Note: A report regarding the context within which this report has been submitted to the Pine Mountain Club Property Owners Association Board can be read here. Below is the full committee report. At the end of this trport is Mar Preston’s statistical analysis of the resident survey.
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE PMC SECURITY DEPARTMENT
Rational for the Formation of the Citizen Review Committee
The Citizen review Committee was established as a result of concerns voiced by members of the PMC community, indicating that the Board of Directors was intending to significantly alter the operations of the Security Department. The PMC Board of Directors had arbitrarily removed the defensive weapons from the Security Officers.
The Board subsequently established a “Security Task Force,” comprised of 3-4 Board Members and one citizen, to address the serious concerns of numerous residents who were upset over the removal of the defensive weapons. The task force was hurriedly established in a manner which was not consistent with current established guidelines and therefore it was met by members of the community with some skepticism.
Therefore, several concerned members of the community who have varied backgrounds in law enforcement, established a Citizen Review Committee to review all aspects of the Security Department, while focusing on the liability issue. The independent review process was meant to provide a clear perspective of the operations of the Security Department, with some recommendations for future operations.
This report is intended to provide a clear non-political perspective related to the operations of the Security Department, with specific goals and recommendations.
Questionnaire sent to the PMC Board of Directors to Obtain Their Concerns
A questionnaire was sent to each member of the Board of Directors to obtain their specific concerns, in order of priority, relative to the operations of the Security Department. The surveys were designed to assist the Citizen Review Committee in ascertaining the problem areas which have become a concern of the board, and thereby focusing solely on their specific concerns. Unfortunately, they refused to participate in the survey.
Member Survey of the PMC Security Department
A survey was distributed to members of the PMC community in an attempt to obtain insight into the public’s perception of the Security Department and determine any concerns relative to their operation. With the assistance of the Board of Directors, the survey was posted on the PMC website where it could be downloaded.
A total of 70 surveys were returned. This is a significant amount of returned and completed surveys, when considering the traditional poor response from similar surveys which require more than a ”yes” or “no” answer.
The surveys were provided to independent statistical experts for their review, and a separate finding will be presented to the Board of directors, which is completely apart from this committee’s report.
Overall, the survey revealed that the overwhelming majority of residents supports the current operations of the Security Department and do not want any disruption in patrol services. Note: The surveys are available for review upon request.
Interacton of PMC Security with Outside Agencies
PMC is within the jurisdiction of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol.
An in-person meeting was conducted with representatives of both agencies to ascertain the working relationship between local law enforcement and members of the PMC Security Department.
—Kern County Sheriff’s Department
During the meeting with Sergeant Mark Brown of the Frazier Park Office of the Kern County Sheriff Department, he had high praise of the PMC Security Department.
Sergeant Brown voiced his appreciation of the crime suppression efforts provided by the high visibility patrol of the PMC area by the Security Department.
He advised that his department’s response time to PMC varied greatly dependent upon several factors including weather conditions and where the assigned unit is located when the radio call is received.
Obviously, if the patrol unit is in close proximity of PMC, the response time is greatly reduced. Unfortunately, on the vast majority of times, the assigned unit is patrolling in the Frazier Park/Lebec area.
Response time on an average is between 25-30 minutes, which is not reduced significantly in the event that lights and sirens are utilized. During periods of bad weather PMC is not patrolled unless there is a specific radio call necessitating a response. Statistical information relative to the types of radio calls and crime statistics within PMC were provided by Sergeant Brown. Note: See the Addendum portion of this report.
Sergeant Brown indicated that PMC Security is in most cases, the first responder, and a valuable asset. He stressed the importance of PMC Security to “Detect, Observe and Report” all instances which required the Sheriff’s response. On numerous occasions PMC Security has assisted the Sheriff’s Department with pertinent on-scene information relative to suspects and witnesses.
Additionally, PMC Security personnel have assisted at crime scenes and stood-by for the response of fire personnel, coroner and animal regulation, which allowed Sheriff personnel to clear the scene.
He encourages deputies to provide extra patrol in the PMC area when they are in the general area on calls for service.
