I agree with you Amanda, and the Oregonian, on the urgency of getting more cops to investigate sexual assault. Having said that, the more I cover the police bureau and public safety issues, the more I see that they are intrinsically political. And that's where things get interesting.

It's the mayor's responsibility to show leadership, but also to support his police chief. Ultimately there's a confusion as to where the buck stops, which I think was reflected in the Oregonian editorial's headline. Sometimes, that confusion is beneficial to the city, sometimes to the chief.

With respect to city council and the mayor, I think Chief Sizer has tried to make changes to the management of the police bureau that are sometimes resisted for political reasons by the mayor's office. Meanwhile, the other council members are loathe to interfere with Potter's management of the police bureau—it's just politically pointless for most of them—so his office has carte blanche and in this sense, the buck stops with him.

Sizer wanted to close North Precinct to save money and deliver more service in East Portland where it's needed. But neighborhood opposition and the mayor got involved, and all of a sudden, very little was being changed. Potter was of course at one time captain in North Precinct, and it's where his election platform vision of "community policing" evolved. Sizer was trying to make a decision on behalf of all Portland's taxpayers, but "community policing", or perhaps, Potter's own ego, got in the way. With respect. So Sizer, whose role it is to manage the police bureau, has to take responsibility for the implications of a politically-influenced policy decision she did not want to take. It's that, or her job's on the line.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=114393&category=22101

On another issue, the personnel issue reported first by the Willamette Week relating to the firing of Lieutenant Kaer in June. Potter wanted to fire Kaer, while Sizer said she didn't think his alleged misjudgment was a firing offense. In that case, the buck was perhaps passed. She described it as an "honest difference of opinion" but Sizer's opposition to the firing was also convenient for preserving her relationship with the Police Union. That's not to say it was not genuinely her opinion—it is also possible Potter privately shares it, but wants Kaer fired because he wants to be seen as tough on his police bureau, politically, and that he is prepared to pay Kaer off for that political victory in arbitration. The city's Independent Police Review, it is arguable, does not have the confidence of the community, so firing a cop might help Potter's approval ratings. I am sorry to sound so cynical, but the half-possibility is at least valid as analysis.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/06/cop_shooting_mayor_involved_in.php

Ultimately I don't believe in a blame culture—our police bureau is simply under-funded. And that fact, more than any single person's hand in it, is the reason for many of the bureau's problems. I'm loathe to bring up the "Vision" project (it's too easy a target), but its cost would have paid the salaries of 10 detectives for a year alone. Better fiscal management is all that will really stop the buck passing, or the bucks, from flying out of city hall's door and being wasted where they are much needed elsewhere.

Fascinating insight and analysis. Thank you for taking the time to write and post it, Matt.

It's not at all hard to make the case the that the Portland Police Bureau is understaffed.

It's quite a bit harder to make the case that they are underfunded. I'm not surprised to hear Matt say it. It sometimes seems that the only thing the Police Bureau management and the union can wholeheartedly agree on is that they really need lots more money.

The reality looks a little bit different to me. The Bureau has had budget authorization for many more positions than they have been able to fill for at least several years now. With a large number of potential retirements looming in the near future that problem is only going to get harder to solve. That represents an ongoing management failure on the part of a number of police chiefs, city councils and mayors. PPB management and the union will be quick to chorus that they can't hire people because they don't pay enough but I've never heard a credible justification of that opinion and that's not what I hear when I talk to people who would be likely candidates for the job.

I haven't had time to do as detailed an analysis as Amanda has done with the tram, but as near as I can tell from the published numbers, the PPB budget has increased by more than the rate of inflation for at least six years running. There are no doubt many reasons for that-- health care costs and pension issues are probably two of them--but the same analysis applies to those things as to the inability to hire for open positions--a failure of management that rests with a long series of mayors, councils and chiefs. It isn't hard to figure out that a structure that requires an ever larger percentage of taxypayers' dollars while providing an ever diminishing level of service is not sustainable. Unfortunately it's obviously a lot easier to recognize that fact than to fix it.

"Underfunding" was never an issue with the proposed changes for North Precinct. Chief Sizer never said they would save money. The crisis that got dumped in her lap is a staffing crisis, not a funding crisis.

I can't speak for Tom Potter, of course, but I've heard him talk about community policing a number of times now and it's clear to me that he's not committed to it for touchy-feely, pie in the sky or ego-driven reasons. Mayor Potter knows better than just about anyone on the planet what the issues are in creating policing structures that are functional and sustainable. That's what his commitment to community policing is about.

Good points. The Auditor's report published in June found that staffing levels in the section of the Police Bureau responsible for investigating sexual assaults are comparable with standards in other communities, however that detectives don't use best practices for investigations, and the unit suffers from frequent transfers out as officers seek other more-desired positions. So I guess with that in mind, it is a management issue, with Chief Sizer primarily responsible. I'd still like to see the Council asking for regular updates on progress.

Doretta:

And why can't the police bureau fill those budgeted positions? Because it cannot afford to background check the new applicants. People are lining up to join the Portland Police Bureau but end up going to other, competing jurisdictions like Gresham and Tualatin where the backgrounding process takes less than a year.

I agree that there are management issues but when politics, and neighborhood activists get in the way of sound management decisions, it's ironic that the bureau is then accused of mismanagement.

The Bureau has had budget authorization for many more positions than they have been able to fill for at least several years now

I would guess they have left positions unfilled for far, far longer than that. It's a budget game, don't fill budgeted positions, then use the "salary savings" to cover overtime over-expenditures, a chronic problem. State law only requires budget balancing at the macro level of Personnel Services, so shifting between line items isn't a problem. Well, except for an understaffed police force requiring lots of overtime.

