City Council Team Building Retreat A Success

GETTING TO KNOW YOU, GETTING TO KNOW ALL ABOUT YOU...
The Costa Mesa City Council had an unusual event yesterday afternoon/evening.  They met for a "retreat" at the Hilton Hotel - a team building exercise facilitated by a consultant.  It was interesting, to say the very least.

THESE SESSIONS USUALLY WORK
Let me say up front that I've attended many such events - actually conducted a couple - in my private sector career assignments.  They were usually held at offsite locations - a resort, hotel, etc. - and  always proved to be a worthwhile exercise because the atmosphere was casual and loosely structured to encourage positive interaction - and nobody from the outside was looking over your shoulder.

BROWN ACT CONSTRICTION
This event, which is necessarily constricted by the Brown Act, still provided many of the positive elements even though there were a half-dozen residents and a Daily Pilot reporter on the scene.  You can read Luke Money's report in the Daily Pilot HERE.

WARM AND COZY
Beginning at 4:00, the small, warm room - had to keep those yummy appetizers warm, for goodness sake -  was configured so the council members and staff - City Manager Tom Hatch, City Attorney Tom Duarte and Assistant City Manager Tammy Letourneau - were seated in a "U" formation, so each could have easy eye contact with the others.  The consultant, Jan Perkins of Management Partners (the same firm that did the Police Department study a few years ago and at which Letourneau has worked) was at the open end of that "U", guiding the discussions, listing observations and suggestions.  All five members of the City Council were present for the entire evening, which ended up lasting a little over four hours, including a short dinner break at 6:00.  I left as they broke for dinner for Police Chief Rob Sharpnack's Town Hall at Vanguard University - more on that in another post.

Perkins began by showing the agenda for the meeting (above), and laid out some of the ground rules:

THE QUESTION...
She then handed out a sheet for the participants - council and staffers - to use.  They were asked to complete the following statement: "Costa Mesa would be an even better place if....."

BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY AND ANSWERS
Before answering that question each participant was asked to share some personal information about themselves - things the others may not know.  Each gave a brief bit if information on themselves - I won't begin to address that here except to observe that there's a whole lot of San Gabriel Valley influence in the room - and included their response to the question.

John Stephens hoped that they could work on the challenges ahead without the divisiveness that has marked the recent past.

Tom Duarte hoped for a successful meeting that could develop teamwork.

Jim Righeimer's response almost made me choke.  He said, "Costa Mesa would be better if it was not so political.", and compounded that by observing that we had handed over the treasury of the city to public employees.  I simply must observe here that HE has politicized every action he's taken in this city since he arrived a decade ago.  His view, apparently, is that if you disagree with him it MUST be political - not that his ideas are BAD ideas, or that his method of achieving his goals are BAD... nope, must be political.

Allan Mansoor spoke about a lack of responsiveness to his concerns.  He looked for more fiscal responsibility, more paved streets and less crime.  He looks for an improvement of the Quality of Life in the City.

Sandy Genis looked for a more responsive city government.  She hoped to see the city upgraded without destroying the character of the city.  She longed for the same old friendly Costa Mesa.

Katrina Foley spoke about the working families in the city, hoping to improve the communities without losing identities.  She spoke of maintaining the quaintness of the city.

Tom Hatch hoped that we can continue to improve and change the community while respecting the history.

Tammy Letourneau hoped the council and staff will be able to work together toward common goals.

Following those presentations a few of the council members observed that any of those ideals could be adopted.

THREE QUESTIONS
Perkins then led a discussion revolving around three statements:

1 - What I need from fellow council members is...

2 - What I need from staff is... 

3 - What staff needs from council members is...

Each participant was asked to address those issues briefly.  They responded with the following observations for Question #1:

• Genis - Establish norms - follow policies.  Mutual respect and we're all afraid of humor.
• Foley - Not have intentions presumed.  Have a sense of humor - which she observed, can be risky.
• Righeimer - The Brown Act is not human.
• Stephens - The council needs forgiveness going forward.
• Duarte - Mutual respect and communication collaboration.
• Mansoor - Politics is not funny.

In response to Question #2, above:

• Righeimer, smiling, said he needs the staff available 24/7.
• Genis said the staff should REALLY listen to requests from the council, and to appreciate the city's uniqueness.
• Foley she looked for the staff's willingness to make recommendations based on their best professional opinion and to anticipate the expected consequences.  She asked them to consider issues as though they lived in the city.  "What would they want as residents?"
• Stephens said, "Don't let me screw up!"
• Mansoor agreed with Foley - that the staff should give an opinion even if the council doesn't want to hear it - and said they should "read our minds" - with a smile on his face.

