[This question and answer is from Oro Valley Police Chief Sharp's "Know Your Police Budget"]
Q. What are Anti-Racketeering funds and how does the Police Department use them?---
A. Federal Guidelines and Arizona Revised Statutes strictly regulate the use of Anti-Racketeering funds (also known as seizure funds). Seizure funds are often utilized to fund departmental necessities that are not funded through the approved Town Budget. Examples of approved expenditures are inclusive, but not limited to:
• Member training/travel
• Investigative support
• Equipment purchase/maintenance
• Community oriented policing programs
• Gang and drug education and awareness for the community
Remember! “Seizure funds are often utilized to fund departmental necessities that are not funded through the approved Town Budget”.
You decide which are necessities!
1. Equipment Purchases: Ice Maker 1 for $5,334 and Ice Maker 2 for $4,955
- Obviously the acquisition of two ice makers is crucial to the public safety of Oro Valley citizens and day to day policing activities!
- The OVPD has a bicycle unit that must be outfitted in the latest “fashion” like Lycra shorts. The cycle wear and jackets could be for the bicycle unit or the motorcycle unit.
- The bar stools are “standard” in policing activities?
John Musolf
---
27 comments:
From the upcoming 09/21/11 town council agenda. It's the last item on the agenda. "DISCUSSION REGARDING POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE CRITERIA, STATISTICAL REPORTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO ENHANCE OVERALL PERFORMANCE" This sounds a bit vague. Setup for a reason to appropriate more money?
Just......Probably not.
Here is my guess:
bill garner wants to once again make an attempt to discredit Chief Sharp and the Oro Valley Police Department. It will become a cornerstone of his campaign to be re-elected which I predict will end up about like the national economy....a disaster.
I can't really speak for John. Nor can I speak for Council Person Garner. Nor do I speak for Art.
I speak for myself.
When 50% of a Town's budget is spent by one department, every penny spent by that department is circumspect.
Like me, John is an outsider. He gets his information based on information requests. His analyses are based on facts. Thay are first-rate.
It is interesting to me that the comments provided by Thinker never address the facts that John presents. Instead, Thinker, you use a diversion technique of attacking the messenger, whether it be me, John or Art.
Do you even know the facts Thinker? Do you even care? Have you ever met with John and looked at the detail he has developed? I think not.
Instead of doing your homework, Thinker, your responses, which are intended to intimidate, merely demonstrate your lack of any insight or introspection based on facts.
Be interesting for you to stop "drinking the koolaid" and start defending your buddies based on fact and not bluster. Problem is: I don't think you can deal with the facts because the facts simply don't suit your agenda.
---
Well, Zeeman, once again you appear to have missed the target. Your comments are lopsidedly incorrect, not to mention have nothing to do with my previous respose. But I am glad you spoke and welcome your comments. I only hope that you will allow my response to be viewed.
Every penny of every Town department should be properly accounted for not just the police department. But when you look at what comes out of on this blog, 90% of recent postings are directed at the Police Department. What do you suppose accounts for that? I think it will become abundantly clear Wednesday night.
I do far more homework, than you can imagine and I suspect it is far more than some of the people you mentioned in your opening volley. John does a lot of homework but only to the extent that public information requests provide. As I said in a previously deleted post, John lives in a numbers world. That is not intended to be a critical statement. My father lived there also. It is simply a reflection of his background and what he presents to us. It's all about numbers. It has nothing to do with circumstances, nothing to do with the reality on the ground...only the numbers.
I spend many hours a month working on my Planning and Zoning Commission assignments. And whether you can appreciate it or not, that in itself gives me a much greater insight into other department functions. One aspect of every proposal for land use application is whether the requested use is in the best interest of public safety. Is what is being proposed safe for the end user? Thus I have a great deal of contact with the police department.
I spend time talking to the Chief of Police and many of the individuals who both patrol our streets and work in command positions.
I spend many hours a month in an attempt to physically remove drugs from our streets and educate the public on the issues surrounding prescription drug abuse in conjunction with the Oro Valley Police Department
I seek out facts when I don't know them.
I HAVE sat down one-on-one with John and discussed the detail he develops.
