Last week, during the first Oro Valley Town Council meeting, call to audience, the president and vice president of the Oro Valley Police Officers Assocation ("OVPOA") and one other officer rebuked those council members who questioned the reporting relationship of the Police Department at the June 19 council meeting. You can read our extensive coverage this earlier discussion in our four part series: Where Should The Oro Valley Police Department Report? You can even watch the debate!Our conclusion was that the debate was a good thing, that council members are divided on the subject, and that the winners were the residents of Oro Valley.
The three officers spoke at the July 3 "call to audience." The took umbrage to the comments of 3 council members. These council members felt that a reporting change was needed; or, if there was no change in the reporting relationship, that the council needs to do its job of police department oversight, which, they assert, it does not do today.
Here, for your viewing, are the remarks of the officers:
- Lead Police Office and President of the Oro Valley Police Association, Marshall Morris
- Police Detective and Vice President of the Oro Valley Police Association, Zachary Young
- Police Officer Sara Leiner
---
23 comments:
This appears to be a pre-emptive, political strike against the three council members who wish to apply some extra-departmental supervision to the OVPD. Here is an interesting article that discusses why ratios are not a valid evaluative tool, and which contains a link to another article, "Are you asking your police chief the right questions?"
http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/questions/kn/question/20623
Thanks Christopher,
The site to which you refer does have an interesting piece on why ratios of cops per 1000 are not useful for staffing purposes.
Richard
---
"Staffing decisions, particularly in patrol, must be made based upon actual workload and
very few police agencies have the capability of conducting that analysis. Once an
analysis of the actual workload is made, then a determination can be made as to the
amount of discretionary patrol time should exist, consistent with the community’s ability
to fund." (ICMA)
Richard
Good Chief / Bad Union.
Did the three officers drive to the meeting in a tax payer supported take home vehicle?
It's readily apparent that turf protection is the name of the OV Police Department game. Further, they are afraid of commissioning a study, for fear what actually may be discovered. Everything is just hunky dory.
I haven't heard a single cogent argument against either a study, or shifting the chief's reporting chain to where it clearly belongs. It's all a fat red herring against council members who are asking for these things, for reasonable and acceptable rationale.
It's time to get people on this council who aren't so beholden to their special, pet interests.
Council members Hiremath, Snider, Waters and Hornat have been playing politics with the Police Department from the day they took office. Snider and Waters seem to be the current leads for this sad situation.
The Mayor went so far as to claim the number one reason businesses, citizens and others want to locate in Oro Valley is the Oro Valley police department. During the last General Plan public focus group sessions, the police department didn't receive a first place vote for why people locate in Oro Valley. The Mayor's claim shouldn't be a surprise as he and his three allies have a history of making misleading statements.
Just some observations.......
Richard....Your title could have accurately been, "Oro Valley Residents Rebuke Council Members". That would have been less inflamatory. But then I suppose it would not have served the purpose of the blog quite as well. Let's us not lose the fact that all three were residents of Oro Valley and therefore were expressing their opinion as a resident and employee of the Town.
Your follow-up comment "why ratios of cops per 1000 are not useful for staffing purposes." fails to inform the reader that this is the opinion of one person who responded to a question. I would agree that it is not the only way to measure, but I will tell you that a level of 1.8 per 1000 ( the actual ratio currently in Tucson) is far too low.
Lastly there was not a single mention in the article referenced about placing any weight on the will of the people of the community. It is blatantly obvious, based on every community survey and business survey ever conducted in this community since 2002 that the public safety level IS a driving factor in folks locating to and staying in Oro Valley.
Your comments are what I refered to in my last posting as half-truths. You just don't tell the entire story.
Nombe....Surely you can come up with some new material.
Christopher...."pre-emptive political strike" against what?
It is not the job of this or any Council to "apply some extra-departmental supervision to the OVPD." And therein, my friend, is one of the problems with the Burns/Zinkin/Garner model. They believe it IS their duty to provided day-to-day- supervision to the Police Department.