In response to Question 3, above: (this discussion went on for quite awhile, back and forth)

• Mansoor said the council should "own our decisions - don't put everything off on staff".  He also said they should be respectful of the staff's time and not monopolize it.
• Foley said the council should provide a "clarity of communications".
• Stephens said "Patience".  He also said the expression of sincere appreciation for the work done. 
• Hatch observed that serving five council members was like ordering one pizza and trying to find something that each one will like.  It's their goal to equally support every council member.
• Stephens replied to that statement that it's virtually impossible to support equally simultaneously.
• Genis said sometimes you feel you have to push harder - kick and scream - to get some staff time.
• Foley observed that it goes back to political divisiveness, and spoke about a new process using Google Docs to help each council member be aware of the things the staff is working on for them.
• Righeimer observed that "we killed the 4 hour rule" - which surprised others, since that rule is still in effect.  What he may have meant was that he and his majority just ignored it in the recent past.
• Foley observed that we need more part time staffers to help with the workload.
• Stephens suggested more communication among council members to help prioritize their staff time needs.
• Foley spoke of the "enormous" volume of community requests, stating it was just a matter of trust between the community and council.
• Righeimer acknowledged that sometimes he doesn't really need all the information that he requests if it's going to put a burden on the staff.  Good grief!
• Hatch observed about the large number of community requests.
• Righeimer said Costa Mesa is unusual - that other cities don't have that number of community requests.  His tone was consistent with his views that community activists are a nuisance - his actions trying to quash their participation demonstrated that very clearly.
• Hatch affirmed that if a council member asks for a follow-up to a community member's request, they - the staff - WILL followup.
• Mansoor said he wants to be as responsive to the public as possible.  He also said he'd like to think we're better than other cities.
• Hatch said we have lots of new ideas and that they're trying to run a lean organization.

The discussions went on and on...

• Righeimer observed that Costa Mesa is NOT quaint - it's Newport Beach's backyard.
• Foley said we ARE unique in Orange County.
• Stephens observed that we have a unique mix of Residential, Heavy commercial and Industrial - a diversity that we should embrace, not vilify.  He said he freaks out when he's in South County, where every community looks exactly the same.
• Hatch observed that the volume of work they do is much greater than in most cities.
• Righeimer cited the Brown Act as an impediment.  (Big surprise there!  He tries to work around it every chance he gets!)
• Foley observed televising Study Sessions would be a problem.
• Righeimer blamed the media and blogs (Uh, that would be little old me, thank you very much) for reporting what goes on.  Good grief!
• Perkins observed that folks should have some humanity.  "It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable."
• Perkins observed about the value of a professional, highly trained staff.
• Foley observed that we have to train them!
• Hatch said the employment environment is tough.
• Stephens suggested they all read the staff reports and give a heads-up to staffers if they expect to ask for clarification or more information - not to surprise them during meetings.
• Perkins spoke of introverts/extroverts and the need to develop staffers based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.
• Foley observed about the "no surprises rule". 

LOOKING FOR NORMS
Perkins had met with each of the participants earlier and prepared the following summation of information from those meetings, to compare to the comments and suggestions coming out of this group gathering.  They were remarkably similar.

FOOD!
About this time - 6:00 p.m. -  they broke for a lovely buffet meal and I headed for Vanguard University.  I must observe, though, that - at least for the time I was present - I could see a change in tenor between the council members and staff.  I saw the seeds of improvement.  They apparently enjoyed the food and continued the discussions until after 8 p.m.

PRIORITIES
I subsequently spoke with community members who remained, and with Mayor Katrina Foley and others about the meeting.  Foley told me they ended up with five priorities:
1 - The new Library/Lions Park project, which is underway.
2 - Creating a safe community, and just beyond more police officers, firefighters and code enforcement officers.  They meant that EVERY city department has ways to contribute to making the city safer and those opportunities will be examined.
3 - Dealing with the problem of Homelessness in our city.
4 - Dealing with Sober Living Homes - some of which is related to the Homelessness issue.  New revisions to the ordinances are pending and will be presented to the Planning Commission for review soon.
5 - Maintain Fiscal Responsibility, addressing all the elements that are involved.

