Thanks for visiting Protect San Jose on Blogspot. Our blog is now fully integrated with our website at ProtectSanJose.com, where we've also added technological upgrades that allow you to interact with us in exciting new ways. As such, we'll no longer be posting at this web address. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Check out the new and improved Protect San Jose today!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Beat Cop: "I know it when I see it"
Thanks for all the great questions. Keep 'em coming...
Mark:
Beat Cop:
Mark, “I know it when I see it...”
That’s a line made famous by the U.S. Supreme Court when trying to define obscenity in the ‘60s. Well, trying to answer your question caused me to recall that famous line. How do we know if the situation put before us when we respond to a call is civil or criminal?
In short, we know it when we see it. In the world of police work, criminal law trumps civil law, and civil laws are many times hands-off for the police. We have well-trained dispatchers who can help you decipher the nature of your particular situation and let you know if the police can help. If there is still some uncertainty, please feel free to ask for an officer to respond.
Police departments can generally only enforce criminal laws. Sometimes a person will clearly violate a civil law and a citizen calls the police to take action. In a case like that, the police can assist by providing the appropriate court information but could not take action or force the issue.
One of the most common civil cases we come across are tenant-landlord issues. Local police departments do not handle most issues relating to evictions. The Sheriff’s department has a civil division that can assist with the eviction process and ultimately the physical eviction. It can be a long process, and we understand the frustration when you call the police for assistance and we can only point you in the right direction.
For more eviction information, contact the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department Civil Division at (408) 808-4800. The California Department of Consumer Affairs has a website with information, forms and explanations of laws. You can even request a free booklet explaining landlord tenant issues.
‘Til next time, proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Mark:
When is something considered by the Police to be considered a civil matter, as opposed to a criminal one?
Beat Cop:
Mark, “I know it when I see it...”
That’s a line made famous by the U.S. Supreme Court when trying to define obscenity in the ‘60s. Well, trying to answer your question caused me to recall that famous line. How do we know if the situation put before us when we respond to a call is civil or criminal?
In short, we know it when we see it. In the world of police work, criminal law trumps civil law, and civil laws are many times hands-off for the police. We have well-trained dispatchers who can help you decipher the nature of your particular situation and let you know if the police can help. If there is still some uncertainty, please feel free to ask for an officer to respond.
Police departments can generally only enforce criminal laws. Sometimes a person will clearly violate a civil law and a citizen calls the police to take action. In a case like that, the police can assist by providing the appropriate court information but could not take action or force the issue.
One of the most common civil cases we come across are tenant-landlord issues. Local police departments do not handle most issues relating to evictions. The Sheriff’s department has a civil division that can assist with the eviction process and ultimately the physical eviction. It can be a long process, and we understand the frustration when you call the police for assistance and we can only point you in the right direction.
For more eviction information, contact the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department Civil Division at (408) 808-4800. The California Department of Consumer Affairs has a website with information, forms and explanations of laws. You can even request a free booklet explaining landlord tenant issues.
‘Til next time, proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What's up, Doc?
By Bobby Lopez
I just got back from vacation on Tuesday, and before I even got to the office, I saw this article in the Mercury News. In case you didn’t catch it, Dr. Rajiv Das, who advises San Jose’s Police and Fire Retirement Board on disability claims, has been accused by some of holding up the process.
As sometimes happens when there’s a controversial story involving police, a Mercury reporter, John Woolfolk, called me for a comment. The final story includes bits and pieces of all that I said, but it doesn’t accurately reflect my position.
First off, I have no personal problem with Dr. Das, and I have never referred to him as “Dr. No.” I have heard rumors that others refer to him that way, and that’s all I told Mr. Woolfolk.
My concern is that Dr. Das is overworked. As it says in the paper, Dr. Das also serves as a medical consultant to the pension board for civilian retirees and performs yearly physicals and driving and drug tests on city employees. That’s a lot of work, and it means Dr. Das reports to no less than three different governing bodies at City Hall. I doubt that he has a lot of free time.
Meanwhile, we have cops suffering from disabilities that keep them from doing the job they swore to do, the job they live to do. They’re forced to stay home with no income and wait for their claim to come through. Sometimes, this process can take six months or more. These are men and women with families to feed and bills to pay. They simply can’t afford to wait.
We have one member who’s been waiting on her claim for almost five months now. In that time, the medical insurance that covers her and her daughter has run out and her car has been repossessed. Adding insult to her injury, we found out the POA can’t assist her through our catastrophic emergency fund because of legal issues with workers’ compensation.
The City needs to reduce Dr. Das’ workload and get these claims processed more efficiently. Maybe that means hiring another physician to help Dr. Das. Maybe it means streamlining the claim process. Either way, we need a fair and equitable disability retirement system that supports our public safety employees who have sacrificed their bodies to keep us safe.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
I just got back from vacation on Tuesday, and before I even got to the office, I saw this article in the Mercury News. In case you didn’t catch it, Dr. Rajiv Das, who advises San Jose’s Police and Fire Retirement Board on disability claims, has been accused by some of holding up the process.
As sometimes happens when there’s a controversial story involving police, a Mercury reporter, John Woolfolk, called me for a comment. The final story includes bits and pieces of all that I said, but it doesn’t accurately reflect my position.
