Figone Passes on Full Police Grant

City Manager Debra Figone passed on applying for a grant that would have saved the jobs of more than a few dozen San Jose police officers but included some significant costs. According to the Police Officers Association, Figone chose to apply for a federal grant that would fund only 10 officers rather than 53, the maximum allowed. The application deadline for the federal COPS program was Wednesday.

Members of the POA weren’t the only people surprised by the move. It seems Figone did not consult the City Council on her decision to pass on applying for the largest possible grant.

“We’ve had no council discussions that I’m aware of at all, no memos,” said Councilmember Pete Constant, who released a budget proposal on Wednesday that laid out how the city could save the jobs of 97 officers. The proposal included full acceptance of the federal grant.“She’s obviously not required to come to us on the issue, but given the budget situation and the significant number of layoffs … I would have expected some sort of discussion.”

Figone did, however, consult with Police Chief Chris Moore on the decision. With San Jose looking for ways to balance the 10th straight year of a budget shortfall—$115 million for 2011-12—and labor negotiations between the city and POA stalled, Moore recently had to hand out layoff notices to 278 police officers. The number of pink slips is based on assumptions that the police union and the city will not agree to a 10 percent ongoing cut in total compensation.

If an agreement is reached on the cut in pay and benefits, the city has said roughly 100 officers would still likely lose their jobs.

Jim Unland, vice president of the POA, said the union has reached out to U.S. Congressman Mike Honda’s office to see about filing a congressional inquiry with the Department of Justice to determine the city’s options in reapplying for the full grant.

“Our beef with it is, you can apply for 53, you can even be approved for 53, but you could still take only 10,” Unland said. “What they’ve done then is not even try to get the other 43. We just think it’s shortsighted.”

Moore said the financial obligations of accepting the grant persuaded the city to pass, and he agreed with the decision. He estimated the grant would cost the city $17 million over four years.

“We’d all like to have more cops, myself more than anybody, but in order to be fiscally responsible, we’ll go with the numbers we have now,” Moore said. “At this point, the most that we can afford is 10.”

Making the grant difficult to accept is the fact that fiscal years for the city and federal government have a three-month gap (San Jose starts July 1, while the national start date is Oct. 1), which would require bridge money in the interim to fund the officers retained. Also, by accepting the grant money the city would be required to keep officers employed for one year after the three-year contract expires. The grant pays for entry-level officers but can be substituted for officers that would be laid off.

Constant said he plans to move forward with his budget proposals to salvage close to 60 police jobs. Among a long list of ideas, his plan revolves around the elimination of all city boards, commissions and committees that are not listed in the city charter, with only a few exceptions.

“My whole message in all of these budget documents together is we have to stop and focus on what we must do,” Constant said. “I liken it to not wanting to put a tourniquet on a finger cut that’s small. But we have arterial bleeding now and that takes drastic measures.”

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.


    • Very short sighted by the City Manager.  Unfortunately, the poor citizens of San Jose will pay the ultimate price for years to come.  Increased crime and an apathetic police department.  Crime is already on the increase.  The Mayor and the City Manager are going to leave a legacy here but unfortunately its not the one they have been planning.

        • The once proud SJPD is now nothing more than sea scrap at the bottom of the sea.  When the Chief agrees with the city and the Union never monitored the Public Safety grant that is a shame.  Seems the Fire Fighters got it right.  I understand they got the grant and went into contract talks with that info.

    • My Thanks,

      I was really sad to read the description ascribed to the city’s hard working employees. These are fine people who are trying to make a living like the rest of us. Sure, there are some “bad apples” just as one would find in the private sector.

      I believe our City’s budget crises has brought out the worst in people (all of us, really) and THAT is what the shame is. (As opposed to what I’ve begun to hear: “shame on you” or “shame on them.”)

      There are many residents (like me) who have taken year after year of service cuts and now there are barely any services left. It’s beyond horrific, but most folks realize that finger pointing, name calling and acting in ways less than respectful to each other does not do anyone any good. It does absolutely nothing to contribute to the common good.

      (And for the record, no I am not a city worker, and no I am not a city council member and yes, I respect and admire many things about the Mayor, City Manager, and Council.)

      My .02.


        • School libraries are almost non-existent and are closed to those from outside the school. County libraries are about to charge San Jose residents an $80 annual fee. There is no redundancy.

        • Uh, not really. Martin Luther King library is a joint venture between SJSU and San Jose’s library system.  The hours there will bot be reduced.

          County Libraries do not charge yet, but are considering it due to under use.  If San Jose’s libraries closed, then the County ones would get more use… negating the fee.

          I think you have a problem with comprehension. Redundant means more than one of the same thing.  Can you go to the King library? Absolutely. County libraries (right now) fee free? Yes. School libraries when the school is open? Yup.  That, Susan is an exercise in redundancy.

          Could San Jose much more cheaply agree with the County to subsidize their proposed “fee” in order for San Jose library card holders to use County facilities? Of course.  Is that even considered in lieu of Vice Mayor Nguyen stating that reducing library hours would make for Third World conditions? Uh, nope.

        • To Mr. Anonymously:
          You and I will not be allowed to use public school libraries during school hours or after school. Children ages 0 to 5 and their parents will not be allowed to use public school libraries either. Public school libraries are extremely limited and most lack librarians. They are not open to the public to check out books.

          There is no relationship between county libraries and San Jose libraries. One cannot subsidize the other. If the County libraries receive more use, it will not make any difference in their budget; they will still have a budget shortfall which is prompting the consideration of the $80 fee to San Jose residents.

          Please have the courage to use your name. You are spreading misinformation.

        • Where do I begin?
          1) You imply that the Citywide Activity Guide has activities for the library. It doesn’t. It only includes services/activities for the Parks, Rec, and Neighborhood Services Dept, all of which require a fee and so bring in revenue to the City.
          2) The Spring 2011 Citywide Activity Guide only runs through the end of this fiscal year. Since Parks and Rec is looking at a possible 30% budget cut for the FY that begins July 1, I expect that unfortunately there will be at least 30% fewer “services” listed in the Summer Activity Guide.
          3) Your remark that, well, the King Library’s hours WILL NOT be reduced is not exactly correct. The city library will be cutting staff at the King Library, due to the city’s budget. The university’s budget and staffing decisions for the coming fiscal year are not made until the fall. So the overall hours that the library is open may be cut at that time. Of course, even if the building’s open hours are not cut, public service there has already been cut and will probably be cut further.
          4) The San Jose city library is one of the least supported public library systems in Northern California on a per capita basis, costing $35.99 per resident (in 2009-2010), compared to $44.81 for Oakland Public Library, $79.91 for Santa Clara County Library, and $95.62 for San Francisco Public Library. If there are “tons of” library services this year, it will be because of the efficiencies of the library staff and organization, not the largess of the City of San Jose.
          5) With regard to redundancy: school libraries are usually not open nights and weekends, so at those times there is no redundancy with public libraries. Cities of 1 million people who are as spread out as San Jose do not force its residents to use their downtown main library. Its existence is not a “redundancy” of the neighborhood branches. That’s why City Councilmembers are worried about the cuts to the hours of branches in their districts and are not saying, well, my constituents can just use the King Library since its hours will not be reduced. Also, City taxpayers are financially supporting and expecting service from city-run, not county-run, departments. So the County Library System is not a redundancy of the City Library System.