WILL IT PAY OFF?  WE'LL KNOW SOON...
So, we shall see if this exercise pays off.  Will the apparent rancor between council members subside?  Will future study sessions yield better decisions?  Some have griped about the cost of the offsite venue.  We're talking peanuts here - and being physically away from City Hall was essential for this process to have a chance to work.  We'll know soon enough.

Senior Center Drama And Uncertainty Continues

AFTER THE OUSTER...
After the debacle at Tuesday evening's Special Council Meeting where the officials unanimously decided to oust the Costa Mesa Senior Corporation from the Senior Center on West 19th Street, I continued to seek answers to what appeared to be an illegal occupation of that facility the next day.  Here's a summary:


LEECE STARTED THE BALL ROLLING
Starting back in 2008 - when councilwoman Wendy Leece responded to complaints from one or two members of the Senior Center by calling for reforms in the way the center was run - rumors have been heard about problems at the Center.  Chris Caesar of the Daily Pilot wrote about that turmoil HERE and then-columnist Byron de Arakal's pithy column on the subject a few days later, HERE. I wrote about it HERE.  A few months later, in December, the turmoil continued and I wrote about it HERE.  Early in January of 2009 I wrote two pieces about Gary Monahan's plan for the Senior Center HERE and HERE.

NEGATIVE PUBLICITY AND ECONOMY CUT FUNDS
As a result of that negative publicity, and the simultaneous downturn in the economy, donations to the Center by previously generous benefactors dried up.  Because of budget constraints programs were trimmed back and the resultant discontent seemed to grow.  It was a vicious cycle - a wound that has festered now for several years and successive generations of Board leadership have not been able to resolve it.


MANAGEMENT PARTNERS STUDY
The City, which provides services and funding totaling more than $500,000 per year, including rental of the facility for $1.00 per year, contracted for an audit of the Senior Center finances and operations by consultant Management Partners, which issued a scathing report late last year, HERE.  It was very clear from that report that the consultants thought the City should take over operations of the Senior Center. 

NEGOTIATIONS BEGAN, THEN STALLED
Negotiations began in earnest earlier this year and recently stalled when a stalemate was reached when the City refused to include an indemnification clause requested by the Senior Corporation Board.  Then, after all those months of negotiations with the Costa Mesa Senior Corporation Board toward an agreement for shared operation of the Costa Mesa Senior Center, on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 the Costa Mesa City Council took matters into its own hands and unilaterally and unanimously passed a series of motions that will oust the Senior Corporation as a tenant from the city-owned building on West 19th Street that has housed the Senior Center since the late 1990s and install City management of that facility.


TAKEOVER TACTICS
Among the motions passed Tuesday were two that authorized the establishment of a new position within City government to manage the center and the authorization to hire a retired former director of a similar facility in Fullerton as the interim manager.  The council also authorized free one-year memberships to the Senior Center.  All this was done without any kind of transitional agreement in place.


WHERE'S THE AUTHORITY?
It is not clear that the City had the authority to do any of those things except issuing the 90-day notice to vacate the premises.  When I read the staff report Monday, before Tuesday's meeting, I contacted Assistant Chief Executive Officer Tamara Letourneau - who had been a member of Management Partners and involved in the above-mentioned audit - to find out where the authority to take over the operations of the Center came from.  She told me she believed they had the authority, but didn't tell me why.

A REQUEST TO DELAY TAKEOVER IS IGNORED
Tuesday evening, following the vote,  Senior Corporation Board President Judy Lindsay emailed Letourneau and asked her NOT to send staff to the Center until the official notification was received by the Board and they had a chance to review it and brief their already-anxious staff on the future.  That request was ignored and the next morning, Wednesday, Letourneau led an entourage to the Center and went about taking over the operations.  The official notice was received on Thursday and the Senior Corporation has until September 7, 2014 to clear out.

AGAIN, WHERE'S THE AUTHORITY?
Immediately following the vote Tuesday evening I asked contract City Attorney Tom Duarte the same question.  He referred me to Letourneau.  I have subsequently tried to communicate with her and with CEO Tom Hatch, who eventually called me back Friday afternoon and we had a good, long, therapeutic conversation.  He also disagrees with my assessment of lack of authority to do what they've done, but also could not point me to any portion of existing agreements that gives the City the authority to take over the operations and give away free memberships to the Senior Center for a year.

