By Pete Pomerleau
Admiral Yamamoto could have been speaking for the San Jose City Council when he said: "We have awoken a sleeping giant." Yamamoto’s sleeping giant was the United States, awoken by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The giant in today's terms is the body of active and retired employees of the City of San Jose, and the battle is over our pension plans.
For those not up to speed, the City is in full-on attack mode. City administration hired an outside agency from Canada called Cortex to look at making our pension plan "better." We were assured during meetings with these consultants that we as stakeholders would have a say in any re-organization. I can tell you for a fact that we will, because this is a clear meet-and-confer issue under our contracts, as noted by Bobby Lopez and Randy Sekany in their blog last week on Protect San Jose.
I spent two nights last week listening to and addressing some of the changes proposed by Cortex that the City is planning to ram down our throats. Beyond the damage these changes would do to officer morale as well as our recruitment and retention efforts, the proposed plan is just plain flawed.
The best people to manage a pension fund are the employees who pay into it. City staff has been trying to figure out ways to cut into our well-managed plans for years to subsidize the many financial quagmires they’ve gotten themselves into. We have to scale back on our new Southern Substation because of poor business decisions and practices made by supposed experts. We couldn't even get our new City Hall completed without numerous problems, and we hired the best architects in the country. Now the city wants us to hire more experts to manage our pensions. Well, I’ve got news for you: You could hire Warren Buffet to manage our funds, but he wouldn’t be able to guarantee higher returns.
I want to share some other ideas that were presented to us by Cortex and some of our responses. For reference, you should click here to open their report, which City Manager Figone brought before the City Council on June 23rd.
On page 27 of the report (p. 33 of the pdf), Cortex cites “good” examples of companies that changed their retirement boards in similar ways. Funny, but the numbers I have tell quite a different story:
• Canada Pension Plan: lost 18.6%
• National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust: lost 19%
• Yale Corporation Investment Fund: lost 25% this year
On the other hand, during 2008, the San Jose Police and Fire pension plan lost 5.1% and the Federated plan lost 3.1%. The question begs to be asked: What are we getting by putting our future in the hands of the “experts”?
As members, we contribute a chunk of our salaries every payday to the future of our plan. We also contribute our tax money into the plan along with every other resident. This is a well-developed plan that has generated tens of millions of dollars in returns to the City. We never asked for a bigger cut while the City reaped the rewards in the bullish years. But they have seen it fit to attack and demonize us in the court of public opinion in the lean years.
Maybe in the future the City should think about putting some revenue away for a rainy day, rather than spending it on non-essential services. Wouldn’t that be a sound business idea?
Before I sign off, you should know that Councilmembers Ash Kalra and Rose Herrera sat through both community outreach meetings last week. They listened as City employees described their frustrations. Rose even walked through the crowds and spoke one-on-one with us. This is a fine example of the dialogue we so desperately need to have with our Councilmembers. I’d like to thank Ash and Rose for leading the way.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Righting a Wrong
You might have seen this story by Lisa Krieger in the Mercury News about Boy Scout Troop 294, which had volunteered to help clean up newly-renamed Jeffrey Fontana Park in Almaden Valley. Chris Coutinho, a scout trying to become an Eagle Scout, left a rented Hilti rotary hammer at the park entrance while he went to pick up supplies at a nearby Home Depot. When he returned, the power hammer had been stolen, and Chris and his troop were on the hook for $5,000 to replace it.
Well, we're happy to say that the San Jose Police Officers' Association Victim's Assistance Fund has stepped up to help raise money to defray the cost of the hammer. Donations can be made online at www.sjpoa.com. You can also mail a check payable to SJPOA-CF to SJPOA-CF, c/o Chris Countinho, 1151 N. 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112. For more information, call 408-298-1133. We'll post updates on this story in later blogs.
Stay safe, and have a great weekend!
Well, we're happy to say that the San Jose Police Officers' Association Victim's Assistance Fund has stepped up to help raise money to defray the cost of the hammer. Donations can be made online at www.sjpoa.com. You can also mail a check payable to SJPOA-CF to SJPOA-CF, c/o Chris Countinho, 1151 N. 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112. For more information, call 408-298-1133. We'll post updates on this story in later blogs.
Stay safe, and have a great weekend!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Ask Beat Cop
Readers,
Every other Thursday, we post columns by Beat Cop, one of over 1,300 sworn San Jose police officers who keep us safe by protecting our streets and neighborhoods. So far, Beat Cop has commented on the rise of burglaries in San Jose and what citizens can do to prevent it, exposed deficiencies in police staffing and budgeting, and informed us of new programs that help residents and business owners fight back against vandalism.
To be sure, Beat Cop has plenty more stories to tell, but this week, we’re debuting a new feature of Protect San Jose that will allow you to ask direct questions of San Jose’s finest. If you’ve ever wondered why three or four black-and-whites were needed for the same traffic stop, or how many cops are patrolling your neighborhood on any given night, or what eight years of budget cuts mean to the average cop on the street, now’s your chance to Ask Beat Cop.
If you’d like to submit a question, click here and fill out the form provided. Be sure to include your first name and email address. Beat Cop will respond to all of your questions and even blog some answers in the bi-weekly Beat Cop column.
We hope you enjoy this new experiment. Stay safe.
Protect San Jose
Every other Thursday, we post columns by Beat Cop, one of over 1,300 sworn San Jose police officers who keep us safe by protecting our streets and neighborhoods. So far, Beat Cop has commented on the rise of burglaries in San Jose and what citizens can do to prevent it, exposed deficiencies in police staffing and budgeting, and informed us of new programs that help residents and business owners fight back against vandalism.
To be sure, Beat Cop has plenty more stories to tell, but this week, we’re debuting a new feature of Protect San Jose that will allow you to ask direct questions of San Jose’s finest. If you’ve ever wondered why three or four black-and-whites were needed for the same traffic stop, or how many cops are patrolling your neighborhood on any given night, or what eight years of budget cuts mean to the average cop on the street, now’s your chance to Ask Beat Cop.
If you’d like to submit a question, click here and fill out the form provided. Be sure to include your first name and email address. Beat Cop will respond to all of your questions and even blog some answers in the bi-weekly Beat Cop column.
We hope you enjoy this new experiment. Stay safe.
Protect San Jose
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Meet and Confer
By Bobby Lopez & Randy Sekany
As promised two months ago, the City of San Jose will do public outreach this week on proposed changes to its employee retirement boards. Up to now, neither of our organizations has been engaged in the outreach process – even though this is a “meet-and-confer” issue per our contracts. (This was the case in 2000, when the board was expanded from five to seven members.) Nonetheless, we’ll be attending public meetings at City Hall to learn more about what’s being proposed. We’re always open to listening and talking about ways to improve things.
Under the current system, the boards are made up of two city councilmembers, two active employees, one retired employee, a member of the Civil Service Commission, and a city administrator with experience in financial matters. The City’s consultants have proposed eliminating the two council positions, the Civil Service Commissioner, and the city administrator in favor of four outside financial experts, who would be appointed by the City Council.
Putting experts in charge of the pension funds sounds like a good idea – or does it? Weren’t Wall Street financial expert responsible for our recent financial disaster? This is something we should think about and talk about.
Regardless of who was sitting on our retirement boards, our pension funds were bound to take a short-term hit thanks to the stock market collapse. In fact, when you look at other struggling funds around the country, we’re in pretty good shape. Despite all the losses, our pensions are still fully funded, and that’s a testament to how well they’ve been managed by the current boards.
The bottom line is: everybody’s interested in improving things. We all have a stake in the City’s financial security because it’s all our dollars that make it run. Like you, we’re anxious to see the results of this week’s public outreach meetings, but we want to make sure that whatever comes out of these proposals, nothing is done to jeopardize the top priority of our organizations and our residents: public safety.
We invite you to attend these meetings to hear what city staff has to say. Tonight’s meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. in City Hall Wing rooms 118 & 119. Tomorrow’s meeting is at 1:30 p.m. in City Council chambers.
Thanks for reading, and stay safe out there.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association, and Randy Sekany is President of the International Association of Firefighters Local 230 in San Jose.
As promised two months ago, the City of San Jose will do public outreach this week on proposed changes to its employee retirement boards. Up to now, neither of our organizations has been engaged in the outreach process – even though this is a “meet-and-confer” issue per our contracts. (This was the case in 2000, when the board was expanded from five to seven members.) Nonetheless, we’ll be attending public meetings at City Hall to learn more about what’s being proposed. We’re always open to listening and talking about ways to improve things.
Under the current system, the boards are made up of two city councilmembers, two active employees, one retired employee, a member of the Civil Service Commission, and a city administrator with experience in financial matters. The City’s consultants have proposed eliminating the two council positions, the Civil Service Commissioner, and the city administrator in favor of four outside financial experts, who would be appointed by the City Council.
Putting experts in charge of the pension funds sounds like a good idea – or does it? Weren’t Wall Street financial expert responsible for our recent financial disaster? This is something we should think about and talk about.