Sergeant Brown had no negative comments relative to the PMC Security Department and made no recommendations for changes.
Sergeant Brown suggested that PMC Security personnel should attend classes on crime scene preservation. The suggestion was made, as PMC Security is oftentimes the first on scene, and it is vital that evidence is not disturbed and the scene remains intact pending the arrival of the Sheriffs. NOTE: Please see recommendation #6.
Sergeant Brown emphasized that the PMC Security Department supplemented his crime prevention efforts merely by their high visibility patrol which is a proven crime suppression method.
—California Highway Patrol
An in-person meeting was also conducted with the Watch Commander at the Fort Tejon Office of the California Highway Patrol, to obtain any insight as to their working relations with the PMC Security Department.
Sergeant Daryl Brooks indicated that the CHP has a good working relationship with PMC Security and they have successfully utilized security for traffic direction in the past. It is CHP policy to utilize civilian assistance during traffic collision investigations, for traffic control, should the incident necessitate such assistance.
He had no instances of negative incidents involving the PMC Security, and his impression of security has always been positive.
The CHP response time to PMC was discussed. There are significant delays in response to the PMC area, which are consistent with those experienced by the Sheriff’s Department. He acknowledged that PMC Security is on the scene of traffic collisions prior to the arrival of the CHP the vast majority of times, and their assistance in traffic control could very well prevent a secondary collision from occurring.
Sergeant Brooks suggested that the security personnel attend a traffic control class to hone their skills and become more aware of safety considerations. NOTE: Please see recommendation #6.
Insight Provided by Employees of the PMC Security Department
It should be noted that the Board of Directors prohibited the formal interview of PMC Security personnel, related to their employment. The prohibition was based on a premise that it was a personnel issue, which was confidential in nature. Despite the board’s stand relative to confidentiality, it is of utmost importance to have input from the concerned employees. The employee’s input would have been an essential ingredient in the effort to resolve the concerns which were raised by the board of directors regarding the operation of the security department. It was unfortunate that we were prohibited from speaking to anyone associated with the PMC Security Department.
1) As outlined in the current Standard Operating Procedures, there must be a stringent chain of command which restricts/eliminates a member of the board of directors, or any other prominent member of this community, from exerting his/her authority in the daily operations of the security department. This should constrain an individual from utilizing the security department to fulfill or enhance their own personal agendas. The Security Department should answer ONLY to the General Manager.
2) Due to the nature of security work, which is constantly under scrutiny, there should be a fair and reasonable review of any personnel complaints, by an independent body which is non-political in nature. Formal complaints should be accepted in a written form, which is specific, in terms of the actual misconduct which is alleged. Guidelines must be established for the implementation of an independent review to properly address citizen complaints against any member of the Security Department.
3) Employees should be considered as valuable members of the PMC workforce and not looked upon as “At Will”, which negates an individual security officer from making a decision based on what is right vs. what would save his/her job.
4) The Security Office is not a secure location for confidential conversations relative to members private affairs. Conversations can be overheard by individuals who are there for other business. This causes security officers to leave the building to conduct sensitive conversations elsewhere. Additionally, the Security Office is a shared domain with other employees who have open access to documents and other items which may be sensitive in nature. Documents regarding security operations must be in a secured and locked cabinet. It is recommended that the Security Office be moved and established in a more secure environment.
5) The Security personnel appear to be underpaid when compared to other members of the PMC workforce, and their yearly raises are determined by the Board of Directors who do not oversee their daily work performance. Any reviews for an employee raise should consider the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and any budgetary recommendations from the General Manager. The raises should be based on merit, with no outside political influences involved in the decision making process.
6) Additional training should be initiated in all aspects of security, traffic control, crime scene preservation, in addition to proper Animal/Bear Control techniques.
7) There are times when security personnel are asked to carry large sums of money for banking purposes. This task should be closely reviewed, as there are inherent dangers involved, which places our security personnel at risk.
8) Upon inspection of the new Security Patrol Vehicles, it was noted that there are no outside adjustable/fixed spot lights. An outside adjustable/fixed spot light is essential in illuminating scenes such as traffic collisions or animal control incidents. It is recommended that outside spot lights be installed on each security vehicle.