A "HOSTILE TAKEOVER" INDEED
During our conversation Friday afternoon Hatch challenged my characterization of the actions by City staff Wednesday as a "hostile takeover".  (You may recall that councilwoman Wendy Leece specifically stated that this was not a hostile takeover Tuesday night.)  When I asked him to describe what he understood to have been the actions of the staff Wednesday morning he did, and it coincided precisely with my understanding of events that day.  Letourneau and her group marched into the Senior Center, began rearranging furniture - they cleared out the library and set up new Interim Manager Eloisa Espinosa in that room - and began serving donuts to seniors as they arrived.  The Senior Center staff kept a low profile and did not participate, having had NO indication what to expect.  I reminded Hatch that those actions - an uninvited incursion which had been specifically requested to be put off until the staff could be briefed - certainly sounded precisely like a hostile takeover.

WHAT ABOUT "THE AGREEMENT"?
I asked him about the proposed agreement, HERE, that had been part of the staff report Tuesday. It has not yet been signed, but appears to be an excellent transition plan for the operations of the Senior Center - except for the indemnity clause.  He told me that the staff still wanted to pursue implementing the plan, but when I asked him if that would have council support he couldn't give a firm answer.  If I read Mayor Jim Righeimer correctly Tuesday night, I don't think he's interested in any kind of formal plan now that notice of eviction has been given.  I may be wrong.  However, some members of the Senior Corporation Board are of the opinion that, based on the City's actions Tuesday night and Wednesday, the agreement is off the table.  

DON'T FORGET RIGHEIMER'S OPINION
And, some will recall Righeimer's statement during the meeting Tuesday in which he opined that it was probably better for the Senior Corporation to NOT have an agreement and dissolve, because then disgruntled employees wouldn't have anyone to sue.  Apparently that's part of his own, personal business strategy.
AN ILLEGAL INCURSION?
So, it is unclear where the City gets the authority to do more than give that 90-day notice to their tenant to vacate the premises.  This heavy-handed intrusion into the operations of a private non-profit organization by the City in what is basically a landlord/tenant problem certainly appears to be an unconscionable abuse of authority and may, in fact, be illegal.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BULLYING
Unfortunately, this has become fairly typical behavior by the current elected City leadership - another example of Ready, Fire, Aim on their part - that has resulted in a string of legal actions and lawyer fees the volume of which have never been seen before.  Knowing full well that the cash-strapped Board will likely not pursue legal remedies, the City has just bullied its way into the Senior Center and shoved aside the current management team.  By any definition this is a hostile takeover of the Senior Center operations.  As a taxpayer and voter, I am appalled at this despicable behavior and wonder just how many more of these kinds of abuses of power we will see from this group.

ALBERT DIXON FOUNDATION BOARD MEETS MONDAY
On Monday the Albert Dixon Foundation Board, chaired by long time community activist and former Senior Center Board President Mike Scheafer, will meet to discuss the current circumstances.  That foundation, created as a result of a sizable donation to the Senior Center for senior programs, has provided funding for programs the past several years and, most recently, contributed $50,000 to the Senior Center.  It is unclear whether funds from that foundation can be used for operating expenses.  Hopefully, this Board will have answers to that question soon.  And, we hope there is a way for this foundation to continue to fund senior programs in the city now that the City has taken over operations of the Senior Center.


SENIOR CORPORATION MEETING TUESDAY
Tuesday Morning the Costa Mesa Senior Corporation Board will meet to discuss the events of this past week.  It is my understanding that, unfortunately, they did not include the "agreement" mentioned above on their agenda because they thought - as mentioned above - it was off the table.

SENIOR CENTER IN THE BUDGET?
Tuesday evening among the many things on a very packed agenda for the Costa Mesa City Council is the 2014/2015 Budget, included in which is a line item funding the Senior Center.  I asked Hatch how that will be handled now, in light of the eviction notice.  He didn't have an answer.  I then asked him if the council might fund enough of their planned expenditure in July to provide a funding bridge for the Senior Corporation to make it through until their eviction date of September 7th.  He couldn't commit to that, but seemed positive about the possibility.  One would hope the council would see the value in providing those funds to keep programs moving and so the Senior Corporation can pay their bills through the departure date.

