I have found two things that are generally true when it comes to municipal police officers. They jump at the opportunity to take off-duty jobs, especially if it involves security work, and they rarely live in the same municipality in which they are employed. And I have no problem with either of these situations.
I used to wonder about police residency requirements until I sat down and had a number of conversations with officers and now I completely understand why they chose to live where they do. And I have no reservations about them taking off-duty jobs. I do have a problem, however, if they use their marked vehicles on those jobs and their part-time employer is not reimbursing the city for the gasoline that’s used and the general wear-and-tear on the vehicle caused by taking that car off to, say, block an exit on I-35 or some such. No reimbursing is tantamount to stealing taxpayers money.
I didn’t know the city did not charge for the use of these vehicles until it was brought to my attention by a concerned citizen during a recent visit to a resident’s home. After I was told about this, I double-checked with city spokesperson Jerry Hendrix who sent me a copy of a Kyle Police Department General Order issued Feb. 1, 2013 concerning the department’s "take home vehicle program." The last item of that order says "The vehicle may be used to travel to and from an off duty assignment that is within the police department’s jurisdiction. Approval for an assignment outside the jurisdiction may be made on a case by case basis by the Chief of Police or his designee. If an officer is summoned on duty they must leave the secondary employment and travel straight to the police department in their take home vehicle."
That’s it. Nothing about reimbursing the taxpayers for the vehicle and Wednesday night, in her last meeting as a member of the Kyle City Council, Samantha Bellows felt the need to bring this to the attention of her fellow council members.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett told the council the department surveyed 13 other Central Texas jurisdictions and learned five did not charge and eight did. He told the council there are two distinct ways cars may be used by officers employed in off-duty security-type situations.
"One is the non-active use versus the active use of a police vehicle," the chief explained. "Sometimes people ask the police to bring a vehicle and merely park it at the front gate or park it near the front door of the business and the presence of the vehicle is a deterrent to criminal activity and the motor is not running and the lights are not in use. It really just drove from the police station to the location and then back to the station.
"Alternatively there is the active use of a police vehicle. And that means when the motor is running and/or when the lights are turned on and we are actually using the equipment throughout the security event.
"The non-active use locations might be a venue that’s going to host a concert or something and the activity is really on the inside. The police vehicle is there merely as a presence. The active use more closely relates to the Interstate 35 construction zones where our officers are helping to block Interstate 35. They bring out and lower the big cross beams across the interstate and we have to shut the interstate entirely down. We reroute traffic. And at other times on the service roads, on both access roads we may have to close a bridge at one end or the other while they’re doing their work. Generally those cars are active in use with the motor running and lights flashing and what-not."
He said only two of the eight entities he surveyed that charged for the use of police vehicles charged for "non-active" uses: Hayes County charged a flat fee of $15 "for the mere presence of a vehicle regardless of whether it’s there for one hour or 12 hours." Rollingwood charged $20.
"Several of the others charged an hourly rate if that vehicle is running and the lights are flashing and maybe you’re using fuel," Barnett told the council. "The prices range anywhere from $10 to $20 per hour and that’s charged to that customer and is paid directly tp the governmental entity. So it is paid directly to the city of Kyle and not the police officer."
That is, of course, if Kyle charged for this service which Barnett admitted the city currently doesn’t. He did say however he is including some mention of this in a fee schedule he is proposing as part of the department’s budget request to the city manager.
Mayor Todd Webster thanked council member Bellows for bringing the matter to the attention of the council, but said there wasn’t much that could be done about it until it came time to debate the city manager’s proposed budget.
""This is more that this is my last stand," Bellows responded. "I figured I should state it now instead of when budget comes around. So I want to put it on the radar now and say ‘Hey, we are missing out on this. We’re losing money because of it.’"
No comments:
Post a Comment