9) Recently it was determined that several of the Security Officers had allowed their Department of Consumer Affairs Guard Cards to expire, which necessitated that they be placed off duty pending their re-certification. It is recommended that a file be initiated whereupon the Security Manager has monthly reminders as to which individual security officer is within three months of guard card expiration. This function could be performed by the Human Relations Department in conjunction with other employees who are required to be licensed. This should eliminate the delinquent expiration of employees’ guard cards.
10) During conversations with outside agencies, communications between the entities was discussed. It was agreed upon that regularly scheduled meetings should occur between local law enforcement and the PMC Security Department. It is recommended that the outside agencies meet quarterly with the Security Manager to maintain close relationships and enhance their ability to coordinate our security efforts.
11) During traffic control situations there is an enhanced level of danger, as a security officer could be struck by a passing vehicle. It is recommended that highly reflective vests which clearly indicate “Security,” be assigned to each security vehicle for the use of officers during traffic control situations.
12) Many of the complaints received by the Security Department concern “Speeding Motorists”, which raises a very serious community safety concern. It is recommended that a “Speed Trailer” be purchased for use in areas where complaints have been generated. The trailer can be positioned and moved by security personnel dependent upon the level of complaints which were received.
High Risk Activities Performed by PMC Security Personnel
After reviewing activity logs and monthly statistical reports for the entire year of 2008 and the last 7 months of the year 2009 (19 months in total), we were able to draw some conclusions relative to the type of calls which present the highest degree of exposure to liability to the PMC Homeowners Association. As a result of the review, three areas of concern were identified.
It was noted that large crowd events, such as the October Fest, where alcohol is served and entertainment is provided, oftentimes results in some type of crowd misbehavior whereby security personnel is summoned to break-up a fight or other disturbance. This is the type of call which may result in some form of “use-of-force” being applied, as a solution to resolve, and contain the problem. We all know that when force is used, even minimal defensive force, it will likely result in a complaint or lawsuit.
To avoid this type of liability exposure, the Citizen Review Committee recommends the following:
The PMC Association should require any organization or group (including the Association) hosting any large event (50 attendees or more), that serves alcoholic beverages, have outside security officers patrol the event and keep the peace. There should be one security personnel for each fifty persons in attendance. Normally, security companies use unarmed “public event security personnel” who wear golf type shirts that say “Event Security” on the front and back. They usually only carry pepper spray and do not carry batons.
This should provide the desired “Soft” appearance voiced by some members of the Board of Directors, relative to the projection of authority by the security officers.
This would eliminate the PMC security personnel from any liability exposure. Any complaint from a special events incident, would be deferred to and absorbed by the security company and their insurance carrier.
The hosting organization or group should also be required to provide “Event Insurance”, in the minimum of one million dollars, to indemnify the Association in the event that some type of accident occurs which could result in serious injury or death.
This proposal would also reduce the additional cost to the Association in paying overtime to our security personnel to attend such events, and would more importantly, allow them to complete their normal duties and patrols without interruption. This policy should include all special events such as festivals, weddings, Concerts on the Green, or any other event which has more than 50 persons are in attendance and alcoholic beverages are served.
The second biggest concern relative to the liability issue is the Club House Lounge, where an occasional disturbance or fight may occur, and alcoholic beverages are served. Of all the properties owned and operated by the P.M.C.P.O.A, the clubhouse lounge is the highest single area where violence is liable to occur. Since it is highly unlikely that a 25-30 minute response by the Sheriff’s Department would be acceptable, it is likely that PMC Security would be called to intervene.
Since it would not be feasible to hire outside security to work at the Club House Lounge for routine events such as the Sunday Music Jams, Valentine Day Dances or other on-going events, we believe that liability could be significantly reduced by the use of digital surveillance cameras recording all of the interior of the lounge and the outside smoking areas.
Looking around the community there is only one other lounge, which is “Madd Bailey’s”, which is located in the commercial center. In an interview with the owner, Mark Bailey, he explained that he has surveillance cameras that record 24 hours a day.