    • With three murders in the last five days, it’s time to realize….We need more cops!
      Mr Mayor where is your leadership? I shudder to think what will happen as summer comes. Traditionally the violence skyrockets in the hot weather.

  1. The hot air that comes from her mouth must have fogged up those coke bottle glasses of hers preventing her to notice the grant application on her desk!

  2. Accept them or not, given the highly political nature of the current crisis the decision-making behind this city’s refusal of any public safety grant should’ve been made just as publicly and just as loudly by the same officials (Reed & Fignone) who’ve been making all the doomsday predictions; treated, as they say, as an issue of transparency.

  3. Pathetic….I guess an increase in violent gun crimes isn’t a big deal.  Hey if it doesn’t happen in Almaden Valley, Willow Glen, or the estates/hills of Alum Rock it doesn’t exist. And if it does…they call the Chief’s cell phone, while all the peasants have to call 911 and wait…..wait….wait

  4. > “We’d all like to have more cops, myself more than anybody, but in order to be fiscally responsible, we’ll go with the numbers we have now,” Moore said. “At this point, the most that we can afford is 10.”

    Gee.  What a novel concept: being fiscally responsible and budgeting for what you can afford.

    Someone should track down this Moore guy and hire him for San Jose.  And then put him in charge of the Police Department.

  5. Wow. I know it was Figone that threw me under that bus. I just did not see Chief Moore driving it.
    If you wanted to make a statement to the city and the troops about who you supported the most, Chief, I think you just made it. You walk, talk and move just like Rob Davis. The only difference is you are taller.
    Sad. So sad.

    • My question is…..When is the SJPOA going to step up to the plate and take on the Chief.  They had no problem taking on Rob Davis.  We have guys getting fired almost every week nothing said.  These firings are an attempt to keep the possible layoffs.  The city will look good when they say We only had to lay off 200 because we fired so many.

      • Yeah take on the chief since you’ve failed miserably at taking on the public. 

        53 police officers that cost the city $17 million dollars?  You want to sell that crap as a bargain to the taxpayer?

        Get a clue buddy.  Better yet, get another job.  The chief is actually saving some jobs by siding with the Mayor & Figone.  The cops are worse than children.

  6. It is becoming quite clear that Moore is not the Department head he should be.  The leader of any organization should have pride in their employees, champion their causes and support their efforts.  More so in a Law Enforcement organization where scruples and doing the right thing are paramount.

    Nearly every article here or in the Murky News is a report of how he has capitulated to an activist group, a City Administrator or the media at large.

    Chief Moore, if you cannot put your political aspirations to the side at least reflect upon how your legacy will reflect zero confidence from your staff and no respect from the public you purport to serve.

  7. No wonder cops in San Jose seem to be giving up and just becoming reactive.  No more searching in the middle of the night for a burglar, drug addict, or gang member.  No more trying to stop crime before it happens.  Just park and respond to calls to take a report afterwards.  It makes me sick but its hard to blame them.  The Mayor should wake up.  All City services are important but some are critical. No wonder San Diego County is offering a $5000 bonus to San Jose Officers who will go work there.  Training money spent by San Jose taxpayers down the drain.

    • Excuse me SGT. 

      But when did San Jose ever “PATROL” for bad guys in the last 25 years?  In the 80’s you couldn’t go 2 blocks without seeing SJPD having dirt bags pulled over and doing vehicle searches. 

      Only place I have seen teams of officers in the last 15-20 years is at the Almaden Country Inn, Starbucks and various other areas off of their districts, with patrol cars sitting there for about 3 hrs. 

      Lack of preventive patrols in the last 25 yrs has led to many of SJPD’s problems.  With older officers giving up on training younger officers who whine and complain that training is too hard and they deserve (5’s) on their evals.

      The younger officers are then trained by another “young inexperienced” officer and are taught to become complacent in actual “Patrol” duties. 

      Your Dept. has lost touch with what it used to be, very proactive and aggressive to the point of annoying… Then switching gears to doing absolutely nothing for crime prevention, not even a speeding ticket or stern look, what a pity. 

      SGT. I don’t know how many years you have on with the PD but your officers have not patrolled areas without being told to do so by superiors in years.     

      All SJPD has done in the last decade or so is PARK and RESPOND if they seem interested.  It’s been a long long time since SJPD has stopped anything from happening, the reason?  They haven’t patrolled in a decade or two.  Driving to your district at 120 mph doesn’t count as patrolling. 

      BTW – Slow the F—k down on Hwy 87 or I will pull out in front of your officers doing “light speed” and really screw them over getting to their district.

      The rest of why the mayor is doing this to PD is because of the complaints from citizens seeing you guys parked doing nothing…. Duh. 

      Regularly I see an officer backed into semi-dead end street on the wrong side of the road surrounded by no parking signs, Hmmmm nice example to set. 

      Other times I see motor officers riding on and parking on sidewalks, blocking driveways while shooting radar. 

      Interesting on how an officer while “not” in pursuit can violate the law he is about to cite someone else for… 

      I can’t find in the CVC codes where in exempts law enforcement officers from driving like “idiots” when not responding to calls for service.  You have to remember that the public is always watching.     

      Oh BTW I too am a RETIRED COP from another agency.

      I’m pretty sure Reed is going to contract with the Sheriff no matter what he tells SJPD.

      • They stand at the BOTTOM of a hill and run radar, knowing full well that many coming over that hill will be over the limit, whether they have their foot on the gas pedal, or not. Of course people are going to be going a little faster coming down a hill. It makes it easier for them to write a ticket. Shameful.

        • You got that right,
          let me guess, Camden Hill west bound between Meridian and Coleman.  You like how the Motor Officer is parked on a corner and the other Motor Officers are parked on the sidewalk making “morning walkers” walk out into the busy Camden Ave traffic during commute hours.  it’s obvious Pete Constant wasn’t there giving his expert advice to the officers.

      • A retired cop from another agency would not disparage another agency like you have done.  How many times do we get to see somebody post that they are a cop and then watch them try and support Reed, Figone, or any number of policies and actions that are against public safety.  Just another try at establishing credentials to give that opinion some credibility.

