Nichelini Speaks

7/27/10--The recent policy implementation of two Vallejo police officers per patrol car has been the source of some discussion and confusion. Is this really a needed safety measure? or merely an implementation of further “Pay or Die” tactics by Vallejo Police designed to reduce the number of patrols? Of course Vallejo's police would like to see citizens vote for a tax increase that will support their services and the raises promised them in the current contract. This fact gives rise to all sorts of suspicions as to motivations etc.

Rather than jump to conclusions VIB contributor Bob Schussel went to the source. Below is a brief exchange between Vallejo Police Chief Nichelini and Schussel (published with permission) that will hopefully give the reader some insight and allow them to better draw their own conclusions.

Marc Garman—Editor VIB

To Robert Nichelini--Police Chief

According to my calculations it would take about 42 officers to have 10 officers per shift for patrol work.Is this correct ?

My other question is what number of officers would you need on a shift to have them go out by themselves rather than putting two per car ?

thanks

To Bob Schussel from Chief Nichelini

Its not quite that simple. First of all when we had 158 officers, we were 40 officers short if [sic] what is needed for Vallejo - compare to Berkeley or Richmond.

A general rule of thumb is that it takes 5 officers to fill one 24 hour per day, 7 day per week position. That number can be found in most books on police administration. But that number assumes everyone shows up and no one is sick, injured, on vacation, in court, etc. So the actual number of officers needed to have 10 officers per shift is 60. But we don't staff like that. We try to have more officers on duty when the need is the greatest. At one time we were able to deploy from 14 to 18 officers during the busiest times at night and on the weekends. When supervisors were added we got by fairly well with a total Patrol compliment of 71 officers of all ranks. The total staff assigned to Patrol is now only 59 (and dropping). Generally, police departments put 50% of the total sworn staff in patrol: In Vallejo 65% of the sworn staff is assigned to Patrol and that number will increase further as more officers leave for other departments (at least 4 this month).

But that's only part of the picture. We were able to get by with only 71 patrol officers because backup was provided by other field officers - especially school resource, traffic, crime suppression and detectives. With major cuts in those functions (Traffic from 13 officers to 5, Crime Suppression from 12 officers to 6, Detectives from 11 to 6 and School Resource from 6 to 0) we no longer have any reasonable level of patrol backup. Captain Jackson and I had to cover the arrest of two robbery suspects because no one else was available.

So, until we get the Department back to at least 110 officers, one-officer cars are just too dangerous. How would you like to come upon a gun battle in progress (like on Springs Road last Saturday) by yourself and not be able to get any help or help was too far away.

Also, don't forget that we have an enormous workload - over 70,000 911 calls, compared to 17,000 for Vacaville. Our violent crime workload is twice that of Fairfield.

The direct answer to your question is we need 19 more officers before we can go back to one-officer cars. We will be at 91 by the middle of August, 19 short of the 110 minimum. The reason for the change from one-officer to two-officer cars now is that in addition to decreasing staff, we no longer have any overtime to back fill for absences. Just about all overtime goes to pay for court appearances

No one would try to police a city like Vallejo with less than 1 officer per 1,000 population. That means for us, minimum staffing is 120 to maintain any reasonable service level.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Retired_IBEW   |July.30.2010 Big City is right (as usual) and if the PD was really concerned about the number of Officers they have available for patrol, why don't they voluntarily return to a 5/8 schedule for the duration of their self imposed 'emergency'? Having patrol work a 4/10 automatically increases by 25% the number of officers needed to staff each position. Next time someone asks the Chief a question, I would be interested in having him explain this comment: "at one time we were able to deploy 14 to 18 officers during the busiest times at night and on weekends" The fact is that even with over 150 Officers, he never had 14 on patrol, I think the most they had was 8 or 9 per shift. I am sure that he is referring to the 6 hour 'overlap' created when you staff 3 10 hour shifts, and he might even be including the gang of cops that used to drive around 5 or 6 to a vehicle looking like a bunch of jack booted thugs (not sure what they called that 'assignment') It would be interesting to see a list of positions outside of patrol and investigations that are being staffed by sworn personnel that were formerly filled by a civilian, and it would be nice to hear his rationale for getting rid of civilians, reserves, and citizen volunteers. This is not unique to Vallejo, people all over the state have been held hostage to public safety because they know how to make you afraid. The prison guards union is probably the biggest offender, spending it's 24 million dollar war chest on electing the 'right' legislators who can be counted on to pass new laws to keep growing the prison system and creating front groups such as Crime Victims United who sponsor absurd initiatives that do nothing to enhance public safety but ensure that Californians will continue to spend 30% more on it's prison system than on higher education.