The cameras have been very successful in deterring fights, documenting accidents, recording possible criminal activities, employee theft or misconduct as well as other incidents of interest.
Signs are clearly posted and all customers are aware that they are being monitored, resulting in a strong deterrent to any type of misbehavior.
Should our security be called to a fight or disturbance in our lounge, the entire event would be recorded and documented and thereby reducing the Association’s liability.
The recordings could be used as evidence of criminal acts, personnel complaints, civil incidents such as accidents, however they should never be used to resolve political disputes or to routinely spy on anyone.
Review of recorded disks can only be conducted by the General Manager and/or the Security Manager. Board Members could then be briefed by the manager after his/her viewing.
Review of any such recording must have prior approval by the General Manager and meet adopted guidelines. The release of any original disks must be by court order or subpoena only. Copies can be released to law enforcement or the association attorney after General Manager approval.
Security personnel should be assigned to change the disks daily and lock them in a secure place. The disks would be routinely recorded over every 31 days, unless a hold was placed on one at the order of the Security Manager or the General Manager.
The third area of concern would be USE OF FORCE/ARREST. Review of their basic training as required by the California Department of Consumer Affairs addresses private persons arrest and detentions as well as approved control tactics. The current Standard Operating Procedure also addresses these topics in detail.
A review of 19 months of PMC Security “Activity reports” revealed NO “Use of Force” incidents and only one arrest. The arrest was determined to be really only a detention for a person found lying beside a roadway in a state of intoxication and was unable to care for his own safety. The Security Officer detained the individual for fear that he would be struck by a passing vehicle. The Sheriff was notified and responded (with a delay) and placed the subject under arrest. No further action was taken by the Security Staff.
These facts are strong evidence that the Security Personnel consistently utilizes restraint while adhering to the established Policy and Training. Continued on-going training and review of policy are recommended.
REVIEW OF PMC “PATROL DAILY ACTIVITIES LOG” FOR CALLS IN THE YEAR OF 2008:
Public Assist Calls Total = 698 Percentage of Calls = 31%
This is the largest single call received by the PMC Security Department. These type of calls are normally routine in nature.
These type of calls are generally in the category of a stranded motorist, giving directions, providing homeowners with advice regarding Association Rules or the use of facilities, assisting elderly or disabled residents/visitors, referring people to some sort of outside resource. These type of calls give the PMC Security Department an opportunity to be an outstanding representative/ambassador of our community.
No recommendation for change in this area was noted.
Citation and Enforcement Total = 430 Percentage of Calls = 19%
Writing citations or giving warnings to violators of Association rules/regulations. NOTE: CA. Vehicle Code prohibits PMC Security from conducting non-consensual traffic stops.
No recommendation for change in this area was noted.
Domestic Animal Control Total = 361 Percentage of Calls = 16%
Generally, this call pertains to enforcing stray animals, barking dogs or dealing with dead or injured domestic pets. This is an area which could be enhanced by documented training from animal control experts.
It is recommended that the SPCA or other concerned agencies provide training as needed in this area. NOTE: See recommendation #7
Wildlife Calls Total = 258 Percentage of Calls = 11%
The majority of the calls in this category are for bears who have wandered onto a member’s property or rattle snakes which need to be relocated. This type of call begins to escalate in mid-spring and continues well into fall. In July and August 2008, Security was responding to approximately three wild life calls per day.
This is another area that could benefit from specialized training to ensure the safety of the community and security personnel alike. NOTE: Please see recommendation #6.
Suspicious Incidents Total = 214 Percentage of Calls = 9%
This type of call is generally in response to someone noticing a circumstance or event that is unusual, and requires scrutiny from Security. The nature of the calls vary significantly and could encompass an open door, unlocked gate, lights unexpectedly left on, or an unusual car parked in the neighborhood. Dealing with this type of call is covered in the basic 40 hour training class which is required to obtain the state guard card.
No recommendation for change or training in this area was noted.
