Grand Jury weighs in on 911 Fee
Grand jury.
It can send chills down your spine.
Tracing its history back to medieval England, a criminal grand jury meets in secret, summons witnesses under oath, listens only to the prosecutor and hands down indictments of the accused.
Less well known is the institution of county grand jury. Made up of mostly retired citizen volunteers, the purpose of our county grand jury is to investigate inefficiency and corruption to "insure that government is serving the best interests of Ventura County's citizens."
As City Manager, I meet once a year with the incoming jurors to brief them on our city's organizational structure and current issues. I've also been summoned on occasion to testify on various matters the jury is reviewing.
This week, the grand jury is releasing a report on Ventura's 911 Emergency Communications Fee. It is a careful and thoughtful report. While I can quibble with some of its findings and recommendations, the basic thrust of the concerns are valid. The grand jury is right that the fee is based on estimates of future revenue and is lower than could theoretically be charged. Their recommendation that we notify phone users in writing of the annual upcoming choice between monthly fee or per use fee is reasonable. It would address the complaints we received of a handful of phone users that they missed all the media coverage and city communication on the deadline this year.
The Grand Jury also supported the Council's decision to hold off on hiring six additional police officers and three more firefighters until the funding from the 911 Fee is quantified and stabilized.
Congratulations to the Grand Jury for wading through the emotions and myths regarding the new fee and providing careful analysis and thoughtful recommendations.
It can send chills down your spine.
Tracing its history back to medieval England, a criminal grand jury meets in secret, summons witnesses under oath, listens only to the prosecutor and hands down indictments of the accused.
Less well known is the institution of county grand jury. Made up of mostly retired citizen volunteers, the purpose of our county grand jury is to investigate inefficiency and corruption to "insure that government is serving the best interests of Ventura County's citizens."
As City Manager, I meet once a year with the incoming jurors to brief them on our city's organizational structure and current issues. I've also been summoned on occasion to testify on various matters the jury is reviewing.
This week, the grand jury is releasing a report on Ventura's 911 Emergency Communications Fee. It is a careful and thoughtful report. While I can quibble with some of its findings and recommendations, the basic thrust of the concerns are valid. The grand jury is right that the fee is based on estimates of future revenue and is lower than could theoretically be charged. Their recommendation that we notify phone users in writing of the annual upcoming choice between monthly fee or per use fee is reasonable. It would address the complaints we received of a handful of phone users that they missed all the media coverage and city communication on the deadline this year.
The Grand Jury also supported the Council's decision to hold off on hiring six additional police officers and three more firefighters until the funding from the 911 Fee is quantified and stabilized.
Congratulations to the Grand Jury for wading through the emotions and myths regarding the new fee and providing careful analysis and thoughtful recommendations.
posted by Rick Cole at
7:12 PM
13 Comments:
Rick, can you delete the requirement that comments have to be moderated before being posted. Its irritating and hinders free speech. If this is to be a more lively forum to debate the issues in Ventura, we need it to be real-time. I doubt you're going to get any kooks. We're all pretty sane here in Ventura and who knows, some fresh outside the box thinking may be just what we need. If this is not possible, then does anyone know of a more lively forum where we can hash out Ventura issues? Thanks.
I appreciate the suggestion and will give it thoguht. I'm sorry that we are not in real time. But the "lively" forums I see on the VC Star, including Marie Lakin's blog, don't look like productive civil discourse to me. They seem to be dominated by a handful of people who have nothing better to do than spew vitriol. And, by the way, we do get inappropriate comments that we don't post. The alternative is to monitor the blog and take them down, but that has its own downsides.
Well, thanks for the plug, Rick. I think.
There's no perfect blog world. I delete comments occasionally if they violate my rules, which are the same as the rules on the Star's main site. They also do plenty of clean-up work out there.
But I allow all viewpoints, even the vitriolic ones, because that is the real world. Usually I get a good balance of opinions. It may not always be what you want to hear, though.
Do I get a few kooks? Yes. The ability to post anonymously and in real-time encourages some folks to be free -- and sometimes careless -- with their opinions.
When I set the blog up, the Star asked if I wanted to pre-approve comments like you do and I told them no.
Freedom of speech is not always pretty.
