The taxpayers of Culver City should take notice of what Sheriff Sandra Hutchins of Orange County is doing with her proposed $20.5 million in cuts to the Sheriff’s Department Budget.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Sheriff Hutchins proposes cutting half of her Assistant Sheriff positions and almost half of her Captain positions.
I can’t believe a law enforcement agency is going to cut command level positions. Let in me quote Sheriff Hutchins because I could not believe what I was reading.
She said she was trying to avoid cutting “someone directly providing public safety services.”
What a novel approach — what about Culver City cutting positions that do not directly provide public safety services.
Wait a minute, Culver City. How will we get the taxpayers to support a higher Utility User Tax unless we scare them into believing that you are cutting public safety services.
In 2006, the No. 1 budget cut agreed to by the majority of the rank and file of the Culver City Police Dept. was the Assistant Chief position.
Elimination of this position would have the least impact on public safety of any position on the department, yet it would yield the greatest savings for the city.
Scoring a Big Save
The Acting Police Chief at the time (Assistant Chief) returned from a City Hall meeting with then-CAO Jerry Fulwood. He reported that the Assistant Chief’s slot had been saved.
Instead we were going to cut jailers, Community Service Officers, and a police sergeant. When we asked why, we were told that this was what Mr. Fulwood wanted.
No one knows why these decisions were made in 2006, except the people involved in those decisions, and they are all retired now.
What we do know is that cutting jailers and Community Service Officers requires police officers on patrol in your neighborhood, to come into the station and perform those duties.
That is a direct cut to public safety services and it could affect the response time to you emergency call.
What about the Assistant Chief position?
No impact on public safety at all.
Could the department survive and be effective without an Assistant Chief? If we had cut the Assistant Chief, that only leaves two captains and a Chief of Police.
Will the Police Dept. still be able to function and deliver public safety services to the citizens of Culver City?
Why don’t you ask City Manager Mark Scott how Beverly Hills has done it all of these years?
Or ask Chief Don Pedersen how the city of Hawthorne or Signal Hill has done it?
Background and Context
Let me give taxpayers a short history of the last 30 years of the Culver City Police Dept.
How did we get the Assistant Chief position?
In 1976, Ted Cooke became the police chief after the previous his predecessor had been fired. The Assistant Chief at the time left the department when Chief Cooke arrived.
Chief Cooke told the City Council that a city our size did not need an Assistant Chief. In 1980, the California Supreme Court ordered the fired Assistant Chief to be reinstated at a rank no lower than Assistant Chief.
Chief Cooke was not happy with this situation. He made it clear that the position of Assistant Chief was a Captain with a title and 10 percent pay increase only.
When the Assistant Chief retired in 1986, Chief Cooke retained the position of Assistant Chief to boost the retirement pay of his police Captains by 10 percent before they retired.
That figure has now risen to a 25 percent retirement boost for Culver City police Captains (equating to an additional $40,000 per year in additional retirement income for each Captain).
Each Captain rotates into that position, according to who is closest to retirement.
The last Captain to retire from the department with the rank of Captain was in 1978.
Since that time, all other Captains have retired as Chief of Police or Assistant Chief.
When you look at the cost associated with this position in the budget, eliminating it would save $300,000 per year.
You could fund the animal control officer program and add jailers. Both positions free up police officers in the field to better serve the citizens of Culver City, and you save money.
I do not think that City Hall has been honest with the taxpayers of Culver City for years on the subject of public safety services, but I may be wrong.
Maybe taxpayers are aware of what’s going on and they are perfectly willing to pay the highest taxes in the state and sacrifice public safety services so a few can boost their retirement by $40,000 per year for life.
The cuts in Orange County are going to happen very soon, and they have to be effective. In Culver City, we always say we are going to make these cuts but we are going to do it through attrition. Culver City has people in positions that were cut 6 years ago — and the taxpayers are still paying.
Remember if you immediately cut the Assistant Chief position, you save $300,000 per year. Subsequent demotions will immediately fill that vacant police officer position at the bottom with an experienced police officer, and you will receive an immediate public safety benefit.
If you have to hire from the bottom, it is 6 months to a year, before you have a police officer on the street.
The taxpayers of Orange County have asked the Sheriff to do more with less, and she is going to do it.
I think the taxpayers of Culver City are going to be asked to accept fewer services but pay more taxes.
Mark Scott, this sacred cow would be good at a Culver City Taxpayers BBQ.
Mr. Smith, a retired police officer, may be contacted at scsinternationalinvestigations.com