Outside Agency Assist Total = 135 Percentage of Calls = 6%
This call pertains to assisting outside agencies such as the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Kern County Fire and Paramedics, California Highway Patrol, Kern County Animal Control, California Department of Fish and Game and other official agencies. NOTE: Please see the “Interaction of PMC Security with outside Agencies” portion of this report, for training suggestions. Additionally, Please See Recommendation #6.
There are no recommendations for change or training in this area, with the exceptions of those listed in the aforementioned section of this report.
Traffic Control Total = 23 Percentage of Calls = 1%
This call pertains to traffic control at the scene of a traffic collision or other road hazard pending the arrival of law enforcement personnel who would assume control of the situation. Upon request of the responsible law enforcement agency, Security may remain on-scene to further assist. NOTE: Please see the “Interaction of PMC Security with outside Agencies” portion of this report, for training suggestions. Additionally, Please See Recommendation #6.
There are no specific areas of concern, and the only training recommendation is enumerated in the section of the report noted above.
Total calls for service in the calendar year of 2008 was 2,219, which averages to just over 6 calls per day.
UTILIZATION OF PMC SECURITY TIME, BASED ON A 24-HOUR DAY FOR THE YEAR 2008:
Regularly Performed Duties Approximate Amount of Time = 60%
Any activity performed on a regular basis such as lock/unlock gates or doors, run compactors, attend meetings, write reports or other administrative time, the patrol of Association properties or assets, and all duties that directly relate to the protection of all common properties.
Calls for Service Approximate Amount of Time = 10%
This category is for the response to members or other citizen’s call for service which could pertain to enforcing the CC&R’s, animal calls, traffic problems and other miscellaneous details involving private property or public right away OTHER than Association assets.
Available Patrol Time Approximate Amount of Time = 30%
This is the time dedicated to patrolling the PMC community, which includes the roadways within, as well as the privately owned properties.
The above estimates of time usage is calculated by looking at an entire 24-hour time period, and estimating time on details and calls for service, which leaves the balance for general patrol duties. These figures will vary based on time of day, day of week and by season. The ideal available patrol time, as prescribed by law enforcement professionals and criminologists, is approximately 50%.
It is recommended that a 91 day manpower study be initiated by tracking in the exact time expended for each task that is performed by all officers including general patrol. This will identify busy times by time of day and day of week. This will also identify manpower deployment, safety issues, determine if it is staffing is being properly utilized, and if there is a need for personnel expansion.
REVIEW OF THE PMC SECURITY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:
Our Committee has reviewed both the 2002 and the 2007 revisions of the PMC Security Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and have found that all basic topics are covered either S.O.P. or a combination of the two.
S.O.P.’s are designed to instruct and require personnel to deal with repetitive tasks within certain guidelines that are based on training and policy. Attempting to write a procedure for every type of call is not feasible or prudent. Officer discretion must be applied to adjust to each individual set of circumstances on any given call. Common sense and sound reasoning should always be the basis of any decision making process. Established procedures that are too restrictive often cause more problems that they solve.
The Committee did note that there was a procedure covering the confiscation of weapons which included FIREARMS.
Firearms should only be handled by personnel with the proper training. Note: Please see recommendation #6. It is recommended that Firearms that are confiscated be handled by Law Enforcement Personnel Only.
In the event that a FIREARM is confiscated, due to exigent circumstances, there is a huge liability issue upon it’s release. Law enforcement would normally check the FIREARM for proper ownership and ensure that the party receiving same was a responsible adult who is not a felon, mental patient or someone with a restraining order against them. Only Law Enforcement has access to data bases to properly check for the aforementioned concerns.
In the event that PMC Security comes into the possession of a FIREARM, it should ONLY be released to proper Law Enforcement personnel.
The current S.O.P. leaves open the possibility that PMC Security could shoot an injured animal.
It is recommended that this portion of the S.O.P. be eliminated, as it opens up a huge area of liability. The dispatch of animals should only be performed by the proper outside agency.
The S.O.P. has a provision for a rank structure, which is NOT currently adhered to. The rank structure, in its current form, appears to be in excess when considering the size of the workforce.