WHAT'S THE ANSWER?
So many questions.... so few answers.  The core question - "Where did the City get the authority to take over operations of the Senior Center?" should be a simple one to answer.  Because none of the three people who should have had that answer - Letourneau, Duarte and Hatch - have not provided one, it makes this taxpayer and voter very uncomfortable.  It's this kind of capricious, shoot-from-the-hip action that creates lawsuits.  I guess we'll see...

Letourneau New Assistant CEO/Admin. Svcs. Director

NO SURPRISE HERE...
It came as absolutely NO surprise here at the old Cauldron that Tammy Letourneau was announced today as the successful applicant for the recently-created position of Assistant Chief Executive Officer/Administrative Services Director.  You can read the announcement HERE.

AS I SPECULATED...
You may recall that, when this position was announced the middle of last month, I speculated that it was created specifically for Ms. Letourneau, HERE.  I does not surprise me at all that she is now going to fill this slot beginning on February 17th.  It's obvious, since it's been less than a month since the job was created, that NO outside recruitment has taken place - this slot was hers from the get-go.

SOLID CREDENTIALS
Don't get me wrong... her credentials are very strong and she has a professional history with CEO Tom Hatch that goes back many years.  In her role as consultant, she's been a "virtual" employee in the City of Costa Mesa since almost the day Hatch took over as City Manager - then CEO.  The firm she worked through, Management Partners, has made a lot of money in the city during that time, including performing a lengthy - and mostly ignored - audit of the Costa Mesa Police Department and the much more recent very critical assessment of the Costa Mesa Senior Center.

IT MAKES SENSE, BUT...
I view this announcement with strong mixed feelings. On one hand, as a guy who recruited for a living for decades, I recognize that Hatch has had a long test drive with Letourneau working as a consultant, so certainly is in a position to know her strengths and weaknesses.  From that standpoint, her selection makes sense.  However, I'm more than a little uncomfortable that it appears this position and the recent reorganization that created the Parks and Community Services Department (which includes Senior Center oversight) was cobbled together to meet her specific skill set - and done immediately after the Senior Center Audit was completed.  And, of course, I'm distressed that, while ALL other parts of the City government are suffering greatly due to staffing shortages, the fifth floor "Executive Offices" continues to bulk up.  One day this upside-down pyramid may simply topple over because of the weight at the top.

AND, ABOUT KNAPP?
And, I wonder what role she played, if any, in the curious abrupt departure of Recreation Manager Bob Knapp two weeks ago?

WE'LL WAIT AND WATCH...
So, we will watch to see how her assignment plays out, and if the City will be a better-managed organization because of her performance in this new job.  And, we will join the anxious members and management of the Costa Mesa Senior Center to see if Letourneau's appointment in a position that oversees their organization may result in the City taking over the operations of that facility.

AND...
And, we will be interested to see what happens if Hatch finally begins to push back on some of the ill-advised, illegal and just plain stupid moves this council has been making since they took over and they fire him for it.  Letourneau has been a City Manager elsewhere - twice.

Costa Mesa To Investigate Combining Services With Others

PRESS RELEASE OUTLINES PLAN
Recently renewed Costa Mesa Interim Communication Director, Bill Lobdell, issued the following Press Release just after noon today:




City to explore joint services with Newport, Huntington

COSTA MESA, CALIF. - The neighboring cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach will formally explore the viability of combining five municipal services to improve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.

After preliminary discussions, officials with the three cities have decided to study five areas as potential candidates for shared services: Police Special Weapons and tactics (SWAT) services; lifeguard services; jail services; animal control services; and police and fire dispatch services.

To facilitate an in-depth analysis of the impact of shared services, Management Partners, Inc. has been contracted to prepare a study. Each city will pay a third of the $81,675 fee ($27,225 will be Costa Mesa's share).

The overall goal of the report will be to assess the intial and long-term costs and savings for shared municipal services, along with the implementation and service-level needs.

The study will start within the next few weeks and is scheduled to be completed within five months.

STUDIES MAKE SOME SENSE
From my view, these studies make some sense. In these troubled fiscal times we cannot ignore potential opportunities to combine certain public safety-related functions if it can be done without any drop in service levels and can save the cities tax dollars.

WILL THEY IGNORE THE CONSULTANTS AGAIN?
It's interesting that the consultant chosen, Management Partners, Inc., is the same outfit Costa Mesa contracted with to do the restructuring evaluation of the Costa Mesa Police Department a few months ago. After spending thousands of dollars on the study, done by an organization with decades of experience under it's collective belt, the micro-managing element of the City Council rejected their recommendations and arbitrarily "picked a number" for the staffing level of the department. It was that scenario that caused former Interim Police Chief Steve Staveley - a legend in California law enforcement - to depart, leaving in his wake a scathing memo that pointed out the deficiencies of this council.

