LANCissues.org
- the website
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The
Citywide Issues Group
for
citywide and regional issues
facing LA's Neighborhood Councils
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 |
Here's
one of our current issues:
Losing the Services of our Park Rangers
Please consider putting this major LA City Parks safety issue on
upcoming NC agenda(s).
NOTE: Click here for Report
on Meetings being held
Losing the services our Park Rangers provide on January 9, 2005
due to the City's current consolidation plan is unacceptable, and
yet no one seems to know this is even happening. Consider 'agendizing'
this issue ASAP, and ask the Park Rangers to send a representative
to explain what the most current form of the consolidation plan
means with respect to their services for the public. (the best way
to request a Ranger is to email the head ranger, Capt. Albert Torres,
at atorres@rap.lacity.org )
In a special meeting of the RAP Board of Commissioners Sept 1st
2004, Commissioner Roos said that if there are to be any changes
in this plan, it needs to come from the LA City Council itself.
He encouraged all concerned citizens to address their council members
ASAP. NCs need to make their voices heard. Currently, only three
have been very involved in the process (Greater Griffith Park, Foothill
Trails District, Echo-Elysian Park). All are extremely concerned
with the loss of park service this plan represents.
The point is:
1. to bring the Consolidation Process to the attention of NCs.
their
input can make sure any consolidation takes into consideration
as many concerns as possible. Also, there are many professionals
in NCs who can make educated and informed contributions to
the process. |
2. lessen the number of times the new entity needs to be restructured
in the future.
|
I
have pointed out some of the major problems if it goes through
AS WRITTEN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Public input NOW will definitely
help move it in the best direction possible before it is implemented. |
Again, please consider agendizing this issue if you haven't already.
Links
to the Feasibility Study and the most current Consolidation Plan
texts are at the end of this article.
Kristin Sabo
ksabo@wildwildwest.org
(please
see article and info forwarded below)
Planned
City Security Consolidation Means
Loss of Public Service and Safety in Our Parks
by Kristin C. Sabo
Stakeholder and ex-VP: FTDNC
PROS Committee member: GGPNC
Longtime LA City Parks volunteer
September 7, 2004
Poor planning and a frenzied timeline for a proposed consolidation
of all non-LAPD Security Officers within the City by January 2005
could mean a loss of public safety and services for City of Los
Angeles park patrons.
Intended as a method of cost-saving and bureaucratic streamlining
during a time of financial difficulty for the City, three members
of the LA City Council proposed a consolidation of all Los Angeles
non-LAPD law enforcement personnel in early 2004. Since the Mayor's
endorsement in March, the City has been quietly slamming this inadequately
researched proposal through the system.
The Consolidation Proposal:
According to the City's feasibility study dated April 4th 2004,
there are 280.5 full-time budgeted security positions outside of
the LAPD within the following City agencies collectively:
• General Services
• Recreation and Parks
• Library
• Convention Center
• Zoo
• El Pueblo Historic monuments
• Community Redevelopment Agency
The total cost annually for these positions is approximately $18.5
million with another $4 million tied up in contracting other part-time
security staff.
In the proposed consolidation, the Department of General Services
would become the blanket agency for all non-LAPD security officers.
The enforcement officers who would be absorbed are:
• Security staff and contractors used by General Services
• Library Security Officers
• Zoo Security Officers
• El Pueblo and Community Redevelopment Security
• Park Rangers who have peace officer status
The main supposition of the study is that pooling these officers
will result in a net cost and bureaucratic reduction while providing
a faster, more efficient response to incidents throughout the City
that require a security officer. A fringe benefit stated verbally
by a city official is that the City Council apparently feels General
Services is better equipped to handle having their officers armed
than Recreation and Parks. The fact that General Services did not
have an official operating manual for at least some if not all of
their security forces until they borrowed one from Recreation and
Parks a few weeks ago seems to represent an unsettling contradiction
with respect to this feeling.
