Police Commission Minutes 05/04/05

The Rochester Police Commission held their regular monthly meeting on May 4, 2005. Present at this meeting was Chairman Dumont, Comm. Flanagan, Comm. Stenhouse, Chief Dubois, Capt. Allen, Capt. Taylor, Capt. Callaghan, Attorney Grossman, and Secretary Warburton, members of the Department, the public and the media.

A. Budget for FY 06. Chief Dubois advised that the City Manager has made his presentation of the budget to the Council. The Police are scheduled to present individually on May 24, 2005. We are allotted one half hour. We intend to hit the salient changes and then respond to any questions the Council has.

Capt. Allen responded the cost was roughly $60,000.00 (federally funded) and we received it in January. It won’t fit in the garage. We have the OHRV stored in there, along with the tactical gear. Comm. Flanagan asked why the Officer’s gear is not stored in the truck? Capt. Allen responded it was not designed that way. We have lockers in that bay for the Officer’s equipment.

Comm. Flanagan asked what is stored in the vehicle? Chief Dubois advised we’d prefer notdisclosing to the public some of the equipment and capabilities that we have. With regard to buying a vehicle that does not fit, our garage needs are more than we planned for. We can expose this truck to the elements, where other equipment, such as the OHRV, Motorcycles, and the speed trailer we cannot. Those are stored in the garages. We could bring that unit into the sally port, but that would restrict the sally port more than we would desire.

Chief Dubois advised these officers are all working different shifts and it was inconvenient to get them all here. This was good work by Officers’ Bentz, Fox, Livingstone and Moors, as well as Sgt. Turgeon. The incident that unfolded was a special reporting area for a business which had been experiencing a significant number of thefts and break ins. An officer on patrol saw a suspicious car parked in the general area and upon further follow up located a person in the back of the business, who fled. The vehicle was seized and after several hours, we had solid leads on a suspect in these crimes.

Chief Dubois responded that we have grown significantly over the years. There has been a time span between the days of “Red” Hayes and officers today. Today there is a very different work ethic. There is a human element today that is conditioned for positive reinforcement. We did an exit interview with an officer this week and that was one of the things he was not happy with. It is the opinion of many in the labor union that we do not give accolades enough. There is good police work going on that many would consider being just part of the job. Yet, there is a segment in the labor force that says we don’t do it enough.

Chairman Dumont advised that Police Memorial Week is the week of May 15, through May 21, 2005. It was noted that Mayor Walker had read a proclamation at the City Council meeting the previous evening in recognition of those officers who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

B. Police Patch Stickers: Capt. Allen advised that police stickers had been circulated over the past several months that mimic the design that is on the Motorcycle unit. The vendor printed these and interested officers could purchase them from Officer Morgan. No permission was granted to use our patch on that sticker. That matter has been rectified with the officer and the vendor. Other Department’s across the county print various types of memorabilia and we do not see a problem with these stickers if officers want to purchase them at their own expense. However, permission is required by the Commission before we proceed further.

Comm. Stenhouse MOVED to approve the use of the Rochester Police Patch on these stickers, said stickers can be purchased at members own expense. SECOND by Comm. Flanagan and PASSED unanimously.

C. Union Concern; Compensatory Time Off. IBPO President John Harding presented before the Commission for two issues. One was the denial of compensatory time and vacation time and the other concerned a schedule change for the Sergeants.

Officer Harding said the Union’s argument is first is based on past practice, and second on an FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) ruling. If an officer puts in for time off, it is granted, regardless and posted for overtime. Where the shift goes below minimum if someone puts in for time off, it is now being denied.

Officer Harding advised that this matter was recently decided in Brookline, Massachusetts. Putting the past practice argument momentarily aside, the FLSA has determined in the Brookline case that to deny compensatory time off, in order not to have to replace with overtime, was not an argument for the “disruption of service.” It is further cited that “on the present record nothing indicates that having to pay one or more officers overtime in cash, to permit another officer to take compensatory time would effect the police department’s ability to provide services of acceptable quality and quantity.”

Chief Dubois said, “Officer Harding stated this has never been an issue in the past. I can tell you it has been. He also touched on past practice. This has been done for this entire fiscal year. The reason for that was twofold. The first is financially-based and the second is staffing-based.“ Our fiscal budget got into serious financial problems last year with overtime. We are in a much better place this year with the practice we have been using since the Spring of last year. We have made significant savings this year over last year, for the taxpayer.