SHORT STAFFING IS ALREADY SHOWING
I can tell you from very recent first-hand personal experience that the residents and visitors to our city are not going to be served well by the reduced staffing levels. We are going to have an under-staffed police department that will, necessarily, be forced to work more overtime hours to meet the crime-fighting demands in our city. They will be exhausted by the continued extended schedules and, sadly, will likely begin to make mistakes because of the stress and pressure of those extended hours.

IS THIS "OUTSOURCING"
Does this move violate the terms of the Preliminary Injunction recently imposed by Judge Barbara Tam Nomoto Schumann in the outsourcing case between the City and the CMCEA? It seems like it might. If so, and the City decides to proceed with this study, are there legal consequences?

HOPING FOR NO CALAMITIES
We can only hope that there are no serious incidents as a result of this short-staffing situation.

CMPD Restructuring Report Due Today

WAITING FOR THE REPORT
Sometime this afternoon Costa Mesa Chief Executive Officer Tom Hatch will release the results and recommendations of the consultants evaluating the Costa Mesa Police Department. Word has it that the results are going to be brutal, with very significant cuts in staffing levels and very significant organizational changes - all of which will cause much angst among the rank and file of the CMPD and other city units.

A SNEAK PEEK
I've had the opportunity to get a little sneak peek at the final report to Hatch from Management Partners, the consulting firm given the assignment earlier this year to assess the Costa Mesa Police Department and come up with recommendations for a trimmer, more efficient organization. This report, and Hatch's adjustment of the recommendations, will be presented formally to the City Council at the extended Study Session on Tuesday, June 14th.

MANAGEMENT PARTNERS REPORT
Their report produced eight (8) recommendations, listed below:

1 - Implement a regional SWAT team with neighboring jurisdictions.
2 - Increase the ratio of non-sworn to sworn personnel to reduce expenditures and maintain a high level of customer service.
3 - Analyze the K-9 calls for service data to determine if staffing changes can be made to include these positions as part of a regular patrol beat.
4 - Identify a provider and contract animal control services.
5 - Develop and implement a succession plan in the Police Department.
6 - Implement both an internal and external training program for the Police Department Staff.
7 - Eliminate one commander position, three lieutenant positions, one sergeant position and three officer positions.
8 - Add one non-sworn logistical support manager position and one non-sworn special events coordinator position.

Theoretically, these changes would result in around $1.2 million in annual savings and would reduce the head count in the department to 136.

HATCH & CONSULTANTS MET WITH CMPD
Wednesday Hatch and the consultants met with members of the CMPD to give them a preview of the recommendations and Hatch's massaging of the numbers. It is my understanding that during this 2-hour meeting several things were said by Hatch and the consultants that might be considered incendiary. Mention has been made of those comments as part of a comment thread on the Daily Pilot blog attached to their article on the restructuring.

Here's part of what I know of that meeting.

STEP-BY-STEP
Hatch went through the recommendations provided by Management Partners one-by-one, commenting editorially with some background on each. You've already read those recommendations, above, so you might imagine how this news was received.

HATCH WANTS BIGGER CUTS
However, the news immediately got worse as Hatch provided HIS massaged version that he'll be presenting to the City Council today. In it the head count is dropped to 125, with 5 added via a recently-received COPS grant. That covers 5 officers for 3 years, with the city required to pick up the costs in the 4th year. The attendees, I'm told, were already reeling from the 136 number - this one was a gut-punch. This reduces the head count to mid-1980s levels. In recent years the CMPD had a high staffing number of 164.

PHASING - IF COUNCIL PERMITS
To soften the impact of his changes Hatch said it was his plan to phase them in, with none taking place until October 1st this year. He then said he wasn't sure that the City Council would go for that plan - that they might simply require the changes effective July 1st, the beginning of the new fiscal year.

ABLE & HUNTINGTON BEACH
Hatch talked about the demise of ABLE, but told the group the council had approved $150,000 to be used for the remainder of the calendar year for contract helicopter assistance by Huntington Beach.

JAIL OUTSOURCING CONTROVERSY
When asked about the RFP for the outsourcing of the Jail functions - why was it not part of this study BEFORE the decision was made to produce the RFP - he had no answer except that the council felt that was the way to go.