Regardless of who was sitting on our retirement boards, our pension funds were bound to take a short-term hit thanks to the stock market collapse. In fact, when you look at other struggling funds around the country, we’re in pretty good shape. Despite all the losses, our pensions are still fully funded, and that’s a testament to how well they’ve been managed by the current boards.
The bottom line is: everybody’s interested in improving things. We all have a stake in the City’s financial security because it’s all our dollars that make it run. Like you, we’re anxious to see the results of this week’s public outreach meetings, but we want to make sure that whatever comes out of these proposals, nothing is done to jeopardize the top priority of our organizations and our residents: public safety.
We invite you to attend these meetings to hear what city staff has to say. Tonight’s meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. in City Hall Wing rooms 118 & 119. Tomorrow’s meeting is at 1:30 p.m. in City Council chambers.
Thanks for reading, and stay safe out there.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association, and Randy Sekany is President of the International Association of Firefighters Local 230 in San Jose.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Just the Taxes, Ma'am
By Ed Rast
Do you know why San Jose city administration year after year has recommended police staffing and budget cuts?
The primary reason is for the last eight years San Jose has had a “structural budget deficit” — in other words, city government’s projected revenues (from taxes, fees, licenses, service charges and other sources) are less than projected spending. State law requires cities to have balanced operating budgets for each year when city revenues are equal to or less than projected spending.
San Jose revenues increased steadily from 1990 through 2007-08, at a rate between 1% and 13% a year, except for FY 2002-03 and 2003-04 when they declined 3% and 1% respectively following the burst of the dot com bubble. City revenues decreased again in 2008-09 and are projected to fall once more in 2009-10 due to the ongoing economic recession.
Have a look at these three tables:
• California General Revenues by city/county
• Population — California Department of Finance Demographics
• General Revenues per Resident
(Source: Computations by CaliforniaCityFinance.com from State Controller and Dept. of Finance data, 1991-92 through 2005-06.)
San Jose’s average General Fund revenue of $663 per resident ranks around the middle of both the 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th of 15) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th of 12). (On a brighter note, this has improved from 1991-92, when we were 9th out of 15 in Santa Clara County and 8th out of 12 large California cities.)
The cities in Santa Clara County with higher tax revenues than San Jose have more jobs and businesses, more sales taxes, or both. Here’s the top ten and how they rank for total revenue per resident, jobs per 100 residents, and consumer sales tax revenue per resident:
1. Palo Alto: $1,194 revenue per resident; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents; and $228 consumer sales tax revenue per resident
2. Mountain View: $998; 147; $125
3. Los Gatos: $860; 143; n/a
4. Santa Clara: $ 848; 218; $159
5. San Jose: $663; 88; $82
6. Gilroy: $658; 83; $200
7. Milpitas: $655; 164; $133
8. Sunnyvale: $628; 125; n/a
9. Campbell: $607; 108; $138
10. Cupertino: $581; 147; $82
San Jose does not have sufficient jobs for all of our employed residents and during the workday loses 50,069 or 5.6% of our residential population when they commute to other cites for jobs. The resulting loss of sales tax from spending by both individuals and business and other business-related revenues is in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
In July 2008, the U.S. Census estimated San Francisco’s residential population at 808,976 with daytime population increasing by 168,747 (21.7%) due to work commuting, for a grand total of 977,723. At the same time, San Jose’s residential population of 948,279 drops to 898,210 during the workday.
By comparison, Palo Alto adds 47,707 workers or 81% of its residential population, while Santa Clara adds 54,655 workers (63%), Milpitas 18,948 (30%), Mountain View 18,972 (26%), Cupertino 11,119 (22%), and Sunnyvale 18,163 (13%).
Here’s how San Jose compares to other large California cites in terms of revenue per resident:
1. San Francisco: $2459
2. Oakland: $873
3. Los Angeles: $768
4. Sacramento: $758
5. San Jose: $663
All four cities ahead of San Jose have a higher ratio of jobs per resident, and many have higher sales tax revenue per resident.*
In coming weeks, we will continue this discussion about San Jose’s structural budget deficit, city revenue sources, where taxes are being spent, other city budget comparisons, policies/practices that affect our city budget and revenue, and spending and policy recommendations.
In the meantime, to better understand San Jose’s budget and how it compares to other city’s budgets, you can track back and read my June 30th “Dollars and Sense” blog and last week’s “Priorities and Objectives".
* Data sources:
1. General Tax revenue comparisons 2005-06 data by city, jobs per employed resident and sales tax revenue per resident from CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2. City Population and Commuting Workers from U.S. Census
3. 2007 Consumer Sales Tax from City of San Jose / MBIA – Consumer Sales Tax Retail, Transportation and Food Products from SJEconomy.com
Do you know why San Jose city administration year after year has recommended police staffing and budget cuts?
The primary reason is for the last eight years San Jose has had a “structural budget deficit” — in other words, city government’s projected revenues (from taxes, fees, licenses, service charges and other sources) are less than projected spending. State law requires cities to have balanced operating budgets for each year when city revenues are equal to or less than projected spending.
San Jose revenues increased steadily from 1990 through 2007-08, at a rate between 1% and 13% a year, except for FY 2002-03 and 2003-04 when they declined 3% and 1% respectively following the burst of the dot com bubble. City revenues decreased again in 2008-09 and are projected to fall once more in 2009-10 due to the ongoing economic recession.
Have a look at these three tables:
• California General Revenues by city/county
• Population — California Department of Finance Demographics
• General Revenues per Resident
(Source: Computations by CaliforniaCityFinance.com from State Controller and Dept. of Finance data, 1991-92 through 2005-06.)
San Jose’s average General Fund revenue of $663 per resident ranks around the middle of both the 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th of 15) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th of 12). (On a brighter note, this has improved from 1991-92, when we were 9th out of 15 in Santa Clara County and 8th out of 12 large California cities.)
The cities in Santa Clara County with higher tax revenues than San Jose have more jobs and businesses, more sales taxes, or both. Here’s the top ten and how they rank for total revenue per resident, jobs per 100 residents, and consumer sales tax revenue per resident:
1. Palo Alto: $1,194 revenue per resident; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents; and $228 consumer sales tax revenue per resident
2. Mountain View: $998; 147; $125
3. Los Gatos: $860; 143; n/a
4. Santa Clara: $ 848; 218; $159
5. San Jose: $663; 88; $82
6. Gilroy: $658; 83; $200
7. Milpitas: $655; 164; $133
8. Sunnyvale: $628; 125; n/a
9. Campbell: $607; 108; $138
10. Cupertino: $581; 147; $82
San Jose does not have sufficient jobs for all of our employed residents and during the workday loses 50,069 or 5.6% of our residential population when they commute to other cites for jobs. The resulting loss of sales tax from spending by both individuals and business and other business-related revenues is in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
In July 2008, the U.S. Census estimated San Francisco’s residential population at 808,976 with daytime population increasing by 168,747 (21.7%) due to work commuting, for a grand total of 977,723. At the same time, San Jose’s residential population of 948,279 drops to 898,210 during the workday.
By comparison, Palo Alto adds 47,707 workers or 81% of its residential population, while Santa Clara adds 54,655 workers (63%), Milpitas 18,948 (30%), Mountain View 18,972 (26%), Cupertino 11,119 (22%), and Sunnyvale 18,163 (13%).
Here’s how San Jose compares to other large California cites in terms of revenue per resident:
1. San Francisco: $2459
2. Oakland: $873
3. Los Angeles: $768
4. Sacramento: $758
5. San Jose: $663
All four cities ahead of San Jose have a higher ratio of jobs per resident, and many have higher sales tax revenue per resident.*
In coming weeks, we will continue this discussion about San Jose’s structural budget deficit, city revenue sources, where taxes are being spent, other city budget comparisons, policies/practices that affect our city budget and revenue, and spending and policy recommendations.
In the meantime, to better understand San Jose’s budget and how it compares to other city’s budgets, you can track back and read my June 30th “Dollars and Sense” blog and last week’s “Priorities and Objectives".
* Data sources:
1. General Tax revenue comparisons 2005-06 data by city, jobs per employed resident and sales tax revenue per resident from CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2. City Population and Commuting Workers from U.S. Census
3. 2007 Consumer Sales Tax from City of San Jose / MBIA – Consumer Sales Tax Retail, Transportation and Food Products from SJEconomy.com
Monday, August 24, 2009
Crime Stoppers Make a Big Splash
By Jim Cogan
This month, among arrests for drug sales, assault and burglary was a new one for me. One of the criminals arrested through a Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers tip had 44 stolen tickets to Raging Waters valued at $2,200. (Maybe he was in planning on a whole summer worth of daycations.) While it doesn't sound serious, this crime could result in charges like felony grand theft. I guess you could say that this guy is all washed-up and could get sent up the river for a long time thanks to an anonymous tip from a concerned citizen.