        • Nope just pointing out some facts.  I am not a Reed or Figone fan or supporter and from my vantage point can see some differences in how my agency does their job different from how SJPD used to do their job in decades past. 

          Nothing wrong with my old agency, “status-quo” with policies and actually patrolling.  I am in no way against public safety or the money they make, but come on the SJPD guys need to do something for the money…

          Again others see the complacency and complain.  Public Safety is usually looked at as “disposable” any time budgets are in trouble. 

          San Jose’s Public Safety has had a good ride of 20 plus years.  Reed has his hunting rifle scope set on what he thinks is a money drain and has publicly said so, by saying ” The Gravy Train is over?. 

          He looks at what SJPD guys make and what the complaints say about the cops.  In his mind, it’s easy, get rid of the cops and fire fighters. 

          Sorry, but that’s pretty much how it is, I wish I could dress it up better for you guys.

  8. Gee, a grant to keep officers on the street passed up by San Jose.

    Guess the Mission City will have to apply and take up the slack.

    One Santa Clara City Council member is worth 10 SJ members.

  9. No one at the POA is sugesting that the City pay for more cops than they can afford.  Our problem with the desicion to only ask for 10 officers is that it closes the door on the other 43 positions.  We do not have to decide on the number now.  That decision can wait until August when the grant is awarded.  If we ask for 53 officers but can only afford 10, we can make that decision in August.  Just because we ask for 53 does not mean we are obligated to take 53.  The POA is not asking the City to be fiscally irresponsible.  We are only asking for the additional 2 months to try to find additional money.  The City Council was trying to do the same.  I fear this decision was policitical not finacial.

    • “I fear this decision was policitical not finacial.”

      Actually it was both.  On the one hand the City does not want to do anything that stands in the way of their plan to dismantle the POA, along with all the other unions if possible.  However, it is also a financial tactic.  The bottom line is that Figone wants to achieve staffing reductions at the SJPD down to 900 or so officers.  Her own “audit” prepared by bean counters who know nothing of policing stated that 900 officers could police a city of one million people. 

      However, there is a much larger benefit to that reduction.  Reed and Figone know that ultimately they will achieve a two-tiered retirement system with significantly reduced benefits.  If they can shrink the PD to a much smaller number, they can then hire new officers at a much reduced cost.  Perhaps they may even come up with a new officer classification.  They will of course drag their feet until the city is in flames and then begin hiring once again.  In the meantime the POA has lost much of its clout, the city coffers are slowly filling up, and the city government increases its power base.

      The fact that the PD will become a hollow shell of its former self is irrelevant to Reed and Figone.  Crime will skyrocket but they will blame it on lazy officers, the economy, or any number of other excuses.  By the time the true nature of their ineptitude is revealed they will be long gone.

      • Hey is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the murder rate in San Jose is at an all time high.  This before the cuts to staffing. 

        So where’s the crack team of professionals that are committed to protecting us?  So much for that “the best trained” bit they like to run.  I got news for you, PD is already a hollow shell of its former self and crime is skyrocketing.  As people (the public) fall on hard times that will continue the upturn.  Thats not imaginary, thats actuality.  Sad that the cops don’t seem to want to be part of the community that solves the problem and only is interested in a money grab for themselves. Who do citizens call to report looting?  Oh wait, the looting is being done by the guys in uniform.

        • Remember the former Violent Crime Enforcement Team?  Yep, former is the operative word.  And, the Bureau of Investigations is steadily being cut back as well.  While patrol officers carry the heaviest load finding and apprehending crooks, staffing is so low that most of the beat cops just go to calls for service.  Add to that sniveling ungrateful citizens who treat the police like crap and you won’t find them highly motivated.  It is a reality that with reduced staffing come reduced services.  Did you think that policing a city of one million people with so few cops wasn’t going to result in worse service?  Is the public that clueless to think there aren’t consequences to layoffs and vilification of police and fire? 

          Oh, and by the way, about 60% of the cops don’t live in your community.  They commute from Lodi, Tracy, Manteca, Hollister, Salinas, etc.  Those salaries that you think are so good won’t pay for home in Santa Clara valley.  After all the deductions most cops in this county cannot afford more than a small townhouse at best. Certainly any cop with a wife and several kids wants a tract home but they won’t get it in San Jose.  Add to that the fact that no cop wants to stand in line at the grocery store next to a guy he just arrested the night before and the days of cops being like Mayberry are long gone.

          And it is only going to get worse.  For years various police chiefs have tried to move police work into the ranks of white color professionals through education and training.  With pay reductions, reduced benefits, etc. why would anyone with half a brain go into public service?  The only carrot used to be a steady paycheck less impacted by the wild swings of the market and a solid retirement.  This was the trade off for the potentially lucrative perks of the private sector.  Now that public service is being demonized, good luck finding good candidates.  You will get what you pay for.

        • “Hey is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the murder rate in San Jose is at an all time high.  This before the cuts to staffing.”

          The current murder rate that is far above average started at the beginning of this calendar year.  The staffing cuts started long ago.  The city has not backfilled retirements that have been taking place with regularity every January and June for the last several years.  The PD staffing used to be a little over 1,400 officers.  In early January the staffing was down to about 1,200.  200 less officers, the elimination of several pro-active units, and reductions to detectives have all had a huge impact.

          Get your facts straight cop hater.

        • Thats at least the 3rd time I’ve read in these blogs that one of you cops refer to the community as “sniveling ungrateful citizens”.  Great way to endear yourselves to the public and get us to actually care about your money woes. 

          The point you make about 60% of you being non-San Jose residents is another great way to endear you to the community.

          Face it, you’re outsiders who are mad your pay and pensions are being cut.  Since you care so little for the citizens who actually live and pay taxes in the community you pillage but gripe to protect, move along.  There are plenty of other cops laid off from other cities who would gladly take your job.  Seek employment in Manteca or Modesto or any of the other hick towns you bought your castle in.  The fact of the matter is you have a pattern of greed.  You didn’t want to “settle” for a smaller, older home in San Jose and instead went for a huge upgraded deal out in the boonies (which I am sure is underwater now).  You live outside your means in your personal life its no wonder you expect the city to keep doing the same. 

          Enough is enough.  Tax payers in the city of San Jose cannot maintain the bills you keep running up.  Greed is driving the police department to not settle a contract with the city.  Each day more and more police jobs are on the line because you don’t vote to take the cut every single other union is subject to.  Its the difference between 278 layoffs and simply 128.  But you’d rather the “snively public” be left to fend for themselves.  Well this is the public saying we’re happier with you fending for yourself. 

          Put it on the ballot Mayor Reed, the vast majority of the RESIDENTS of San Jose are with you.

        • Cops sure are quick to assume everyone hates them.  All the while you all label the public sheep or sniveling idiots. 