COUNCIL MIGHT DO SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
About a half hour into the presentation he cautioned the audience to not assume the City Council will go along with the report. They might just decide to do something entirely different.

DISTRUST AND ANGER!
Hatch was asked why police management was not consulted FIRST about possible restructuring instead of choosing to use expensive outside consultants. His response was, "Because there is distrust. There is distrust about us. There is anger about public employees." He went on to say that the council apparently didn't trust the staff to generate RFPs that would fairly provide an opportunity for others to bid on potential outsourced operations. At one point he specifically mentioned that he thought the City Council didn't fully trust him. This is an astounding admission, and a very troubling one.

ABOUT THAT "125" NUMBER...
During the conversation Hatch told the officers that his goal was to reach 132 staffing level by October 1st. (He later said his number was actually 131) One of the officers challenged Hatch about the 125 staffing number, which to him seemed arbitrary. Hatch said something about it being a number that had been out in the community when Interim Chief Steve Staveley interrupted him and said, "I can tell you exactly where that number came from."

PULLED OUT OF THE AIR BY COUNCILMEN
Staveley told the group that, on his very first day on the job this time around, he was invited to coffee by "two city council members" - he didn't name them - and during that coffee they told him in no uncertain terms that they wanted to see a police force of 125 sworn members, period. He asked them where they got that number and they pointed to a formula in a book that was clearly NOT intended to be used arbitrarily for staffing purposes because it didn't take into consideration special circumstances and demographic information on reporting cities.

MIXED FRUIT=WRONG NUMBERS
The council members were trying to compare Irvine and Costa Mesa, which Staveley said was like trying to compare a tangerine and a watermelon. He then said, "There is no scientific data in the staffing of a police department that justifies that number." In my opinion, that's information that every resident of this city should know because that capricious, arbitrary number now forms the cornerstone of the future of the CMPD.

MORE ANGST ABOUT DISTRUST
During this discussion Hatch, several times, mentioned that he wasn't sure the City Council fully trusted him, and also mentioned that he wasn't sure they trusted Staveley, either.

WHAT ABOUT DRUG FUNDS?
Attendees asked about the use of the Narcotics Seizure funds and were told that those dollars were strictly controlled by the Federal Government rules. Staveley did say, pointing to himself, that the only person who controls those funds is the person wearing this badge. He was adamant about it. He also said there's a long lead time before those funds actually reach our city.

RESERVE OFFICERS VS. FULL TIME?
The plan involved greater use of Reserve officers, but also includes layoffs for full time officers. When told by one officer that it was their understanding that full time officers would only be laid off AFTER all Reserve officers were terminated, Hatch didn't have an answer to that issue. This was one of several questions Hatch couldn't - or wouldn't - answer. I found myself thinking that if he had a permanent Administrative Services Director instead of an Interim person in that slot the answers might have been available to him.

HATCH'S CANDOR
More than once Hatch referred to the challenging "political environment", and how it stifles trust and good communications. My jaw dropped at the candor he expressed to these officers because his bosses, the city council, include at least a couple of men who have demonstrated a very vindictive streak. I feared that Hatch was potentially placing his job in jeopardy by simply acknowledging what EVERY observer of local politics has seen over the past few months.

EX-CHIEF DEFINED THE ATMOSPHERE
Management Partners staffer, Mike Messina - former Police Chief in Brea with more than four decades of law enforcement experience - told the group that "You guys have a really tough political environment here - it's brutal!" He went on to acknowledge what a great heritage and reputation the CMPD has in the law enforcement community and commended them for retaining at least a semblance of community-oriented policing.

CHAMNESS ASKED THE TOUGH QUESTION
Police association President Jason Chamness closed the meeting with a few questions. His final one really defined the message that was delivered over the previous two hours. He asked Hatch, "Do you think the politics are detrimental to public safety in Costa Mesa?" Hatch replied, "I think the politics are the reality that we have to deal with."

I'M WORRIED FOR THE CMPD - AND THE CITY
Quite honestly, I'm very concerned about how this city council might react to Hatch's proposal for the restructuring of the CMPD. I suspect they might simply ignore the recommendations of the consultants and Hatch's adjustments and demand even more draconian, immediate cuts. Clearly, as articulated earlier by Messina, they are not about to let the facts get in the way of their plans.