Initiate a supervisorial position which would assume the overall control of the Security Department in the absence of the Security Manager. This position, would also assume the responsibilities of coordinating the appropriate training of new employees, as well as maintaining the required training of established employees. It is recommended that the rank of Sergeant or Lieutenant be designated for the aforementioned position.
Maintaining an up to date S.O.P. is an on-going process and it should be revised as needed. With an increase in outside development, such as Tejon Mountain Village, the demographics of the surrounding communities will surely be altered. Forward looking planning with alterations to the S.O.P.s may be required to keep up with the outside changes, which may directly impact the PMC Community. A long term plan should be established which would include a future expansion of outside assets (Kern County sheriffs and CHP) to provide the required security services to this area, which are currently met solely by the PMC Security Department.
The S.O.P. Manual should be revised by the PATROL MANAGER with input from the General Manager, and not from outside political influences. The Patrol Manager has the experience and background to properly address each issue, and write a procedure that meets the expectations of the membership, while guarding against unnecessary liability. Additionally, input should be obtained from every member of the security force to garner their insight into the actual working conditions, which they experience on a daily basis.
The Board of Directors should review and approve all changes to the S.O.P., after the Association Attorney has had an opportunity to review it for legal issues.
Writing new procedures must always be based on training and policy, while keeping in mind any liability issues which could be impacted.
It is further recommended that the California Department of Consumer Affairs (BSIS) be contacted to determine if they have an up to date MODEL SECURITY SOP, which could be used as a foundation for a revision of our manual.
The Citizen Review Committee is fully aware that the PMC Board of Directors has procured an outside security firm to review the operations of the PMC Security Department and make recommendations relative to their future operations. Our committee is also aware that the outside consultant firm DID NOT contact any member of the PMC Security Department, to obtain any information as to the current operations of the security department.
NOTE: A copy of the outside review/investigation of the Security Department was requested by the Citizen Review Committee. The Board refused to allow our committee to review it.
The Citizen Review Committee found no problems areas with the current Security Department which would negatively result in an elevation of liability. Although, the Board of Directors has been successfully sued on numerous occasions, there is no such trend affecting the Security Department.
It is this committee’s strong recommendation that no outside committee (such as ours), or any other committee designated by the Board of Directors, dictate or change policy for the PMC Security Department without the appropriate oversight. The appropriate oversight must include a free and open dialogue with the community.
COMMUNITY INPUT AS TO THE RATIONALE FOR A REVIEW OF PMC SECURITY:
Throughout this review, one question was repeatedly asked, “Why is there a review of the Security Department, when everything that they do is overwhelming supported by the community?”
A considerable number of community members interviewed, expressed a belief that the current close scrutiny of the Security Department, by the PMC Board of Directors, is based on a long standing vendetta.
The alleged vendetta resulted from a previous felony arrest of one of the board members (with the assistance of the PMC Security Department), coupled with a recent alleged illegal incident involving the same Board Member. This serious allegation of illegal activity was made public through the written press, and it is common knowledge throughout the PMC Community.
Unfortunately, as a result of this allegation of inappropriate activities by one board member, there is a widespread public distrust of the entire PMC Board of Directors. Currently, there is a perception that the board is retaliating against the Security
Department, when there is absolutely no factual basis to do so.
These allegations were widely circulated in a local newspaper, and were very troubling to many members of the community.
NOTE: Please see Addendum items #2-5.
IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS COMMITTEE TO DISCREDIT THE PMC BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES. THERE DOES HOWEVER, APPEAR TO BE A SIGNIFICANT NEED TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC’S CONCERN ABOUT THE CURRENT REVIEW OF THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT, ITS ORIGIN, MOTIVATION AND RATIONALE.
NOTE: *This report from the Citizen’s Review Committee did not address the issues of any alleged inappropriate activities/actions by any Member of the PMC Board of Directors. This report was meant to be for recommendation purposes only, and it is strictly non-political.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) Chain of Command.
2) Personnel Complaint Procedures.
3) Employee “At Will” status.
4) Security Office Confidential Concerns.