All joking aside, crimes like this one are all too common and can have a devastating affect on businesses that are just barely making it in this economy. It is unclear how the suspect was able to get so many tickets, but in many cases it is an inside job. Merchandise theft from employees results in millions of dollars in lost profits annually.
At Crime Stoppers, we are serious about helping businesses avoid unnecessary losses. We have worked with retailers and their loss prevention departments to make employees aware that they can call Crime Stoppers and remain anonymous. If you know of anyone stealing from your employer, then please call our tip line at (408) 947-STOP.
Crime Stoppers also made a big splash this month in San Jose by partnering with Councilmember Madison Nguyen to give her constituents a tangible way that they can make a difference in their community. A couple of years ago, Councilmember Nguyen approached me about partnering with us to pass out t-shirts with the Crime Stoppers name and phone number printed on them. Hundreds of San Jose residents learned about Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers this year thanks to this partnership and Councilmember Nguyen’s support of the program.
Thank you, Councilmember Nguyen. Crime Stoppers works because of leaders like you.
Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers. This is a monthly report he writes exclusively for Protect San Jose.
This month, among arrests for drug sales, assault and burglary was a new one for me. One of the criminals arrested through a Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers tip had 44 stolen tickets to Raging Waters valued at $2,200. (Maybe he was in planning on a whole summer worth of daycations.) While it doesn't sound serious, this crime could result in charges like felony grand theft. I guess you could say that this guy is all washed-up and could get sent up the river for a long time thanks to an anonymous tip from a concerned citizen.
All joking aside, crimes like this one are all too common and can have a devastating affect on businesses that are just barely making it in this economy. It is unclear how the suspect was able to get so many tickets, but in many cases it is an inside job. Merchandise theft from employees results in millions of dollars in lost profits annually.
At Crime Stoppers, we are serious about helping businesses avoid unnecessary losses. We have worked with retailers and their loss prevention departments to make employees aware that they can call Crime Stoppers and remain anonymous. If you know of anyone stealing from your employer, then please call our tip line at (408) 947-STOP.
Crime Stoppers also made a big splash this month in San Jose by partnering with Councilmember Madison Nguyen to give her constituents a tangible way that they can make a difference in their community. A couple of years ago, Councilmember Nguyen approached me about partnering with us to pass out t-shirts with the Crime Stoppers name and phone number printed on them. Hundreds of San Jose residents learned about Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers this year thanks to this partnership and Councilmember Nguyen’s support of the program.
Thank you, Councilmember Nguyen. Crime Stoppers works because of leaders like you.
Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers. This is a monthly report he writes exclusively for Protect San Jose.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Open Forum Friday
Given the popularity of our last open forum experiment, we're more than happy to roll it out again.
It's been a busy week at City Hall...
• The City Council approved a funding plan for $5 million in cost overruns on the South San Jose police substation, cutting back on other planned public safety projects like the regional driver training center.
• The Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity was back before Council committees with a quarterly report as they look to begin their study of police practices in San Jose.
• And Protect San Jose's resident statistical guru Ed Rast and the rest of the Sunshine Reform Task Force that he chairs made their Phase II recommendations, albeit through the middle man of the Rules Committee.
Let us know what's on your mind.
It's been a busy week at City Hall...
• The City Council approved a funding plan for $5 million in cost overruns on the South San Jose police substation, cutting back on other planned public safety projects like the regional driver training center.
• The Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity was back before Council committees with a quarterly report as they look to begin their study of police practices in San Jose.
• And Protect San Jose's resident statistical guru Ed Rast and the rest of the Sunshine Reform Task Force that he chairs made their Phase II recommendations, albeit through the middle man of the Rules Committee.
Let us know what's on your mind.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Beat Cop: Tag, You're It...
Did any one notice massive amounts of graffiti on buildings as they drove to work today? I didn't either, probably because San Jose has long made reducing graffiti a priority. Travel to any major city in the country and you will very likely recall tagging spread throughout the city where you were vacationing or on a business trip. Some large cities like San Francisco, LA and New York have even become destinations for traveling vandals. People traveling to San Jose can feel our community pride and have a sense of security knowing that a city this free from graffiti makes crime a priority. A business looking to relocate to San Jose surely will be influenced by tagging in the area of their prospective business. There has been a long standing partnership between city leaders, city services, community members, business, probation, courts and the police department to keep San Jose free from graffiti. Unfortunately, like many crimes in our city, graffiti vandalism has risen in recent years. Two San Jose Police Detectives in the METRO unit are responsible for investigating thousands of graffiti and vandalism cases a year.
Now the citizens of San Jose have a new weapon to help keep their streets clean. A little more than two weeks ago, the San Jose Police Department launched a new online graffiti reporting system. The new system is accessed on the department’s website, SJPD.org, under the Report a Crime/Graffiti tab. It allows citizens to take digital photographs of graffiti and upload the pictures directly into a police database. The reported graffiti does not even need to be on your property. Graffiti detectives track the distinctive tags and locate the suspects responsible for them. Having a database of tags allows for effective prosecution of vandals in our community. Once a suspect is associated to a distinctive tag, detectives can then charge the suspect with past tags logged in the database. Victims of the vandalism are reconnected and have an opportunity to recover the cost of the vandalism through the court’s restitution process. All police agencies in the county have signed on to the San Jose police-initiated system. Other cities in the state like San Francisco are joining the shared network as well. Citizens who are in need of a crime report for insurance proposes or who have suspect information can still call 3-1-1; or file an online report using SJPD.org.
If you locate graffiti on city property, you can report it for clean up to the city of San Jose Anti graffiti hotline at (408) 277-2758. Remember, by immediately addressing new graffiti, we send a strong, zero-tolerance message to the perpetrators. If you want to get directly involved in keeping your community graffiti- and crime-free, you can become a volunteer. The City of San Jose has a program to assist residents and businesses that need to remove graffiti from their property. Free paint and graffiti solvent is available through the San Jose Anti-Graffiti program at 501 Vine St. To pick up your free Anti-Graffiti Tool Kit or to volunteer to clean up graffiti, call (408) 277-3208. Working together we can protect San Jose from the blight and crime associated with graffiti.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Now the citizens of San Jose have a new weapon to help keep their streets clean. A little more than two weeks ago, the San Jose Police Department launched a new online graffiti reporting system. The new system is accessed on the department’s website, SJPD.org, under the Report a Crime/Graffiti tab. It allows citizens to take digital photographs of graffiti and upload the pictures directly into a police database. The reported graffiti does not even need to be on your property. Graffiti detectives track the distinctive tags and locate the suspects responsible for them. Having a database of tags allows for effective prosecution of vandals in our community. Once a suspect is associated to a distinctive tag, detectives can then charge the suspect with past tags logged in the database. Victims of the vandalism are reconnected and have an opportunity to recover the cost of the vandalism through the court’s restitution process. All police agencies in the county have signed on to the San Jose police-initiated system. Other cities in the state like San Francisco are joining the shared network as well. Citizens who are in need of a crime report for insurance proposes or who have suspect information can still call 3-1-1; or file an online report using SJPD.org.
If you locate graffiti on city property, you can report it for clean up to the city of San Jose Anti graffiti hotline at (408) 277-2758. Remember, by immediately addressing new graffiti, we send a strong, zero-tolerance message to the perpetrators. If you want to get directly involved in keeping your community graffiti- and crime-free, you can become a volunteer. The City of San Jose has a program to assist residents and businesses that need to remove graffiti from their property. Free paint and graffiti solvent is available through the San Jose Anti-Graffiti program at 501 Vine St. To pick up your free Anti-Graffiti Tool Kit or to volunteer to clean up graffiti, call (408) 277-3208. Working together we can protect San Jose from the blight and crime associated with graffiti.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Parent-Teen Mediation and How It Can Help
By Kathleen Flynn
Laws governing how you can discipline your child have changed considerably. If you use any type of physical force on your child, spouse, or a family member you can go to jail. Once you are arrested, jailed, and ordered to appear in court your whole life will change and not for the better. Luckily, the DA’s Office offers families without a history of violence an option to consider avoiding prosecution. The DA’s Office sends cases to mediation in an effort to empower families to better communicate and come up with improved skills in which to handle conflict. The County’s Dispute Resolution Program (DRPS) receives DA referrals and provides the community with just that type of service.
Last week, I handled such a case. A mother and daughter got into a physical altercation over a cell phone. After attending a Birthday party, were she had had a few drinks, the mother came home at 1:00 am to find her teenage daughter talking and texting on her cell phone. When she told her daughter to give her the phone and go to bed, the daughter told her mother to get out of her room and mind her own business. The fight escalated from yelling into a physical tug of war over the cell phone which ended in black eyes, a swollen ear, choke marks on the daughter’s neck, and a bloody foot that ended in a trip to the Emergency Room, and 7 stitches. During the fight, a neighbor called the Police. The mother ended up in jail, and the teen ended up in a shelter run by Child Protective Services.
