ecomments_export 07052022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Accountability, staff Wellness and Safety programs, and liaison to the Community Police Review Board all seem to appropriately reinforce key priorities for the Dept. But clearly the police staffing issues highlighted in the Chief's presentation merit concern and require action. So here are my questions: 1. WHY does SLPD have such a high % of sworn officers on disability leave (12 out of 90 authorized positions) compared to other area departments, causing us to have the highest % of non-deployable officers in Alameda County? Does that raise questions about the efficacy of the Dept.'s employee wellness and return-to-work programs? How much of this is due to stress related to understaffing - and if so, how do we break the cycle? 2. WHY is the SLPD sworn officer vacancy rate (22 of 90 positions) so high? Do we know why SLPD officers are leaving and why applicants may be accepting offers elsewhere? Do we know why San Leandro in particular is faring poorly in the labor market? What is needed beyond monetary compensation? 3. WHAT needs to be done, beyond compensation and PR, to enhance public recognition and improve officer morale, without compromising the call for greater accountability? 4. HOW does all this factor into the already commissioned independent police staffing study? Shouldn’t their analysis help address some of these questions and help come up with more long-term solutions than a short- term retention bonus plan might be expected to achieve? Thank you. Agenda Item: eComments for 12.b. 22-427 Adopt a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Memorandum of Understanding Side Letter Agreements with the San Leandro Police Officers' Association (SLPOA), San Leandro Police Management Association (SLPMA) and San Leandro City Employees Association (SLCEA) to Facilitate a Staffing Retention and Resiliency Program Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 5:20pm 07-01-22 Hi, I am Bob Bailey, long time resident of District 5 Regarding the proposed $1.16 M retention bonus program to address PD's high vacancy rate and staff retention problems: I acknowledge that the PD's current staffing problems are significant. Understaffing can adversely impact officers' health and safety as well as public safety (both real and/or perceived), and a retention bonus plan may be helpful. But I believe there are a number of questions the Council ought to consider: 1. The City Manager proposal makes any officer who has been suspended for disciplinary action in the past two years ineligible. Given our ongoing need to hold officers accountable, should that period be longer? 2. In the interests of fairness, should those who have received disciplinary action short of suspension in the same period still be eligible for the full benefit (vs. other officers with "clean" records)?