          60% of you don’t even live here.  Must suck for you that you can’t vote (legally) in all the elections.  Maybe thats why you’re so fearful of the Mayor putting it to the voters.  You aren’t even members of this community!

          The staffing is down incrementally and not in proportion to the increase in crime.  Guess ya’ll aint that “skilled” after all?

          Sad thing is, most cops are good cops.  Hard working and dedicated unfortunately you union mouthpieces and media attention grabbers make you all look bad.

        • Cops don’t assume they are hated, they know they are hated.  Clearly you know nothing of police work and have never worked along side a cop.  As for voting, it used to be that San Jose citizens paid at least a little attention to both sides of important issues.  The downturned economy has apparently blinded them to their former discernment skills.  As for crime, a record rate in homicides and lower staffing.  Nope, no correlation there.

          Most cops are good?  Wait, 60% don’t live in San Jose, let alone the county.  You labeled that 60% outsiders who are greedy and uncaring for San Jose residents.  60% is a majority of San Jose cops.  Now who is lacking in skill?  As for the union, the union is the cops and the cops are the union.  Any negotiations by the union bargaining team are presented to the entire membership.  They will vote up or down on the contracts and always have.  Trying to divide the union leadership from the union members is inaccurate.

        • “Sad that the cops don’t seem to want to be part of the community that solves the problem and only is interested in a money grab for themselves”

          And you wonder why a cop would find you an ungrateful sniveler?  You call your cops greedy and then have a hissy fit when they don’t respond with hugs and parking their patrol car in front of your house 24/7 so you can be safe?  Give me a break.  As for the 60%, that is a fact.  But it is also a fact that many other people who work in San Jose also commute from the outlying areas in order to provide a better home for their families.  I guess those Silicon Valley workers are also greedy and disloyal to San Jose just because they wanted a decent tract home instead of a 2 bedroom condo for their kids.

          I also envy your possession of a crystal ball that allows you to see inside every police officers financial lives.  Blanket statements about officers mismanaging their finances certainly also endears us to you.  Let me educate you.  Any officer that gets themselves so buried financially becomes a liability to the department and ripe for corruption.  Financial solvency is one requirement for any applicant and grounds for investigation for a current employee.  Nice try.

          As for the layoffs, I really find it pathetic that you would wish them to take place.  Do a little homework and find out how much the city has paid for those officers that they will lay off.  Other cities, including those outlying ones that you seem to have turned your nose up at, will benefit from San Jose’s expenditures.  As for officers coming to San Jose from other agencies you are smoking crack.  Laterals are no longer lining up for San Jose as the writing is on the wall.  San Jose is quickly headed for the very bottom of the barrel in Santa Clara County.  While we used to sit in the middle of the list for total compensation, San Jose is once again considered a poor choice financially.  The counter balance to not being the highest paid was that the department was large with lots of opportunity, training, and a supportive community.  Now that those three are also gone welcome to begging for table scraps.

          In fact young smart motivated officers are already leaving weekly to other departments who are welcoming them with open arms.  Part of the reason is the way they are treated.  Citizens like you are a primary reason that officers aren’t going to be bending over backwards for you.  Quite frankly I hope they do lay off nearly 300 officers.  Those officers will find jobs easily elsewhere and San Jose will learn a painful lesson in priorities.

        • So lets get on with it already.  Agree to a deal, let the officers that think all the citizens of San Jose are sniveling ingrates move along and take a nice job in Oakland or some other place where a 2 or 3 hour commute from the boonies in Modesto won’t bother them.

          You made your bed.  Its infested with bedbugs, you sold out via your union honchos into “buying” City Council members over and over who would approve these sweetheart deals for you with no reality check about what would happen if the markets didn’t hold up.  This is a 10 year issue so its long before the current national economic crisis. 

          You want to cry and protest then do it at the doorstep of Ron Gonzalez, Cindy Chavez, George Shirakawa, Nora Campos, Manny Diaz.  They’re the ones to blame for this mess and I blame YOU for putting them in with your union politico money.  Don’t cry now that your gravy train has left the station. 

          Keep looking for allies and sympathy in these blogs but you don’t get it.  The majority of the anti-Reed posters are all obviously cops, firefighters and other disgruntled city workers.  Thats about 6 thousand of you right?  Well there’s nearly one million residents that don’t appreciate being held hostage by the 6 thousand union workers. 

          Figone was right with this deal.  It would have cost $17 million over 4 years.  Money we don’t have.  Money that none of the cops or union workers seem to think matters unless its to their own benefit.  Maybe if you spent as much time offering real solutions to garner public support rather than calling the council members and Mayor names you’d be in a better position.  But you don’t, so you aren’t.  SUcks to be you.

        • You should heed your own warning about assumptions because actually I do have several family members who have served as police officers in SJ and surrounding areas for many years. 

          Cops aren’t hated.  Its sad that you’ve come to that conclusion.  I am sure they are hated by the people they deal with most often, that is criminals.  Ordinary citizens do appreciate police and the service they provide.  Its very disheartening to see how many of you act in these forums though.  There definitely is an “us vs them” mentality that comes out from the cops.

          What the downturn in the economy alerted voters to was to pay closer attention to hidden costs and long term affects of legislation.  In prosperous times we votes for the majority of parcel taxes for schools and measures that would benefit police and firefighters (yet you claim we all “hate” you) The city cannot afford it.  We cannot afford the cuts in services and staffing levels.  The salaries need to be readjusted and the pension payouts looked at. Why is that so hard for the city workers to understand?  The Mayor understands it thats why he’s so anxious to get things on the ballot.  He knows the public sentiment is that even though we don’t like taking away from public workers we see that there is no real other option.

        • Well, it appears that this has actually happened.  Check your local news.  And yes, many officers are already taking jobs elsewhere and glad to be doing it.  As for making beds, that is where you couldn’t be more wrong.  This is where your head is inserted so far up Reed’s backside that you can’t see 2 feet.  I noticed you left him off the list of people to blame.  Reed was a two-term city council person and now a two-term mayor.  He voted for every union contract.  Funny you left yourself, I mean him, off that blame list. 

          As for being disgruntled, I guess it makes no difference that the 6,000 city workers are unhappy to you right?  Apparently since you are unhappy and have suffered it is only right that city workers suffer as well.  Kind of a reverse socialism where everybody is made equal.  As for me personally, I am retired and working a second job now making double the money.  Sucks to be me alright.  I am actually being appreciated by my private sector employer and watching from the sidelines as San Jose residents are being blinded and manipulated by Reed and Figone.  Fortunately I don’t live on the flushing toilet that San Jose has become.  Good luck on your crime rate and your public services.  I guess it really sucks to be you.