When the mother and daughter recounted their version of the events, I was struck by the immense lack of compassion and communication I saw between them. As I listened to the mother telling me that she lost her job because she had to miss so much time to keep her court dates, the loss of some friendships, and humiliation she has suffered from this experience, I was surprised to hear them both say that if they had they known that programs like ours existed maybe this and other fights could have been avoided.
Parent/Teen Mediation, or any type of mediation through DRPS is a voluntary program that is free to the public. It is not therapy or counseling. Mediation is a setting in which you can clear the air and find positive, constructive ways of dealing with volatile emotions in a safe place. It isn’t as formal or frightening as it sounds.
After scheduling an appointment, you will meet with two experienced mediators that will listen to both sides of the story. Everything said in the mediation is kept strictly confidential. They are not there to judge you, nor will they tell you what to do. They are there simply to assist you and your child, family member, or spouse in learning active listening skills and ways to communicate more effectively. Once you have reached an agreement on how to do things differently, the mediators will put it in writing so that both of you know what was agreed to. No one sees that agreement but you. You may come back for a second or third mediation if you need to.
For more information on the Dispute Resolution Program you may call Brohne Lawhorne at 408-792-2330, or email him at Brohne.Lawhorne@ohr.sccgov.org.
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Laws governing how you can discipline your child have changed considerably. If you use any type of physical force on your child, spouse, or a family member you can go to jail. Once you are arrested, jailed, and ordered to appear in court your whole life will change and not for the better. Luckily, the DA’s Office offers families without a history of violence an option to consider avoiding prosecution. The DA’s Office sends cases to mediation in an effort to empower families to better communicate and come up with improved skills in which to handle conflict. The County’s Dispute Resolution Program (DRPS) receives DA referrals and provides the community with just that type of service.
Last week, I handled such a case. A mother and daughter got into a physical altercation over a cell phone. After attending a Birthday party, were she had had a few drinks, the mother came home at 1:00 am to find her teenage daughter talking and texting on her cell phone. When she told her daughter to give her the phone and go to bed, the daughter told her mother to get out of her room and mind her own business. The fight escalated from yelling into a physical tug of war over the cell phone which ended in black eyes, a swollen ear, choke marks on the daughter’s neck, and a bloody foot that ended in a trip to the Emergency Room, and 7 stitches. During the fight, a neighbor called the Police. The mother ended up in jail, and the teen ended up in a shelter run by Child Protective Services.
When the mother and daughter recounted their version of the events, I was struck by the immense lack of compassion and communication I saw between them. As I listened to the mother telling me that she lost her job because she had to miss so much time to keep her court dates, the loss of some friendships, and humiliation she has suffered from this experience, I was surprised to hear them both say that if they had they known that programs like ours existed maybe this and other fights could have been avoided.
Parent/Teen Mediation, or any type of mediation through DRPS is a voluntary program that is free to the public. It is not therapy or counseling. Mediation is a setting in which you can clear the air and find positive, constructive ways of dealing with volatile emotions in a safe place. It isn’t as formal or frightening as it sounds.
After scheduling an appointment, you will meet with two experienced mediators that will listen to both sides of the story. Everything said in the mediation is kept strictly confidential. They are not there to judge you, nor will they tell you what to do. They are there simply to assist you and your child, family member, or spouse in learning active listening skills and ways to communicate more effectively. Once you have reached an agreement on how to do things differently, the mediators will put it in writing so that both of you know what was agreed to. No one sees that agreement but you. You may come back for a second or third mediation if you need to.
For more information on the Dispute Resolution Program you may call Brohne Lawhorne at 408-792-2330, or email him at Brohne.Lawhorne@ohr.sccgov.org.
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Priorities and Objectives
By Ed Rast
Did you know that 4376 criminal cases in San Jose were not investigated in FY 2007-2008 due to a lack of police officers and resources, up 70% from 2,574 uninvestigated cases the previous fiscal year?
It is estimated that 5,800 cases — or almost 10% of all cases received — were not investigated in FY 2008-2009. This would mean an increase of over 125% in uninvestigated crimes in just two years.
Estimates predict that 4,500 criminal cases will not be investigated in FY 2009-2010... even if the eight new police officers approved in 2008-2009 budget for Investigative Services are hired to improve case investigations and clearances in burglary and auto thief.
The 2009-2010 proposed operating budget (p. VII 282) states that these eight investigative officers could instead be assigned to “service demand increases related to annexation of County pockets within San Jose, normal population growth and the impact of proposed reductions to other police services.”
The State of California plans to take $75 million from San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency and borrow $20 million of San Jose's property and sales tax revenues to balance the state’s $24.1 billion budget deficit, which means that previously eliminated public safety staff and budget cuts are back on the table.
So how can San Jose city administration year after year propose cuts to police staffing and funding if public safety is the No.1 budget priority of residents, neighborhood leaders, and most of the City Council?
Because our city administration:
1. Does not have a clear definition of “essential city services” — which always includes police, fire and emergency medical services — to be used to prioritize budget cuts;
2. Does not link city budget items to clear performance service objectives* (see below);
3. Does very few city service and cost comparisons to other large California cities or local cites using national performance measures; and
4. Does not link staff compensation to the achievement of department-specific service objectives in the budget, which are linked to long-term city goals.
We will continue to see police staff and budget cuts until our city administration defines their budget priorities and expenditures are linked to clear performance objectives and measurable standards.
* A performance service objective is defined in a budget document from nearby Sunnyvale as “generally a two-part sentence, describing both the service to be provided and the measurable standard with which it’s results will be compared.” For example, here’s the police service objective from Sunnyvale’s budget: “a) Provide quality investigations to aid the District Attorney in the prosecution of criminal cases in order that criminal charges are files on 90% of the cases submitted for review; b) promote the safety of the community and an atmosphere of security, primarily through the deterrence and prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders in order that the city remains within the lowest 25% of Part 1 crimes for cities of comparable size at a cost of $103.82 per capita.” Now that's specific!
Did you know that 4376 criminal cases in San Jose were not investigated in FY 2007-2008 due to a lack of police officers and resources, up 70% from 2,574 uninvestigated cases the previous fiscal year?
It is estimated that 5,800 cases — or almost 10% of all cases received — were not investigated in FY 2008-2009. This would mean an increase of over 125% in uninvestigated crimes in just two years.
Estimates predict that 4,500 criminal cases will not be investigated in FY 2009-2010... even if the eight new police officers approved in 2008-2009 budget for Investigative Services are hired to improve case investigations and clearances in burglary and auto thief.
The 2009-2010 proposed operating budget (p. VII 282) states that these eight investigative officers could instead be assigned to “service demand increases related to annexation of County pockets within San Jose, normal population growth and the impact of proposed reductions to other police services.”
The State of California plans to take $75 million from San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency and borrow $20 million of San Jose's property and sales tax revenues to balance the state’s $24.1 billion budget deficit, which means that previously eliminated public safety staff and budget cuts are back on the table.
So how can San Jose city administration year after year propose cuts to police staffing and funding if public safety is the No.1 budget priority of residents, neighborhood leaders, and most of the City Council?
Because our city administration:
1. Does not have a clear definition of “essential city services” — which always includes police, fire and emergency medical services — to be used to prioritize budget cuts;
2. Does not link city budget items to clear performance service objectives* (see below);
3. Does very few city service and cost comparisons to other large California cities or local cites using national performance measures; and
4. Does not link staff compensation to the achievement of department-specific service objectives in the budget, which are linked to long-term city goals.
We will continue to see police staff and budget cuts until our city administration defines their budget priorities and expenditures are linked to clear performance objectives and measurable standards.
* A performance service objective is defined in a budget document from nearby Sunnyvale as “generally a two-part sentence, describing both the service to be provided and the measurable standard with which it’s results will be compared.” For example, here’s the police service objective from Sunnyvale’s budget: “a) Provide quality investigations to aid the District Attorney in the prosecution of criminal cases in order that criminal charges are files on 90% of the cases submitted for review; b) promote the safety of the community and an atmosphere of security, primarily through the deterrence and prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders in order that the city remains within the lowest 25% of Part 1 crimes for cities of comparable size at a cost of $103.82 per capita.” Now that's specific!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Paperwork
By Bobby Lopez
I don’t know about you, but I was having a good weekend up until yesterday morning. That’s when I saw this article in the Mercury News.
A long-awaited police substation is about to cost $5 million more than the City originally thought. It’s the second time this year City administration has had to adjust their numbers because of “flawed design documents”. To add insult to injury, they want the council to pay for the cost overrun with funds that are meant for a police driver safety training center.
In the past, I’ve pointed out numerous examples of wasteful spending coming out of City Hall. This is just another example, and it comes at the expense of cops.
This substation has been a long time coming. Our officers and support staff are stretched too thin to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. A second home in South San Jose would relieve some of the pressure. Councilmember Kalra has it right the Merc story when he says, “it’s something we need to do.”