At first reading, the feasibility study's major conclusions appear
to support going forward with proposal. According to the document,
consolidation of these groups would yield an annual cost savings
of between $300,000 and $900,000 (1.6% to 5%) and a net reduction
of 17.5 positions city-wide.
Fundamental to these findings, the study assumes a basic similarity
in the hierarchal structure and function within each individual
agency's security division. Unfortunately, the fundamental assumption
fails in at least one case -- the Park Rangers. In fact, the feasibility
study itself actually acknowledges these notable differences. All
of the officers in the proposed consolidation are addressed equally
with this exception, and a full section is dedicated solely to the
Rangers' differing organization and job duties, while suggesting
methods to successfully integrate them.
In spite of the difficulty of integrating the Park Rangers, doing
so is a fundamental requirement for the consolidation to happen.
Quote: "a consolidation effort that does not include a patrol section
staffed largely by Park Ranger positions would not result in significant
savings of increased service levels."
The final assessment of the feasibility study is, quote: "Although
the savings from consolidating security services are not likely
to be large, significant improvements in services are anticipated,
therefore consolidation is anticipated to be beneficial to the City
overall."
To summarize, the feasibility study concludes that the proposed
consolidation:
• yields a monetary savings of $300,000 - $900,000 (1.6% to
5%) annually
• cuts 17.5 positions
• there will be an increase in public service levels City-wide
• integrating the Park Rangers is absolutely required to achieve
these benefits
The Effects of Inadequate Planning:
Unfortunately for Los Angeles parks patrons, there are a number
of potential problems with including the Park Rangers in the consolidation
that are not sufficiently addressed in either the Feasibility Study
or the General Services plan for consolidation (released August
12th):
#1. Overall City-wide, there may be an increase in response,
but the park-going public will definitely be losing public safety
service.
Discussion:
The proposed consolidation creates a potential lack of ability of
the closest General Services officer to effectively respond to specific
landmarks within large parks or recreation areas (ex: Hansen Dam,
Griffith Park, Elysian Park, Sepulveda Basin). "effectively respond
to" = knowing exactly where the landmark is, and having the proper
equipment on hand to reach it.
In many cases, locations within these large parks require very detailed
knowledge of the area and possibly a four-wheel drive vehicle to
get there. Examples of such locations: Dante's View, the water fountain
on Skyline, the bridge on Razorback, Amir's Garden, Captain's Roost
(Griffith Park) the boulder pile, the toll road, the little lake
(Hansen Dam). Although with a consolidation, there will definitely
be more General Services officers to respond, will each one of the
individuals who worked in areas other than Recreation & Parks before
the consolidation take the extra time to learn the details of all
these interior park locations? And will all of them be driving four-wheel
drive vehicles when a call comes in?
The response the public will receive to an emergency in locations
within areas such as Hansen Dam or Griffith Park would basically
become a numbers game. When you make an emergency call, will you
be lucky to have a former Park Ranger be the closest to respond?
#2. Park Rangers who are peace officers become general services
peace officers if they go through the training. They are no longer
Park Rangers. Those who choose to remain with Recreation and Parks
and to not go through the training are stripped of their peace officer
duties.
Discussion:
The General Services report of Aug. 12, 2004 states that former
Park Rangers will be assigned to parks preferentially, but the claim
does not make sense in terms of the overall reasons behind a consolidation
(consolidate = streamline, "one-size fits all", if you will…), while
no concrete methodology for this assertion has been presented. It
is only said that it will happen. If the above will indeed be the
case, then why consolidate Park Rangers at all? Possibly because
by the Feasibility Study's own admission, a case for consolidation
cannot be made without absorbing the Park Rangers.
#3. Of those same Rangers, those who are firefighters and
become General Services officers will not have any fire-fighting
response through General Services. We lose these firefighters.