        • I highly doubt you have family members as cops because if you did you wouldn’t disparage them as you do.  You are simply trying to buy credibility for your comments and even a rookie cop can see through that one.  Measures V and W spoke volumes to the rank and file of SJPD.  If you could see and hear the comments made around the department you would know how disheartened the officers are about the people they used to count on for support.  Bottom line, people opened their wallets, saw how empty they were, and then decided that their pain needed to be shared. 

          The sad thing is that in the long run it is the citizens who will pay the most.  There is a incorrect assumption that every cop on SJPD should just be grateful to have a job.  The arrogance of citizens who presume that cops are somehow uneducated ditch diggers who can be found hanging around the Home Depot parking lot just waiting for table scraps is pathetic.  San Jose officers are in high demand, as are most police officers, because of the long and arduous process it takes to be hired, trained, and certified.

          You are typical of so many who think it would be best to just unload the existing officers and then replace them by this imaginary endless line of applicants just waiting to work for whatever wages the city feels like handing out.  I have news for you, there are police jobs all over the state and the country.  Your San Jose officers are some of the most highly educated, best trained, and enjoy an excellent reputation in the law enforcement community.  You can bad mouth cops all you want but it doesn’t change the reality of supply and demand. While any police job opening may generate a line of thousands lining up to apply, only an extremely small percentage actually end up with their file in front of a hiring board.  In fact, for many years now prior to the economic downturn many agencies, SJPD included, couldn’t even fill all the opening they had as there were not enough applicants who could pass the stringent requirement to be considered.

          The fact is that San Jose does not value having the best police department and the best officers.  Everyone wants to use the private sector as a comparison to public work so let’s do that.  In the private sector the better companies recognize that in tough times they have to tighten the belt.  But, they also know that to remain competitive there are certain jobs that demand the best employees.  Jobs like R&D because if a company doesn’t come out with new and better products, they fall behind.  Companies know they need to have the best leaders, designers, upper managers, etc. or the company will suffer irreparable harm to their reputation and goods.

          Police departments are not that different.  Cops aren’t a box of pens that you go out and try to find cheaper.  The cost of recruiting, backgrounding, testing, and training one officer is in the tens of thousands of dollars.  These comments about showing any officer who isn’t happy the door are tantamount to telling everyone that if they don’t stop complaining you will kick yourself in the groin.  It is highly counter-productive.

          San Jose is going to get exactly what they are willing to pay for.  Yes the economy sucks.  Yes the city squandered tons of money in the good times when they could have saved for a rainy day.  Yes many citizens are suffering.  But, you have picked the wrong group of employees to attack.  You will not be able to recover easily from Reed and Figone’s mismanagement of the city and their demoralizing of the workforce.  Those two are taking San Jose so far down the wrong path that the road back will be long and painful.  And the worst part is that the bulk of the citizenry is line up behind them, their head filled with misinformation, jealousy, and propaganda.

    • To Jim Unland,

      I think all of us citizens want more police officers.  The question is: Is there money in the current PD budget to support the request for the grant for 53 positions or just the 10.  Isn’t there some matching funds to even apply for the grant.  No grant money is completely free.

      • The simple answer to this is ‘Yes’, and from a variety of sources. One possible source is redirecting monies that the city currently hands out to non-profits from the general fund to the Police Department. Councilman Olviero makes a compelling argument for this course of action here:

        Additionally, the city charter (section 800) identifies several charter departments/offices which define San Jose’s municipal obligations. However, San Jose presently staffs numerous departments/offices which fall well outside those core services. The intelligent thing to do would be to take all the rank/file employees and their immediate supervisors and transfer them out of non-core service departments/offices to charter departments and then to lay off the now-extraneous managers and department heads. If San Jose can’t adequately fund core services at competitive rates, then it has no business maintaining these superfluous positions.

        Finally, the smartest thing that the City Manager could do would be to offer a retirement incentive to those police officers who are going to retire in the next year or so. Identify those officers who are within one year of the average term of service (somewhere around 26 years) and tell them that they can be credited for that year of service if they retire early. Add in those who are within one year of being eligible to retire. I believe there are somewhere around 100 officers who fall into this group. This would benefit everyone as it would afford the retirees an earlier retirement date, allow the PD to retain the younger lower-paid officers and to roll the salary difference between the two groups into the pension fund to offset the unfunded liability. The city will also benefit in that it will not have to pay $175,000 per recruit just to replace the officers who are due to retire in the next couple of years (somewhere between 200 and 300, if my sources are correct).

        Unfortunately, as POA VP Jim Unland noted, all of this seems more political than financial or practical, and taking these very sensible courses of action wouldn’t achieve Debra Figone’s goal of reducing the PD’s numbers down to 1000 – or fewer – sworn officers. The important thing to keep in mind here is that Mayor Reed and the rest of the city council is working with information given to them by the City Manager’s office. The City Manager has – or should have – serious credibility issues, hasn’t been completely honest, and clearly has an agenda that is not consistent with making San Jose the safest best-run city it could be.

        • Wow, so basically the cops want to slash all the other city workers and throw them under the bus and gut non-profits who are doing vital work out in the communities as well.

          Bravo!  Just when I thought you couldn’t be any greedier or self serving you find new ways.

        • Ahh.. NO. Apparently you misunderstand my point and have missed other posts I’ve made. Simply put, the City Charter clearly defines the core services – the charter services – which establish the responsibilities and services San Jose as a municipal agency is required to provide. Therefore, charter services should be fully staffed before staffing other services. Frankly, if you look at section 800 of the City Charter, you will find that the departments and offices established by the charter are quite comprehensive in terms of identifying what is needed to run a viable city. Every other service out offered is extraneous.

          Now, before you describe me – or any other city employee – as greedy, why don’t you take a look at some of Pierluigi Olviero’s posts. He has stated essentially the same things – that in times of financial hardship, the extraneous services ought to be the first to go so that essential city services can remain fully functional. Does that make him greedy and self-serving or is it a pragmatic and responsible approach to resolving a difficult set of financial problems?

          Finally, consider this: in the next two years, hundreds of officers will likely be gone from the police department, regardless of whatever cuts may be imposed or agreed to in contract: 122 officers (10% of the work force) will be laid off in the Tier 1 cuts – a virtual guarantee. An additional 156 may be laid off if the Tier 2 cuts occur. And, based on the some information I’ve heard, an additional 200 or so are likely to retire in the next 2 years. It is highly unlikely that San Jose will hire replacements for those officers, so in a couple of years, this city of nearly a million people may be policed by less than 800 officers, or about half of the number of officers on the force just a couple of years ago. Is this a worst case scenario? You bet. Is it impossible? Absolutely not. Finally, after all this and after how poorly the PD has been treated by City Hall, how easy do you think it’s going to be to recruit the same caliber of candidates San Jose previously enjoyed and for lower pay and fewer benefits than most of our neighbors offer?