But think of the cops we could put on the beat with $5 million. Think of the new technology SJPD could use to improve reporting and records keeping. Think of the community policing programs we could fund. I think about it, and it makes me cringe, because instead of spending that $5 million on public safety, we’re making up for messy paperwork.
Recently, we’ve been hearing about how police pensions and benefits are bleeding our City coffers dry. Maybe things wouldn’t be so bad in the first place if the City spent our tax dollars wisely.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association
I don’t know about you, but I was having a good weekend up until yesterday morning. That’s when I saw this article in the Mercury News.
A long-awaited police substation is about to cost $5 million more than the City originally thought. It’s the second time this year City administration has had to adjust their numbers because of “flawed design documents”. To add insult to injury, they want the council to pay for the cost overrun with funds that are meant for a police driver safety training center.
In the past, I’ve pointed out numerous examples of wasteful spending coming out of City Hall. This is just another example, and it comes at the expense of cops.
This substation has been a long time coming. Our officers and support staff are stretched too thin to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. A second home in South San Jose would relieve some of the pressure. Councilmember Kalra has it right the Merc story when he says, “it’s something we need to do.”
But think of the cops we could put on the beat with $5 million. Think of the new technology SJPD could use to improve reporting and records keeping. Think of the community policing programs we could fund. I think about it, and it makes me cringe, because instead of spending that $5 million on public safety, we’re making up for messy paperwork.
Recently, we’ve been hearing about how police pensions and benefits are bleeding our City coffers dry. Maybe things wouldn’t be so bad in the first place if the City spent our tax dollars wisely.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association
Friday, August 14, 2009
Time to Go
Friends,
I am writing to explain my decision to resign as President of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association effective January 1, 2010. I am extremely proud to have been President for nearly four years. We have the finest group of police officers in the entire country, and it has been my privilege to serve you. That being the case, I feel that it is now time for me to leave.
I have made some needed changes, and I hope that my Presidency has strengthened the organization, both internally and through relationships with every organization and person the SJPOA deals with.
I will be writing in more detail regarding my term as President in my monthly column in the POA’s Vanguard newsletter. It has been a long four years, with numerous late nights and long meetings. I have been thinking about this for some time. I signed up to be a street cop and a father to my two sons. As I come to the end of my career, I want an opportunity to finish on the streets and to spend more time with my two boys.
I know that Vice President George Beattie will be a strong President for you in the future and that the POA has a great Board of Directors to serve its membership.
Please be safe out there.
Robert "Bobby" Lopez
President, SJPOA
I am writing to explain my decision to resign as President of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association effective January 1, 2010. I am extremely proud to have been President for nearly four years. We have the finest group of police officers in the entire country, and it has been my privilege to serve you. That being the case, I feel that it is now time for me to leave.
I have made some needed changes, and I hope that my Presidency has strengthened the organization, both internally and through relationships with every organization and person the SJPOA deals with.
I will be writing in more detail regarding my term as President in my monthly column in the POA’s Vanguard newsletter. It has been a long four years, with numerous late nights and long meetings. I have been thinking about this for some time. I signed up to be a street cop and a father to my two sons. As I come to the end of my career, I want an opportunity to finish on the streets and to spend more time with my two boys.
I know that Vice President George Beattie will be a strong President for you in the future and that the POA has a great Board of Directors to serve its membership.
Please be safe out there.
Robert "Bobby" Lopez
President, SJPOA
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Where's the Accountability?
By Pete Constant
How many times have you read an article online or in a newspaper that questions whether the San José Police Department holds its officers fully accountable for their actions? To be honest, I’ve lost count.
In 1993, the City of San José opened the office of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA). This newly created position was designed specifically to ensure that police officers were held accountable for their actions and to ensure that the police Internal Affairs Unit did not whitewash investigations of misconduct.
Approximately 4 years ago the San José City Council appointed Barbara Attard to be the IPA for a four year term. Since Attard lived in San Francisco, the city council provided her relocation assistance and a $250,000 executive home loan so that she could live in the community she served. When her term of office ended at the end of 2008 the city council decided to not re-appoint her. Attard continued to make her payments on her executive home loan for 3 months, and then abruptly stopped paying – even though she continued to make her first mortgage payments to her mortgage company. Months later, she informed the City of San José that she could not sell her home so she offered the city a deed to the property in lieu of foreclosure. Of course, there was still the matter of the first mortgage, so the city would have to pay off that loan in order to take possession of the home. Unfortunately, the city council agreed with this, voting to approve the settlement (9-2, with Councilmember Campos and myself voting against).
So she walked away from her obligations, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag – nearly $350,000 in loan forgiveness, and now the residents of San José own a downtown condo that might be worth $240,000 - if you could even sell it in today’s market.
So I ask, where did the concept of accountability go?
Four and a half years ago the city council approved this home loan, even though it appears to fail to meet the spirit or even the letter of the Executive Home Loan Program. After all, the intent of the loan program was to help new executive relocate to San José, an area long known for its high housing prices. But Attard was coming from San Francisco, an area with even higher housing costs.
Can anyone really argue that accepting a job 40 miles or so from your home requires relocation? Many hardworking city employees and taxpayers commute farther than that every day to their jobs.
The Executive Home Loan Program also specifically states that these loans are for the executive’s “principal residence.” While it was well known that Attard maintained her San Francisco residence during her employment, it is less known that Attard maintained her voter registration in San Francisco County and continued to vote in elections there while she was employed as the IPA. Remember, if you move, you are required to re-register to vote when you move to a new residence. Additionally, Attard never filed for a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption in Santa Clara County, but did keep the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption on file for her San Francisco residence. You can see that to claim this exemption, you must certify, under penalty of perjury, that you occupy your home as your “principal residence”.
So did Attard qualify for an Executive Home Loan to purchase her principal residence? I don’t think so, it’s clear to me she didn’t think it was her principal residence.
So where’s the accountability? Is the city council not responsible for approving this loan? Most of that council is no longer in office, so I guess not. Is Attard responsible for leaving the taxpayers holding the bag? I guess not, since the city attorney has informed the council that we have no other recourse. In fact, the city’s Finance Department doesn’t even think we are able to report the default to the credit reporting agencies.
With the city unable to provide essential services, can we really afford to buy a condo?
I, for one, am not willing to sit by and just let this go. I have asked the city manager to not offer this Executive Home Loan to any new hires until the Council can conduct a full review of the program, and I have asked for an investigation into the facts of the case.
Pete Constant is serving his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
How many times have you read an article online or in a newspaper that questions whether the San José Police Department holds its officers fully accountable for their actions? To be honest, I’ve lost count.
In 1993, the City of San José opened the office of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA). This newly created position was designed specifically to ensure that police officers were held accountable for their actions and to ensure that the police Internal Affairs Unit did not whitewash investigations of misconduct.
Approximately 4 years ago the San José City Council appointed Barbara Attard to be the IPA for a four year term. Since Attard lived in San Francisco, the city council provided her relocation assistance and a $250,000 executive home loan so that she could live in the community she served. When her term of office ended at the end of 2008 the city council decided to not re-appoint her. Attard continued to make her payments on her executive home loan for 3 months, and then abruptly stopped paying – even though she continued to make her first mortgage payments to her mortgage company. Months later, she informed the City of San José that she could not sell her home so she offered the city a deed to the property in lieu of foreclosure. Of course, there was still the matter of the first mortgage, so the city would have to pay off that loan in order to take possession of the home. Unfortunately, the city council agreed with this, voting to approve the settlement (9-2, with Councilmember Campos and myself voting against).
So she walked away from her obligations, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag – nearly $350,000 in loan forgiveness, and now the residents of San José own a downtown condo that might be worth $240,000 - if you could even sell it in today’s market.
So I ask, where did the concept of accountability go?
Four and a half years ago the city council approved this home loan, even though it appears to fail to meet the spirit or even the letter of the Executive Home Loan Program. After all, the intent of the loan program was to help new executive relocate to San José, an area long known for its high housing prices. But Attard was coming from San Francisco, an area with even higher housing costs.
Can anyone really argue that accepting a job 40 miles or so from your home requires relocation? Many hardworking city employees and taxpayers commute farther than that every day to their jobs.
The Executive Home Loan Program also specifically states that these loans are for the executive’s “principal residence.” While it was well known that Attard maintained her San Francisco residence during her employment, it is less known that Attard maintained her voter registration in San Francisco County and continued to vote in elections there while she was employed as the IPA. Remember, if you move, you are required to re-register to vote when you move to a new residence. Additionally, Attard never filed for a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption in Santa Clara County, but did keep the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption on file for her San Francisco residence. You can see that to claim this exemption, you must certify, under penalty of perjury, that you occupy your home as your “principal residence”.
So did Attard qualify for an Executive Home Loan to purchase her principal residence? I don’t think so, it’s clear to me she didn’t think it was her principal residence.
