|
Casie Pierce
Mike Perry 10/4
Calie Stephens
Chief Kunkle's Letter
Judd Bradbury 10/01
Gary Turner 9/27
Judd Bradbury 9/26
Rad Field 9/26
Gary Turner 9/24
| |
10/03/05 Battle is
causing Great Angst and Distrust
It's been a long time since I've gotten so many calls and e-mails on a subject
from all over Dallas, but this Verified Response issue has got a lot of people
really charged up, and I'm one of them.
|
When I first heard about it, my immediate response was "NO, it would be better
to raise the permit fee and dedicate that additional money to new police hires."
My opposition to Verified Response (VR) is primarily selfish, since I don't even
have an alarm system. My opposition is because I do not want a bunch of
rent-a-cops who can't qualify to be DPD police officers prowling around my
neighborhood with guns while trying verify a burglar alarm.
|
|
|
 |
10/05/05 Stan Aten:
The most appropriate way to describe the
DPD numbers re: verified response is to use that famous computer term
"GIGO". Garbage in Garbage out. |
|
The
Chief's assumption is officers responding to a
call are only productive 4.4 hours a day. However,
when he eliminates responding to alarms, suddenly
his officers are working 8 hours a day, 52 weeks a
year. That is how the city gets new 41 officers.
However, that assumes no downtime, no vacation and no burglaries.
In other words
"GIGO". |
Somebody's going to get shot, and I don't want it to be me or my dogs, or my
neighbors or their kids or their dogs.
 |
Battle brewing over
alarm policy;
Dallas: Sides working
to get word out on 'verified response' plan
Tuesday,
October 4, 2005 By JASON TRAHAN / The
Dallas Morning News
|
... In a Sept. 28 letter sent to 75,000 alarm
permit holders, Chief David Kunkle lays out the basic argument in favor of
verified response: In Dallas, more than 97 percent of alarms are false, and
sending police to homes and businesses only after an alarm has been
"verified" by a neighbor or a security guard working for the alarm company
is a better use of police resources.
... "You will likely receive information from your
alarm company opposing this policy," the chief's letter states. "This
proposed policy will benefit you. ... You are encouraged to attend [the
public hearing next week] and voice your support for verified response."
Chief Kunkle said the letter was sent
to comply with a new state law mandating that cities thinking of changing
their burglar alarm ordinance inform residents of a hearing to debate the
topic.
"We chose to take an advocacy
position," the chief said. "The letter was reviewed by the city attorney's
office. Whether it's politically inappropriate, people can argue that, but
legally, it's sound.
... "What struck me as unusual was that the police
chief was allowed to send out the letter and to have him put his
endorsement, his signature, on it," Mr. Russell said. "This hasn't gone
before a vote before the council. I hope that they're
all still receptive to all points of view on this."
A national policing expert said that
advocating a policy change that directly affects the police department falls
well within Chief Kunkle's job responsibilities.
... Chief Kunkle has seen how quickly negative
public sentiment can sink verified response. In 2002, he was a deputy city
manger in Arlington when the alarm industry and city leaders squared off.
Eventually, enough homeowners communicated their worries that crime would
soar if police stopped answering burglar alarms, and council members voted
down the measure.
... "It gave the council the opportunity to
decide," said Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck, of Chief Bowman's attitude at
the time.
Dr. Cluck was a City Council member
during the 2002 debate and opposed the measure.
"The council didn't even get close.
I didn't know how to tell taxpaying citizens, 'We're
not going to your house unless we see a crime taking place.' "
... |
That said, my friend Chief Kunkle has mailed out a letter to alarm service
subscribers on City of Dallas letterhead that has blown the lid off the
controversy and started a whole new one that has his head in the target ring.
See Chief Kunkle's
letter.
|
10/03
Officer CS:
Chief Kunkle's letter is required
by statute:
Local Government
Code, Section 241.194 Municipal Permit Fee Generally (SB 568) section (6)
"a city may not adopt a non-response policy unless it attempts to notify
permit holders and conducts a public hearing; "
DPD would rather have not sent the
letter, as it had to stuff 75,000 envelopes.
Light-duty employees were pulled from all
over the department to complete the task.
They may be
still stuffing envelopes.
VR is a touchy subject. However, as
a non-alarm covered citizen, you absorb the cost and
keep user's alarm service fees low. Citizens are buying a private
service that requires a
tax-payer funded response. What
other industry can boast this setup?