Discussion:
In 2004 alone, these very Rangers played a major role in saving
Amir's Garden, the Boys' Camp, and the rest of Griffith Park from
two very dangerous fires this summer (July 12 & 14). During the
windy, hot days and nights that followed, they were on site, continuously
monitoring the area while it was still hot and susceptible to re-ignition.
These Rangers also played a major role in quickly knocking out the
Hansen Dam fire before nightfall just a week later.
According to a source within Recreation and Parks, recent consolidation
discussions began to address this issue. Talk is of having General
Services officers in the new system begin firefighting training.
An estimated timeframe for this department to start officially handling
fire response is three years from Jan 2005. But again, this is just
discussion, and even if it were to go though, there will be approximately
a three-year lag in fire response while new officers are trained.
#4. There are many major issues in this consolidation with
respect to the Senior Rangers and the service they currently provide
(and will provide):
Discussion:
A City Council member assured the Park Rangers that (paraphrased)
'no one would get hurt in the consolidation and that all would be
able to do their same jobs'. However, in reading the feasibility
study and the General Services report that was just released, in
comparing General Services to Recreation and Parks, and in discussion
with a number of knowledgeable Park Rangers, the following issues
are not reasonably acknowledged or addressed:
Senior Park Rangers with peace officer status must meet the qualifications
of special officer in order to work in General Services. That includes
a full post-Peace Officer Standards and Training accreditation.
With one exception, all current Rangers need to take additional
training in order to qualify for a job which has less complex duties
yet has a higher salary. The new position will not entail many of
the current responsibilities of Senior Park Rangers (supervising
staff, directing response, and patrol of Park Rangers, etc.)
Senior
Park Rangers who are peace officers (5 of 7 total) will lose their
proprietary rights to their current positions and their "promote-ability":
if they stay in Recreation and Parks, the proposal will strip their
peace officer status. If they go to General Services (assuming they
complete the training within the required time frame and pass the
one-time exam being offered), they are in a much larger pool in
a department where much of their personal work experience that makes
them promotion candidates in Recreation and Parks is tangential
or unrelated to the new department.
Senior
Rangers have knowledge, experience, and education in community-based
policing. Apparently, General Services Supervisors (the roughly-analogous
position in General Services) do not.
Quoting
one Ranger, if the consolidation goes forward, Park Rangers will
" not be able to develop (their) interest, knowledge, and experience
in working on Park-related (issues) in Los Angeles."
Apparently
the Park Rangers currently have a Memorandum of Understanding with
the LAPD, while General Services does not. This will definitely
change the effectiveness of the interaction between the LAPD and
whoever will be responding to LA City Park calls after the consolidation
has occurred. The August 12, 2004 General Services report states
that General Services will pursue a MOU with LAPD. Shouldn't this
be in place before any plan is implemented?
These are just some of the issues the public needs to be aware of
with respect to the consolidation proposal. There are probably many
more, especially if analyzed by people who are more familiar with
any of the other agencies being consolidated, but as far as the
consolidation of our LA City Park Rangers is concerned, #1 above
should be enough to cause any LA City park patron to take a very
hard look at this proposal.
Overall, the City has failed to adequately study the consolidation
before attempting to implement it. With their current vague proposal,
the cost-benefit ratio of the consolidation proposal is much greater
than unity and represents a definite threat to public safety in
Los Angeles City parks. As to why the City continues to move forward
at such speed such a poor plan remains a mystery, but via their
actions, they have definitely made it clear that without extensive
public input they will push this through despite significant problems.
In a special meeting of the RAP Board of Commissioners Sept 1st
2004, Commissioner Roos said that if there are to be any changes
in this plan, it needs to come from the LA City Council itself.
He encouraged concerned citizens to address their council members
ASAP.
Please read the reports identified in this article and contact your
local city officials ASAP with your own opinion on their current
consolidation plan…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kristin
Sabo
ksabo@wildwildwest.org
|
|
|