So where’s the accountability? Is the city council not responsible for approving this loan? Most of that council is no longer in office, so I guess not. Is Attard responsible for leaving the taxpayers holding the bag? I guess not, since the city attorney has informed the council that we have no other recourse. In fact, the city’s Finance Department doesn’t even think we are able to report the default to the credit reporting agencies.
With the city unable to provide essential services, can we really afford to buy a condo?
I, for one, am not willing to sit by and just let this go. I have asked the city manager to not offer this Executive Home Loan to any new hires until the Council can conduct a full review of the program, and I have asked for an investigation into the facts of the case.
Pete Constant is serving his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Our Report Card from the IPA
By Bobby Lopez
Yesterday, the San Jose City Council got some good news in an annual report from our interim Independent Police Auditor: The total number of citizen complaints against San Jose police officers fell 5% between 2007 and 2008.
I have to admit, hearing that made me feel pretty good. But then I thought about a Mercury News story I read two weeks ago when the IPA report was first published. I didn’t remember seeing that 5% figure in the story, so I looked it up online and read it again.
Sure enough, the overall drop in complaints isn’t mentioned until the middle of the third paragraph, and even then it’s almost an afterthought. Based on the headline and the opening of the story, the paper was more interested in pointing out that “slightly more people complained that San Jose officers used unnecessary force or were rude to them in 2008.”
Maybe the Mercury News thinks a slight increase in a single category is bigger news than a 5% drop overall. I like to focus on the bigger picture, so let me borrow a line from Protect San Jose statistical guru Ed Rast:
Did you know that SJPD handled a record 436,855 calls for service in 2008 and only 467 (0.1%) of those resulted in a citizen complaint? Or that the number of complaints per 100,000 residents (47) has stayed pretty much level over the past few years even though our city’s population has grown by almost 50,000 people since 2005?
(By the way, I’m a little confused... The City Administration’s numbers say that 1.0% of calls for service resulted in a complaint. By my math, it’s about ten times less than that. I went ahead and included the Administration’s numbers, just so you know I’m not kidding around. Check out the chart at the bottom of page 2, run the numbers, and see what you get.)
I’ve said it before, cops work in the most scrutinized profession in America. We accept that and we welcome the scrutiny because we think we do a pretty good job. But I’d sure like to see the number of complaints against other City departments — that is, if statistics are available. Can any department do better than 0.1%?
Who do I call in the City of San Jose’s Department in Charge of Decimal Points?
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association
Yesterday, the San Jose City Council got some good news in an annual report from our interim Independent Police Auditor: The total number of citizen complaints against San Jose police officers fell 5% between 2007 and 2008.
I have to admit, hearing that made me feel pretty good. But then I thought about a Mercury News story I read two weeks ago when the IPA report was first published. I didn’t remember seeing that 5% figure in the story, so I looked it up online and read it again.
Sure enough, the overall drop in complaints isn’t mentioned until the middle of the third paragraph, and even then it’s almost an afterthought. Based on the headline and the opening of the story, the paper was more interested in pointing out that “slightly more people complained that San Jose officers used unnecessary force or were rude to them in 2008.”
Maybe the Mercury News thinks a slight increase in a single category is bigger news than a 5% drop overall. I like to focus on the bigger picture, so let me borrow a line from Protect San Jose statistical guru Ed Rast:
Did you know that SJPD handled a record 436,855 calls for service in 2008 and only 467 (0.1%) of those resulted in a citizen complaint? Or that the number of complaints per 100,000 residents (47) has stayed pretty much level over the past few years even though our city’s population has grown by almost 50,000 people since 2005?
(By the way, I’m a little confused... The City Administration’s numbers say that 1.0% of calls for service resulted in a complaint. By my math, it’s about ten times less than that. I went ahead and included the Administration’s numbers, just so you know I’m not kidding around. Check out the chart at the bottom of page 2, run the numbers, and see what you get.)
I’ve said it before, cops work in the most scrutinized profession in America. We accept that and we welcome the scrutiny because we think we do a pretty good job. But I’d sure like to see the number of complaints against other City departments — that is, if statistics are available. Can any department do better than 0.1%?Who do I call in the City of San Jose’s Department in Charge of Decimal Points?
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Right Goal, Wrong Measure
By Ed Rast
Did you know San Jose residents and business don’t have sufficient information to know if our city is safe?
San Jose frequently quotes CQ Press’s 2008 City Crime Rankings as an indicator of our city’s public safety. In 2008, we were ranked 4th on CQ’s list of “Safest Large Cities in America” (with populations over 500,000) based on the FBI’s “Crime in United States 2007“ data.
CQ Press’ methodology states:
San Jose’s city administration should not rely on CQ Press’s City Crime Rankings to measure public safety, or set city budget priorities or police staffing levels.
Developing additional, detailed crime comparisons for San Jose and selected large cities in our county and state based on the FBI’s annual “Crime in the United States“ report will provide the Mayor, City Council, residents and businesses with additional information to measure public safety and set police staffing and budget levels.
In addition, there are two public reports that, if published monthly, could assist in police staff and budget allocations and educate everyone about crime and related social issues. The public could then use Community Policing to potentially prevent crimes and also address the social issues that contribute to crime.
Phoenix’s Monthly Count of Actual Offenses Known to Police uses the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) classifications and definitions and is a more comprehensive citywide crime report that what is available in San Jose.
The California Department of Justice’s Adult and Juvenile Criminal Report provides crime and demographic data that could alert city leaders, city administration and residents to potential social or criminal problems such as the drunk-in-public arrest rates. (See Page 2: Misdemeanors - Drunk; Page 4: Adult demographics; Page 6: Juvenile demographics.)
Unfortunately, due to budget shortages, the San Jose Police Department does not have the requested staff or improved technology systems needed to replace it’s decades-old, inefficient manual reports and retrieval system. Either of these would allow SJPD to produce the desired reports I have discussed previously.
Did you know San Jose residents and business don’t have sufficient information to know if our city is safe?
San Jose frequently quotes CQ Press’s 2008 City Crime Rankings as an indicator of our city’s public safety. In 2008, we were ranked 4th on CQ’s list of “Safest Large Cities in America” (with populations over 500,000) based on the FBI’s “Crime in United States 2007“ data.
CQ Press’ methodology states:
The crimes tracked by the UCR Program include violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault and property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, also called “Crime Index” offenses; the index is simply the total of the seven main offense categories. The FBI discontinued use of this measure in 2004 because its officials and advisory board of criminologists concluded that the index was no longer a true indicator of crime. ….. The consensus of the FBI and its advisory groups was that the Crime Index no longer served its purpose and that a more meaningful index should be developed.Public safety is consistently ranked as the #1 city budget priority by San Jose’s residents. With that in mind, maintaining our status as the “Safest Big City in America” is still a good goal. But once you looked at why the FBI discontinued its use of the CQ methodology — because it was “no longer a true indicator of crime” — you begin to understand a new measurement is needed.
San Jose’s city administration should not rely on CQ Press’s City Crime Rankings to measure public safety, or set city budget priorities or police staffing levels.
Developing additional, detailed crime comparisons for San Jose and selected large cities in our county and state based on the FBI’s annual “Crime in the United States“ report will provide the Mayor, City Council, residents and businesses with additional information to measure public safety and set police staffing and budget levels.
In addition, there are two public reports that, if published monthly, could assist in police staff and budget allocations and educate everyone about crime and related social issues. The public could then use Community Policing to potentially prevent crimes and also address the social issues that contribute to crime.
Phoenix’s Monthly Count of Actual Offenses Known to Police uses the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) classifications and definitions and is a more comprehensive citywide crime report that what is available in San Jose.
The California Department of Justice’s Adult and Juvenile Criminal Report provides crime and demographic data that could alert city leaders, city administration and residents to potential social or criminal problems such as the drunk-in-public arrest rates. (See Page 2: Misdemeanors - Drunk; Page 4: Adult demographics; Page 6: Juvenile demographics.)
Unfortunately, due to budget shortages, the San Jose Police Department does not have the requested staff or improved technology systems needed to replace it’s decades-old, inefficient manual reports and retrieval system. Either of these would allow SJPD to produce the desired reports I have discussed previously.
Monday, August 10, 2009
National Night Out Recap
By Jim Cogan
Last Tuesday, thousands of San Jose residents joined together with San Jose police officers to celebrate National Night Out. All over the city, officers who walk the beat on the midnight shift came to work early to get the opportunity to meet the neighbors that they serve.
In my neighborhood, over 80 residents came together for the first time in recent memory. It was a wonderful gathering of neighbors and police officers. Two sergeants and six officers attended our event. Amid the ice cream and good conversation I heard a phrase that summarized the entire event: “Now that I know about it, I’ll be on the look out…”
This statement was made by the officer who works the midnight shift on our neighborhood beat. His promise to be on the lookout for whatever was bothering my neighbor is exactly what National Night Out is all about, the community and police working together to protect San Jose. Perhaps they were discussing the recent car burglaries in the neighborhood or a strange car that doesn’t belong to anyone in the neighborhood. Whatever the case, the officer now has some invaluable information and my neighbor knows that that the police are ready to help.