Much of what John "develops" is simply a repeat of what he gets from Town provided documents with some insinuating negative comments. Here are some examples:
"Obviously the acquisition of two ice makers is crucial to the public safety of Oro Valley citizens and day to day policing activities!"
Or this:
"The OVPD has a bicycle unit that must be outfitted in the latest “fashion” like Lycra shorts."
Did it ever occur to him that the ice machines were available for the health and welfare of the officers on the street when the temperatures are 110? Did it ever occur to him that the "Lycra" clothing is purchased because of its comfort, durability or it's ability to protect officers from heat related illnesses.
I submit to you that if it ever crosses his mind it is far from top priority. It's all about the "numbers".
What is always missing often on this blog, from those you mention, is why what is presented is improper or an alternate solution.
In other words, and I have said this a million times, nothing positive.
It's easy to bitch and gripe. And there are things to bitch and gripe about in the Town. But it is the responsibility of each of us to also help with solutions.
How about devoting one month a year of the LOVE blog to only pointing out the positive aspects ot Oro Valley and offering solutions to issues.
PS: One thing John conveniently failed to mention. Seizure funds are not taxpayer funds AND most of them are generated as a direct result of the work of the Oro Valley officers assigned to multi-jurisdiction units. The latter is another "homework" learned fact.
I don't mean to attack John, but I think it is ridiculous that both of you refer to him as some sort of numbers wiz. He's been off by a mile repeatedly: not accounting for inflation when comparing town budgets from different years; not knowing the difference between absolute numbers of employees and full-time equivalents. These are the two I picked on. If you cut through the pretentiousness about his expertise, there isn't much left.
Let's take this post as an example. If John's intention was not to discredit the police department but to inform the public, he would have done the following:
1) Gather the data;
2) List how the seizure funds were spent;
3) Include whichever purchase he finds offensive, but relate it to the total amount of seizure funds that were spent on everything.
(I hope this makes sense - I'm not sure if I expressed myself clearly enough.)
Instead, this post seems to me as if someone had an axe to grind, picked out a few purchases that (with some effort) can be put in a bad light, and selectively used that information to mislead his readers. I would not call this 'developing detail.'
I believe that, as a town, this is not the kind of discussion and 'analysis' we should be having.
Again, I don't mean to attack John. However, he has decided to go public with his 'analyses' and should be accepting of such criticism.
OV Dad.....I believe your comment regarding an "ax to grind" is well stated and appropriate. It is abundantly clear to all who read, that there is, as Zeeman puts it an "agenda" here.
If the citizens do not watch the budget, we will soon be paying for $16 muffins at the town meetings. Yes, ice makers and uniform items may well be justified. Also needed are people questioning and commenting on budget items. Maybe both sides of this discussion are correct. One side questions, one side responds.
Thanks all for you comments.
Respectful and on point.
Your comments add value to our dialogue.
Zee Man,
Agreed: OVPD's 50% of TOV's budget needs scrutiny as do other departments. However, OVPD's just keeps the spotlight because it is one half of TOV's. It's "numbers", OVOT! They get more so they merit more scrutiny! Goes with the turf!
OVOT,
Zeeman called you on speculating, not facts. You volunteered "that you did not know" specifics about business licenses. How refreshing to hear you "own" your behavior! Why not go further and document who you interviewed and what they said to validate your information? Then readers can give it the merit it deserves.
Are you aware that in denigrating John as "a numbers person" you are revealing much about your relationship to your father? Do you want to do that so publically?
"Nothing positive comes from John..." sounds more like personality not issues are your focus.
John,
I applaud your asking the questions! We all grow in finding the answers. If the actions are honest, the do-er has nothing to fear. If not so honest, the voters are validated in their questions. Sounds like a win:win to me.
In my opinion Garner's focus on the department that uses 50% of TOV's money is warranted. He is requesting fiscal transparency and as a Councilman that is part of his job description. F-A-I-R may be a four letter word to the Chief.
PS. My understanding is that Seizure Fund use requires approval before they are spent. Who approved the $250K Commando Car I saw on Linda Vista behind CDO's school?
Desert Voice....
Some quick comments....