    • What it closes the door on is the $17 million dollars that must be committed from San Jose budget. 

      It is typical San Jose Union logic to kick the can down the road and say “we will take it all” and not look at the raw costs. 

      You’re not asking the city to be fiscally irresponsible?  Well Im a resident of San Jose and taxpayer and I am asking YOU to be fiscally responsible.  Take the 10% cuts and restore the 178 police officers that it would save. 

      Its outrageous that you are suggesting that you can find the additional money in two months that has evaded the city for 10 years running.  Part of the problem is revealed in your last sentence.  The unions are convinced that EVERYTHING the council and management does is political and not financial when the bottom line obviously disputes that. 

      To protect and serve.  Its time to honor that code and serve the public by being accommodating of the budget crisis we are facing and keeping staffing levels as high as possible.

      • I see you have been drinking the city Kool-Aid by the gallons.  The 10% pay cuts that the City wants is only the tip of the iceberg and they admit it.  They also admit that even with the 10% pay cuts they will still lay off hundreds of employees.  How can you be so blind as to think the City woes are completely due to employee salaries and benefits?  Do you pay attention at all to where your taxes and fees go?  Do you know how many black holes of social programs and entitlements the City throws your money into?  This is the point of most of the unions.  The City Council and staff want to sweep prior bad decisions under the rug and lay all the blame on one group.

        Reed has taken a page out of Adolf Hitler’s manual in re-directing public outrage onto a paper tiger.  Reed was a two-term councilperson and now second term mayor.  You would think he just came into the job last week.  The City’s financial mismanagement is to blame for most of the problems.  Salaries and pensions are only one part of the equation.  Instead of parroting your City Council you need to get the facts.

        • I understand the union workers position and just to be clear I do not think the city’s entire financial crisis is due to salaries and benefits.  However it is evident that the current benefit structure cannot be maintained.

          I would be more than happy to have the city cut back in other areas as well.  Cut the funding for Mexican Heritage Plaza and the Hayes Center.  All arts council or discretionary funding must be ceased because we are at the point of looking at wants versus needs.  Thats not to say there is value in each and every one of those things for hte quality of life in San Jose.  Eliminate all of those and we still have a budget shortfall and have to expect the cuts and revisions for employees. 

          Its both/and not either/or. 

          No one is excusing this council or previous ones for the mistakes they’ve made.  The taxpayers just want it cleaned up now.  No more excuses and the blame game doesn’t solve the problem.  I’ve heard many union reps say the council is snowing the public and not dealing fair that the people aren’t getting the facts.  So why not give the facts?  Not more double talk, but the facts.  Break down what discretionary spending can still be cut.  Make a solid and factual proposal to the public about how to solve the budget shortfall. 

          But you don’t do that any more than the council will.  You are your own worst enemy.  People just want the money cut.  Mayor Reed is giving options no matter how hard they are.  You are giving nothing.  Guess who wins public favor?

        • First, I disagree that the current pensions system could not have been maintained.  That is the core of the unions disagreement.  I’ll use an analogy.  You take a home loan out with Wells Fargo.  You sign a binding contract to pay X amount of money each month and they promise you the home loan.  You get your home and make the payments promptly.  Wells Fargo comes back to you 10 years into your 30 year note and says that due to previous Wells Fargo bosses poor financial decisions your payment is going to double and you have to do it for 40 years instead,  Is this fair? 

          There have been several court rulings already across the country, most recently in SoCal, where judges have ruled that union contracts are binding just like a purchase contract or any other contract.  Now, most union members realize that the city officials can’t control the markets.  But they also expect the city to manage its finances like you or I would.  When you receive an unexpected financial windfall do you ignore your credit card balance, car balance or other obligations and run out and buy jewelry and take vacations?  Instead of putting money away for a rainy day do you spend like a drunken sailor in port?

          This is what the city did in the good times.  Now all of a sudden the pensions are “unsustainable” and the employees have to shoulder the burden for the politicos spending sprees.  Had the city run their finances like a responsible citizen, we wouldn’t have half the problems.  And to have them vilify the unions now to redirect public anger away from their track record of ineptitude is just insulting.  The saddest part is that our state and our federal government is going the same.  They just haven’t found a good target yet.  But they will…..

          Lastly, it isn’t the unions job to manage the city.  It is the elected officials and the City Manager’s job to run the city responsibly.  And, the unions have offered to negotiate.  The problem is, the city does not want to negotiate.  The union side makes numerous offers, the city rejects and stands on one offer over and over.  Is this how you resolve disagreements at home?  Is it reasonable say for one spouse to lay down the law and the other spouse, theoretically a partner in the organization, is just supposed to shut up and follow orders?  The city says they want their employees and unions invested in the overall health of the city but they don’t want any backtalk.  This is how many third world countries are run today.  Is this what you want now?  Perhaps we should run the entire country that way.  Nobody has a say except those that agree with the political leaders.  There are multiple stakeholders in San Jose including elected officials, career workers, citizens, unions, etc.  All should be welcome to contribute to solutions, not have them imposed by inflexible autocratic leaders who con the public and then assume they have a mandate.

        • I will agree with you on that last point. 

          Most of the problems are directly due to the fiscal mismanagement that occurred when Ron Gonzalez was mayor.  Look at that tenure.  Ron Gonzalez = union backed candidate.  Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez = union backed candidate.  Council member George Shirakawa = Union backed candidate.  Council member Nora Campos = union backed candidate.

          The problems DID come out of that group and that think tank of incompetent financial managers was backed by the unions!

          Accept responsibility for your own mistakes before criticizing others for theirs.  It would go a long way in public view if you were honest about that.  Instead of holding those former mayor, vice mayor and council members accountable you put Cindy Chavez as your labor leader.

        • The city of San Jose does not offer better compensation than other public agencies.  In fact, with the proposed cuts San Jose employees will be well in the bottom half.

          So why is San Jose having financial problems meeting their obligations when other cities are not?  Yes, most other cities have had to make significant cuts due to the economy, but they are not facing a “fiscal crisis”.

          Why can other cities provide their employees with comparable (actually slightly better) salaries and benefits and San Jose can’t?  The only answer is that they have managed their money better over the last ten to fifteen years than has San Jose.

          San Jose’s problems are directly due to the fiscal mismanagement that occurred when Ron Gonzales was Mayor.

        • The merky news will not give the unions equal amount of press time. They have TRIED to get the word out to the public, but they can’t get the coverage. They would LOVE for the public to know what is REALLY going on. The public should demand equal coverage so that you are not only seeing the City’s side. You want the truth??? Demand it!

  10. ” Figone did, however, consult with Police Chief Chris Moore on the decision.” 

    The consulting conversation probably went like this: 

    Chris, Deb –  I will be applying for 10 officer in federal grant, you ok with that or do you want to be in police layoff next month ?