In a recent exit interview, one factor listed for wanting to leave by this officer was the unreasonable amount of overtime this officer was subjected to. Last year that officer worked 155 hours of ordered overtime. This year, he had worked 55 hours of ordered overtime. We have reduced forced overtime as a result of this policy.

With respect to the Brookline, Massachusetts issue, I don’t have enough knowledge of their case to rebut. Our ability is directly connected to our financial status. We can do better this year than what we did last year, and it helps the officer. In our collective bargaining agreement, the use of compensatory time is a management decision. More importantly, we don’t just arbitrarily deny officers the time off. This officer put in for the 14^th and the 22^nd off. But prior to him, two officers had also requested time off, and they were approved. So for this particular date, we started the shift with six officers, without the supervisor. Now we have reduced to the minimum. The practice we’ve had this whole fiscal year is that we were not going to pay overtime to replace officers. As a result we are doing much better financially.

We are reducing our minimum staffing levels even further due to turnover, both for financial reasons and to ensure that we are not overworking officers with too much forced overtime. We have to have some management control regarding giving officers the same day and same shifts off. If we start at minimum staffing then we would authorize overtime. But in this instance we already had two officers out for the same shift on the same day. To authorize a third officer would have required us to post for overtime, and it most likely would have been ordered overtime to meet the minimum staffing.

Currently, we are $11,000 overspent in overtime. We think through management controls through the rest of this year we can bring that line into better shape. So even as good as we have been doing, we are still over and we have to watch closely.

Officer Harding responded I understand where the Chief is coming from. But the one thing that has not been mentioned is the sick time from last year to this year. I don’t have those numbers specifically, but I would say they are reversed in comparison to the overtime reducing they have increased.

Officer Harding responded that sick time use was less last year compared to this year because compensatory time was granted more. When the FLSA ruled, part of that ruling is that someone taking time off and being replaced by overtime is not an argument for “undue disruption.”

Chief Dubois stated that financial matters are a factor, but not the major factor. There are 53 members, with 10 slots basically unfilled for various reasons. We have reduced ordered overtime, reduced the workload on the officers. When they get ordered, they are sometimes working 12 or 16 hour shifts. Safety is above financial reasons.

D. SOP Update: SOP 21 Uniform and Equipment Requirements; First Reading: Capt. Taylor advised that he proposes this change. For the past several years’ Officers on the back shifts (4 - 12 and 12 - 8) have not been required to wear the uniform hat. I want to see them wear the hats all the time. They are part of the uniform and they present a professional image. Officers that take pride in themselves will also take pride in their Department. There have been studies completed where people surveyed were more likely to have confidence and be less likely to assault an officer that appears fit and squared away. The hat with the uniform makes the officer more identifiable to the public and I want to get back to wearing them all the time. I also want them to wear them during traffic stops. The officers have stated this is a safety concern. I haven’t seen any documentation to support that.

Officer Harding stated, “I don’t have any argument that hats don’t have a place – they do.” My opinion aside, during the day when the general public is out and about and businesses are open hats are looked at as part of the professional image. However on the back shifts’ the people that are out causing trouble are the majority of whom we are dealing with. The hat is a target. If you get into a foot pursuit and lose the hat, someone now has a $120.00 souvenir – the cost of the hat and attached badge. “There is a time and place for the hat. But to say that an officer without a hat is not squared away, I disagree with that.”

Furthermore, to change the SOP so that we are required to wear it on a traffic stop would be changing a past practice. For as long as I have been here, and possibly longer we have not had to wear a hat on a traffic stop. We have had documented instances of officers here requiring stitches when the hat pin was forced into his forehead. A State Trooper while in Dover was not able to stop an attack just because she was wearing her hat. Wearing the hat while approaching causes a loss of peripheral vision.

The way I understand this, it is twofold. He’s asking for the SOP to be changed to wear the hats all the time, but that would include on traffic stops. The Union is more concerned with the traffic stop change than the other issue. I don’t see where it will prevent anything other than safety, as vision is obscured. I can’t see the car in front of me if I am wearing the hat in the car. These officers have more to worry about whether or not an oral or written reprimand will be issued regarding the hat. I don’t want to see more of these because an officer forgot. To change for that I don’t think is feasible.

Chief Dubois responded that it is an image issue. What image do we want to take? Whether people are happy about it – the people who are leaving here are going to agencies that require a hat, and they will write them up and discipline them for not wearing it. So I find that a weak argument. It’s a call we are bringing to the Commission and we will live with whatever you decide. We have said only on days do you have to wear the hat and on nights you do not. Administratively we are trying to standardize what we are doing. We want to enforce the policy as written.