It is your opinion that I denigrated John. In my opinion I did not and I went out of my way to state, "That is not intended to be a critical statement.", to insure that people would not draw that conclusion. Possibly you missed that comment.
The fact is that nothing positive comes out of John has nothing to do with personality, it is simply a statement based on when he posts on this blog. If you can find something positive that he has posted please enlighten us.
I have no clue how to respond to your request to know who I interviewed as I don't know what post you are refering to. I will be glad to share any information I have if it is available.
Chief Sharp recently published a brochure "Know Your Police Department's Budget" said to have been completed in an effort to address questions concerning the Oro Valley Police Department's (OVPD) 2011/2012 fiscal year budget.
Did the Council authorize the time and cost to produce this brochure information for its approval prior to the e-mail being sent by OVPD and this information being posted on the Town Web Site? Or was it just Chief Sharp defending his enormous budget? Is it possible that the public might question the justification and validity of this brochure?
OV Dad says he doesn’t want to attack me! Then OV Dad makes a quote: “Instead, this post seems to me as if someone had an axe to grind, picked out a few purchases that (with some effort) can be put in a bad light, and selectively used that information to mislead his readers. I would not call this 'developing detail’.” Just for your information OV Dad I (John Musolf) did request for information on use of seizure funds for the last 3 years (I got many file folders of documentation).
The 3 “necessities” mentioned were the ones that defied common sense. Bar stools for the police department???
I do not have an agenda against the police department. If OV Objective Thinker and OV Dad would look a little closer at my guest views they would see that I am responding to each question Chief Sharp’s raises about his own budget in his own brochure “Know Your Police Department Budget” I said at the start of my guest views that I would offer a different perspective on the Chief’s answers to his own budget questions (of course the chief has no bias in his answers and is not pushing any agenda?).
Also, I guess OV Objective Thinker and OV Dad missed the critiques I did on other departments on the blog. The finance department on their “flimsy financial forecasting” on construction sales tax revenue (1.7 million shortfall) and the DIS department not enforcing the town code on Outdoor Displays or my comment on the Interim Town Manager Greg Caton ignoring the hiring freeze.
OV Objective Thinker says that most of the Seizure Funds are a direct result of the Oro Valley Task Force Officers. OV Objective Thinker Quote: “Seizure funds are not taxpayer funds AND most of them are generated as a direct result of the work of the Oro Valley officers assigned to multi-jurisdiction units”. I (John Musolf) never said that seizure funds were taxpayer funds. I wonder what source OV Objective Thinker used when he said most of the seizure funds came from the direct work of Oro Valley officers???
If anyone wants to learn more about “seizure funds” there is an article that explains what they are and how seizure funds are gathered. www.arizonacriminaldefenseblog.com/2009/7-frequently-asked-questions-about-criminal.
That article talks about all the agencies that may be involved in Seizure Funds (not just the Oro Valley officers).
What law enforcement agencies are involved in seizures and forfeiture proceedings?
State, Municipal and Federal law enforcement all regularly conduct seizure and forfeiture actions. Some of the agencies involved are the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the Pinal County Attorneys’ Office, the Pima County Attorneys’ Office, the Coconino County Attorneys’ Office, The Yavapai County Attorneys’ Office, etc… Moreover, most federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also conduct these proceedings.
John Musolf
Moose/John...
I believe five of the last six postings you have made as "Guest Views" have been questioning the management of police department. That fact speaks for itself.
There comes a point at which oversight moves beyond being objective and slides into the petty and meaningless. Worrying about what kind of shorts the bike squad wears, I submit, falls into the latter category.
Disagreement is not an attack.
Don
Thinker,
So how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the REASON the OVPD is a hot topic for discussion is because it encompasses almost 50 percent of the Town budget?
But I do love that you stated that it was "petty" and "meaningless" to comment on the clothing that the police bike squad wears.
I refer you to some of your past postings where you chastised a mayoral candidate for wearing a polo shirt to a debate on hot day!
Yup. Petty!
VC and OVOT,
Ah ha! VC makes a strong case OVOT, for your lack of awareness about how you impact others. There's a Scriptural quote about "seeing the speck in one's neighbor's eye but ignoring the plank in one's own."
