More on Gilford's K-9's resource
Doug, in his column in the Daily Sun of , made some observations about Gilford's K-9 unit. I made a couple more, as I had responded to other Letter to the Editors (also in the Daily Sun). However, Chief Markland had a response in the Gilford Steamer (Letter to the Editor, 9/6 - paid subscription) and the Daily Sun (not online) in response to Doug's column.
To the Editor:
[snip]
In the year following the passage of a K-9 Unit, we budgeted $2,500 for the upkeep of the K-9 Program, a significant decrease from the K-9 Unit's inception. Currently we have not exceeded that amount and do not anticipate that we will. We have budgeted $2,500 for the coming year, so the assumption of escalating costs is not true.
My question will be, come budget time, will we find out that this is the true cost of the dog, his training, the handler, and the cruiser? Or, as in the joke that is well known by those of us who have to fill in travel related expense reports "go ahead, find the boots!".
The cruiser that was "dedicated" to be the K-9 Unit was a cruiser in the town's vehicle rotation. This means that vehicles purchased by the police department are rotated to other town departments as needed after a few years of patrol use, thus maximizing the usefulness of the vehicle's initial purchase.
This is fine, and most citizens would expect that this would happen to the point that the vehicle will keep working (face it, cruisers pile up mileage real quick, and even with great mechanics, they will last just so long).
The matter of "keeping the dog busy" is misconstrued as it pertains in this opinion. One of the most important parts of keeping a K-9 dog highly trained in its specialties is to use the dog often in real scenarios. The police department has a standard policy in place in the deployment of the K-9, a policy utilized by K-9 Units nationwide. We must maintain the dog's ability to perform in a high standard of competence in order to substantiate the dog's actions in legal matters.
And this is one of the main points that Doug in his column, and I in my Letters did agree on. We all agree that the dog must be active in order to be useful.
The problem is "does the needs of Gilford provide a an overwhelming percentage of the dog usage in those real life scenarios? In fact, while we are paying for the dog, the handler, and the cruiser for the K-9 unit, what percentage of official calls are strictly for Gilford, and which are for "outside use?
This requires an extensive amount of training and care, which Officer Dustin Parent volunteered to do. Being a former K-9 handler myself, I can say it takes a lot of time and effort out of an officer's off duty time to keep the dog performing at peak performance.
This is a very revealing statement! This is an admission that the true cost of the dog is not just that of dog food, shelter, and official training exercises. Given the cost of an officer on detail (about $30 / hour, but I would have to check on that), it looks from what the Chief wrote that much of the actual cost (basically free time on the part of the Officer / Handler) is off the books.
While this is a great deal for Gilford's taxpayers, (and I thank Officer Parent for giving the town all that free time) it's not so great for the handler (that is time spent training is time spent away from family and friends, right?) and it makes it much harder to compute the actual (versus the budgeted or official) cost of the dog.
Officer Parent's relationship with the dog and the amount of time he puts in with the dog are incredible. Equally impressive is that he dedicates much of his own time on this, without putting in for overtime.
Again, is this fair to Officer Parent? Or to the budgeting process? I know that he volunteered for this, but again, this distorts the true cost of Gilford running a K-9 unit - it is "costs off the book". The true cost, I would imagine, would be far more than what is budgeted.
There are times however, when Officer Parent is called to duty while not working his regularly scheduled shift, he does put in for overtime.
Since he is the dog handler, is this overtime attributed to just the department, or is it assigned to the K-9 unit? If the call is specifically for the use of the dog, this type of cost should really be accruing to the price of having such a resource.
[snip]
This author of the editorial then continues his opinion by quoting stories about the K-9 Unit in the Citizen and the Gilford Steamer (by the way, you misspelled Stefanie Phillips' name).
C'mon Chief, we all know that his name is Doug Lambert. Trying to be coy and also pointing out a spelling mistake detracts from your real conversation about the K-9 unit.
The next point of inquiry indicates the Gilford Police sends the K-9 Unit to other communities without seeking compensation. The Gilford Police has a Mutual Aid Agreement with several surrounding agencies. This agreement between agencies allows us to send assistance to other agencies when needed, as well as other agencies sending us assistance when needed.
And this is a good thing, no doubt about it and I am glad (and thankful) for it. My problem, and others in the town as well, is that if WE are paying for a specialized resource that is used mostly out of town, let THEM pay in part for that expertise!
