New Haven Independent

Posted by: Ken Joyner | March 6, 2008 12:24 PM

The administration pointed out in greater detail through the presentation of organizational charts and testimony by Robert Smuts, the undeniable fact, supported by the Perf study, that this department has been under managed for years, back to and including the Delito Chief-hood and Mayoral administration.

Unfortunately, one critical component missing was testimony from any one of the current or past managers of those police structures.

Certainly, their input would have had the beneficial effect of putting to rest the question of why and how past administrations operating with a reduced senior staff structure, were able to do so with relative success, notwithstanding the Narcotics debacle.

The question now arises:
Had it not been for the narcotics issue, would we now be debating a structural change and incurring increased cost above the current 617 positions@ 30 MILLION, for the next years to come. An additional important question to answered is can we accomplish to same goal and task utilizing the existing increased compliment of Captains and Lieutenants. I feel we could. (YES WE CAN)

My civic input surrounded how best to achieve increased management presence, while at the same time considering the overall impact on the citizen taxpayer's ability to continue to pay these increasingly large expenditures.

It should be noted here that it is this equation (taxpayers ability to pay) that is consistently missing from aldermanic debate.

What is also missing is consistent taxpayer input into these public hearing in order to let your aldermen know your feelings through testimony.
In my opinion citizen silence equates to approval in absentia.The administration pointed out in greater detail through the presentation of organizational charts and testimony by Robert Smuts, the undeniable fact, supported by the Perf study, that this department has been under managed for years, back to and including the Delito Chief-hood and Mayoral administration.

Unfortunately, one critical component missing was testimony from any one of the current or past managers of those police structures.

Certainly, their input would have had the beneficial effect of putting to rest the question of why and how past administrations operating with a reduced senior staff structure, were able to do so with relative success, notwithstanding the Narcotics debacle.

The question now arises:
Had it not been for the narcotics issue, would we now be debating a structural change and incurring increased cost above the current 617 positions@ 30 MILLION, for the next years to come. An additional important question to have been answered is, can we accomplish the same goals and task utilizing the existing increased compliment of Captains and Lieutenants. I feel we can. (YES WE CAN).

My civic input surrounded how best to achieve increased management presence, while at the same time considering the overall impact on the citizen taxpayer's ability to continue to pay these increasingly large expenditures.

It should be noted here that it is this equation (taxpayers ability to pay) that is consistently missing from aldermanic debate.

What is also missing is consistent taxpayer input into these public hearing in order to let your aldermen know your feelings through testimony.
In my opinion citizen silence equates to approval in absentia.

Posted by: Common Sense | March 6, 2008 6:15 PM

Creating these two new positions at the listed salary ($93,645) will from the get-go create a future unfunded liability to the Policemen & Firemen's Pension Fund. Have the powers that be figured this into their benefit equation? If they are hired from outside the department will the proposed new assistant chiefs be given term limits like the chief? Under the guidelines of the Municipal Employee Relations Act can all four assistant chiefs be out of the union or will just one of them be out of the union. The fire department has two assistant chiefs and only one (in accordance with the MERA)is not a member of the union. I think we should wait for the new chief to be sworn in to be part of the costly decisions.

Posted by: citysavior | March 6, 2008 10:16 PM

Smuts said that neither he nor the mayor had talked to any of candidates himself yet about this matter, but that was his understanding from PERF, which is doing the headhunting. "But I can get you that information before a full board vote," he said. Perf is talking to people regarding the chief's job and not mentioning the report. any manager with any idea of coming to new haven for two years at at least 3000.00 has already googled nhpd and read the perf report. the person knows that the report what was recommended and how our mayors has used this as a bible to rebuild the police department. This leaves the city at a disadvantage. I expect this to cost me dearly on my taxes for years to come only people left will be the imigrants and yalies all the rest of the middle and lower class will be gone.I have spoken to many officers of all ranks this is what this is setting up to. Incoming administration who have no ties to the city will come in and two years later the city will be throwing them out when homicide rates go through the roof and crime runs rampad on the streets. Be careful Hartford did it so did bridgeport as well as meriden. hiring from outside the state is a failure most of the time. Bravo to the four brave alderperson who are seeing through this mess and not jumping on the perf bandwagon. Will perf give us a refund if there selection process provide a dud

Posted by: Chris Gray | March 7, 2008 5:11 AM

Ken, thanks for your attendance, your testimony and your comments here. You are absolutely correct that citizen participation in hearings on this issue or, failing that, citizen communication with their alders on it is essential.

The performance and cost of our police department are and historically have been major problems and we should not allow the Board of Alders to propose an ill-considered quick fix just so as to have an "accomplishment" to run on in the next election which may or may not actually solve any problems.

One sentence in the article stuck out to me as very suspect. "Smuts countered by saying it is much easier to get rid of those two positions, if the chief make that call, than to create them when he or she arrives. " Since when is it ever easy to remove positions in any organization, no less in our city. For the individuals hired or those in charge, it is painful.

Just last week I heard a "downsizing" expert on Public Radio express how hard it was on him to fire people.

At least I now have something about which to compliment my alder, Paolillo.

Posted by: Defender | March 7, 2008 9:29 AM

The department is not filling a handful of sergeant and detective vacancies. Smuts said the fiscal impact would be small especially since the new chief, when he or she starts, is expected to achieve other budgetary efficiencies.

This is the same reason why patrol officers, detectives and sergeants have made over $100K salary a year; UNDERSTAFFING!!!!!! The department has currently 16 sergeant vacanicies and roughly over 15 detective positions with a viable list of qualified candidates in both positions. Who do you think is going to pick-up the slack, the new assistant chiefs at $93K each?

Posted by: Unprotected | March 9, 2008 12:13 PM

I think three assistant chiefs to replace 16 sergeants is ridiculous. Sergeants are front line supervisors, the chiefs will stay in their office, and cannot adequately supervise cops from a desk. By keeping the sergeant spots vacant, I think the number of management in the police department will double or triple in the city's top 50 salary earners due to overtime. I think the city politicians are looking to keep PD management in their pockets. I hope City Hall knows what they're doing. Didn't PERF recommend filling all supervisory ranks? So much for the Mayor's bible for fixing the PD