January 13, 2017 at 3:39 p.m.
Good chief, bad policy
Good chief, bad policy
Specifically, we've been supportive of the tenure of chief David Jaeger, as we continue to be. But, as we report today, we were appalled that the department's top three commanders were all off the week between Christmas and New Year's.
Yup, in what is a traditionally busy week, the department's top three in charge took the week off. In addition to Jaeger, lieutenant Jason Benbenik and third-in-command Sgt. Dave Geiss stayed home for the holidays.
This is a colossally bad policy for any number of reasons, one apparently fashioned by the chief himself, and it should be revised immediately.
To be sure, Jaeger has tried to justify a policy that effectively leaves the department without on-duty leadership, but we feel those justifications fall way short.
True, as Jaeger points out, the officers are on-call even though they aren't on-duty. Jaeger says he has an on-call supervisor available every day of the year. That supervisor doesn't drink while on-call and doesn't leave the area so he or she can respond to a situation if necessary.
That's not quite reassuring enough, and there are reasons why such policies don't measure up.
For one thing, being in the area rather than being in the office right in the middle of town is likely to increase response time when a physical response is needed. Seconds and minutes matter in police work, and any delay is unacceptable.
Second, and more important, when an officer is on-call rather than already in the office, that officer - because that officer is human - is more likely to spend valuable time trying to talk his or her way through an incident on the phone before responding in person. Precious minutes can be lost.
It's true in every occupation that a person will simply do their best to avoid leaving their home when it would be a no-brainer to respond physically to the same situation if that person was on-duty. Call a plumber in the middle of the night, and that plumber will try to get the homeowner to try any number of stop-gap measures to avoid the out-of-hours trip.
Remember the old saying about calling doctors in the middle of the night, and the doctor says, "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning." There's a reason that saying came to be.
It's the same for the officers who are on-duty. They are more likely to hesitate making a call and disturbing a commander at home than they would if that commander was on-duty.
All of which is to say, the on-call system isn't as effective as having someone on-duty who can make a decision about response and back-up that is not based at least in part on the supervisor's location.
That's probably why we could not find any area law enforcement agencies who would allow their top supervisors to all take the same week off. That no one else does should be a red flag by itself.
Jaeger says a police department with a small staff cannot have a supervisor on-duty all the time, and that's true, but that's a far different situation than allowing three supervisors to take the same week off and leaving officers commanderless.
The bottom line is, the on-call system is inefficient and should only be used as a matter of necessity, not as a routine way to give all top officers the holiday week.
While law enforcement is stressful and dangerous work, and while we appreciate the sacrifice these officers make, they are nonetheless well-compensated and do get plenty of time off. Jaeger and Benbenik both pull down more than $65,000 a year and each has approximately 360 hours paid time off a year - the equivalent of 30 twelve-hour shifts or 45 eight-hour days.
Most people in the Northwoods can only dream about that. With that kind of pay and benefits, one would expect that someone - at least one commander - would be on duty during a busy holiday week.
Taxpayers should expect no less, and taxpayers also need to be concerned about how policy is being enacted within the town.
The chief came up with this policy, but, with all due respect, the chief's job is not to dictate policy but to enforce town policy. The key word in law enforcement is 'enforcement' - they enforce the law, they do not make it.
Making policy and town code is the job of the town board - a job it isn't doing. Once, the town had a police commission to oversee such matters, but that is long gone, and the town board needs to step up to its responsibilities.
In our report, Minocqua town chairman Mark Hartzheim said he planned on having Jaeger visit with each town supervisor and review for them the department's protocol. That's exactly backwards.
In this case, the town board should be summoning Jaeger to appear before them in an open meeting to explain to him a new department protocol - namely, that not all commanders can get the same week off, and that the department must have an on-duty rather than on-call supervisor as much as is humanly possible.
If the town board isn't going to exercise its policy-making responsibility, then one of two things should happen. Either the police chief's position should become an elected one, so taxpayers can hold the chief accountable for such policies, or the department should be disbanded altogether.
After all, if it isn't essential to have any commander on duty during a busy holiday week, one wonders just how essential the department itself really is.
That's an especially pertinent question given that taxpayers are paying more than $1.5 million a year for the police department, all the while footing the bill for about 25 percent of the county's sheriff's department budget.
That hints strongly of law-enforcement overkill. But while that's a long-term question, the short-term issue needs to be dealt with.
That is to say, someone needs to be running the police operation on-duty as much as is possible, and commanders should be prohibited from vacationing en masse, leaving the public without on-duty leadership.
For bad policy, if it isn't corrected, will bring down a good chief every time.
Comments:
You must login to comment.