Attending the City Council Special Budget Meeting on August 11th was, in a word, sobering. It was sobering as a taxpayer and a resident of our fine City and it was sobering as a City Public Safety employee as well. It was important to me to attend this particular session in my capacity as both employer (taxpayer) and employee (police officer) and to do so in person, as opposed to, as is usually my custom, watching the video later, through the City Clerk’s website.
Because I consider myself to be a resident of and taxpayer in Long Beach first and a City employee second, I chose to attend this budget session on my own time, as a private citizen, and it is in this role that I offer my thoughts on what I saw and heard.
During this special budget meeting the proposed FY10 cuts for our Police and Fire Departments were presented and although, like all other City residents, I was able to review this information before the open Council session, I wanted to see and hear it presented first-hand, and to hear the comments and questions from the Council and the public that followed.
Many other City Public Safety employees attended as well. Dozens from both the Police and Fire Departments, sworn and civilian employees alike who have serious concerns about the cuts proposed for both Departments, and how those cuts might effect them and their families. Many community members attended as well. Taxpayers, like me, who clearly want to maintain the level of service they have come to expect from their respective public Safety Departments but who, likewise, know that those levels must, under current fiscal realities, necessarily be adversely impacted.
The only question that remained was to what degree.
Police Chief Batts spoke first and it became immediately clear that cuts to or reconfiguration of some important and highly pro-active law enforcement services were being proposed: Restructure the Youth Services Division (8 cops and 1 civilian cut and all other employees re-assigned); Disband what remains of the Community Relations Division (1 cop civilianized and 2 civilians cut); Disband the Night Vice Team (8 cops cut); Disband the Juvenile Car (J-Car) program (9 cops cut); Disband the Graffiti Unit (2 cops cut); Cancel the FY10 police academy (17 budgeted recruits cut) and disband the Tactical Staff responsible for recruit training (6 cops cut); and many other proposed cuts, reconfiguration and civilianization.
Deputy Fire Chief Patalano spoke next and proposed some equally sobering cuts and reconfiguration in our fire service: Shifts closed at two different fire stations, those duties during those times spread among surrounding fire stations; The creation of a “Light Force Company” that would operate the same amount of vehicles and equipment (a fire engine and a ladder truck), but with nine fewer sworn employees than a standard Company requires; other sworn and civilian support functions eliminated.
Aside from the obvious concerns over these specialized police positions… these employees… these people, being cut, reconfigured or civilianized; a real concern also exists that if these proposals are enacted the basic patrol functions throughout the city will also be adversely affected because many of the responsibilities that before had been shouldered by specialists in these given areas, will instead be taken on by the Beat Cops who will, in turn, be less available to handle calls-for-service and have less time for pro-active patrol activities in their assigned Beats.
Aside from the obvious concerns over these fire positions… these employees… these people, being cut, reconfigured or civilianized; a real concern also exists that if these proposals are enacted fire response times will necessarily increase in the areas normally covered by the stations impacted by shift closures. Other stations will take on those calls, as mentioned, but what if those stations are already out on their own runs? A station from still further away would then have to be called, requiring a still longer response time, costing precious minutes during which a structure continues to burn, or a victim continues to suffer, or a heart remains un-beating. Likewise is it truly practical, or safe for that matter, to require what amounts to half a Fire Company’s personnel to bring twice the required equipment to a fire than they can properly operate?
The police work impacted must still be done. If the specialists (such as Detectives and Directed Enforcement Teams) are no longer there to do this work, then the generalists (such as Beat Cops and civilians) must. And, of course, they will do it because that’s what professional police employees do; they do whatever is necessary and they do it with whatever resources are available.
The fire and medical emergencies must still be responded to, and, like crimes, such emergencies tend to occur on their own schedule, and not on ours. If there are fewer fire employees to respond to these emergencies, or they must respond from further away or with half the capability that they normally require, then some structures are bound to burn longer, some victims are bound to suffer more and some hearts will remain un-beating longer, perhaps beyond the time when they can still be revived.
These are very real and very sobering possibilities if these proposed public safety cuts are enacted. There are very real lives and properties that could be at stake.
How does all of this impact our liberty? In many ways, large and small.
If we agree, as the Founders did, that we have all been endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we must accept that any cuts that we make to public safety budgets that result in adverse Public Safety service impacts necessarily and negatively impact our unalienable rights.
Fire Companies that take longer to arrive at a burning building or that arrive with fewer crewmembers or a diminished capability, increase the percentages that someone in that building could die or that the structure will not be saved.
Beat Cops that are occupied with specialized enforcement functions, have less time to patrol their beats and suppress crimes, including violent crimes, increasing the chance that someone could be seriously hurt or killed by another while those Beat Cops are otherwise occupied.
For these reasons and many others, too numerous to count, Public Safety is necessarily this City’s top public policy priority. Logically, then, Public Safety must also remain this City’s top budgetary priority.
In the context of today’s dismal fiscal realities, where does a City of our size draw the line between what is required and what may only be desired? In the face of ever-increasing budget deficits, to what degree is our community willing to compromise its Public Safety capabilities while retaining other social programs and services that, while no doubt highly desirable, are inarguably less essential?
These are, indeed, extremely sobering questions and the answers could, indeed prove disastrous.
I very much welcome your questions and your comments.