First off, I have no personal problem with Dr. Das, and I have never referred to him as “Dr. No.” I have heard rumors that others refer to him that way, and that’s all I told Mr. Woolfolk.
My concern is that Dr. Das is overworked. As it says in the paper, Dr. Das also serves as a medical consultant to the pension board for civilian retirees and performs yearly physicals and driving and drug tests on city employees. That’s a lot of work, and it means Dr. Das reports to no less than three different governing bodies at City Hall. I doubt that he has a lot of free time.
Meanwhile, we have cops suffering from disabilities that keep them from doing the job they swore to do, the job they live to do. They’re forced to stay home with no income and wait for their claim to come through. Sometimes, this process can take six months or more. These are men and women with families to feed and bills to pay. They simply can’t afford to wait.
We have one member who’s been waiting on her claim for almost five months now. In that time, the medical insurance that covers her and her daughter has run out and her car has been repossessed. Adding insult to her injury, we found out the POA can’t assist her through our catastrophic emergency fund because of legal issues with workers’ compensation.
The City needs to reduce Dr. Das’ workload and get these claims processed more efficiently. Maybe that means hiring another physician to help Dr. Das. Maybe it means streamlining the claim process. Either way, we need a fair and equitable disability retirement system that supports our public safety employees who have sacrificed their bodies to keep us safe.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Special Public Safety Meeting
By Kathleen Flynn
Tonight, I will be attending yet another meeting at City Hall which will focus on public safety and policing. After the meeting, I will write a follow up story to post the details of what happened. I hope those of you who support our men and women in blue and who have been victims of crime will join me. For more information on the meeting, go to the City of San Jose website and see the announcement at the top of the home page.
The Mayor and City Council have spent years now listening to a small but vocal minority claiming that SJPD has been engaged in racial profiling, and unfairly targeting minorities. This group has put so much pressure on the Council that laws that were designed to protect us from unlawful behaviors like being drunk in public have been watered down so much so that I hate to see what comes next.
Unless and until more people start speaking up for victims of crime, supporting SJPD, and demanding the hiring of more officers, the real issues of lawlessness that face our city will never be addressed. Victims of crime will continue to fall by the wayside and remain without a voice.
Our under-staffed and over-worked police will continue to feel unappreciated, and our citizens will continue to be affected by increases in crime while criminals walk free. The small, vocal minority that fights so hard for the rights of law breakers will continue to garner all the attention and City resources while deflecting the need for change in their direction, and the hiring of more police officers will be put off for yet another year.
Please tell your friends and neighbors about tonight’s meeting and join me. Or email the Mayor and Council to offer your support of our excellent SJPD and speak out in favor of putting victims’ rights first.
Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tonight, I will be attending yet another meeting at City Hall which will focus on public safety and policing. After the meeting, I will write a follow up story to post the details of what happened. I hope those of you who support our men and women in blue and who have been victims of crime will join me. For more information on the meeting, go to the City of San Jose website and see the announcement at the top of the home page.
The Mayor and City Council have spent years now listening to a small but vocal minority claiming that SJPD has been engaged in racial profiling, and unfairly targeting minorities. This group has put so much pressure on the Council that laws that were designed to protect us from unlawful behaviors like being drunk in public have been watered down so much so that I hate to see what comes next.
Unless and until more people start speaking up for victims of crime, supporting SJPD, and demanding the hiring of more officers, the real issues of lawlessness that face our city will never be addressed. Victims of crime will continue to fall by the wayside and remain without a voice.
Our under-staffed and over-worked police will continue to feel unappreciated, and our citizens will continue to be affected by increases in crime while criminals walk free. The small, vocal minority that fights so hard for the rights of law breakers will continue to garner all the attention and City resources while deflecting the need for change in their direction, and the hiring of more police officers will be put off for yet another year.
Please tell your friends and neighbors about tonight’s meeting and join me. Or email the Mayor and Council to offer your support of our excellent SJPD and speak out in favor of putting victims’ rights first.
Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Community Budget Participation: Educate Yourself
Part two of a multi-part series
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
Monday, October 12, 2009
One Small Step
A couple weeks back, we posted a column by Mary Klotzbach, Chair of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Public Policy Committee for California, in which she called for the passage of AB91, a state bill by Assemblyman Mike Feuer of Los Angeles. AB91 would create a five-year pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties in which ignition interlock devices would be installed on vehicles owned or operated by first-time convicted drunk drivers. These devices force drivers to take a breathalyzer test before allowing them to start their cars.
AB91 passed both houses of the legislature, but before Sunday night, it was languishing on the Governor's desk as he threatened a political veto of nearly 700 bills before today's deadline to sign them into law. Late last night, the Governor's office announced he had signed at least 230 bills, including AB91. The pilot program will go into effect in January, 2010.
We'd like to thank MADD for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of this important policy that will keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. You can read more about AB91 and the hundreds of bills the Governor signed (and vetoed) in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Happy Columbus Day, and stay safe.
AB91 passed both houses of the legislature, but before Sunday night, it was languishing on the Governor's desk as he threatened a political veto of nearly 700 bills before today's deadline to sign them into law. Late last night, the Governor's office announced he had signed at least 230 bills, including AB91. The pilot program will go into effect in January, 2010.
We'd like to thank MADD for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of this important policy that will keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. You can read more about AB91 and the hundreds of bills the Governor signed (and vetoed) in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Happy Columbus Day, and stay safe.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