Comm. Flanagan asked if anyone had been written up for not wearing a hat when chasing an individual? It was suggested to bring a solution back for next month, so as not to penalize the Department.

Chief Dubois stated that the staff and the union have had many discussions on this and we are polarized on the issue. I will stay firm that an image is important. All kinds of things affect how officers present themselves to the public. How we look is extremely important and I would be more comfortable with officers looking squared away.

Officer Harding stated that there have been some frank discussions on this. Folks that are leaving are leaving for reasons other than a hat. With respect to the guys that are working and trying to do a decent job, it was a feel good thing that the back shifts don’t have to wear a hat. And then some things changed. I would like to see if there was ever a complaint by a citizen, whether or not they could identify an officer if they did or didn’t have a hat. It won’t make them any more or less identifiable. “This is minuscule. People are leaving, not for the hats. They are leaving for their own reasons. I’m concerned with the people that are here, not those that have or are thinking about leaving. I don’t think it detracts from the image.”

Comm. Stenhouse MOVED to accept the first reading of the policy as written and presented this evening. SECOND by Comm. Flanagan. With no further discussion the motion PASSED 2 - 1, with Chairman Dumont voting no.

1. Patrol Bureau: Capt. Taylor reported that the comp stat report shows that vandalism is down year-to-date. We have had an increase with regard to the recent bb gun incidents. This information has been passed on to all shifts to do field interviews on motor vehicle stops. We have the high school and the school resource officer involved. Press releases have been done to notify the public to let us know if they see anything suspicious of this nature. We are maintaining high visibility, even with reduced staffing. The officers are doing a great job.

Our Route 11 activity is remaining steady and we are keeping a high profile in that area. The motorcycle patrol is doing a very good job also. The motor vehicle accident statistics are down, albeit, by one. We are achieving a higher output with fewer people.

2. Investigations Bureau: Capt. Callaghan noted that the investigation’s bureau has two officers assigned to property crimes, two officers to person crimes and two officers focusing on drugs. They are all working on the efficient and effective methods for crime solving. If you look at the map for drug arrests, we have made 14 arrests combined as a department in the past month. Most of those have been in the down town. Four of those were with the assistance of the K-9 and five were with the Investigations Bureau. The K9 and handler while walking through the Union Street parking lot made two arrests on the spot and two through the application of search warrants, all from sniffing cars. We are seeing the results of our efforts in the down town.

3. Administrative Bureau: Capt. Allen reported that we are right in line with the budget to date, overall. We should be at about 80.7% spent, and we are holding at 80.1% spent. We did have some transfers from the contingency for legal matters and the settling of the contract to help plan for the remainder of the year. We also had some transfers to electricity, heating and medical services. Overtime is a concern. We are overspent at this point, which has caused us to reevaluate the minimum staffing.

In technology updates the Reverse 911 should be up and running in June. We finally completed the phases that we needed for the installation. The training will be set up so we can begin using this technology.

Capt. Allen replied that Reverse 911 is an emergency notification system that has several features. If the City were to experience a natural disaster we can do a mass notification to certain affected sections of the City, or to the entire City. Other features include a community information line. We can post public service messages, and we can notify all of our special teams for an incident with one phone transmission, instead of several individual numbers. If you had a lost child, we could pinpoint the homes in a specific area and send a message to those homes with the child’s description. We can make almost 1,000 calls per hour, with this system.

We are still working with Bio Key on the AVL/GPS. There are costs that have arisen with the Verizon feature that we need to implement this. The cell service that is needed is in addition to the individual cars. The sticking point is the T1 high speed line to their base in Massachusetts which costs about $500.00 per month, and we didn’t budget for that. We are working on that issue. The Commission asked if the software can “talk” to each other? Capt. Allen replied that any Department can come on board with this program. It can branch out beyond Strafford County. The vision is that you could do the whole State. Rochester would be the HUB for the seacoast.

1. New Personnel. Chief Dubois advised the Commission that the City Manager has asked the Police Department to take the court diversion and teen drug court programs into our Department in the next fiscal year. This will dovetail into our juvenile section, and the person will report to the Support Services Bureau Commander. There is interaction by this person with our Department anyway. The salary, benefits and equipment needs are being discussed and fine tuned to bring this into our budget. We have met with this individual to work out space needs and any concerns that she may have.