    No, Deb I am ok with that.  Thanks for letting me know how to run your Police Department

    As long as you remember Chris, that I run the city and Police Department you can be Chief  

    Thanks Deb


    • You know what is hilarious?  That you think Deb Figone oversteps by dealing with the Chief on this decision yet the POA Union honcho oversteps and asks Mike Honda to intervene and see if the city can still apply for the full grant. 

      SInce when does the POA act on behalf of the city?


  11. Of course it was political to put more pressure on this year’s city union target – POA to rollover and behave and do as they are told.

    City Hall is teaching POA some giveback and layoff lessons this year  

    – Yes, Madam, No Madam, what ever you want Madam, just have Alex tell us what you want us to do and we will

    Last year’s union target – Firefighters learned their lesson the hard way with 43 layoffs that misbehaving and talking back has a price – sure took the fight out of firefighters and about million dollars out of union treasury

    This year Firefighters got rid of chronic troublemaker Randy who said those impolite, embarrassing and awful things about City Hall – shame, shame  

    To show they learned their layoff lessons firefighter did not fight and were the first to rollover and offer givebacks to City Hall

    – Yes, Madam, is that enough, just have Alex tell us what you want us to do and we will

    Woof, woof, rollover attaboy. again good boy, woof, woof remember who is your master or we will teach you some more giveback and layoff lessons woof, woof

    • > Of course it was political to put more pressure on this year’s city union target – POA to rollover and behave and do as they are told.

      Correct.  The Police SHOULD rollover and behave as they are told – by the government of the people.

      You got a problem with that?

      You think the Police should make up their own rules?

      You think the Police should be paid what they think they ought to be paid, and take what they want it it’s not enough?

      Not in my country.

      • Well… kinda.  The police enforce laws, whether they agree with them or not.  Once established a police force is required to uphold the laws of the land and cannot arbitrarily pick which to enforce.  You can imagine why this is the case I’m sure.  Politicians cannot (and should not) direct the police to investigate certain people.

        By the same token, good police work takes time and money.  You get what you pay for. If we conduct investigations/prosecutions based on a dollar value then justice would not be served.

        The Union is made up of police department members and takes direction from them- not the City manager, the Mayor the police Chief or anyone else.

        Public Safety cannot strike.  The tradoff for this HUGE bargaining tool is binding arbitration, in which a State arbiter decides which side has the most fair offer.  You may think it’s a dubious system, but you seem to be trading rationality for anger.

        • > The Union is made up of police department members and takes direction from them- not the City manager, the Mayor the police Chief or anyone else.

          > You may think it’s a dubious system, but you seem to be trading rationality for anger.

          This is the formula for a fasciist police state: the police take orders from the police union.

          It’s completely rational to be angry about this.

  12. Chief Moore,

    Originally, when you applied to become Chief we supported you over Batts. Enough is enough! You have pleased the special interest groups far beyond necessity. Our moral is broken and in shambles…how much more restrictive political policy will you bestow upon your officers when we are among the most educated and professional in the state.  We know you care for us, so start showing it and fight for us both verbally and publically. Enough is enough… our faith in you as both a manager – and more importantly, a leader – is dwindling… spiraling down like my career on July 1st

    -A 4000 Badge

  13. The Chief is an “at will” CSJ employee who serves at the “pleasure” of the city manager and council. This is common knowledge.

    Lest anyone forget, while serving as interim Chief, Moore submarined the 30 day hold for unlicensed drivers to obtain Liccardo’s support and the approval of the Latino community. His rationale was that it was all about $. It was purpoted to be too many hours spent for too little payoff! Let’s not complicate the issue by mentioning those lives saved when an unlicensed driver, who drives drunk and kills, is deprived a vehicle. Figone also reminded him that she would be the final word on the discipline of officers when she decided officers in the Phuong Ho case would be terminated, opposing Moore’s position These were harbingers of things to come. Sadly, in this food chain, he is at the bottom. I WISH I WERE WRONG. On occasion he will have his opportunity to prove us all wrong.

    Meanwhile, let’s be clear. Figgone runs SJPD. Why does anyone wonder why she did not clear this with the council. This is simply a fresh reminder who is in charge @ 201 W. Mission Street. No news here, just another reason why SJPD continues to it’s own so-called “death spiral”. For the officers that remain after layoffs, and the stripping of salary/benefits/pension, it is hold on and brace for impact.

    • I know several people (undocumented) whose cars were impounded for 30 days when they were stopped for a broken taillight or making a California stop at a stop sign (of which I too am guilty). They were not driving drunk, or driving recklessly. To get their car back after impoundment and the payment for the 30 days of storage, they had to pay over $2,000. The documented they were handed at the time of the impoundment was in English and said that they should reclaim their car as soon as possible to avoid storage fees; nowhere on the document did it indicate that unlicensed drivers would not be able to get their car back until after 30 days. The new regulations says that when unlicensed drivers are stopped by the police, they must be given the new regulations in Spanish and that they may call someone who is a licensed driver to come pick up their car. They are no longer required to pay storage for 30 days. Remember that many of these people used to take the DMV renewal exam and buy auto insurance until 1993 when then Gov. Pete Wilson declared that undocumented people could not get Calif. driver’s licenses. People learned that they lost their DMV license when they went in to renew it. So why do they remain undocumented? Because it is almost impossible to get legal status in this county if you are Mexican (or Chinese).

      • I guess there is value in being “documented” and fluent in English.

        If one is here illegally then there is a much bigger risk when caught breaking the law whether is it driving with a broken taillamp, failing to stop for a STOP sign, and driving with out a license or insurance.

        Please stop trying to justify illegal behavior.

      • >  Because it is almost impossible to get legal status in this county if you are Mexican (or Chinese).

        Is there a book somewhere, written by some really smart liberal, that tells what laws it is OK to ignore?

        I’m really getting bummed out on tax laws, and every now and then (like Jimmy Carter) I commit lust in my heart and am actually tempted to grope a bimbo.

        • “every now and then (like Jimmy Carter) I commit lust in my heart and am actually tempted to grope a bimbo.”

          I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute. You sound like the type.

  14. I like Pete Constant’s plan. I don’t necessarily agree with it but at least it is not incremental.I’ve worked in too many private companies that, when faced with terrifying conditions, tried to make piecemeal cuts in order to “save” valuable programs. It doesn’t work under these kinds of conditions. We need to prioritize with our most important services like police, fire, garbage, libraries, parks, and then cut almost everything that falls below the line as well as making substantial cuts above the line. That, of course, will include reducing pensions, whose costs are insurmountable under any scenario.

  15. The elimination of the Office of the City Manager should be on the November ballot.

    The Office of the City Manager is incompetent, bloated, ineffective and a nusiance to the tax payers.

