The Meltdown - Part 2 (The Response That Wasn't)

Yesterday we looked at Councilman Robinson’s public meltdown on the pages of The Patch and we saw his promises to justify his allegations that I was lying. Because he was being seriously battered on The Patch by their readers, Robinson chose to go to a “safer” place – his own Facebook page, where he anticipated the criticism would be less harsh. The excuse he used was that his discussion on The Patch would violate a provision of the Brown Act (specifically, that 3 members of the Council are not allowed to discuss an issue outside the Council chambers). If that were true, he should have thought of that before he began his discussion. Continuing the discussion would no more violate the Act than he had already done. In any case, only Councilman Robinson and I were debating the issue, so there was no violation of the Brown Act by either of us. Councilman Robinson accused “LF Legal Eagle” of being Adam Nick in disguise, and hence a violation of the Brown Act. Legal Eagle denied that he was Adam Nick and pointed out to Councilman Robinson that he (Legal Eagle) had been very critical of Councilman Nick in the past. In any event, if Legal Eagle were Adam Nick, the violation of the Brown Act would be by Adam Nick, not by Councilman Robinson or I. So the excuse by Council Robinson to withdraw from The Patch is not valid.

Below I’ve listed Robinson’s Facebook post. Don’t pay too much attention to the facts he lists, most of which are untrue, as I will refute them in my comments tomorrow. The rest are his opinions to which he is entitled. What you want to look for is his substantiation of the “lies, lies, and more lies” accusation he made earlier. I had expected him to go through the dozen or so facts I presented in my earlier article and show us where they were incorrect. For example, in the article I said (among other things) –

• · We would have Police services after July 1
• · We could exercise the two­ month extension
• · The City Manager mistakenly said that we would go on a month-to-month contract
• · Mayor Voigts refused to reconvene the subject after the break
• · The Police were getting about $75,000 per month extra as a result of the new contract
• · The Police budget is the largest single part of our budget.
• · The 3 cities in the North of OCSD had higher crime rates than the 10 cities in the South.
• · The City prides itself as a contract city.
• · More than 60% of our budget goes to contracts
• · Everyone on the Council calls themselves a “fiscal conservative”
• · The Council set a standard that we want 3 bids for every contract, but there were no bids on the Police contract.
• · The Council had recently set up an ad hoc committee to look at Investment income

etc. etc. All these comments from my article are capable of being put to the test to see whether or not I was correct, and if I was incorrect, did my mistake constitute a “lie”. Let’s see which of these comments he proves are lies, since this is what he promised to do.

For your edification I have put in bold those comments by Councilman Robinson that are untrue and the subject of my commentary tomorrow.

ROBINSON’S FACEBOOK COMMENT

Today is the day the Lake Forest’s Police Services contract with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department expires. At the June 16 meeting, my colleagues, Councilman Gardner and Council Nick voted against the Police Services contract that was before us and being that one of the council members was absent, the vote to approve the contract failed on a 2-2 vote.

Will Police Patrol Our Streets?

Does this mean we won’t have police patrolling the streets of Lake Forest tomorrow? No, it does not. After the vote was taken but while the meeting was still occurring, I asked the City Manager what a vote against the contract would actually mean in practicality. He stated that we would be without a contract but would likely have the option of a month-to-month contract assuming the Orange County Sheriff’s Department was interested in that arrangement. After the meeting, the City Attorney told Councilman Gardner and me that there is a 2 month extension provision in the expiring contract so we wouldn’t have to arrange a month-to-month contract situation until after August 31. I don’t believe Councilmen Gardner and Nick did not know about these possibilities prior to their vote…I believe they were playing politics with the safety of our community. In an extension or month-to-month situation, the Sheriff’s Department can decide that they will only provide essential services. They wouldn’t have to manage street closures during the 4th of July Parade, they wouldn’t have to provide a School Liaison Officer, a Homeless Liaison Officer, or staff the big Concert In The Park at Pittsford in late July. They will likely do all of these things but not because they are contracted to do so…because we are outside the confines of the contract now.

Playing Politics With Public Safety?