5) Proper pay for PMC Security Personnel.
6) Additional Training for PMC Security Personnel.
7) Large money transfers.
8) Spot Lights for Patrol vehicles.
9) Reminders of pending license renewals.
10) Quarterly meetings with outside agencies.
11) Deployment of reflective safety vests.
12) Purchase/Deployment of a traffic “Speed Trailer”.
13) Hire outside security.
14) Install surveillance cameras in high liability areas.
15) Training for Security Personnel.
16) 91 Day Manpower Study.
17) Handling of Firearms.
18) Release of Firearms
19) Shooting of Animals.
20) Initiation of Supervisor position.
21) Revision of Security Manual.
CONTINUED COMMUNITY INPUT:
The Citizen Review Committee will continue to accept information vital to the community, on a strictly confidential basis, from any member in good standing relative to their concerns regarding the PMC Patrol. We can be contacted via Mail @ P.O. Box 5115, PMC, CA 93222-5115.
1) Statistical report of crime and calls for service in PMC which was provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department.
2) The Mountain Enterprise Newspaper dated December 18, 2009.
3) The Mountain Enterprise Newspaper dated December 25, 2009.
4) The Mountain Enterprise Newspaper dated January 1, 2010.
5) The Pioneer Newspaper dated February, 2010.
6) California Department of Consumer Affairs B.S.I.S Handbook.
7) Information relative to the deployment of a “Speed Trailer”
Respectfully Submitted by the following members of the Citizen Review Committee:
Gary Biggerstaff, 32 years of Southern California Law Enforcement experience as a Police Officer, Supervisor, Manager, Administrator, Chief of Police, a Coordinator of Security for the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics, a graduate of the FBI Academy, and a full time PMC resident since 1995.
__________________________________________________ Date _______________
Jay Wickers, 30 Years of Southern California Law Enforcement experience as a Police Officer and Detective working Uniform Patrol, Traffic Collision Investigations, Area Detectives, Metropolitan Division and Anti Terrorist Division. Full time resident of PMC since 1993.
____________________________________________________ Date ______________
William Martin, 34 Years of Southern California Law Enforcement experience as a Police Officer and Sergeant assigned to Detectives, Vice, Narcotics, Gangs and Public Relations. Licensed Private Investigator for 28 years and a full time resident of PMC since 2007.
Citizen Review Committee Survey Results
March 20, 2010 by Mar Preston
I was asked to present results to you as an independent reviewer whose working career was spent at USC and UCLA as a survey researcher. Survey questions were developed by retired law enforcement personnel well versed in security operations.
Seventy responses were gathered in January/February 2010 through a network of people making the effort to copy the blank survey and pass it to friends and neighbors. Only one response was received through the Association’s website.
Many members felt strongly enough about issues to sign their surveys, indicating a high rate of interest in patrol department operation.
Who completed a survey? More than half were turned in by residents between 6-20 years. The other half, equal in numbers, came from those who had lived here from 1-5 years and those resident here more than 21 years.
These are members who have a long-term stake in our community.
Overwhelmingly, residents regard the Patrol Department positively. Responses to questions were frequently in the above ninety percent range. Ninety percent of those who had occasion to call for assistance or come into contact with patrol regarded the experience as positive. The remaining had never had contact with patrol.
Ninety-nine percent of respondents felt patrols’ efforts help prevent crime and promote safety. Furthermore, 86% of respondents supported a wage increase bringing personnel up to a level competitive with outside private security. .
On the issue of whether security personnel should carry defensive tools such as batons and mace, providing they have been properly trained and certified, the response was 99%.
The current patrol uniform issue was not addressed directly and there were as many positive endorsements in hand-written comments of the present uniform as a wish for change. One respondent disliked “Ninja uniforms looking like a SWAT team.” Another respondent didn’t want to see patrol in “Disneyland tour guide uniforms.” These may be summed up along the lines of “you can’t please everybody.”
However, three quarters of respondents agreed that “crimes in progress or acts of violence should be handled by professional law enforcement and act at the direction of a police officer.”
This is part of the March 26, 2010 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.
Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.