Big City   |July.29.2010 Two officers per patrol car is just another case of doing what's best for the folks that work in the department rather than what's best for the people they work for. Period. And, once again, the "chief" is the "mouthpiece" for justifying what the rank-and-file want rather than what's best for the community. As I've said many times before, municipal organizations, and especially "public safety", are entirely INWARDLY FOCUSED. NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, the only thing that's really important to them is what's good for them. If you operate from that premise, you'll always be able to figure them out. The "chief" says that it's too dangerous for 1 man patrol cars. Is that so? It's pretty dangerous for all-night convenience store clerks and all night gas station attendants too but you don't see extra help being put on these MINIMUM WAGE JOBS because having just 1 man on duty is too dangerous. These folks aren't armed, either. But, for ARMED POLICE OFFICERS, it's too dangerous to be out there by themselves! So, apparently, these "brave" police officers aren't so brave after all! This whole notion of police and fire personnel having dangerous jobs is just TOTAL MYTH that's been driven by TV programs and movies. Nationwide occupational mortality statistics don't bear it out. So, what about job injury statistics? Well, "public safety" personnel do have somewhat elevated rates of injury. However, most of these are 100% PHONY. And, I agree with "Retired IBEW". The crime rate in Vallejo (or any city) has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the police force. Police departments have used this ruse and phony statistics for years to justify ever-expanding forces. You see, an ever-expanding police bureaucracy has all sorts of advantages for THE FOLKS THAT WORK WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS. Among many other things, it means having enough personnel around so that "senior members" of the department can be assigned to cushy, no-work sort of assignments. It also means more promotional opportunities and on and on and on. Vallejo could halve its police force from where it's at now and the crime rate will not increase BECAUSE OF IT. It could also quintuple the size of its police force and the crime rate won't change because of that, either. Criminals just don't decide to commit crimes based upon how many cops are on the street. They know that regardless of how many there are, their chances of getting caught are VERY SLIM. And, for that matter, most of them don't even think that far ahead when they commit a crime.

Retired_IBEW   |July.29.2010 to Okay: The biggest factor in Vallejo's crime rate is demographics, it has very little to do with the size of the police department. Vallejo has high density low income housing which is always a disaster, a large number of homes in-artfully carved up into small inexpensive apartments, garage conversions, etc. and what seems to be an inordinate amount of section 8 housing. Most of the apartments 'up county' have become 'crime free multi-housing' which means that anyone with a criminal history is excluded. The remaining rental housing in the rest of the county is single family homes with rents of over $1400 or $1500 a month. As a result, most of the Solano County parolees, ex-felons, and people with very low income have little choice but to move to Vallejo. By implementing restrictive rental policies, and avoiding high density low income housing, the rest of Solano county has successfully pushed people that they deem 'undesirable' out of their cities and blessed Vallejo with them. I don't think there is any easy way out of this mess. It might help if the prison system and the county probation departments would allow people under their supervision to live anywhere in the state rather than restricting them to the county, but the people of Napa and Marin Counties might not like that idea. And, maybe Vallejo should 'just say no' to more section 8 housing. One thing for sure, if nothing is done to stop this trend, the crime rate in Vallejo will never go down.

Okay   |July.29.2010 What about Vallejo's violent crime rate being double of Fairfield's. Their population is about the same as ours. We are lucky not to be charged on a per call basis. How can a city like ours, attract business with crime statistics like these. For the life of me I can not figure out how we are going to lower police salaries and benefits with out a political back lash from the voters because of the violent crime rate. The VPOA uses our crime statistics like a gun to our head and we do absolutely nothing about it. I am losing faith with our elected and community leaders because I am beginning to think voiding the contracts are more political and less making Vallejo a better place to live.

Laurel   |July.28.2010 Could Vallejo's 70,000 911 calls vs. Vacaville's 17,000 have ANYTHING to do with the fact that we citizens have no other way to reach the police department to report non-emergencies such as suspicious activity? It seems VPD is spinning the facts to scare us, no surprise there.

anon   |July.28.2010 For most PSU members there is a significant salary increase over the first 3 or 4 years on the job. In the case of Vallejo PSU the top step occurs in 2.5 years. The top step results in a salary increase over their starting salary of 20% to 25%. That why most Vallejo Police Officers are hauling in about $100K without overtime.

curious   |July.28.2010 As I was researching LAPD salaries, I found a reference to a 2008 article that was complaining about the average LAPD overtime of some $8000. So LAPD starting salary is $58,000 and the guy says VPD starting salary is $80,000. OK do the math on that to see how many officers Vallejo could have on duty given the present budgeted amount. Lots more....

Someone Else   |July.28.2010 I think you are forgetting overtime in that quote. The starting salary for VPD is about 80K. With overtime no one makes that little. The base salaries for Vallejo are still higher than LA.

Curious   |July.28.2010 The TV news reporter commenting on the recent 7% raise said the average VPD officer made twice what LAPD made. So that is where I got the info. But based on a recent comment, I checked and found out that on June 14, 2010 the average LAPD officer's salary was $58,000 to $83,000. So you are right, Vallejo could have 2.5 officers if Vallejo paid the same as LAPD.

