As yet another demonstration of the problems involving the Portsmouth Police Department the Virginia Criminal Justice Services Board on June 11, 2009 decertified the Portsmouth Police from the Certified Crime Prevention Community Program. The program is outlined below from the DCJS website:

“The Certified Crime Prevention Community Program. Based on a study conducted by the Virginia State Crime Commission in 1993, the goal of the program is to publicly recognize and certify localities that have implemented a defined set of community safety strategies as part of a comprehensive community safety/crime prevention effort.

One of the first of its kind in the nation, the program encourages localities to develop and implement collaborative community safety plans within a flexible framework designed by the Commission. Furthermore, it provides an ongoing process by which communities can reassess and update their plans to address emerging community safety issues. To obtain certification, a locality must meet 12 core community safety elements/strategies augmented by a minimum of seven approved optional elements. DCJS runs and monitors the program.”

Significant lack of leadership and questionable decision making by the Portsmouth Police Department Executive Staff contribute to a department that is spiraling to a meltdown.

Below are the minutes from the Criminal Justice Services Board meeting from June 11, 2009. It provides incite into the problems and the lack of progress after 4 years. One of the main issues that the board has is the significant lack of progress in Portsmouth becoming certified involving a major certification body. The two choices under the Certified Crime Prevention Community Program are either the “Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission” (VLEPSC) or “Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies” (CALEA). As somebody who has participated in a certification process when I worked for the Virginia Beach Police Department I can attest to the stringent requirements and the high caliber that either of these two organizations expect to see from any agency making application for certification. The Portsmouth Police Department doesn’t have what it takes and never will with the current executive management in place. The new Chief of Police appears to be a “tool”, he seems to be relying on his executive staff subordinates and I can tell you from first hand experience that they are not looking out for the Department, the new Chief of Police or the citizens of the City of Portsmouth. They lack any resemblance to real leaders and the majority of the rank and file officers of the Police Department have no respect for them. Their agenda is Me Me Me and CYA, they have no clue what real leadership is all about and don’t lead by example.

Criminal Justice Services Board

June 11, 2009

Vice-Chairman Green called upon Mr. Walter McFarlane to give a brief report on the Certified Crime Prevention Community Program.

Mr. McFarlane reported that the Subcommittee met on June 9, 2009 and reviewed three items. The Subcommittee members present were Chairman McFarlane, Sheriff Phelps, Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Quagliator (proxy for Ms. Decker) and Chief Lavinder (via teleconference). Minutes were taken by Rick Arrington, DCJS Program Analyst, who also presented the 3 items to the
Subcommittee for action. He reported the following:

Item 1: Vice-Chairman Green stated that it had been motioned and seconded that the Board approve the recertification of the City of Hampton as a Certified Crime Prevention Community.  Representatives from the City of Hampton were acknowledged and thanked the Board for their  re-certification.

Item 2: The City of Portsmouth was originally due for re-certification in September 2008. On  August 12, 2008, Interim Police Chief William Corvello requested the Subcommittee extend its  opportunity to apply for recertification until February 20, 2009. This  request was granted and Chief Corvello was notified of the new due date on August 22, 2008. As of February 20, 2009,  only 5 elements had been completed as final and a substantial amount of essential materials and  information had not been received. Portsmouth was granted a further extension from the March 2009 CJSB meeting until June to allow it time to complete its submissions. Mr. McFarlane mentioned that although Portsmouth provided information on a number of exemplary programs, the Subcommittee was very much troubled by Portsmouth’s failure to meet Core Element 12 which deals with Accreditation. When it originally applied for and received its initial certification, it had noted that it was then seeking Accreditation. Four years have passed from the time of its original certification and it has yet to be accredited. Program guidelines for the original certification stated, “Local Law Enforcement agency must either be accredited or seeking accreditation from the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission (VLEPSC) or Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).
Mr. McFarlane further mentioned that extensive discussion by the Subcommittee focused on the fact that Portsmouth had been given ample opportunity to become accredited. Based upon the foregoing, a motion to decertify the City of Portsmouth was Reluctantly made and was carried unanimously. This vote was undertaken with the further caveat that, due to the City Police Division’s recent change in leadership and the importance of the role that a strong leader plays in accreditation, the Subcommittee granted Portsmouth an exception to the normal provision that the applicant start all over, and thereby, initiate the process as if it was its first application. By granting this exception, Portsmouth may reapply as if its request is a request for recertification by June 2010, if it has received its accreditation at that time.