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/mlakin
If you hadn't noticed, there only about three or four blogs responses to each topic. You choose great topics so its not that there is insufficient material to generate dialog.
FYI, I have posted a few responses that did not appear in the blog. I doubt its because they are too controversial so either its because of they somehow got lost with the delay or we don't completely understand the rules.
City Council meetings are tedious so this is potentially a good spot to get views heard. Cheers!
Ahh, OK, back to the topic at hand...the 911 fee. While my family and I are paying this fee without any protest, my guard is certainly up. This is mainly due to the delay in the actual hiring of police officers and firefighters. I certainly understnd a minor delay to build up funds and work out any objections, the key word here being "minor." However, if or "when" they are not hired within the year, I will be opting out the first chance allowed. And then, instead of a supporter of this 911 fee, you have a strong vocal opponant...and, I think I won't be alone.
So, as for now I wish you luck in getting this thing off the ground.
The 911 fee makes about as much sense as the first bag fee now charged by three airlines -- which is to say, it does make sense from a distance.
Much of our economy follows a couple simple models that we're all used to. You walk into a store, pay for something, and it's yours. Or you buy your ticket and get to take your luggage with you. Or you pay your taxes and that gets you emergency services.
But more and more we're expected to engage in complicated transactions, with pages of fine print and all sorts of inscrutable fees. Nobody has the time to read fifty pages of legalese when they get a mortgage. Few people understand their telephone bill.
When we push people into a new type of transaction, with a new fee and it has this option or that, but if you choose option b the fee is waived when certain criteria are met, that's takes up time. Simply understanding it has a toll, a cost in cognitive overhead. When it's thoughtfully deliberated for an hour or two, it can make perfect sense. But for 90% of taxpayers, they just have to trust that it's fair and reasonable. It may be naive to assume everybody has that sort of trust in their local government.
It doesn't help matters that fine print and optional fees rarely work to the benefit of the taxpayer or consumer.
I pretty much agree with Mike.
We all resent the nickel and diming he references: mysterious bank fees, luggage charge add ons and having to pay to talk to someone in tech support on a software program you already bought.
But as in the private sector, it isn't that we sit up at night thinking up sneaky fees. We now live where everything is more or less on sale all the time with coupons and come ons all around us. While this has kept inflation in check (and forced the automation or outsourcing of many jobs) eventually companies and governments have to find work arounds because we can't give away our products and services.
Remember Saturn? They offered one sticker price. No bargaining, no mystery.
It didn't take the world by storm.
So, yes, Mike, complicated fees and "opt in" and "opt out" choices are annoying and exact a cost in cognitive overhead.
But if everyone wants everything (including government services) at a bargain, the complicated work arounds are the eventual result.
Thank you for saying you agree, at least in part, with me.
The first comment in this thread urges you to let Venturans post without having their remarks be approved. You point out what a mess the forums can be at the VC Star: a handful of people write nasty, racist screeds, which the Star scrambles to delete. I think you should continue to approve posts -- it's a far sight better than Bill Fulton's blog, where commenting is disabled.
Still, as I'm sure you're aware, those forums at the VC Star website exploded when news of the 911 fee was announced. The article clearly spelled out the two billing options, and explained how nobody opting out of the monthly fee would be charged for calling 911 in the case of an emergency. Yet still, people were agog because they now assumed they'd be charged a fee to call 911 to report a burglary.
This juicy misinterpretation even made it to the airwaves on the Frosty, Heidi and Frank radio show in Los Angeles. Nobody corrected the misinformation.
There are Venturans who now mistakenly believe that they will be charged money if they call 911 in an emergency. If they see somebody collapse on the sidewalk, will they hesitate to call? They might, and that bothers me. It bothers me deeply.
Finally, to suggest that these fine-print fees are ubiquitous and thus defensible contradicts, in spirit, today's post about how Ventura can lead the way in better governance.
A government is granted special powers in large part because it is assumed it will be insulated from the marketplace's regrettable and inevitable focus on short-term gains over long-term goals. Government is expected to behave better -- more wisely -- than firms in the marketplace. Why should my city be drawing comparisons to one of the nation's most loathed industries?
If we could trust the free market to keep us safe and secure, we'd have no need for government. When a government uses corporate shenanigans to defend short-sighted policies, that is not "the eventual result." It's a cop out.