Because it cannot afford to background check the new applicants

If that is the alleged reason, it makes no sense. Paying current officers overtime to cover the unfilled positions' work must be much more expensive than hiring someone to do background checks.

So Frank: you're saying the cops aren't prioritizing new hires because it's in their financial interests? That's fascinating. It seems I've swallowed the bureau's line on this issue. More investigation is definitely required—sorry Doretta for shooting my mouth off with the "underfunding" angle.

Potter must know about the situation. I assumed he wanted the budgeted officers, but maybe he knows as well as the bureau does that "budgeted officers" actually means a nice fat overtime check for anybody who wants it.

Overtime. Hmmm. I wish reporters were paid it.

"Targeted efforts," like the one referenced below, often seem to involve paying for overtime. It's as though the police are for hire for special projects, but only at overtime rates.

And, sure, keeping unfunded positions around to use for other purposes --like overtime-- is a long-standard public-budgeting tradition. That doesn't mean hiring new officers isn't a priority, but I'm guessing you'll find the police bureau --like many agencies-- has also consciously and consistently kept a certain number of budgeted positions vacant to provide budget flexibility. That's really not a bad management decision, especially when you're having trouble containing a budget line item like overtime.

Police Bureau wants ODOT to pay cops' overtime
by Libby Tucker
08/03/2007

The Portland Police Bureau will ask the Oregon Department of Transportation for $300,000 to enforce traffic laws at a road construction site.

The money would pay for officer overtime worked on ODOT's Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard viaduct project near Southeast Division Street in Portland.

City Council on Wednesday passed an emergency ordinance allowing the Police Bureau to apply for the grant money, part of ODOT's work zone enforcement program funded by the Federal Highway Administration.

Officers in March began patrolling the three-block radius around the viaduct work site under a previous work zone grant that expired July 1.

The new grant would cover overtime expenses accrued throughout the rest of construction, or up to two years. The money will pay for about 2,500 hours of officer overtime during that period, Veronica Nordeen, a grants management analyst with the Police Bureau's fiscal division, said.

"(ODOT) wants dedicated resources to work specifically in their construction zones," Mark Kruger, acting commander in the Portland Police Bureau, said. "If money isn't there ODOT can ask police agencies to provide (enforcement), but there's no guarantee they'll get it because they have a lot of other things going on."

The Police Bureau will also provide matching funds of $25,500 per year for two years, which is necessary in order to qualify for the federal money, according to the bureau.

In the first four months of construction at the site, city police towed 29 vehicles; arrested three drivers under suspicion of driving while intoxicated; and recorded 2,545 speed violations, 176 bicycle violations and 503 other violations, according to a Police Bureau report.

"We're trying to keep two people safe," Dave Thompson, an ODOT spokesman, said. "The workers' lives are at risk. ... (And) almost all the time when there's a crash in a work zone it's the driver or passenger that's hurt."

I agree with Frank that there is a certain amount of playing around with budget and also that doing so isn't always bad management. It's undoubtedly true that the union, in particular, likes having a lot of overtime money available. My sense is that isn't the bottom line, however. They really do have a problem that they would like to fix. That overtime money isn't going to the people who make the decisions and as much as some people love overtime and big checks I know there are a lot of Portland officers who feel overstretched by the short staffing and would like more flexibility to use their vacation time and spend more time with their families.

The length of time it takes to do background checks has been a part of the issue (but nowhere near all of it) for several years but that too is not just a matter of money. I understand the bureau is now working on having limited-duty officers or non-sworn personnel do background checks so the sworn officers who used to have that job are available for other things. If that is a good idea now, why didn't it happen years ago? If background checks were a huge impediment to solving one of the bureau's biggest problems, why weren't background checking jobs prioritized? Their website says they have 1000 sworn personnel and 350 professional staff. According to the Chief's Forum minutes of April 2, 2007 they were/are hiring nine more people to do background checks to bring the total to 15. That means they used to have six. By my calculation, had they hired or shifted three more people in the past they should have been able to increase their background check throughput by about 50%. Given a total staff of 1350, that they didn't do so could not have been anything but a management failure.

Politics and citizen activists are a fact of life, by the way, and if a chief fails to take them into account that's merely yet another form of management failure. If the Chief didn't want the North Precinct thing to happen the way it has so far, she might have solicited public input up front, for example. A big part of the citizen activism (of which I was a major part, by the way) happened because it was clear that there was information about how things work with the police bureau in North and NE Portland that the Bureau command staff didn't know and consequently could not take into account when making their plans. Had there been a dialog first, I guarantee it would all have gone differently. I think Chief Sizer is a good chief and I personally hope she sticks in the job much longer than her recent predecessors but that was not her finest hour.

I should also say, one of the many things I appreciate about Chief Sizer is that she is much less likely than her predecessors to try and pin every problem PPB has on lack of money. That's a refreshing change and gives me more confidence in her ability to solve problems.

Good information and helpful opinions - thank you, Doretta. I think Chief Sizer is a good chief too, and not just because she is a Wilson High School alumna and I'm biased. Another trait I appreciate is her ability to have respectful disagreements with Mayor Potter, and his reciprocal attitude. I find it helpful to hear her ideas, and the Mayor's, and watch them make decisions and move on. It would be good to get more information from inside the Police bureau, both managers and officers in the neighborhoods, to hear more perspectives on the issues with hiring and performance.