How were they playing politics with their vote? Councilmen Gardner and Nick wanted the City Council said they would not vote for the contract unless the City Council agreed to form an ad hoc committee to evaluate whether we could contract with other cities, form a JPA, or start our own police department . They did not present a budget for this committee and they did not explain what its specific charter or commission would be. They held up a vote on our public safety contract because they were using it as leverage to get what they wanted…that is the very definition of playing politics. All they said was that they wanted a two member committee to meet with a staff person and discuss options. They can already do this…which I explained that very night but they discounted my comments. The Brown Act precludes 3 council members from meeting together with each other or with staff to discuss a topic outside of a public forum and specific compliance requirements. Nothing precludes 2 council members from meeting with city staff to discuss options regarding any topic…including this one.

So here we are, no contract, hanging on via extension, and we will take another vote on this contract on July 21. Hopefully, they will come to their senses and realize that a contract is in the City’s best interest at this time.

Why did I not support forming an ad hoc committee at the June 16 meeting? Do I support competitive bids? Absolutely, I support competitive bids. Do I believe it is possible to get a competitive bid for police services from other cities? Absolutely not. Cities that have their own police departments spend well in excess of what Lake Forest spends. Irvine, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Tustin, and Orange are all examples of this. Additionally, the start up costs of forming a JPA (buildings, equipment, other infrastructure, and building a management team, etc., etc.) would be astronomically expensive.

Councilman Nick’s Math Was Wrong

In the meeting, Councilman Nick said Lake Forest pays $247 per resident for police services while Irvine pays $265 I assume Councilman Nick got these numbers from Councilman Gardner who has used them in the past). It is very easily to calculate the number per Lake Forest resident was completely incorrect. When I questioned the staff about the accuracy of these numbers, they said Councilman Nick’s numbers were inaccurate. When a member of the Finance Team for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department came to the microphone, opened her giant binder with all the data, and explained that Lake Forest pays $170 per resident and Irvine pays $325, Councilman Nick chuckled and told her that her numbers of $170 per Lake Forest resident could not be correct because Lake Forest has nearly 80,000 people and her numbers didn’t compute. At this point I got extremely frustrated because her numbers were spot on. I called Councilman Nick out on what was either an oversight or a deliberate act to deceive. He backed down and started looking at a calculator on his phone…presumably trying to figure out whether his number was correct or not. He never uttered another word about those numbers after that. Based on that fact that he was looking at a calculator, I do believe it was a serious mathematical mistake on his part and not an intentional effort to deceive. I think he was just using the figures Councilman Gardner had used in the past and he didn’t verify those numbers prior to presenting them.

Councilman Gardner And The Laguna Hills Study

Councilman Gardner used the recent Laguna Hills police services study as a reasoning why Lake Forest should form an ad hoc committee and potentially conduct a similar study. He said Laguna Hills saves hundreds of thousands of dollars based on what they gleaned from that study. I know the Laguna Hills council members. I know the reason for the study. And I know how they managed to save money. They were providing a disproportionate/non-reciprocal amount of services to the City of Laguna Woods which was not reimbursing Laguna Hills for said services. Laguna Hills used the study to show how much they were shortchanged and they rectified the situation post study. Lake Forest does not have this problem so we would not see those savings. And Lake Forest is very similar in demographics to Laguna Hills so we can and are using portions of their study for our own benefit. In fact, our own City Manager was asked by the City Manager of Laguna Hills to peer review the Laguna Hills study prior to its publication so our staff is very knowledgeable about what is in that study and whether there is anything Lake Forest can extract from it to improve levels of service or reduce costs.

Councilman Gardner Suggests Forming A JPA And More Math Problems

A JPA (Joint Powers Authority) is generally an organization made up of a group of municipalities to provide a service as a collective body. As an example, the Orange County Fire Authority is a JPA made up of more than 20 member cities. Councilman Gardner has suggested we could form a JPA with Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and he may have mentioned a few other cities but to be honest I don’t recall if he did or not. Councilman Gardner’s theory is that if enough cities band together, there might be a possibility of something making a JPA work. But even forming one with just south Orange County would be more expensive that what we are currently paying. Laguna Hills pays approximately $230 per resident, Mission Viejo pays approximately $180 per resident, and RSM pays about $160. Even putting aside all the start up costs, additionally needed infrastructure such as SWAT/Tactical, Helicopters, etc., etc., we are still paying less than the average cost of these 3. Bottom line…our costs would go up if we formed a JPA.