By way of a motion, Mr. McFarlane asked the Board to accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee to decertify the City of Portsmouth and to grant them the exception to allow them to take advantage of the opportunity to reapply for recertification by June, 2010 if they had received its accreditation at that time. Mr. Webb seconded the motion.

Recusals: Ms. Marlene Randall

At this time it was noted that the City of Portsmouth had representatives in the audience of whom were prepared to speak on behalf of their accreditation process. Present was Captain Sean Dunn and Mr. Joe Giltner, Accreditation Manager. Mr. Giltner gave a brief report on the history of the accreditation process and the challenges of the program. He stated that they believe they could achieve accreditation by December, 2011 however, they do not believe they could accomplish this within a 12 month period. Captain Dunn asked that the Board consider accreditation to the City of Portsmouth and to work with them on this issue, given the  circumstances.

Mr. Bushnell made a comment and stated that he was impressed with the report of the City of Portsmouth regarding accreditation and the importance of it. He then put a substitute motion on the table that the Board re-certify the City of Portsmouth. Ms. Randall then made a comment on behalf of Portsmouth and stated that the City has had some serious challenges with the numerous changes in leadership over the last couple of years. She appealed to the Board in favor of recertification of the City of Portsmouth.

Mr. Leon Baker, Division Director, Law Enforcement and Regulatory Services, DCJS made a brief comment and asked that Mr. Rick Arrington, Accreditation Manager, DCJS to take the podium and to speak to the accreditation process and the efforts of the City of Portsmouth.  Mr. Arrington stated that Portsmouth did have policies in place to reach accreditation, however, they have had many obstacles in the process. He also reminded the Board of the reason for, and the importance of accreditation. There were several comments and questions made by the following Board members: Mr. Bushnell, Mr. Hodges, Mr. McFarlane, Mr. McGrady, Mr.
Green, Mr. Vaughn, Delegate Miller, Mr. Macon and Mr. Dion. The questions that were posed by the Board were satisfactorily answered by Mr. Arrington and Mr. Joe Giltner. After much discussion and hearing the comments, questions and answers, the Board took a vote to replace the original motion with the substitute motion. The substitute motion failed by a vote of 10 to 8
in favor of the original motion to decertify the City of Portsmouth. All was in favor. Vice-Chairman Green stated that it had been motioned and seconded that the Board de-certify the City of Portsmouth with an exception to the normal provision as stated above. By granting this exception, Portsmouth may reapply as if its request is a request for re-certification. Accordingly, the City may take advantage of this opportunity to reapply for re-certification by June 2010 if it has received its accreditation at that time. Vice-Chairman Green thanked the representatives from the City of Portsmouth for their report and encouraged them to continue their efforts in seeking re-certification.

Item 3: Mr. McFarlane reported that the Town of Christiansburg has been in the process of  putting together its application for an original certification but has been unable to complete its certification due to its coordinator having personal and medical issues preventing his working on the certification. Chief Sisson advised DCJS that the coordinator had just returned to work and requested an extension for the opportunity to apply by the March 2010 meeting of the CJSB. The Subcommittee voted unanimously to extend Christiansburg the opportunity to submit its application no later than February 15, 2010. Submission by this date will allow review by the Subcommittee so that it may make a presentation for approval or disapproval by the Board at its March 2010 meeting. Mr. McFarlane, on behalf of the Subcommittee, thanked Mr. Arrington for the very extensive work he did in preparing the materials for presentation to the Subcommittee.
He then made a motion for the Board to accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee to
grant an extension to Christiansburg. Mr. McGrady seconded the motion.

Recusals: None

Vice-Chairman Green stated that it had been motioned and seconded that the Board accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee to grant an extension to the Town of Christiansburg until February 15, 2010.

