Outsourcing the Police Dept: Lingering Questions
A proposal by San Carlos City Manager Mark Weiss to hand over our police department to the San Mateo County Sheriff’s office raises a host of questions, including the one that everyone is asking: Will it make us safer?
There is little doubt that regionalism in public safety is becoming a trend. Just this week it was announced that Burlingame and San Mateo are taking the first steps toward a merged police department. Millbrae and San Bruno are in talks to do the same thing. As cities struggle to find solutions to their budget challenges, consolidations look very tempting, especially if the savings are substantial.
In San Carlos, the city needs to close a $3.5 million budget gap, and Weiss has presented a “Two Paths” plan; with one option that drastically cuts all city departments — including Parks and Recreation — and another that pulls all of the savings out of public safety by outsourcing police to the sheriff and the San Carlos portion of the fire department to CalFire, the state agency.
The way that the city staff is embracing the outsource concept, Two Paths are looking more like One Track – and a fast one at that. In the first council budget session last Saturday (the next one is this Monday, March 22, at 6 p.m. in city council chambers) , the city management put up rosy numbers that would purportedly save millions on the outsource option – and provide the city with a fat surplus, to boot. Officers would drive around in the same cars that say “San Carlos Police.” There would be no loss of jobs. No closure of parks and recreation programs. All of the fun stuff in town would continue. And we all live happily ever after!
What could be wrong with that picture?
The devil, as they say, is in the details. First, this community, which has had an excellent fire department (with our partner, Belmont) and a police department that consistently exceeds statewide averages for solving crimes, deserves more than “Two Paths” and a rush to judgment in remaking the structure of our city government. Is public safety no longer the sum of men and women with commitment and dedication? Is it just a commodity?
Here are questions that ought to be asked – and answered – before the city unloads public safety and pops the Champagne corks:
Talking with Other Cities
1. Why hasn’t this city done the most obvious thing much earlier – talk to Redwood City and Belmont, or even other nearby cities, about merging police departments? We’ve known since early November, when Measure U failed, that options were needed. Why is it that we’re just hearing about other possibilities now?
We learned, just last week, that Redwood City would consider submitting a proposal if it felt that San Carlos city council members were serious about reviewing one. How proactive has our city been in reaching out? Is the overture something like, “Let’s roll up our sleeves and collaborate!” or is it more like a tepid invitation along the lines of, “We might be interested in entertaining a proposal”?
Outsource Other Departments Instead
2. Why should police and fire be the only departments under the “outsource” prism? Why not consider ALL city departments? For that matter, how much would we save if we outsourced everything and just became an unincorporated ward of the county?
The city says that giving police functions to the sheriff could save between $2 million and $3.5 million a year, maybe enough to offset the entire deficit right there! How did the city arrive at those numbers? And how can the county provide the same level of police services to our city for so much less?
San Carlos is normally staffed with four officers and one sergeant per 12-hour shift during the weekdays, and typically five officers on weekends. The sheriff’s bid proposes to have three deputies and one roaming South County sergeant for all shifts. How would the sheriff proposal not represent a significant decrease in staffing?
Since the sheriff’s department patrols widely scattered and mostly rural areas – places such as Woodside and Portola Valley – how can it effectively deploy deputies quickly if San Carlos needs them? And if we have to continue relying on mutual aid from police in Belmont and Redwood City, would those cities charge us for those calls?
Sheriff’s Impact on San Carlos
3. What impact would there be on our police department and community by allowing the sheriff’s department to absorb our command staff, demote our chief to a captain, demote our experienced commanders to sergeants, and perhaps send one or more of our five sergeants to other corners of the county? How does San Carlos benefit by having fewer supervisors on incidents that take quick-thinking and deep experience?
How Would Priorities Be Set?
4. When the sheriff’s proposal talks about having one full-time detective assigned to San Carlos – as opposed to our existing investigative team of three detectives and a sergeant – how does that translate into following up and solving crimes? Do we gain feet on the ground — or lose them? How would priorities be established for following up on property crimes such as burglaries, thefts, vandalism and larceny? How much of the sheriff’s investigative infrastructure would be utilized in San Carlos?
San Carlos officers rely heavily on the unsung heroes of the department – the four Police Service Technicians (PSTs) and three Commmunity Service Officers (CSOs) – who assist in many day-to-day functions that allow the officers to spend more time patrolling the streets. Since the sheriff’s department proposes to keep only the CSOs involved directly in San Carlos and to reassign the PSTs elsewhere, what impact would that have on local police services?
How Would This Impact Quality of Services?
5. How many of our veteran officers and command staff would simply leave with a sheriff’s department takeover, and how would that affect the quality of police services in our city?
The San Carlos Police Association has issued a statement calling the sheriff’s proposal “vague.” It says: “The reason they are saving the city $3.5 million is because they are cutting the police services by almost half. The proposal assigns a total of 14 deputies to the City of San Carlos, which is down from the 27 officers San Carlos now uses to police the city. The City of San Carlos currently has the lowest police officer ratio per capita in San Mateo County and is well below the national average, and the Sheriff’s office is proposing to cut that in half?”
So, if we compare apples and apples, are we getting half a barrel? And if we kept staffing levels the same as they are now under a sheriff’s department takeover, how much of the so-called “savings” would evaporate?
The residents of San Carlos deserve answers to all of these questions before the city council makes a decision that would be difficult or impossible to undo in the future. Maybe we’ll hear more on Monday at the next council budget session.
– Ken Castle
###
It is appearing to me that Redwood City has its act together far better than San Carlos. Why not just annex ourselves to Redwood City?
A quote in today’s San Mateo Daily Journal article:
ARE YOU KIDDING? It is SHAMEFUL that a mid-Peninsula city with exorbitant property values and property taxes is constantly crying about money while calling itself “the city of good living.” What a farce. How much of a salary cut has city staff taken? Does anyone know?
This outsourcing of police is a terrible idea. Look how well that’s worked out for this country’s economy: record levels of unemployment. This country is always looking for someone to do something cheaper, the consequences be damned. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.
The management team has given up its 2.75% raise for next year, which will save more than $100,000. The secretaries who handle confidential documents have also given up their raise. Negotiations are underway with all the unions. This is on top of all the cuts that have been made in years past.
How many people who are calling for cuts voted “NO” on “U”? If you voted “NO” you have no business complaining about giving up street lighting, parks, planted medians, etc.
Pat — I take issue with the statement that if anyone voted NO on U that they have no business complaining about the potential cutbacks. EVERYONE has the right to complain about dark and unsafe streets. Newer residents are paying far more than long-time residents already and can’t be hit with more and more tax increases.
That management has given up a 2.75% raise is not the same as taking a pay cut. Many of us in the private sector have taken pay cuts to stay at the same job, and the city where we live wants more in taxes. It’s ridiculous.