+++++++ one million. Aside from the social aspect of having police live in
your city is an economic one: Oakland is poor, it's cant afford to be
sending money to other cities in the form of high salaries. The $200,000
cops make should be taxed here and spent here.
I'm from Philadelphia where no city employees are allowed to live outside
the city. It used to be the case in CA that cities could make rules like
that, but now there is a state law prohibiting cities from doing that !!
State law or no, the city could maybe decide to prioritize hiring and
promoting candidates that live in Oakland. Idk if that is illegal.
On Monday, May 13, 2013, Andrew wrote:
Given OPDs record, I don't think adding more
police will solve anything.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_23151173/oakland-police-too-q…
What we need is a residency requirement In order to work for the Oakland
Police Department you need to live in Oakland. You can even live in the
hills if you don't want to mingle with the common folk. But coming in to
work from Concord to try and police a community that struggles
with extreme poverty and broken social services is not right.
--Andrew
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
hey eddan and others who are following this, it would be great if we could
add details about the current situation with the police chief to the wiki:
http://oaklandwiki.org/Three_Police_Chiefs_in_Three_Days
- marina
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;wrote:
YOs-
It's well known in cog sci & experimental psych, that adverse scrutiny
causes a decline in many human performance measures. This should come as
no surprise: trying to accomplish any task becomes more difficult when
someone in the background is laughing at you, saying you can't do it,
finding fault, and ready to impose some kind of penalty for mistakes.
It's also the case in employment situations: employees who are under
adverse scrutiny tend to make more mistakes on the job. Some attention
that would otherwise be focused on the primary task, is diverted to being
aware of the boss who might suddenly impose a punishment.
So here we are in the robbery capital of America, with our police
department in a logical double-bind (damned if you do, damned if you don't)
between four conflicting demands:
a) stop the crime wave, b) but do it with 1/4 to 1/3 fewer officers than a
comparable-sized city should have, c) and don't go overboard on suspects,
d) all of this while we keep you under adverse scrutiny.
So is it any surprise that OPD isn't functioning as it should?
The first response of a culture with deep roots in puritanism is to assert
moral righteousness and seek to punish. This is true in our response to
crime, and it's also true in our response to police misconduct and other
faults of LE agencies. These dynamics can become more extreme when their
underlying causes are more extreme: Oakland has a long history as a violent
town, and America has a long history as a violent culture. Our popular
entertainment ceaselessly offers up a river of gore for our "viewing
pleasure."
So, a few modest proposals:
One:
A major source of crime is in systematic denial of opportunity to urban
youth, beginning with inadequate education, followed by no access to
college, systemic unemployment, and no opportunities for small business
start-ups. What's needed here is reform on all three fronts.
One thing that can be done from the community level, is microenterprise
development: helping people get started in small business that employ a up
to a half dozen people. Very often this takes relatively little capital,
but much hands-on to educate people who are seeking to start
microenterprises, and work with them over time to help them succeed. When
it succeeds, it has a multiplier effect: it also attracts conventional
capital to an area, as a "good bet" for more conventional small business
startups.
Two:
The fact that Oakland needs to hire approx. another 200 officers, is also
an opportunity for a culture change at OPD. An incentive structure should
be put in place to hire officers who have 4-year college degrees in any
field that's even remotely relevant, including history and the social
sciences. The same incentives should be offered to current employees of
OPD: including payment of tuition as well as higher pay upon completion of
a 4-year degree.
If that sounds unrealistic, add up the cost of the crime itself, and
compare to the cost of a college-educated police department.
There's one other change that might bring in more candidates from
backgrounds that are more suitable to the realities of the Bay Area. This
is going to sound like a liberal stereotype, but none the less the
reasoning is sound:
At present, OPD rejects any applicant with a history of illegal drug use,
and fires any employee who tests positive for illegal drugs.
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com