There can be no question that the greatest obstacle to rectifying Oakland’s public safety crisis is our grossly understaffed police department. There is a direct correlation between a decrease in the visibility of police officers on our streets and the disproportionate incidences of violent crime that plague Oakland. Simply put, greater police presence decreases the willingness of people to engage in violent crime; less police presence increases that willingness. This is particularly true among those individuals involved in criminal enterprises, such as drug-dealing and other gang-related activities. For these individuals, crime is a business and, like all rational capitalists, they seek the greatest return for the least investment, while attempting to avoid regulatory oversight. In terms of the street-level criminal capitalist, that oversight is provided by patrol officers. A consistently visible police presence inhibits the ability of these criminals to conduct their business by increasing their cost, through higher rates of confiscation and arrest. Simultaneously, a visible police presence reduces their opportunity to generate profits by forcing them to conceal their efforts, thereby lessening their accessibility to casual customers.
Our new police chief should be commended for making some initial in-roads towards decreasing violent crime in Oakland; unfortunately, there is still much to be done. Shortsighted fiscal dereliction by our elected officials created the inflated cost-structure under which we currently employ Oakland’s police officers. The City no longer has the financial ability to maintain even our insufficient police force, let alone hire the additional officers necessary to solve our public safety crisis. Chief Batts has warned the City Council of the dire consequences to public safety that will accompany any further reduction to our already minimal police protection; I heartily agree with his assessment. Despite the Chief’s warning, the City Council has chosen to rely solely on the passage of several ill-conceived revenue measures this November, rather than seek a true, long-term solution to their fiscal irresponsibility.
For me, this is where I depart from the thinking of those on the City Council and with others seeking the Mayor’s position in this election. The Council views the “cost” of policing as fixed – an average of $180,000 per year per officer. Their solution to this problem is either to raise taxes (revenue) to pay more officers at their average cost or to lay-off officers, and pay fewer police at this average cost. One of my opponents, former Senator Perata, believes we should approach this by simply eliminating other city jobs and use this to fund police positions. On numerous occasions, he has said he would do this to hire back the 80 officers the Council foolishly laid off earlier this summer.
None of these approaches, however, addresses the root of the problem: the assumption that the cost of policing must be $180,000 per officer. As a former small business owner – and as a member of a large bureaucracy in the California State University (CSU) system – I look at that number and ask: does it have to be that particular amount? Can it be less?
It is my judgment that Oakland can gradually increase the size of its force by reapportioning what we pay for the cost of policing. I can do this by implementing a voluntary early retirement program for senior officers and creating a new second-tier of recruits who will enter our force at a lower base pay than we offer today. The fatal flaw in the Council’s assessment is that it ignores the fact that some officers cost the City more than others. Simply put, senior officers cost more than those recently hired. My plan works within the actual cost framework, rather than relying on some inaccurate “average” cost. In order to maximize the number of officers that we can put on the streets with existing revenues, I will work to both remove the highest costs from the department while also reducing the inflated starting salaries we currently pay to new recruits.
First, I will institute a voluntary early retirement program for officers within 2-3 years of retirement. That is approximately 10-15% of our current force. Any eligible officer who elects to retire early will be offered the opportunity to be rehired at less than half-time status. State law allows this, and it is a practice used in other entities, such as the CSU system. Early retirement eliminates the highest costs of overtime and pension contributions (not to mention health care) for those officers from our budget, while also allowing the City to continue to benefit from the experience of those same officers when hired back for the limited time period.
Additionally, I will renegotiate starting salaries offered to new recruits down from the current $85,000 to a level more in keeping with both the starting salaries of comparable jurisdictions and Oakland’s economic reality. New York and Los Angeles start their officers at a lower base (in the mid-forty thousand dollar range) and allow them to progress through step increases, phased in over time.
After utilizing the savings acquired through early retirement, rehiring and applying this to more reasonable starting salaries, we can actually take one existing FTE (full time equivalent position) for a senior officer and convert it to two or three positions in the short run. This will allow us to incrementally grow our police force without the need to increase taxes.
My plan will not touch existing officers’ compensation; instead, I am addressing the issue of cost by dealing with at the edges—before new officers come in, and when senior officers are within two to three years of retirement. I believe this approach will be acceptable to the OPA because I am not touching the benefits or compensation of current officers; early retirement will be voluntary. I will have to negotiate with OPA regarding new salaries for future recruits, but I am confident we can reach accord.
Think about the logic of this from their perspective: I am offering an approach to hire more officers. I will grow their numbers. I will give them more back up.
Unlike our career-politicians, I know that Oakland needs to take a common-sense approach to providing public safety. This approach must challenge the status quo, while operating within the restrictions imposed by the negligent policies of the past, and increase the ability of Oakland to combat violent crime. My plan does exactly that. It will reduce violent crime in our City and grow our police force to the level necessary to ensure Oakland’s public safety for the long-term, without the need to continually raise taxes on our already overburdened residents.
--Joe Tuman
Comments