Jeez   |July.28.2010 That was an informative article. In the comments section someone is lying. VPD does not make twice as much as LAPD.

Anonymous   |July.28.2010 One issue we face is an old vehicle fleet. Putting fewer cars on the road will extend the the already long service life of the cars that still run. The out of service units can be used as parts cars if needed.

curious   |July.27.2010 Whadid the Chief say???? Sounded like "pay or die" to me. The math is simple. If Vallejo paid our police officers the same as LAPD, we could have two times as many officers.

Mr :)   |July.27.2010 Why can't the 2 police be assigned separate cars in the same area? "How would you like to come upon a gun battle in progress" I thought police got high pay and benefits because of the danger.

T Jensen   |July.27.2010 Another area for volunteers is in assisting the VPD in the office. How much office work could be cleared by people on weekends or after hours? I'm sure there are a number of retired people who have good clerical skills that would be more than willing to help in the office. And there are those if us who work during the day that might be able to give a few hours after work every couple of weeks.

4th and inches   |July.27.2010 I think Chief Nic is probably a good guy that has been run over by the police union. He defended their compensation at council meetings while the budget was tanking. Also at a council meeting he made the infamous statement proclaiming Mat said, you can cut our numbers but don't touch our pay & benefits. The chief followed up with, Mat you can't do that we have to provide a service. Looks like the union got their way and the tail is wagging the dog. It is still happening with the 2 per car. I think the Chief is too close to his men/women to be objective. Look at what's happening in Oakland and SF. New management in both cities looking at ways to do things differently during changing times, with an emphasis on delivering value to their customers. Chief Nic's comments don't really serve any purpose other than to provide excuses for why things can't be done. Sometimes you need to change the head coach to provide a fresh perspective, and also change the attitude of the team. The Chief, in these comments, has chosen to PUNT the responsibility of his department back to the citizens of Vallejo. And considering that compensation has spiraled out of control under his watch, that's not fair.

Firebug   |July.27.2010 Wow! Good work retired_ibew

Retired_IBEW   |July.27.2010 Both Schussel and the Chief's math are wrong. Schussel states 42, but that assumes that cops work 160 hours a month, which they don't for a variety of reasons (vacation, sick leave, etc) The Chief states that his figure of 5 cops to fill one shift 24/7 does not include vacation and sick leave- that is wrong too, that figure does include those things. The way that you calculate how many officers are needed to fill one shift 24/7 is to multiply 3 (one officer per shift x 3 shifts) x 1.7. 1.7 is the 'relief factor' included in it is all of the things that he mentioned, vacation, sick leave, training time, etc. 3 x 1.7 is 5.1 officers, that is how many cops you need to fill one shift 7 days a week. I have not worked out the exact relief factor for VPD, to do so would require adding up all of their contracted time off, training time, and an estimate of court time, but 1.4 - 1.7 is standard for a Police Department. So, to put 10 on patrol at all times, it should take 51 officers. He claims he has 59 assigned to patrol- if that's the case, what are they doing? How many are off on extended personal leave or on 4850 time? Are they included in the total of 59? Is he using sworn personnel to work in dispatch, evidence, or records? If there are Officers assigned to those functions, are they included in the 59 assigned to patrol? If that is the case why not divert funds from one Police Officer position and use it to hire 3 civilians to free up some sworn personnel for patrol. Other police departments are making tough choices, but it appears the consensus among those departments is to put as many officers as you can on patrol because that is where you get the most bang for your buck, and either eliminate ancillary functions or replace sworn with civilians for all duties that don't require a 'badge and a gun'.

CRRAAAZY   |July.27.2010 Hey Chief, did you ask the Feds for help like Oakland did? If yes, what was their response? If you didn't ask, why not?

CRRAAAZY   |July.27.2010 2 Officers per car until back to 110 officers? At current wages? Vallejo will be riding 2 deep forever. Maybe if the force got rid of the "Grissle's" and Even Dirtier's" in their ranks the cops that are left would be of a better caliber. Letting the old timers stay just because they have been there a long time is a terrible policy. In the above cases, they are not only incompetent, but are liabilities to the city. (1 pretends to be a cop and they both like to threaten the citizens that pay them). Some of these folks have shown they have no business being cops, but thanks to the Union as long as they show up they are protected. How many good cops do we lose to keep the idiots?

I love Vallejo   |July.27.2010 ....and of course we could have a police force of 110 with the same budget if we paid them less money!

CR Jensen   |July.27.2010 That is an excellent explanation! I assume that certain areas of the city elicit the most calls -- or the most violent crime calls -- correct? What can we do about training a civilian population - or increasing the number of Guardian Angels -- to simply walk those areas without weapons on a more regular basis -- and encourage their "presence" to discourage criminal behavior?

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."