Your tax dollars subsidize the alarm service of
other citizens.
Armed security guards on public
streets are illegal. Don't buy the
propaganda of "armed rent-a-cops" prowling your neighborhood.
Should a DPD Officer find an
armed security guard outside your house, the security guard would be taken
to jail for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon.
***
VR does not mean police will wait
for a private security guard to tell us there is an actual offense.
The security company will
call 911 and report a burglary
like they do now. Then
the police dispatcher broadcasts the alarm
location as an unverified alarm. Any officer in the area
can drive by
the location to check it out. That doesn't guarantee a response by an
officer, but it doesn't keep officers in the dark until verification
can be made.
A burglar alarm is likely to hold
for 20 or more minutes prior to dispatch; add
travel time and an officer may not arrive until 30 to 45 minutes after the
alarm is tripped. Private security has been shown to get there much
faster, within 12 to 15 minutes.
The City of Dallas cannot raise the
residential burglar alarm permit fee beyond $50 by State Law. In fact,
it's the same State Law I quoted above.
***
Mitchell Rasansky says he doesn't
want to pay more for his alarm service. Should
other citizens continue to subsidize his alarm system
to keep
his costs low? He
says he doesn't want people hurt because police
are not coming; he'd rather spend the money on police. The
paradox is he
won't spend money so he doesn't have to spend money? Police won't get there any faster if a crime is actually
being committed. Under the current system, they get there slower
because they're off answering false alarms
instead of his actual burglary.
The argument is being
made DPD should just hire more officers. We're
trying, but finding qualified candidates
is not easy. Even if we could fill every academy class to its maximum
capacity, the DPD doesn't have the resources to
train more than 80 officers a year. Training
takes skill, experience and rank. There
are not enough trainers to go around. Doubling up, or putting two rookies
with a single trainer, is not an option.
There's a lot
of hype on both sides. VR can work and does
work. I'm not sure where Calie Stephens
got his figures. They don't jive with the figures I have. Of course, I
have raw data and not the filtered version.
|
Editor's
response:
***Casie
Pierce and Rad Field dispute Officer CS's statement regarding
illegality of private security to be armed. It is my understanding the $50
limit only kicks in AFTER a city goes VR. But, if it takes legislation to
increase the $50 fee, the city
should have been lobbying for that while the Legislation was in session. I
am glad to get this explanation of the letter, but I can tell you the City
Manager must not know about the statute Officer CS cites. I just can't
disclose how I know.
We will get back to the letter, but Gary Turner has found a very important web
link about the disenchantment in Los Angeles with VR and why they are going a
different direction now.
Los Angeles Rejects Verified Response, Adopts
Balanced Alarm Response Policy.
Judd Bradbury, a member of the Commission on Productivity & Innovation, has
furnished new data to support VR, including a memorandum from Chief Kunkle.
See Judd Bradbury 10/1.
It is important to read all of this information. It is also important to
know that some of the opponents to VR are in the security alarm business.
That does not make them dishonest, it makes them concerned and knowledgeable.
Below is a letter from Calie Stephens who publishes DallasCrime.com. He's
in the burglar alarm business, and he is the same guy who first blew the lid off
of Dallas' 7-year reign as the nation's crime capital.
To: Honorable Mayor Miller and Dallas
City Council
SUBJECT: Dallas Verified Response Commission - A
Bit "Wet" on Crime Statistics
Reference: Response to Commission Member Larry Davis
(shown below) : Prepared By Calie Stephens
Hello Honorable Mayor Miller and City Council Members:
We in the "field" are getting letters from Chief Kunkle telling us how great
Verified Response will be for Dallas, and how great it is for other
cities... WHOooo THEreeee.!!!
Please read some results from FBI figures below and ask the commission where
they are coming up with all the blather.
This is my response to Larry
Davis' response to Rad Field's inquiries:
What in the world are you talking
about?
In Las Vegas, a city similar in size to Dallas that has implemented
verification, actual burglaries are UP 41.1 % and burglaries per capita are
UP 32.2% from 2001 to 2004 according to the FBI UCR stats. Actual total
crime increased 36.6% and total crime per capita increased 28.4%.
In Salt Lake City, a city that implemented verification in 2001, actual
burglaries are UP 6.5% and burglaries per capita are UP 6.9% from 2001 to
2004. Actual total crime increased 7.1% and total crime per capita
increased 7.5%.
Both cities show increases in total crime AND burglary well above the
national average. Is the purpose of verification to save money or reduce
crime?