I spoke to the officer, who appreciated the opportunity to meet the residents on his beat. He told me that he never gets to talk to residents, because most of us are asleep when he punches in for his shift. I was impressed with all of the officers who attended our event and speaking for my neighbors, I think we all will sleep a little better. The officers were all very courteous and excited to have the opportunity to meet residents. It really made my neighbors happy as well. Many of them thanked me for organizing the event and talked about how to make it better next year.
In our neighborhood, National Night Out sparked interest in getting organized. In fact, sixty of my neighbors signed up to organize a neighborhood watch and start a neighborhood association. I am confident that together we will strengthen our partnership with the San Jose Police Department and make our neighborhood safer.
Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers.
Last Tuesday, thousands of San Jose residents joined together with San Jose police officers to celebrate National Night Out. All over the city, officers who walk the beat on the midnight shift came to work early to get the opportunity to meet the neighbors that they serve.
In my neighborhood, over 80 residents came together for the first time in recent memory. It was a wonderful gathering of neighbors and police officers. Two sergeants and six officers attended our event. Amid the ice cream and good conversation I heard a phrase that summarized the entire event: “Now that I know about it, I’ll be on the look out…”
This statement was made by the officer who works the midnight shift on our neighborhood beat. His promise to be on the lookout for whatever was bothering my neighbor is exactly what National Night Out is all about, the community and police working together to protect San Jose. Perhaps they were discussing the recent car burglaries in the neighborhood or a strange car that doesn’t belong to anyone in the neighborhood. Whatever the case, the officer now has some invaluable information and my neighbor knows that that the police are ready to help.
I spoke to the officer, who appreciated the opportunity to meet the residents on his beat. He told me that he never gets to talk to residents, because most of us are asleep when he punches in for his shift. I was impressed with all of the officers who attended our event and speaking for my neighbors, I think we all will sleep a little better. The officers were all very courteous and excited to have the opportunity to meet residents. It really made my neighbors happy as well. Many of them thanked me for organizing the event and talked about how to make it better next year.
In our neighborhood, National Night Out sparked interest in getting organized. In fact, sixty of my neighbors signed up to organize a neighborhood watch and start a neighborhood association. I am confident that together we will strengthen our partnership with the San Jose Police Department and make our neighborhood safer.
Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Open Forum Friday
It's your chance to jump on the soap box...
What's on your mind this week? Post your thoughts in the comments below. If we like what we read, we'll try this again.
Stay safe, and have a great weekend!
What's on your mind this week? Post your thoughts in the comments below. If we like what we read, we'll try this again.
Stay safe, and have a great weekend!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Help Us Get Your Stuff Back
By Beat Cop
Part three of a three-part series.
Getting woken up by a late night phone call from the police is almost always a bad thing. Extreme anxiety fills your body as you hear, “Hello this is Officer Fernandez from the Police Department.” The worst case scenario runs throughout your head.
“We have located a laptop computer that may have been taken from your house in a burglary. If you can come down to the police department and identify it, I may be able to release it to you tonight.“ Sounds almost too good too be true. It could be a reality if you follow some simple advice from your local Beat Cop.
Taking the time to inventory items in your home may be the most effective weapon you have in helping the police catch thieves. When an officer responds to your home to take a burglary report, they will look for clues, canvass for witnesses and catalog the items taken. A victim who has serial numbers written down for their stolen iPod, laptop, camcorder and Play-Station will likely get “some or all” of the items returned to them. If however, no serial numbers are available, there is almost no chance the items will ever be returned to their rightful owners.
All police departments in California utilize the same database to track stolen items. High-value items are entered into a nationwide tracking system. Police come into contact with crooks every day as part of our job. It can be frustrating to come into contact with a person on parole for burglary that has three laptops in a backpack and tells you that he “found them.” The officer will surely do their part and have the dispatcher check the serial numbers in the database. But if the victims of the burglary were not able to provide serial numbers to the responding officer, the parolee may be able to walk away with the likely stolen laptops. Even if the officer is able to seize the laptops for further investigation, the owners will likely never be located if no serial number was provided.
Burglars are predictable. If you or your neighborhood have been target for a burglar, it is likely they will continue to victimize that same area. One tool citizens use more frequently is a low-cost home video surveillance system. Home DVR systems are becoming more popular and are helping the police catch burglars. Even if you have not been the victim of a burglary, your video system may have seen the person who broke into your neighbor’s home and is planning on breaking into yours in the near future. Neighborhood organizations and groups are coordinating with each other after a crime occurs on their street. They are sharing information about the crime in emails, community meetings and now videos of suspicious people — and even criminals caught in the act.
Help us help you now and download this simple home inventory form. Walk through your home and jot down the make, model and serial numbers of any item in your house you would like returned to you if ever a burglar makes their way into your home and walks off with your stuff. Take photos of jewelry and items without serial numbers. Tuck the form away and hope it is never needed. If the unfortunate day comes when you do need it, you will have done the most effective thing you can to help the police catch the person who violated you and get your stuff back.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Part three of a three-part series.
Getting woken up by a late night phone call from the police is almost always a bad thing. Extreme anxiety fills your body as you hear, “Hello this is Officer Fernandez from the Police Department.” The worst case scenario runs throughout your head.
“We have located a laptop computer that may have been taken from your house in a burglary. If you can come down to the police department and identify it, I may be able to release it to you tonight.“ Sounds almost too good too be true. It could be a reality if you follow some simple advice from your local Beat Cop.
Taking the time to inventory items in your home may be the most effective weapon you have in helping the police catch thieves. When an officer responds to your home to take a burglary report, they will look for clues, canvass for witnesses and catalog the items taken. A victim who has serial numbers written down for their stolen iPod, laptop, camcorder and Play-Station will likely get “some or all” of the items returned to them. If however, no serial numbers are available, there is almost no chance the items will ever be returned to their rightful owners.
All police departments in California utilize the same database to track stolen items. High-value items are entered into a nationwide tracking system. Police come into contact with crooks every day as part of our job. It can be frustrating to come into contact with a person on parole for burglary that has three laptops in a backpack and tells you that he “found them.” The officer will surely do their part and have the dispatcher check the serial numbers in the database. But if the victims of the burglary were not able to provide serial numbers to the responding officer, the parolee may be able to walk away with the likely stolen laptops. Even if the officer is able to seize the laptops for further investigation, the owners will likely never be located if no serial number was provided.
Burglars are predictable. If you or your neighborhood have been target for a burglar, it is likely they will continue to victimize that same area. One tool citizens use more frequently is a low-cost home video surveillance system. Home DVR systems are becoming more popular and are helping the police catch burglars. Even if you have not been the victim of a burglary, your video system may have seen the person who broke into your neighbor’s home and is planning on breaking into yours in the near future. Neighborhood organizations and groups are coordinating with each other after a crime occurs on their street. They are sharing information about the crime in emails, community meetings and now videos of suspicious people — and even criminals caught in the act.
Help us help you now and download this simple home inventory form. Walk through your home and jot down the make, model and serial numbers of any item in your house you would like returned to you if ever a burglar makes their way into your home and walks off with your stuff. Take photos of jewelry and items without serial numbers. Tuck the form away and hope it is never needed. If the unfortunate day comes when you do need it, you will have done the most effective thing you can to help the police catch the person who violated you and get your stuff back.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Opening Police Records
By Kathleen Flynn
As a Victim’s Right Advocate and a mediator who has worked with both victims and offenders, I fervently oppose opening Police records to the press and the public for a number of reasons. If the City were to cave in and enact said policy, who would oversee and hold the press accountable for what they print? The answer, absolutely no one! Clearly the media has a problem with grasping the difference between facts vs. fiction, personal bias vs. truth, and sensationalism vs. true journalism. Pick up a paper, or turn on the TV or radio, and read about the woman who murdered her child, ate her brain, tore her face off, and then tried to kill herself. I rest my case.
If there were an open policy for the press to read Police records, and you were a rape victim or if your neighbor molested your child the press would be allowed to read every detail of your assault, or your child’s molestation. You would be re-victimized, and forced to relive that horror every day thanks to sensationalistic reporting.
How many victims of rape or any other victim of violent crime do you think would come forward knowing that their right to privacy is going to be violated by prying eyes? Rape and violent crimes are already grossly under-reported as it is, and this type of “sunshine” isn’t going to benefit a single victim I know or have worked with.
What about the rights of someone who has been falsely accused of a crime, or the families of offenders who suffer hate crimes due to press coverage of the case? What about groups like the ACLU, the NAACP, and others who are lying in wait to sue the Police Department or the City over something they think should have been handled differently? None of these groups are trained or skilled in Police work, policies, or procedures, nor were they at the scene of the crime, nor were they sitting in on interviews of witnesses or offenders yet they would be allowed to make judgments on practices they have no expertise in.