Councilman Gardner also suggested that if you take out the North OC cities who also contract (Villa Park, Stanton, and Yorba Linda) our costs would go down. Yorba Linda (population of approximately 70,000) pays about $130 per resident, Villa Park (less than 6,000 people pays $207 but very few people live there so it doesn’t affect your average much) and Stanton (with population of less than 40,000) pays $209 per capita. Councilman Gardner says the North pays more so leave them out of a JPA. Actually, the numbers say they would be an advantage to collectively associate with since they pay less than Lake Forest on average. Councilman Gardner’s JPA idea would cost us more, and what he doesn’t want to do (including the North County in a JPA) would cost less (again, discounting start up costs, economies of scale, etc). My problem is that my colleagues appear to be incapable of doing basic math and yet are trying to spin things like they know what they are talking about.

Try Contracting With Other Cities – Not Just Irvine

When you are looking for a plumber in Lake Forest, do you call one based in Anaheim, Westminster, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Tustin, etc.? I don’t…I realize their travel time alone would likely cause them to either not be interested in providing me service or their costs would logically be higher. I don’t ask them to bid because I know intuitively that they won’t be competitive. Same goes for police services. This is besides the fact that as I mentioned above that they all spend more per resident than Lake Forest.

As I mentioned above, Irvine pays $325 per resident to have their own police department. Lake Forest pays $170. Cities that have their own police departments all pay more than $170 per resident. Why? Economies of Scale…they don’t have it. Additionally, many are trying to provide a higher level of service…that means they have to pay a premium to lure away young cadets of current Deputy Sheriffs. That is what happens when a city forms its own police department. You do it because you want more control over the department, and/or to provide a higher level of service, and/or for public relations purposes…but you pay a premium.

Do they mean well? --- Why are they doing this?

Do Councilmen Gardner and Nick want to destroy our public safety program? I don’t believe they want to do that. Do they want to try to find a way to spend less? Probably. Although I recognize that they may just want us to have our own police force and not contract with OCSD…even if it costs more. Other cities have done that so it’s not beyond my imagination that they might want to do that as well. And Councilman Nick has definitely alluded to this theory…as recently as at the June 16 meeting.

To my knowledge, none of the council members have received contributions from the Deputy Sheriffs Association (DSA). And I don’t recall any of the council members being endorsed by the Sheriff or the DSA…but I could be wrong and I’m sure someone will point it out if I am. No independent expenditures have been made to support or oppose any of the current Council Members in the past. So, to think the argument regarding contributions for or against any council members has anything to do with this discussion is a red herring at best.

So What Should We Do To Control Costs?

The percentage of the budget that is spent on police services should be and is a concern to the Council and the City Staff. Percentages that have been thrown out have been spun one particular way but can be sliced and diced in a variety of ways…some that make more sense to bona fide finance personnel than others. I believe we should have a frank discussion about spending as an entire council…not just 2 individuals in some ad hoc fashion. We should discuss our opinions regarding percentages of the budget coupled with our service level expectations. We should discuss our thoughts regarding the use of technology, data mining, and statistical modeling, among other things. I am confident we will discuss these topics and many more surrounding this issue at the July 21 meeting. At that time, we can give direction to the staff regarding what new information, if any, we would like to receive to make educated decisions about this topic in the future. Rest assured, you will hear all my thoughts and I look forward to the discussion.

The following section was omitted as it had nothing to do with the issue and this article was getting way too long.

Tomorrow I’ll respond to the many errors in Councilman Robinson’s response. Instead of just throwing out numbers, I’ll tell you what they are, how they are calculated, where they come from, etc. This way you can independently verify and not rely on anyone else.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 3 pm to 5 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a mini town meeting every month. The next meeting will be on August 15 at 2 pm at the El Toro Public Library.

sNG~Ք