Vice-Chairman Green thanked Mr. McFarlane for his report and mentioned that in light of the extensive discussions that the Board had regarding the program guidelines for re-certification, perhaps the department should go back to review and update the guidelines.

If you want to read more about the Criminal Justice Services Board “Certified Crime Prevention Community Program” click on this link.

For those few people that think the City of Portsmouth management looks out for their employee’s and that the City is a big family that takes care of its own I have a word for you, bunk.

Below is a passage from the City of Portsmouth’s Professional Occupational Medical Management Services contract last approved on April 13, 2006. I have a question for all, why would an employee ever have to pay for occupational health services? I can’t think of any, you’re going there because the City has sent you there for a medical exam, fit-for-duty test etc or you were injuried on the job and covered under the “Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act” where you select a city approved doctor from the Workers Comp Panel.

Are you one of the City of Portsmouth Employee’s that ended up receiving an overdue medical bill for some type of Occupational Health Services while an employee of the City of Portsmouth? I received numerous late/non-payment notices from just one on the job injury incident. I also ended up with a negative credit entry because the City of Portsmouth or Bon Secours (don’t know which) didn’t take care of the bill in a timely matter.

I can’t think of any instance why the City should be giving Bon Secours/Maryview Occumed permission to bill a City of Portsmouth employee. What is even more appauling is that they state that they will assist Bon Secours in billing the employee by providing “adequate documentation and other information necessary for prompt and accurate billing for denied services being billed to the City’s employees”. If you read the whole contract their is nothing included that provides any information about criteria to deny a claim. It appears they can deny it for any reason they want and don’t have to justify it to anyone.

I spoke with Susan A. MacLeod, executive vice president and administor for Bon Secours Maryview Medical Center in her office at the beginning of August. She told me that Maryview/Bon Secours tries to lookout for the Police and Firefighters. Sorry I just don’t see it given this contract and the number of people that have negative credit entries on their credit history because of either billing issues by Bon Secours or the City of Portsmouth not paying their bills in a timely manner.

I am interested in hearing from anyone that is a past or present employee of the City of Portsmouth who received any late payment notices involving Occupational Health services that was rendered by Bon Secours under the City of Portsmouth contract. If you are one of the people that have negative credit or received a late payment notice for a City of Portsmouth Occupational Health incident please click this link or send an email to mvh<at>portsmouthvapolice.com with the information and a way to contact you, email would be best.

Lets see if we can get the City of Portsmouth and Bon Secours to address this unacceptable level of service the employees of the City of Portsmouth have received. I am going to ask the Portsmouth City Council why its employees are treated like this.

1.4    Compensation and Billing

1.4.1    Amount of Payment.    In consideration of the Service rendered under this Agreement, the city will pay Contractor a monthly fee pursuant to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” or such other fee agreed upon by both parties for additional services requested by the City. The City agrees to provide payment to the Contractor within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a properly submitted invoice and according to the terms delineated in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

1.4.2    Billing.      In the event the City has denied payment for a services rendered hereunder by Contractor, Contractor shall have the sole right to bill the City’s employees or responsible third-party payors for any billable Services rendered by Contractor to such employees. All fees collected for such services will be the sole property of the Contractor. The City will cooperate with and assist Contractor in providing adequate documentation and other information necessary for prompt and accurate billing for denied services being billed to the City’s employees or responsible third-party payors.

Click link to the right if you want to read the entire Bon Secours P05/04 Occumed Contract April 13, 2006 Professional Occupational Medical Management Services contract.

Picture worth a thousand words;

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disarray
* S: (n) confusion, mental confusion, confusedness, muddiness, disarray (a mental state characterized by a lack of clear and orderly thought and behavior) “a confusion of impressions”
* S: (n) disarray, disorderliness (untidiness (especially of clothing and appearance))

I had a good laugh today when I received an email with an audio attachment. It’s one of those funny things that’s sad. It starts off as a recruiting ad, kinda, but is actually a very well done parody of the current retention problems facing the Portsmouth Police Department. The Portsmouth Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) lodge had the ad made and is going to be airing it on various radio stations starting Monday.

I received permission to place it on my blog from one of the Officers of the Portsmouth FOP.