You stated that burglaries went down in most major cities that implemented
verification. THAT IS NOT TRUE.
You said that none of you on the commission are experts.....THAT
IS TRUE.
If your commission studied this issue for nine months as you said and don't
even know fundamental facts like the above, the city is wasting the
taxpayer's money on your services. The city could better spend their money
hiring more cops, not paying for your unbelievable recommendations.
Calie Stephens, Editor -
www.dallascrime.com |
Back to Chief Kunkle's letter.
Editor's response: With the information
from Officer CS, I stand by my trust and respect for Chief Kunkle, but I also
stand by my concern about the letter. Had his letter mentioned that its
mailing was required by State statute, much of the outrage and "trouble" would
have been avoided. People don't like the idea of a top level city employee
using city letterhead to promote a pet project. So, continue on.
| I
just got a letter today from the Chief of Police promoting "Verified
Response". I did not think city employees could do this
at taxpayers' expense. I am not sure about
this policy. This letter troubles me. |
It troubles a lot of us.
Even if I agreed with Chief Kunkle regarding VR, I would be alarmed with any
city official, using city letterhead to promote an issue. No doubt his
supervisor, Mary Suhm, was consulted before the letter went out, but it was
Chief Kunkle's signature on the letter. That's what the recipients are
going to remember. Since the letter only went out to people who have city
permits for their security alarm systems, it was like wearing a red suit in a
field full of bulls. I mean the e-mails are flying.
I trust and respect DPD Chief Kunkle, that does not mean that he is infallible.
He is really wrong on this issue, and he has alienated a lot of people who want
him to succeed as our Chief of Police.
It just does not make sense for the city to give up over $4 million in permit
fees while they gamble on VR. It doesn't make sense for DPD officers to be
delayed responding to a burglar alarm while a rent-a-cop wastes valuable time
checking out the call.
I don't care if a burglar gets in and out before the officer gets there. I
want the police officer there in case it was not a burglar who tripped the
system, but a bad guy doing bad things to a Dallas taxpayer who thought she
could count on the DPD to come to her rescue.
I don't care if DPD officers will respond to "panic button" alarms without VR.
What if a woman cannot get to the "panic button" and a bad guy is already in her
home? By the time the alarm company has sent out a rent-a-cop, she could
have been violated and murdered and the culprit off to destroy someone else.
If the DPD doesn't want to protect our homes and persons, maybe this is another
job we can turn over to County Constables. Constable Mike Dupree is
already the number one traffic cop for Northwest Dallas. His men are
everywhere and really making a dent in speeding and bad driving in my part of
town. I can tell you we love the guy.
If I can't have a real DPD officer carrying a gun in my neighborhood in response
to a burglar alarm, I will settle for a real Constable. I do not want a
rent-a-cop packing as he prowls around my neighbor's house after an alarm has
gone off.
Chief Kunkle's letter asks the recipients to call their council representative
and ask them to support Verified Response. If that's the goal of the
letter, it was a colossal waste of somebody's money -- taxpayer or private.
From what we've heard, only Councilman Mitch Rasansky intends to vote against
Verified Response. The public hearing on October 12 will be a fraud and a
waste of anyone's time who bothers to go to City Hall to address the council on
VR.
That's what bothers me most about Chief Kunkle's letter. It wasn't
necessary, and has caused a great deal of ill will toward him. Several
question the legality of the letter because it went out on city letterhead.
Since there was no disclaimer on the letter stating that some group had funded
the printing and mailing costs, people assume it was done at taxpayer expense.
One former council member says the issue mailing is illegal.
Whether it is or isn't technically illegal, it certainly is questionable.
If some group did pay for the letter's printing and mailing expense, is that
legal or ethical? What if the Park Cities Cabal had mailed out letters in
support of Blackwood's proposal on city letterhead? What if some council
member sends out a campaign piece on city letterhead?
This is not a political issue even though the council will have to vote on
Verified Response, but is it right for the Chief of Police to send out a letter
encouraging citizens to contact their council representative in support of VR?
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that this letter was not the sole
product of Chief Kunkle. There's no way a man with his public service
experience would not have consulted his supervisor before sticking his neck out
like this.
What you should do, call your council representative and ask them to vote
against VR. They probably won't give you a straight answer unless you live
in District 13, represented by Mitch Rasansky.
If I had any doubts about Verified Response, I am now completely opposed to
the concept.
sb
| |
|
