City Abolishes Patrol Beats

At any time of day, said police officer Valladon, there are only 38 officers working citywide on patrol beats, and of that number 10-15 are on overtime. (Oakland Tribune, Nov. 28, 2005)

City Hall brass are abolishing patrol beats. The plan is a response to the unstaffed beats noted by officer Valladon and confirmed by Deputy Chief Lowe at a Dec. 17, 2005 town hall meeting. The plan: just abolish beats! Instead, the patrol officers would be in large pools or "sectors."

As a public relations gimmick, such a plan is brilliant. Without beats, no one could say the city was not staffing them.

However, abolition of beats would pave the way for a further decline in police responsiveness. Currently, the officer(s) in the beat are responsible to take a call. If they are already on an earlier incident, a high priority call goes to officers in neighboring beats. Abolish beats, and all unanswered calls will pile up on one side while officers from wherever in the city might or might not answer them.

Morale is another factor here. When it is high, officers take responsibility for calls. When morale is low, some officers work by the book but do not step in when they could to help out. Today, with severe understaffing, mandatory overtime, a large Internal Affairs staff keeping itself busy, and a Chief who has alienated many officers, abolition of definite beat assignments is not a good idea.

The abolition of patrol beats follows the reliance on mandatory overtime for months, the reduction of both Park Rangers and walking officers, and the reassignment of Problem Solving Officers from their usual duties (supposedly, for two months only). By all appearances, the City, instead of increasing police staffing, is determined to reduce it still further.

It is unacceptable that we pay additional Measure Y taxes while City Hall erodes police service. That's why ORPN filed suit against expenditure of Measure Y money even as the number of employed officers falls below 700.

City Hall Loyalist Confirms Proposal to Abolish Beats

The chair of the Community Policing Advisory Board (CPAB), Mr. Don Link, responded at length to the report of abolished patrol beats. He confirms that City Hall and/or Police Chief Wayne Tucker are doing it: "The discussion that I have heard – and it is one of many scenarios – establishes a patrol pool in each PSA [police service area] to respond to the calls for police service." PSA4, for example, combines ten beats.

Link calls the measure "a temporary stop-gap," which are ominous words considering that mandatory overtime for patrol officers has gone on for months. In fact, a further shuffling of assignments is expected in June 2006, according to a statement by OPD chief Tucker on Dec. 17, 2005.

To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Link said not a word about the abolition of beats until this website posted the above report. Turning to the fraud that city councilmembers perpetrated around Measure Y, Link admits,

"Oakland's government allowed OPD to fall below its authorized force of 739 sworn back about the time that Measure Y passed."

Mr. Link, mayor-appointed head of the CPAB, campaigned for Measure Y, insistently echoing the commitment to 802 officers if it passed. He wrote, "Measure Y clearly states that it is 739 plus 63. The language is there, the safeguards and circuit-breakers, which cut off funding if the Measure's stated requirements are not met, as well."

That was then. Now the City, in legal filings as well as councilmembers' public statements, denies the requirement of 802 officers. At best, the City might get up to 802 officers in two years. Mr. Link should be insisting that Measure Y funds be cut off, but apparently his "clearly stated" campaign words are worthless today.

If beats do not exist for two years or more, patrol officers will lose a wealth of detailed knowledge of their beats.

Link blandly observes, "There had not been a Police Academy to train new officers for 3 years if my memory serves me." True. It would help to remind people why: because the city council imposed a hiring freeze. Then councilmembers had the gall to demand more tax money in Measure Y to help make up for the dozens of officers lost by the freeze.

Link also misstates the money situation: "To date, only the surcharge on the public parking tax has been collecting any funds for Measure Y. The November/December '05 property tax payment will be the first to contribute to Measure Y activities, and it will not be available to the city until the first quarter of 2006." Do you understand the difference as Mr. Link states it? We don't. The facts are that the City began collecting the parking surtax, also enacted by Measure Y, on Jan. 1, 2005. That was illegal, but it happened. Fiscal estimates are that the parking tax brings in $8 million a year, as against $12 million annually from the parcel tax. Mr. Link's chatter about property tax money not coming in until next year is misleading. The City budgets from the start of its fiscal year, last July 1. The City has financial mechanisms for smoothing cash inflow and expenditure during the fiscal year.

Mr. Link concludes, "Citizens can take solace in the fact that we have a dynamic, take-charge, experienced police chief." Why is it, then, that officers with a decade on the force cannot remember morale being so low?

For the full text of Mr. Link's post, click here.

Retired Police Officer Blasts Idea of No Beats

A retired Oakland police sergeant reacts to proposed abolition of beats with this post to an email group:

The idea of a beat is that someone is responsible for crime rate and ongoing problems. It also means that someone is required to know the beat, the layout of its streets, its alleys, its pedestrian pathways, its problem locations and its problem suspects.

If there are no beats then there is no reason for an officer to get to thoroughly know any particular location. If there are no beats, then an officer can pretty much patrol whereever he wants, and not be responsible for anything. For example, if an officer wants to generate numbers he can go to a number of places in the city where it is easy to spot traffic violations, or make simple arrests. He can appear to be very active without actually doing anything productive. He can also respond to every call "code 6" meaning that he is very far away. The result is that he can take another 20 to 30 minutes to get to his calls. If he is on his beat, he should be able to get to most calls in 5 minutes. If he does not have a beat he could claim to be anywhere. He could claim to be downtown when he is dispatched to the far east.

In short, the lack of a beat system removes any semblance of accountability.

Board Member Denounces District Policing

A member of the Community Policing Advisory Board adds his voice condemning the abolition of patrol beats and the switch to so-called district policing:

The one question no one in the top brass will answer is: District or team policing was tried before and abandoned. Why is this implementation different?

I am inclined to believe that once implemented, OPD will move to make district policing permanent.

Beat integrity is essential. Otherwise, just like we see officers disengaging with the specialized units ("Since we have traffic, I don't have to make traffic stops," or "Since we have CRT [crime reduction teams], I don't have to pay attention to the drug dealing") and depolicing and low morale from the settlement agreement. I feel that district policing will have a similar effect. The officers will disengage even more. "I am responsible to the sergeant and not my beat."

It takes time to learn and know a beat, but once mastered the officer is more effective, can engage citizens better, and know/see when things are not 'quite right'. With district policing, you dilute the knowledge since the officer has to learn a much bigger area. Beat integrity is essential.

There are great officers out there, and many will make the time to learn the larger area and learn all the hot spots and problem persons; however, it is human nature to go the path of least resistance. Some officers will take the easier route, and we will lose efficiency and knowledge.

District policing is counter to community policing, Measure Y, and what you claim to be the culture of OPD, where "every officer shall be a community policing officer."

Deputy Chief Lowe claims we have no beat integrity now because of staffing shortages. It may be true that on some beats and on some days/shifts you will have officers filling in; however, the majority of the beats are staffed by persons dedicated to their beats. Ideally we want all beats at all times filled with dedicated officers. But should we abandon this ideal just because some beats aren't filled?