Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Unshackle the Police Reserves

By

San Jose Municipal Code Section 8.12 authorizes the use of the Police Reserves. Although the Reserves are available, the city is not utilizing their full potential. Use of the Reserve officers could offer valuable assistance to the city because they are fully sworn and have the authority of a regular officer under California Penal Code Section 832.6(a). Reserves have already completed the police academy and carry a gun.

If the city requested, the Reserves could potentially put an extra 20 officers on the street tomorrow. There are currently over 80 Reserves on the roster. If just 25 percent responded, the city would have 20 additional sworn officers available to patrol our neighborhoods. I realize that this may require negotiation with the labor union, and there is the possibility that the Police Officers Association may not be supportive. However, I am hopeful that the city and the POA could work collaboratively and bring forward a plan that would utilize the reserves; even if the plan were in the form of a pilot program and/or for a certain amount of time. For example, if the police union and the city could agree to use reserves for one year for specific purposes, etc. At the very least, we should try.

Another goal to strive towards is allowing the hiring of retired SJPD officers to work and be paid on an hourly basis—but not accruing further pension benefits.  These retired SJPD officers could do background checks, burglary investigations, evidence gathering, get warrants, etc. for a one-year period.

Currently, the Chief of Police mandates that Reserves can only work alongside a regular officer, in the same car. Quite often the Reserve is not even counted as being in the car; thus, while there are physically two officers in the car, they are signed on as a one-man car and can only be dispatched as a one-man unit. If that practice were changed, we would see an immediate 800 hours per month of extra police patrol. Every Reserve must currently do a 10-hour shift on patrol each month (80 x 10 = 800). The Los Angeles Police Department allows Reserves to work by themselves or with other Reserves:
If the Reserves that are qualified to work as solo officers—about 80 of them are—were allowed to work on their own, they would add additional patrol cars on the streets; making a more visible police presence. I have heard that some current officers may resent the utilization of reserves and would rather not drive in the same car. If that is true, then the city and POA should allow Reserves to drive by themselves as most current officers do or allow Reserves to team up in the same car. If we allowed this, we might see many more Reserves volunteering more hours.
Reserves could also be utilized in other ways, too. For example, they could provide prisoner transport, be the second officer on a crime scene, assist in back-up when officers are sick, in court, etc. Having Reserves be part of the SJPD team would also lower overtime costs and provide time for police officers to take a vacation.

The Chief and the command staff know of the authority of the Reserves to backfill units because they already use the Reserves for the “Keith Kelly” Relief night (twice a year), as well as relief for the Police Olympics (one week a year).  Therefore, there is a current and active precedent for using the Reserves for SJPD backup.
Although the Reserves work for free, they are allotted $1 per hour of work for their uniform allowance. Therefore, the city would incur an $800.00 per month fee for uniforms for the Reserve for a second voluntary shift per month.

San Jose needs to do the best we can today and we need to utilize all of our available resources now by allowing the Reserves to be visible patrolling San Jose neighborhoods. Utilizing Reserves and Retired SJPD is a cost effective way to provide law enforcement during this time with limited tax revenue.

The Scarlet Letter

By

Last week, the San Jose City Council passed additional rules for governing lobbyists.  I supported this item and made a few comments of my own.

It is important to specifically define—as best that the city can—who lobbyists are and what they do. Lobbyists who are registered with the City of San Jose are individuals who are hired and paid money and/or receive in-kind gifts to influence government decisions on behalf of their respective clients.  Lobbyist’s use their influence—“influence” being purposeful communication for the purpose of supporting, changing, opposing or intentionally affecting the actions of city officials by persuasion, incentives, studies or analyses—to obtain an outcome in their favor.

To be fair, I don’t think that lobbyists are evil people nor do I believe that they are intentionally out to destroy city processes. Many lobbyists are former staff aides and council members in addition to being developers.  These folks have an internal knowledge base by default because of their employment at city hall.  However, the problem there lies in the fact that registered lobbyists use their knowledge base and influence to push issues through city government.  Since many people know them, and the fact that lobbyists usually represent clients with deep pockets who give money to and raise money for campaigns, those being lobbied can be placed in an uncomfortable position and “give in” to the lobbyist.

Of course one could argue—successfully so—that those being lobbied, such as elected officials, should have the guts to say no to something they disagree with.  However, the relationship between a lobbyist and a council member usually begins when the council member is a candidate. During the campaign, lobbyists can raise thousands of dollars for a candidate.  If the candidate should win, he/she may feel obligated to support the lobbyist and their clients because of the money they raised for the campaign. (When I ran my election, I did not accept money from lobbyists nor did I ask lobbyists to raise money for me.)

In an effort to have some fun with a serious subject, one of my fellow council members asked if we might consider requiring lobbyists to wear a badge that says “LOBBYIST” when they roam city hall. This Nathaniel Hawthorne Scarlet-Letter approach, albeit funny, does not accomplish the overall goal that we are trying to achieve. The goal is to make visible to the average citizen what a lobbyist does and how their influence can impact the outcome of policy that affects our everyday lives.

An important part of disclosure is for the city to require candidates for city council and mayor to identify those persons who are lobbyists on their campaign fundraising reports. I raised this issue from the dais on Tuesday. This is important because I believe that the public should know whether or not the candidate is taking money from lobbyists. These reports are viewable on the city clerk’s website.

Another amendment was to change the revolving door from one year to two years. As I mentioned, many former staff and elected officials leave public service with hopes to immediately use their knowledge base to benefit themselves personally.  Many lobbyists make a six-figure income based entirely on their familiarity with city government.

As a council member, I only meet with lobbyists if their clients are present. In addition, my web calendar lists the word “lobbyist” next to those individuals that are registered lobbyists.

What are your thoughts regarding the amendments made to the lobbyist ordinance?  What other changes/additions do you think should take place in the future?