PaulE....What do you have to support your comment "they are afraid...of what they may find." Do you have some inside information you would like to share or is this simply some empty rhetoric?
Four cogent (in my opinion) arguments that have been presented are the cost of the study, the vast majority of the community is highly satisfied with the performance of the police department, the current crime rate in Oro Valley demonstrates the current department management policies and procedures are accomplishing their primary mission. And lastly the last time the Chief reported to the Town Manager, outside of the public eye, pressure was applied by two councilmembers (one still remains)behind the scenes and under the covers, to fire Chief Sharp. That clandestine attempt blew up in their face and the Manager (for reasons that we need not get into) resigned his position largely in part for his support of that attempt. The fat red herring is the argument presented by Burns, Zinkin and the aforementioned Garner.
OV impotent...The only political games going on here are being played by the three minority members of the Town Council. I recently heard a comment made by a local citizen who is very familiar with 'all things Oro Valley. He was describing the minority group AND their supporters. He said, and I must paraphrase, never have I seen such a group that has built nothing, make so many attempts to tear down what others have built.
It's a shame that they don't have a track record for making positive contributions to this community.
OVOT,
Oro Valley is IMPORTANT to me.
What kind of meetings do you attend to know about all these inner workings of the Oro Valley Council? Please post the next meeting date/time/location so we can all attend and learn. Or, are the meetings clandestine?
How does a local citizen become very familiar with all things Oro Valley?
Just a quick question: Are Christopher Fox and Richard Furash, MBA really presenting those forum posts from a bunch of people at ICMA - who are clearly trying to sell a product - as factual? Really? Ladies and Gentlemen, Oro Valley's Most Trusted News Source has outdone itself.
Don,
Re: 'It is not the job of this or any Council to "apply some extra-departmental supervision to the OVPD."' I intentionally left the 'who will provide said supervison' part of this sentence unspecified. Please read more carefully!
This whole debate revolves around whether Oro Valley has an active enough citizenry to reign in its bureaucracy when it gets out of control and assumes that its own interests are a higher priority than those of the citizenry. As neither the vast majority of OV residents nor the members of the council are experts in monitoring the decisions made by its chief of police, by default the only alternatives are the town manager, or the commission of an external study.
Without transparent, objective data, OV residents have no basis on which to make decisions at the ballot box. These residents who also happen to be members of the OVPD are using intimidation to suppress the attempts of council members to obtain objective data. I fail to see how this is not obvious to any unprejudiced observer.
As it has been repeated ad nauseum that the vast majority of OV residents are sublimely content with its police department, I question whether that same citizenry is sufficiently active enough to reign in a bureaucracy that I believe is not entirely serving in the complete best interests of those it serves and protects (how much did it cost to paint the entire fleet of police vehicles? What was the bottom line public interest?)
Richard, in providing a public forum for airing these issues, is doing a great service to all OV residents. I just wish that this blog had far greater numbers of participants!
OVDad,
As I am flexing this week, and have today off, I can spend a little more time on this blog.
From this point forward, I will no longer reply to questions or comments regarding my posts to anyone who does so from a what I consider a cowardly, agenda-driven, anonymous posture.
Perhaps someone else can research the 'product' ICMA is trying to sell? Just because someone is trying to sell something doesn't mean it is not worth purchasing. I personally prefer driving my own vehicle over using public transportation. How about you? Has anyone ever sold you a car?
OV Dad,
Please note that the posting does not in any way refer to the ICMA's work. That was merely something that was commented upon.
The blog posting is factual and quite on-point. As it should be.
The posting presents the comments of three officers with no editorial comment on our part.
It was presented as a service to provide a place for wider dissemination of information than the few people who heard these officers at the council meeting.
Richard
Christopher…. I have re-read your post and here is my interpretation of what you said.
The three presenters (Oro Valley residents) made a pre-emptive, political strike against Garner, Zinkin and Burns, who wish to apply extra department supervision to the OVPD. I still have no clue what you mean by “pre-emptive political strike". And I think you clearly stated that it is the ‘three amigos’ who want to exercise more control over the police department.
I agree completely that Burns, Zinkin and Garner want more control over the PD. BUT they don’t want to be identified with that control. They want the Chief to report to the manager so they can then put pressure on the Manager. This is exactly the same tactic used when David Williams was the Town Manager and the Chief reported to Williams. David’s inability to count to 4, combined with the fact that he was very liberal with the truth is what cost him his job along with other activities we won’t get into.
I am at a total loss as to what point you are attempting to get across with your commentary about an out of control bureaucracy and the citizenry of Oro Valley.
I also agree with you that Richard is doing a service to the Town. I too wish there was greater readership, but it will take a long time to undo the damage done by the previous blog master.
ovimportant.... I attend several meetings held in the Town AND I am very involved in other Town activities. I also do a great deal of research to verify facts and statements made by others.
As to your question about "all things Oro Valley", you make it a priority to know.
Instead of sitting with a smart phone and punching text, you meet with folks, you attend meetings and you LISTEN.
---
We believe that OVThinker inadvertently referred to "David Williams" in his previous posting. We believe he meant "David Andrews," who was town manager during the time to which he referred.
Our observation was that, at that time, there was substantial political maneuvering when the department reported to town manager.
Council Member Waters observed during the "debate" that where the chief reports is also a "political consideration."
A review of what happened then and now illustrates his point.
---
I just listened to and transcribed the comments made by the three police officers. I could write a book about the hypocrisy in their statements, but since I'm writing on a blog and not writing a book manuscript, I'll keep my comments to a minimum.
Police Officer Sara Leiner opened with this statement:
"I would like to speak tonight about some concerns that I have regarding certain statements and actions by some on this council."
Police Officer Marshall Morris opened with this statement:
"I would like to speak tonight about some concerns that I have regarding certain statements and actions by some on this council."
Notice anything?
It's clear that either someone told them what to say or that they all sat down prior to the meeting and coordinated their attack.
Morris later goes on to accuse the minority council members of a "coordinated attack" on the police department.
If you don't like coordinated attacks, then perhaps you shouldn't participate in one.
Now where's the part where Mayor Hiremath calls him a hypocrite?
Police Officer Zachary Young said that the Town Council has "oversight of the Chief of Police. They hire, evaluate, and fire the Chief, if necessary."
How can they evaluate him and decide whether to maintain his employment or fire him if they are not allowed to ask any questions? It seems that Hiremath and the majority council members want to have it both ways. They want the Chief to report to THEM, but they do not want the council to ask any questions of him.
And if any of the minority council members dare have the audacity to ask any questions, they are immediately berated by the Mayor who tries to bully them into submission.
In reference to Police Officer Sara Leiner, I'll quote William Shakespeare.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
And I suppose we should be worried for some reason that the three folks consulted with each other?
Hell, that happens every week with Burns, Garner and Zinkin.
We certainly know Hiremath, Hornat, Snider and Waters consult with each other. Have you noticed how often they jump right into discussions and complete each other's sentences.
Cares....No.
I notice how they (Hiremath and his Fan Club) often make a motion to bring something to a vote prior to any discussion. That means their minds have already been made up on the subject and they already know how the majority vote is going to go. So there's no need for a discussion. That will just waste time. Let's get on to the next item so we can expedite the meeting and get out of here at a reasonable hour.
I also remember at one of the meeting's regarding the sign code ordinance, within a second after the last speaker had finished (and there were about 15-20 speakers from the audience who all spoke AGAINST it) one of the Fab 4 made a motion to vote on it. Again, that means that their minds were made up long before they listened to any of the speakers and they already knew that the motion would pass in favor of business owners and against the citizens.
They always seem to be so confident on how the vote is going to turn out. This suggests open meeting law violations.
Cares for OV,
Yes, I've noticed the same thing you've noticed. I've also noticed something having to do with body language in the candid shots that appear in the newspaper.
OVOT,
The police officers didn't just "consult with each other." They were told EXACTLY what to say. Apparently they can't think for themselves.
Post a Comment