I have read the articles on both the New Haven Register and Valley Independent Sentinel websites regarding Police Chief Metzler’s reorganization plan, and I would like to make some comments that I was unable to make at the BOPC meeting on Monday, February 10, 2014.
While I sometimes have used my work experience in making decisions while on the BOPC, I have tried to keep my “day job” detached as much as possible from my elected position.
However, surprisingly, since it was mentioned in the articles, and the fact that it has come to my attention that a particular Town official is referring to my qualifications as that of a “glorified patrol sergeant,” I feel reluctantly compelled to give some background on myself.
I am a graduate of the University of New Haven and the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy in Quantico, VA.
I have over 27 years experience in a 108-officer municipal police department, of which I have risen through the ranks from patrol officer, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, to my current rank of captain.
All of my promotions have been achieved via competitive testing including a comprehensive skills assessment center.
I have either supervised or commanded every major division within my department, and I am currently assigned as Administrative Captain.
Some of my duties include aspects of the development and administration of budgets, the planning and development of operations and programs, emergency operations planning, policy writing, and internal affairs investigations; therefore, I feel qualified to offer my opinion on the chief’s restructuring plan.
In short, the chief’s plan of restructuring is appalling.
The plan gives pay raises to individuals by way of job title changes without a commensurate change of duties.
Additionally, these “promotions” come without a legitimate testing process, a probationary period, or a performance-based contract.
Even more troubling, is that the restructuring did absolutely nothing to address the department’s two major problems, which are the number of officers absent from police duties, and overtime expense issues. The plan has major short-comings likely due to a lack of a complete townwide needs-based assessment and subsequent cost-analysis, which should be the “cornerstone” of any restructuring plan.
With this restructuring, which does not “bolster” the supervision as the chief claims, why wasn’t a light duty policy negotiated as part of the plan? A light duty policy could have saved the department thousands of taxpayer dollars last year alone by assigning “recovering” injured officers to desk/dispatch duties.
As part of the restructuring, why weren’t civilian dispatching or information technology support systems examined?
Again, with the potential to reduce costs, specifically overtime, by reassigning officers from these duties back to field duties. Furthermore, the much needed School Resource position and Community Policing position could have been immediately fulfilled with these changes.
Taken as a whole, the Chief’s plan fails to include the formulation of new programs or initiatives of substance that enhance public safety or fiscal responsibility, which should be based on contemporary law enforcement management and administration models, one of which being “Intelligence-Led Policing.”
One of the Chief’s primary concerns was “sergeant shopping.” While “sergeant shopping” is a problem in some departments, I have not seen a department restructured solely to eliminate this issue. Besides, to restructure a department to minimize “sergeant shopping” a squad rotation would have been required, and the Chief’s plan did not do this.
Actually, the problem is, or at least should be, minor in nature and handled at the sergeant’s level. As a rule, if a sergeant gives a directive to a patrol officer, and the officer seeks out another supervisor to countermand the directive without just cause, the officer has committed a policy violation.
Normally, the policy is titled “Obedience to Orders” and the steps of progressive discipline are taken against the offending officer. Again, “sergeant shopping” is handled with very basic first line supervision principles, yet Chief Metzler found it necessary to restructure an entire department, and create new ranks with substantial pay raises, to reduce the problem.
Additionally, the Chief’s solution to one problem could ultimately create a new problem where upward communication is severely filtered or non-existent due to perceived rank disparity.
Chief Metzler claims the restructuring is cost-effective because it eliminates the positions of Captain, Lieutenant, and Detective Sergeant.
The position of Captain was “zeroed out,” or otherwise unfunded and already eliminated, during Fiscal Year 13 – 14, and a mere portion was added and approved for a temporary acting Lieutenant. The Captain’s salary line was again requested for the upcoming Fiscal Year 14 – 15, but it has not been approved by the Board of Finance, and by our budget referendum. In reality, the plan simply converts the currently funded positions of Lieutenant, Detective Sergeant, and three (3) Sergeants to the more costly positions of Deputy Chief, Inspector, and three (3) Commanders, while also giving the three(3) remaining Sergeants a pay increase.
This is not money well spent, as nothing has been done to augment supervision, other than only title changes.
Overall, the chief’s plan appears hastily ill-conceived, with the primary concern of rewarding a select few with pay raises and potentially other costly benefits such as “take home” vehicles. The chief’s plan will eventually cause wage compression and expansion at the highest ranks, so instead of “bolstering” supervision, the plan will “bolster” the payroll and a certain future retirement benefit, which perhaps is the true goal of this restructuring plan.
The BOPC “rubber-stamping” this plan is yet another example of gross mismanagement and dereliction of elected duties.
With this in mind, I have decided to step down from the BOPC for both personal and professional reasons, as I feel it is not ethical for me to be part of this process.
Seymour residents should voice their opposition to this plan by contacting their elected officials, and be wary as they cast their vote in the upcoming budget referendum.