3. Staffing. Chief Dubois advised that he talked with staff today, with input from supervisors at all levels about reducing staffing levels on all shifts. We are allotted 53 sworn positions. We have two assigned to school duties, five currently at the Academy, two positions open, with conditional offers out there, two officers on military commitments and we anticipate a third opening in about two weeks. We are down 18%, for various reasons.

We are still maintaining the DARE Program, but we anticipate pulling the SRO’s for the remainder of the year, working with the schools as closely as we can. Both positions are to be back in place at the beginning of the school year in the fall.

We are juggling existing staff into front line positions for portions of the week to allow reasonable time off, without forcing overtime, while balancing our needs within our financial limits.

Based on a study by Captain Callaghan, these changes will still allow us a high success answering priority one calls, and little effect on our timely response to priority two calls. However, our priority three calls, which are mostly service calls will see a significant impact in our ability to respond to these calls. We will have to have strong oversight as the shifts proceed.

Chief Dubois replied that to do all we are doing right now to the level that the public would like will burn these officers out. It will cause us unreasonable ordered overtime and create a financial problem with our existing budget. We have to drop some stuff with our minimum staffing.

Comm. Flanagan stated that the taxpayers pay good money. We don’t have the officers to do the job. Fifty-three is not enough. We have 4,400 calls per month. How many new officers are we asking for?

Comm. Flanagan responded, “I know we asked for one because we think we might get it.” “A woman contacted me who waited 1.5 hours at the Commons for an officer to respond to an accident. That’s ridiculous. How do you accomplish what you do with what you have? This is not fair to John Q. Public. I propose five new officers. We won’t get them, but that is what we need to do the job. I’m tired of being dumped on.”

Comm. Stenhouse stated we have to balance our needs with the community’s ability to pay. I’m not suggesting that we are adequately staffed, but we have to look at fiscal reality.” “If we kept and maintained at 54, we’d probably have enough to reasonably do the job. Will people have to wait? Yes. That’s life. I agree, and I would hate to be that person waiting, but this is the real world. In a fully funded world we’d have 100 police officers. That’s not going to happen. In my opinion that goes beyond the public’s ability to pay, right here, today.”

“If we could get folks to stay, we would do okay. They are leaving for money and benefits. If I were a cop, I’d do the same thing. Get my training and move on. Simple as that. Some like the action of being an urban cop. Some would prefer the Newington’s and Greenland’s. You have to really like doing a lot of running and challenges to do urban police work.”

Comm. Stenhouse to Comm. Flanagan said, “We have an honest difference of opinion. With these comments I’m not trying to insult you. I think you are a very intelligent person.”

Chief Dubois said from a staff standpoint, we will deal with the major problems without any changes, but our service delivery calls will be coincident to that, until we get these folks back from the academy and stop the blood flow of exoduses from the Police Department.

Comm. Stenhouse suggested lower priority calls should be classified as that, rather than as minor calls. To the person calling, it isn’t minor, it’s the most important thing in the world.

Chief Dubois advised that matters of the third priority would include motorist assist, extra patrol, foot beats, animal matters, paperwork services. That’s the category of issues we are talking about.

4. Water Dispenser. Capt. Allen advised that Comm. Flanagan discussed last month putting a water dispenser in the building. We currently don’t have one. We did some research into that. We can update the Commission, or we can email that data to the Commission. The Commission advised that we should keep working on it. There are pro and con on both sides of the water issue.

A. Appreciation and Recognition. Letters recognizing Department members this month include: Chief Dubois is thanked by students participating in the Job Shadow Days. Off. Pat Emerson is thanked by Carol Warren for a response and follow up to an attempt to locate.

1. US Marshall’s. It was noted that some months ago the Security Lieutenant of the Lilac Mall spoke to the Police Commission about an assault that had occurred at the mall, injuring one of his security officers. That suspect turned himself in to the authorities. Chief Dubois stated that Sgt. Burke and the U.S. Marshall’s did some good work on that case.

Comm. Flanagan MOVED to enter a non-public session at 8:25 P.M. for the purpose of personnel and legal matters. SECOND by Comm. Stenhouse. The motion PASSED by roll call vote, Comm. Stenhouse-yes, Comm. Flanagan-yes, Chairman Dumont -yes.

Comm. Stenhouse MOVED that based on a passing evaluation, as outlined in the Union contract, a merit increase is granted to Officer Christopher Mangum and Officer Michael Lambert. SECOND by Comm. Flanagan and PASSED unanimously.