    If Mayor Reed can not manage the Department heads, to save money for city services, he needs to be removed in the same ballot measure along with the dunderheads in the Office of the City Manager.

    David S. Wall

    • Mr. Wall,
      Are you qualified to voice your opinion? How do we know that you aren’t just another member of the ‘uniformed public’ whose remarks you seem so eager to stifle?

  16. The Police Chief (Moore) and the Fire Chief (Not Figone) need to get together and have a News conference and state the City is at extreme risk and its members are at extreme risk for low staffing levels and the the citizens of San Jose cannot and will not be protected and that this is caused by Doug Figone Rufus Reed! And now San Jose will become a training ground for other departments. It is embarrassing to work in this City. Oh by the way $200 million is set aside to bring the “A’s” Baseball team. And it’s going to get worse, a lot worse! Good Luck citizens! That’s the knockout punch San Jose needs! Then we can start working on a recall!

  17. I was unaware that members of city boards, commissions,and committees were paid any money. How much money will be saved by eliminating them? I thought their purpose was to make the governance of the City more open and inclusive. I never received any money for being on a San Jose committee.

    • The San Jose City Council is compensated, their salaries are posted on the many searchable databases of public employees.  What is NOT well known, is that the Council is compensated with a retirement package from PERS.  They are the only City employees that use PERS, instead of the San Jose pension funds.

      The same pension funds that are supposedly unsustainable.  The same ones that may be affected by ballot in November.  The same ones that may be subjected to years of litigation as a result.  Be sure to make the connection that the Council’s retirement would not be affected… by design?

      The elected leaders are fooling the Murky News and the people at large.  Shame!

  18. Chief Moore is a disaster for the police department. Not only has he produced the ACLU card he had been carrying secretly for years but he has proven to be gutless and spineless as a leader. The police department suffered for years with the incompetence and stupidity of Chief Davis, but now it has to be further traumatized by the complete lack of leadership qualities in its new Chief. Rather than stepping up and leading from the front, producing innovative and novel ideas to make the police department more efficient and responsive to the public, he has instead taken a page from his predecessor and hides behind his closed and locked office door. Coward.

  19. OMG! We are terrified. Another gang related, love triangle or domestic disturbance that led to a senseless death.

    More to do with the economy and less to to with the number of police.

    San Josie is no less safe.

      • Actually, this isn’t entirely accurate. At the time it occurred, the most recent homicide (24, when the SJSU murder/suicide is not counted) occurred on day 150 of 2011. At that rate, we’ve experience one homicide every 6.25 days which, when calculated out as a stable average, means we are on track to have 58 (58.4) homicides committed this year. The highest number of homicides committed in San Jose in the last ten years or so is, I believe, 33. Therefore, we are on track to see a 75% increase over that highest number and nearly triple the number of homicides from last year.

        However, we also need to keep in mind that, historically, the middle three months of the year tend to be more violent than the first 4.5 or last 4.5 so it’s entirely possible that we could exceed 60 homicides this year.

        Finally, we should also bear in mind that homicides are only one meter by which we measure crime in San Jose. It will be interesting to find out just how much violent crime has increased already as this tends to be reported more consistently than property crimes since, I’d be willing to bet more and more people have just given up reporting crimes where no one has gotten hurt.

        • Homicides are only one measure.  Property crimes are soaring and with the forthcoming cuts in detectives you can pretty much forget any burglary, identify theft, car theft, or any other property crime being investigated at all.  Might as well get your insurance company on speed dial.  The only crimes that will be investigated soon will be person crimes and only those that are more violent.

  20. The past Retirement Boards (Police & Fire, and Federated) received no compensation. In the City Council’s newly designed boards (effective 2011), all members of the public on the boards are compensated from retirement funds.

    Not enough to make it worth their while. Just enough to cost the Retirement Plans a few more bucks.

  21. <Jim Unland, Vice President of the POA, said the union has reached out to U.S. Congressman Mike Honda’s office to see about filing a congressional inquiry with the Department of Justice to determine the city’s options in reapplying for the full grant.>

    It’s worrisome that the POA would seek help from a Congressman whose idea of law enforcement is often antithetical to those claimed by most members of our police force.
    I wonder just what Mike Honda might expect in return for helping out the POA. Or what Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Justice, might expect from the SJPD in return for a favor.
    Getting San Jose cops to agree to ignore the immigration status of suspected lawbreakers comes to mind. Getting them to agree to not ‘profile’ is another.

    Is the POA really interested in providing effective law enforcement in San Jose?  Mightn’t San Jose be more effectively served by a smaller force that isn’t hamstrung by the deals they strike in pursuit of a larger budget?

    • Its worrisome that the POA would reach out at all to the Congressman as if they are an authority for the city.

      Its not their decision to apply for this grant and cost the city an additional $17 million dollars. 

      If the Chief and City Manager made the decision, live with it.

  22. willowglenprojects

    I assume you to be a proponent of Chuck Reed’s Theory of Anomalous Crime, the belief that because violent crime occurs at unpredictable times and places, and for a variety of reasons, every crime qualifies as an anomaly—unpreventable and unrelated to the number of cops on the street. It’s a belief that serves the mayor’s current agenda but, suspiciously, one he never spouted until he began dismantling the police department.

    Rather than going into the details of how, through visible presence and intelligent enforcement, a department can absolutely reduce violence related to theft, drinking, drugs, and gang life, I will instead point out the already understood and well-accepted connection between police staffing and traffic safety.

    Traffic collisions, which can occur anywhere and at anytime, and be attributed to any number of causes (drivers impaired, angry, distracted, reckless, stupid, inexperienced, or just late for work), would seem to qualify as an anomaly using Chuck Reed’s standard, except that it is well established that a police department can, by its visible presence and interception of a small percentage of speeders, red light runners, and drunk drivers, have a major impact on the mindset of the driving public and actually reduce accidents.

    To ignore the role psychology plays in impacting human behavior, as Chuck Reed has done with his foolish ideas about public safety, is to ignore the premiere tool of every law enforcement agency from Fish & Game to Securities & Exchange to the IRS. The mayor is absolutely making this city less safe, and how he, with a police chief at his beck and call as well as his own, high-paid police houseboy to consult, can continue to dispense so much misinformation to the public is beyond my understanding…

    … that is, unless he’s just lying.

  23. Well JFK’s father was the first chairman of the SEC in the 30’s I believe. We all know what a lucrative deal that was. Not much psychology there, Just good old fashioned white collar crime.

    The danger is in your building young jedi. Not in the streets.

  24. How does it feel? Figone ignored you and did what SHE wanted to do. That’s the same way WE feel when you all ignore us and just do what you want to do. That slap in the face stung a little, didn’t it? Guess she showed you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *