat to convince the country that we needed to invade that hapless, sad country.
Now, I guess we could all be convinced that we need to spend apx half of the town budget to "keep us safe".
Gotta go now, time for my shift on community guard duty.
OV Dad
Whether you use FTE or employees/positions, Chief Sharp has 129 people or bodies on his staff. There are 97 sworn officers and 32 civilians. Chief Sharp also used .63 FTE to account for part- time hours.
In answer to your question 3: “Did you adjust the numbers for the Fleet/IT issue? The answer to your question 3 is Yes.
If you had bothered to look at the FY2011/2012 budget on the town web site you would have seen on page 6 of the town manager’s budget summary that she refers to an attachment called “General Fund Expenditures Reduction” At the bottom of that attachment it shows that $467,000 Fleet Costs and $102,000 IT Costs were added back into the Police Budget. If you would have looked further in the FY2011/2012 on page 170 you would have seen the Police IT budget section and on page 171 you would have seen the Police Fleet budget section.
In answer to your question 2: “What exactly is your baseline ('2009' is rather vague)? It seems to me that the PD's report used FY 08/09 as baseline. Did you use the same?”
Yes, I used the same baseline of FY 2008/2009 to FY2011/2012 budgets that Chief Sharp did!
Chief Sharp made the following question and answer:
Q. Has the Police Department reduced its number of employees since the slumping economy?
A. Yes. In comparing FY 2008/2009 to FY 2011/2012 budget, the Police Department reduced staffing equivalent to 13.35 Full Time Employees. This includes eliminated and unfilled positions.
A. Factual Answer from John Musolf.
Before the slumping economy started in late 2008, 13 police officers were hired and 7 reduced before a council imposed hiring freeze went into effect.
After the hiring freeze went into effect, 4 police officers were added in 2008.
In 2009, 3 police officers were hired and 8 reduced.
In 2010, 3 police officers were hired and 6 reduced.
In 2011, 3 police officers were hired thru April 2011.
Total Added 2008 (17), 2009 (3), 2010 (3), April 2011(3) 26
Total Reduced 2008 (7), 2009 (8), 2010 (6), April 2011 (0) 21
Net Added 5
John Musolf
John,
I take your delayed response as a sign that you were hoping I would not come back and press you on this. Either you are smart and your intention is to mislead, or... I'll leave the 'or' up to you. Either way, I would have expected better of you.
In comparing FY 2008/2009 to FY 2011/2012 budget, the Police Department reduced staffing equivalent to 13.35 Full Time Employees.
The key here is: equivalent to 13.35 Full Time Employees. Yet, you keep talking about the absolute number of employees and, therefore, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Let me ask you about a hypothetical scenario. I'll keep it simple, too:
What happens to (a) FTE employees and (b) the absolute number of employees when the Police Department fires 4 full time employees and hires 6 part time employees (each of which is classified as .33 of a full time position)?
And then, ceteris paribus, what is the impact on labor cost?
Dad---
Here's a hypothetical for you:
A town of approx 41,000 has had a previous town council approved a motion that the chief of police reports TO the town council. The council, not the police chief, makes the decisions as was the case concerning a hiring freeze.
This "hypothetical" town has a council super majority that allows the police chief to do pretty much whatever he wants.
Hypothetically, the police department is responsible for almost 50% of this "hypothetical" town's budget.
Hypothetically, a previous council approved a study from an outside firm to determine if there is any way of lowering the police department budget.
A present super majority of 5 on the existing "hypothetical" town saw fit to "kill" this study, presumably to save the town money for the cost of the study, which, "hypothetically" could have saved the town millions of dollars.
My question to you is this: I'll make it really simple.
Instead of looking to find fault with John Musolf's work, would you agree that this study should be done?
If not, why?
I trust you'll accept the fact that I'm not pressing you for an immediate response.
By the way, "Unknown" said it all in a prior comment.
Unknown said...
here we go with the funny math argument. solution-- approve the outside and independent management study of the police department.
OV Dad
Your response to my (John Musolf) last comment on the blog is very interesting. “I take your delayed response as a sign that you were hoping I would not come back and press you on this. Either you are smart and your intention is to mislead, or... I'll leave the 'or' up to you. Either way, I would have expected better of you”.
John Musolf: My delayed response was due to the fact that I have other things I do with my time besides making comments on the blog. You can come back as frequently as you wish and press me as frequently as you wish! Your response that my intention is to mislead has no basis in fact. It appears that the only way you can respond is to impugn my intentions. Either way, I would have expected better of you!
I answered the questions you asked but you ignored that!
Are you (OV Dad) trying to impress us with your brilliance with your last comment?
“And then, ceteris paribus, what is the impact on labor cost?”
Since, I took 8 years of Latin, I knew the question you were asking. However, for those who didn’t take Latin let me provide a definition from Wikipedia off the internet.
Ceteris paribus or caeteris paribus is a Latin phrase, literally translated as "with other things the same," or "all other things being equal or held constant." It is an example of an ablative absolute and is commonly rendered in English as "all other things being equal." A prediction, or a statement about causal or logical connections between two states of affairs, is qualified by ceteris paribus in order to acknowledge, and to rule out, the possibility of other factors that could override the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.[1]
Why didn’t you simply ask “with all other things being equal or held constant” instead of ceteris paribus? I repeat, are you trying to impress everyone with your brilliance? I don’t care what the impact on labor cost is in your sample scenario?
You are trying to divert the discussion away from the core question I was asking the police chief in my analysis. How did Chief Sharp come up with his reduction figure?
John Musolf
So it's no longer about Chief Sharp's math but about (a) the LOVE bloggers' hatred of the Police Department and (b) my use of "ceteris paribus," which I thought to be a rather common expression - especially among accounting experts. It's not like I used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious or something...
Hmmm... I can tell which way the wind is blowing.
Anyways, John:
This is the second time I have called you out on using numbers to mislead the readers. I will continue to refrain from getting into the ad hominem (ooops, another Latin expression) attacks that are essential to this blog's modus operandi. But when I see you do this kind of thing, I will call it out.
You could have simply stated: "We/I have reason to believe Chief Sharp is lying in his report because the number of employees increased. However, the absolute number of employees and equivalent full time positions are not the same and, hence, we/I cannot prove such a thing." I'd take absolutely no offense to that; your beliefs are your beliefs. Your statement here is a belief, as you and I know you have failed to produce conclusive evidence.
Lastly, I won't beat a dead horse, but these councilmembers were elected on strong pro-PD platforms. The electorate has spoken in that it does not want an expensive PD study, whether you want to believe this or not.
How did Chief Sharp come up with his reduction figure?
By using the full time equivalent accounting method, which is far superior to simply looking at the absolute number of employees. FTE distinguishes between full-time and part-time employees and thus gives us a better idea about how much labor a given unit (in this case OVPD) is utilizing.
The readers of this blog can believe either a man who comments using his name----John Musolf, or one that, in effectsays: "guess my profession" and uses a pseudonym.
I choose to accept John Musolf. His background and integrity stand out as being very much superior.
OV Dad: I do not think anyone on this blog "hates" the police. That is an very unfair statement.
Any department which approaches 50% of budget should be under careful review. What is wrong with that?
Just the existence of the 68 odd "take home" vehicles is an indicator that more oversight is required.
Once again, I can tell which way the wind is blowing...
Now it is about pseudonyms and 'believing'...
I am not asking anybody to believe me. I believe in reasoning and think my arguments speak for themselves. I ask everyone to use their brains, not to 'believe' what others are saying.
simple solution to all this point/counterpoint do the management study of the police department that this council killed.
But a very costly solution.
Post a Comment