But for the sake of discussion, let's see how this theory works if we should adopt a compensation plan between agencies. We should of course look at past history to develop this compensation plan. History will tell us that Laconia had police dogs long before Gilford. Cases were worked in the town of Gilford using Laconia's dogs, so I guess we owe them some money for those services. Of course, it is unfair to just limit this law enforcement tool to just K-9's, so let's compensate for all law enforcement services. Again, history tells us that in the time I've worked here, we've had situations in Gilford that Laconia Police as well as other agencies have assisted us. I guess we owe them some money.
There are times that emergencies arise, and you just go and handle it - worry about the paperwork later. However, if resources need to be allocated to other places (by us and others), money can be used to track the relative cost and usage of those resources. Although he uses it to pooh-pooh the entire idea, frankly I don't think that Chief Markland's idea is bad one! In fact, I think it would be, if done correctly, would be a great one!
Every resource has a cost, and financial worth can help to keep track of where that resource is used far easier than just man, vehicle, or dog hours. At the end of some time period, by accounting for resource utilization between jurisdictions, one might be able to see where that resource is being most utilized. It may be very well true that perhaps our K-9 unit is spending much of its time outside of Gilford - or maybe not. Only by tracking this specialized resource in detail can one manage that resource (remember, if you cannot track it, you cannot manage it) and its real budget.
As far as going back into history to recoup or pay monies? Not a real fruitful activity and not one that I would promote UNLESS real good records have been kept on both sides.
Again, I would not have a problem going forward with this as long as there were agreements in place that would properly account for the resources used. It happens in the private sector all the time.A few events that come to mind are the cases involving a standoff situation on Morrill Street that took the life of a New Hampshire State Trooper, in which Laconia Police sent officers over to assist us. There was also the time a group of individuals dressed up as Ninjas and invaded a home on Governor's Island. An extensive search for these individuals was conducted on the island, involving several local agencies. In all fairness, the town of Gilford should be billed for that service based upon this compensation plan. I know there were many times that I investigated motor vehicle accidents on the bypass in which Laconia Police sent officers to assist in traffic control. I guess we have to pay for that too. And we cannot forget those times when either a Gilford or Laconia cruiser is involved in an accident. If State Police is unavailable, history has shown how we send officers from the other agencies to investigate. I guess they would be billed for their service of the investigation.
Remember, my argument can work both ways. Say if we are always paying others to service our town needs, that might be an indication that we need to review the size of the department.
Comments
To Skip and Doug:
As a police administrator it perturbs me to read your editorial autopsy of Chief Markland's comments defending Gilford's K-9 Unit.
I do not claim to know the current political climate in Gilford or the current relationship betweeen you and the police department. It is clearly evident based on your comments that they are malevolent towards Chief Markland and Gilford PD's K9 program.
As you stated "Every resource has a cost, and financial worth can help to keep track of where that resource is used far easier than just man, vehicle, or dog hours."
What about the cost of a loved one being reunited with a lost child? What about the cost finding a definative piece of evidence that could place a rapist,(Insert: murderer, assaulter, drug user, ect.) in prison? What if that victim was a member of your family? What price would you place on that resource then? How much would you pay?
Please remeber that it is definately the citizen of Gilford and the local citizens of the lakes region that are benifiting from this service, not the police! Should Gilford PD then start charging the citizens for the service? Absolutley not.
You are concerned about the cost but I see no comments about your knowledge of the benifits of this program. Do you know what they might be? Have you ever attended a training session? Have you spoken to Officer Parent about the time he spends with Agbar?
My point is you can continue to nickle and dime the Gilford Police K9 program but make sure you look at the long list of good that this dog and handler have done for your community and the surrounding communities. Because of them, your town and the surrounding communities are a safer place.
Don't believe me? Ask the most recent robbery victim if the K9 unit was worth it. Then ask her how much she would pay if it meant whether or not her assaulter was found. Take a survey! Ask the people!
As you stated, not every resource has a financial worth, but every resource does have a cost. Does that cost outweigh the benifit? Take a hard look at the benifits of Gilford's K9 program. Even if you get your wish and every dime is accounted for, this program is well worth the Gilford taxpayers money. Are they operating within their budget? Have they grossly miscalulated some of the costs and forced other budgetary lines in deficit? If they have then you have a right to question the program. I believe Chief Markland has represented to the citizens of Gilford the accurate cost associated with this program, without taking into account the semantics and intagible expenses. I congratulate him and the town for leading and maintaining a progressive police department.
Look at it as the cheapest, closest, and most benificial insurance policy that you both hope you will never need.
Posted by: David Noyes | October 26, 2006 10:45 PM