Mike again makes good points.
To clarify: 911 fees are not ideal public policy. But I don't think it is a "cop out" to recognize neither the public sector nor the private sector live in an ideal world.
California voters have erected a nearly impenetrable thicket of legal and fiscal provisions that have made the State nearly ungovernable. While it is easy to blame incumbent governors and legislators, let's remember they are elected by the very citizens who blame them.
At the local level , we have a Rube Goldberg system for paying for basic services that everyone insists they are entitled to (police, fire, parks etc.) I agree we should strive to for a higher standard of governance. How would you pay for increased polic and fire protection?
The short answer is, I wouldn't.
There's a mechanism in place for raising money for emergency services. No, it shouldn't require a two-thirds vote, but that's the law, and P6 did not pass. As I recall, the Chamber of Commerce didn't campaign against it, but neither did they endorse it, and were relieved when it failed. Their take was, we have a fine PD and FD right now. It's probably fair to ascribe that belief to everybody who voted against P6.
Using a shell game to get around the failure of P6 is bad enough; doing it with what you yourself call a "911 Fee" is poor judgment.
So bring it up again for a vote, see if you can squeeze another 4%. If we need more emergency services going forward, that should get you a couple points. A couple more points would come from getting out the vote. Even better would be finding a way to get the Chamber on board. I doubt they're eager to see Ventura with low taxes, low property values, and high crime.
In the meanwhile, there are places the city budget can be trimmed. $300,000 to a consulting firm for their vision of Victoria? That was not money well spent. For a mere three grand I would've told you not to bother until the 126 - 101 interchange is addressed.
Instead of spending tens of thousands fixing the Bus-Home monstrosity, I'd recycle it at the scrap yard. It should never have been built. When the city builds something, it should not be required to spend 2% on public art. When the city undertakes something, it should be enough of an improvement without requiring art as well.
Some art, like Bus-Home, simply doesn't appeal to most Venturans. Another $80,00 for art at the parking structure? Or the kinetic sculpture at Thille park -- it's neat, but I'd trade it in a heartbeat for a mature tree. There's no shade in that park. Anywhere. And then at Montalvo Hill park, the sculpture by the playground is going to send some kid to the hospital for stitches in the scalp. It's not an asset, but a liability.
$280,000 in public art, $300,000 so folks from out of town can compare Victoria to lovely avenues in Paris and Barcelona -- pretty soon it starts to add up.
I realize capital improvement money can't directly be used to pay police salaries. But I'm sure there are places where the funds overlap. Whoever came up with the phone tax/911 call center/police salaries dance can find a way to shift money around.
Hey there Rick,
Welcome to Ventura. I know you are a "stand up guy" with this blog. It is not easy being a City Manager of a Full Service City. I appreciate your dedication... from a downtown, Avenue kid since 1965.
However, I want to know who's idea it was to invest $10 million in Bear Stearns. This is money down the toilet (at our nice Sewer Treatment Plant on Harbor. I want a tour).
Our shortcoming could of been met by this loss of taxpayer's money, at least in the short-term.
But no mention of what went wrong (our accountable government, or something like that) has been reported.
Okay, everybody F's up sometimes. You and I know this. But, this is major and some discipline has to be made. If taxpayers don't make their payments, then heavy discipline is applied. Should be the same discipline for the "taxers" be applied?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/ventura_comes_a.html
Thanks.
Rick,
I'm sure you're aware that the 911 fee is going to be a major issue in the next City Council campaign. I realize this may not be a huge concern for you, since you're not running.
But, I'm just curious as to what kind of reasonable defense the Council candidates can use to support this fee in the campaign.
To the Downtown Avenue kid since 1965, the report cited in the so-called California Progress Report is inaccurate and alarmist. The City did not (and has not) lost a penny on its Bear Stearns bonds. Yes, when Bear Stearns melted down, their stock went into the toilet. But their AAA bonds were simply transferred to JP Morgan with Federal backing.
As for Restav's question about what Council candidates can say, it's my job to steer clear of that. The vast majority of residents DID not opt out and we hope the 911 will generate sufficient revenues to allow the City to hire additional police officers and firefighters to improve emergency response.
Post a Comment
<< Home