The Department has one very positive note for the junior officers that are hired. Once trained, then Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) certified Basic Law Enforcement Officers they can then find a job at any other Commonwealth of Virginia Law Enforcement Agency. A little over 10 years ago the City of Portsmouth changed their retirement system from a city run pension plan to the Commonwealth of Virginia “Virginia Retirement System” (VRS). By doing this they made a city employees retirement “portable”. You can now leave Portsmouth, go to any other Virginia state agency or municipality that is also under VRS and continue on with all your time from Portsmouth credited to you under your new agency for your retirement.

When you look at the pay differential of the local police departments (click here for area police pay comparison) you will see that Portsmouth ranks at the very bottom for pretty much everything. The question then becomes, why would a Portsmouth Junior Police Officer stick around in Portsmouth when they can go almost anywhere and get a pay raise in the thousands of dollars. Given the turmoil, mismanagement, politics, unfair treatment, inadequate compensation and poor working conditions how can you blame them for leaving? You can’t, but that doesn’t seem to concern the City of Portsmouth. The starting salary of a Portsmouth Police Officer is in the neighborhood of $30,000. It takes about a year from start to finish to train one to become a patrol officer and get them DCJS certified. You are talking about losing an investment of about $40,000-$50,000 every time a trained police officer leaves the department. Because Portsmouth Officers do more with less, handle more varied types of police cases due to the high crime rate (click here for Hampton Roads cities crime statistics comparison for 2006) they are far more experienced in a few short years then most of the other departments in the area and are popular applicants with the other departments. These departments avoid the $40,000-$50,000 cost to train a new officer and the applicant gets a pay raise in the thousands of dollars depending on the department that hires them.

Click the link below to listen to the ad, it’s accurate, funny and sad.. Portsmouth FOP Radio Recruiting Ad

If after you read my post or listen to the ad and want to help out, click the link below to go to the Portsmouth FOP page that has all the contact information to voice your concern to the Portsmouth City Council.

Funny title huh? Think that it’s a joke well it’s not. Back at the end of 2006 the city had new City Code books printed. I became aware of this as did people in Animal Control. We both asked for a copy of the new City Code book. Click City Code Book Email 113006 to Chief Long to see the response from the City Clerk’s Office.

Now as a Law Enforcement Officer you need to have knowledge of the laws you are tasked with enforcing. But again it becomes a money problem, it cost money to print code books and apparently the City of Portsmouth does not think that it’s important enough to fund such a outlandish concept as providing the City Code to the very people that are charged with enforcing it.

The City of Portsmouth and the Portsmouth Police Department also do not provide copies of the Commonwealth of Virginia Criminal or Traffic Code Books to the Police Officers either. Some of us used the internet access on our personal cellphones to lookup the State codes on the Commonwealth Website Link to the Code of Virginia . The City of Portsmouth uses “Municipal Code Corporation - Virginia” which is a private company to publish the City code on the internet. Because of the way the site is setup it is not easy to use via a cellphone.

The Portsmouth Police Department provides a City and State Code Cheat Sheet for it’s Officers to use. Unfortunately all the cheat sheet provides is the Code section and the title of the code. It does not contain any of the text of the code. For some codes that’s ok, they are not that complicated, i.e. Speeding 25 in a 35 MPH zone but others are very complicated and you really need access to the text to understand the law.

The department installed Mobile Data Terminals (MDT i.e. Laptop computers) in most of the Uniform Patrol vehicles a couple years ago. These terminals are tied into the Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD), the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). The MDT’s are interfaced with these networks and are not allowed to have internet access for security reasons. Because of this restriction they are unable to use the MDT’s to query any of the resources available via the internet that provide access to the City or State code.

I find it remiss that again officers in the City of Portsmouth Police Department are not provided with the tools to accomplish their job and it comes down to money. It is extremely difficult to enforce laws if you are not provided with anything more then a “cheat sheet” to refer to. This issue puts the City of Portsmouth and the Portsmouth Police Department in a situation where there could be a liability concern. If an Officer makes an arrest which had he or she been able to read the code before making that arrest the officer might have chosen a different course of action.