While these are just some of the concerns I have on this topic, let me leave you with this to ponder: How much easier would we be making it on child molesters, rapists, robbers, or gang members to study the way Police investigations are handled so that they could cover their tracks better, or figure out exactly who provided the Police with information on apprehending them so they could take their revenge?
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
As a Victim’s Right Advocate and a mediator who has worked with both victims and offenders, I fervently oppose opening Police records to the press and the public for a number of reasons. If the City were to cave in and enact said policy, who would oversee and hold the press accountable for what they print? The answer, absolutely no one! Clearly the media has a problem with grasping the difference between facts vs. fiction, personal bias vs. truth, and sensationalism vs. true journalism. Pick up a paper, or turn on the TV or radio, and read about the woman who murdered her child, ate her brain, tore her face off, and then tried to kill herself. I rest my case.
If there were an open policy for the press to read Police records, and you were a rape victim or if your neighbor molested your child the press would be allowed to read every detail of your assault, or your child’s molestation. You would be re-victimized, and forced to relive that horror every day thanks to sensationalistic reporting.
How many victims of rape or any other victim of violent crime do you think would come forward knowing that their right to privacy is going to be violated by prying eyes? Rape and violent crimes are already grossly under-reported as it is, and this type of “sunshine” isn’t going to benefit a single victim I know or have worked with.
What about the rights of someone who has been falsely accused of a crime, or the families of offenders who suffer hate crimes due to press coverage of the case? What about groups like the ACLU, the NAACP, and others who are lying in wait to sue the Police Department or the City over something they think should have been handled differently? None of these groups are trained or skilled in Police work, policies, or procedures, nor were they at the scene of the crime, nor were they sitting in on interviews of witnesses or offenders yet they would be allowed to make judgments on practices they have no expertise in.
While these are just some of the concerns I have on this topic, let me leave you with this to ponder: How much easier would we be making it on child molesters, rapists, robbers, or gang members to study the way Police investigations are handled so that they could cover their tracks better, or figure out exactly who provided the Police with information on apprehending them so they could take their revenge?
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A Four-Year-Old Mistake
By Ed Rast
Did you know that after police staffing reductions in 2005, San Jose’s property crime rate increased 25%, causing us to lose our “Safest Big City in the United States” ranking after six consecutive years at the top?
The San Jose Police Department in 2005 was required by city administration to reduce staffing because of budget cuts. This brought police staffing back to nearly 1998 levels — though the city’s population had grown 10% between 1998 and 2005 — and forced the department to appropriately prioritize violent crimes against people over property crimes.
The 2005 staffing and budget reductions resulted in many property crimes not being prevented, investigated or cleared due to officer and police staff shortages. Property crimes increased as well as misdemeanor and financial crimes.
If you go to City-Data.com’s San Jose page and scroll down to he chart labeled “Crime in San Jose by Year”, you can see the increase in crime after 2005 in the eight categories used by the FBI to determine the safest cities. (Click a category to compare San Jose’s crime rate to national crime rates in a bar graph.)
Many property crimes like burglaries and vehicle theft are committed by habitual criminals who will continue to commit increasingly more property crimes unless prevented by patrolling officers or arrested after their crimes are investigated. But due primarily to officer shortages, San Jose’s property crime rates are on the rise.
For example, San Jose’s car theft rate first exceeded the national vehicle thief average in 2004, when 4,517 vehicles were stolen here. The rate dramatically increased after 2005 staff cuts to reach 2006’s high of 7,139 stolen vehicles. That and the 6,413 vehicles stolen in 2007 were both almost double the national rate. 2008’s 5,229 stolen vehicles — while a substantially lower number — still exceeds the national average.
Reducing police staffing in 2005 as opposed to adding additional police staff proportional to San Jose’s increased population was not the only factor in the increase in overall and property crime rates, but it was likely a very significant factor. The FBI Crime Report cautions: “Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control.”
Crime will predictably increase during recessions due to unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, and reductions in government and non-profit social services.
Further police staffing or budget cuts do not seem to be in the public interest for San Jose’s residents or businesses, especially during a recession. These cuts should not be imposed in the 2009-2010 budget without asking city administration to clearly answer two questions for the City Council and residents:
1. Why have San Jose’s overall and property crime rates increased since 2005 police staff and budget cuts?
2. If proposed reductions to police staffing occur in the next round of budget cuts, what effective actions will be taken during this recession to prevent potentially increased crime rates?
P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful questions on last week's open thread. I will look to answer many of them over the coming weeks.
Did you know that after police staffing reductions in 2005, San Jose’s property crime rate increased 25%, causing us to lose our “Safest Big City in the United States” ranking after six consecutive years at the top?
The San Jose Police Department in 2005 was required by city administration to reduce staffing because of budget cuts. This brought police staffing back to nearly 1998 levels — though the city’s population had grown 10% between 1998 and 2005 — and forced the department to appropriately prioritize violent crimes against people over property crimes.
The 2005 staffing and budget reductions resulted in many property crimes not being prevented, investigated or cleared due to officer and police staff shortages. Property crimes increased as well as misdemeanor and financial crimes.
If you go to City-Data.com’s San Jose page and scroll down to he chart labeled “Crime in San Jose by Year”, you can see the increase in crime after 2005 in the eight categories used by the FBI to determine the safest cities. (Click a category to compare San Jose’s crime rate to national crime rates in a bar graph.)
Many property crimes like burglaries and vehicle theft are committed by habitual criminals who will continue to commit increasingly more property crimes unless prevented by patrolling officers or arrested after their crimes are investigated. But due primarily to officer shortages, San Jose’s property crime rates are on the rise.
For example, San Jose’s car theft rate first exceeded the national vehicle thief average in 2004, when 4,517 vehicles were stolen here. The rate dramatically increased after 2005 staff cuts to reach 2006’s high of 7,139 stolen vehicles. That and the 6,413 vehicles stolen in 2007 were both almost double the national rate. 2008’s 5,229 stolen vehicles — while a substantially lower number — still exceeds the national average.
Reducing police staffing in 2005 as opposed to adding additional police staff proportional to San Jose’s increased population was not the only factor in the increase in overall and property crime rates, but it was likely a very significant factor. The FBI Crime Report cautions: “Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control.”
Crime will predictably increase during recessions due to unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, and reductions in government and non-profit social services.
Further police staffing or budget cuts do not seem to be in the public interest for San Jose’s residents or businesses, especially during a recession. These cuts should not be imposed in the 2009-2010 budget without asking city administration to clearly answer two questions for the City Council and residents:
1. Why have San Jose’s overall and property crime rates increased since 2005 police staff and budget cuts?
2. If proposed reductions to police staffing occur in the next round of budget cuts, what effective actions will be taken during this recession to prevent potentially increased crime rates?
P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful questions on last week's open thread. I will look to answer many of them over the coming weeks.
Monday, August 3, 2009
To Pledge or Not to Pledge
We thought we’d give you another update on the status of the pledge we asked your Councilmembers to sign to recommit to making public safety their top priority.
The scorecard as of our last post: Mayor Reed and seven Councilmembers signed on; Councilmemer Oliverio abstained; and Councilmembers Herrera and Liccardo had not responded.
We’re happy to announce that Councilmember Herrera’s office called to let us know she will make signing the pledge one of her first acts when the Council returns from their Summer recess.
We also saw that Councilmember Oliverio mentioned the pledge in his blog on another website. He explained that he doesn’t sign pledges for interest groups because he doesn’t want to promise anything he may not be able to deliver.
I understand where he’s coming from. But an overwhelming majority of San Jose’s residents regularly list public safety as their top priority. Are the people of San Jose an interest group?
We’re only asking our leaders to reflect the support our public safety officers receive from the community. It’s a pledge of principle.
Later on in his blog, Pierluigi mentions that he’s already got his own public safety pledge posted on his city website. We went there and looked around but couldn’t find it. Maybe he’ll post a link in his blog today. We’ll let you know.
P.S. In case you were wondering, Councilmember Liccardo still has yet to respond.
The scorecard as of our last post: Mayor Reed and seven Councilmembers signed on; Councilmemer Oliverio abstained; and Councilmembers Herrera and Liccardo had not responded.
We’re happy to announce that Councilmember Herrera’s office called to let us know she will make signing the pledge one of her first acts when the Council returns from their Summer recess.
We also saw that Councilmember Oliverio mentioned the pledge in his blog on another website. He explained that he doesn’t sign pledges for interest groups because he doesn’t want to promise anything he may not be able to deliver.
I understand where he’s coming from. But an overwhelming majority of San Jose’s residents regularly list public safety as their top priority. Are the people of San Jose an interest group?
We’re only asking our leaders to reflect the support our public safety officers receive from the community. It’s a pledge of principle.
Later on in his blog, Pierluigi mentions that he’s already got his own public safety pledge posted on his city website. We went there and looked around but couldn’t find it. Maybe he’ll post a link in his blog today. We’ll let you know.
P.S. In case you were wondering, Councilmember Liccardo still has yet to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