More recently with Zeeman you wrote, "Z, once again you have missed the target...You comments are lopsidedly incorrent, not to mention have nothing to do with..."
"Missed", "lopsidedly incorrect"and
"have nothing to do with..." are three criticisms and negatives for your opener. Your approach is to level your opponent and then expect him to engage in civil discourse with you? And you talk about facts dealing with the largest department in the Town?
Where are your facts, not opinions and feelings?
Bar stools in a Town where drunk drivers are under close scrutiny?
Sounds like an oxymoron to me! Next budget will appear the cost of their "beverages".
However, I do agree with you that one can disagree without being disagreeable. When you can do that, I will applaud you publically.
VC....You continue to miss the point.
The point about police clothing was, in my post, a response to fiscal responsibilities.
The comment I made regarding Mr. Zinkin was made to point out his lack of respect for the position.
Pick either one and I will be happy to debate each issue.
Desert Voice.....I have no doubt that you would never applaud any point I made.
I suppose you also missed Zeemans, response,
"Thanks all for you comments.
Respectful and on point.
Your comments add value to our dialogue."
Where does that leave your comments?
Thinker,
You claim that your comment about Zinkin's polo shirt was to point out his "lack of respect for the position."
If he'd been wearing a tee shirt, shorts, and flip-flops, you would have had a reasonable argument. But a polo shirt is a collared shirt and is considered acceptable attire even in upscale restaurants.
If I may mention national politics for one brief moment in order to counter your position that his polo shirt showed a lack of respect for the position, I must remind you of the biker chick clothing worn by a vice-presidential candidate in 2008 and how you had no problem with that.
If a collared polo shirt is in bad taste when applying for a mayoral position, then a black leather mini skirt and red leather jacket is surely in bad taste when applying for a vice-presidential position.
VC,
Very interesting observation about national politics and of the appropriateness of a collared knit shirt.
OVOT,
"I have no doubt you would never applaud anything I say."
You gave such a beautiful example of negative thinking! Think back to other posts and you will see your error.
Zeeman is a class act, OVOT. Of course, he's gracious!
Thinker,
You argued that your comment on police clothing had to do with "fiscal responsibility" and that your comment on the polo shirt had to do with "lack of respect for the position." Then you told me to "pick one" and that you would be "happy to debate" me.
I picked one. I picked clothing choice as a show of respect for the position for which you are applying. I'm still waiting for you to debate me, as promised.
Having a little trouble defending your views on this one?
VC.....I have no trouble defending my views.
And my defense on this one will be Zinkin's own admission that he was not properly dressed and the fact that that was the last time he dressed that way.
Evidently the voters agreed with me also.
Zinkin wore a suit and tie to the other debates because they were held in the evening, one at an upscale hotel, and they were considered to be more "formal" events. He dressed for the occasion, the venue, and the weather, unlike Ms. Leatherama who was never appropriately dressed for any of the events she attended.
I make this point because you call yourself "Objective," yet you were never objective in this instance. Polo shirt - bad. Black leather mini skirt - good.
VC....Your done with me.
A: I have no clue who "Ms. Leatherama" might be and I don't really have time to play your silly (my opinion games).
Correction:
"(my opinion games). should read"
"(my opion) games."
Thinker,
I stated in a prior post on this thread...
"If a collared polo shirt is in bad taste when applying for a mayoral position, then a black leather mini skirt and red leather jacket is surely in bad taste when applying for a vice-presidential position."
Now you claim you have no idea who Ms. Leatherama is.
Vice-presidential candidate. Black leather mini skirts. Red leather jackets. Black leather jackets with multiple zippers.
Doesn't ring a bell? What you really mean is that you're having a hard time defending how a polo shirt is in bad taste but hooker-wear is not.
I rest my case.
Wow. This is my first time here. I can hope and pray I am in the wrong place. Can anyone tell me where the adults are blogging?
Wow, yourself, norcalaf! If this is gonna be the tenor of all of your comments, I recommend you make your next visit here your last visit here. Absolutely no redeeming value of a post like yours....
Post a Comment