Well...

[LisaT]

since it's in the board packet and a matter of public record, and since a number of folks probably don't download and read the csd packet each month, I thought I would post the letter that I wrote the CSD BOD. Mostly as an fyi.

[LisaT]

Just a follow-up:

It isnt’ just about the ordinances….

Security challenged on its ability to retain officers | RanchoMurieta.com -- Rancho Murieta news, homes, golf, forums and people

What I learned from reading my own quotes in the story above, is that I’m not the most eloquent speaker -- sometimes I speak none too well. Oh well.

I attended the security committee meeting because an earlier letter of mine was on the agenda. When the topic came up, it was pretty quiet in the room, with no one taking the lead, so I jumped in with things that I had prepared in case there were questions.

We talked about the retention first. My main point about the drop in retention is that it’s an indicator. Of what? Well, no one can say definitively. I absolutely support CSD letting people go when it’s determined that they will not work out, but I also know some of the other reasons that folks left. Let me clarify one thing: Remson “didn’t defend his job performance” because the discussion wasn’t about his job performance. At the meeting I clearly stated that this was not my implication. I did state my belief that the retention problems are an indicator that there is something wrong in security. This could be a problem with the chief, the general manager, the board itself, or one of those problems that was inherited and is currently no one’s fault, but just is. I think of it a bit as “security sludge” (for those of you that followed the water problems).

Here is what I contend:

The district has authorized their officers powers of arrest (District Code 7.06(d)(2) and 7.20). In the legal literature, depending on which municipal codes one reads, you will see the PC 836.5 arrest authority has been called either peace officer’s powers of arrest (for misdemeanors) or public officer’s powers of arrest. It is universally agreed by all parties in this conversation that our officers do *not* have peace officer authority. However, they have been given arrest authority in the district code. (Peace officer status and arrest authority are separate entities.)

The new law (SB 135, 2005) specifically tells community service districts that they can provide either security services or a police department.

If the district lawyer states that the district cannot operate under PC 836.5, then more than just the ability to cite for ordinances is affected. The way in which many calls are responded to is affected. Currently, Security often acts as our local (limited) law enforcement, and it’s difficult to imagine how that will change, thus the handout at the meeting (attached below).


As just a couple of examples, IF CSD Security really are only security guards, then…

If you have a burglary in progress, a security guard has no authority to help you.

If there is a domestic violence call, a security guard has no authority to help you.

If Security sees any drug activity in the community, they have no authority to act.

If you require medical care from the fire department as a result of any possibly criminal activity (anything where charges might be filed, like a fight, etc.), the fire department medics will not be able to attend to you until SSD is on the scene.

I also contend that the only way that the community can decide what we want now, or in the future, is to fully understand what we have now, or don’t have.

Depending on what the lawyer tells the folks over at CSD, this really has the potential to be a major event. If this is the case, it is my hope that all ratepayers will become involved, and learn about the issues. If the ratepayers don’t take an active role, then about 7 people will be making some big public safety decisions for all of us.


I honestly think that Chief Remson summarized the situation perfectly:

"Hopefully what we'll do is better define our role. And if that role is more enforcement, then so be it. If that role is less enforcement, then so be it. But we'll hopefully eliminate any gray areas with input from the board and the community and what we legally can and can't do. Hopefully we can get a good group of officers that will be comfortable following those rules and regulations as they're handed down to us."

[BethB]

Thank you Lisa, for tackling this matter.



Unfortunately, unless you can wake up the other 80% of the community (i.e., those that don't read RM.com or MurietaOnline.com) those people will still be blissfully ignorant to the problems the community is having and why the need for our Security to be more than just Security Guards!

[Wilbur]

I too agree with the Remson quote. The good news is that the BOD is aware of the problem, it's out in the open, they know that they and their counsel need to decide whether it's fish or fowl and revise the rules of engagement accordingly.

Nothing ever resolves as quickly as we'd like, but I think this is creeping toward some resolution.

[TDS]

I got this right off the rmcsd website... HERE

The mission of the Rancho Murieta Security Department is to protect life and property and to also provide prompt, courteous, and professional service to the public within the Community Services District.

Each officer has a responsibility and the authority to uphold the law as it pertains to Rancho Murieta Community Services District Ordinances under Government Code section 61600(h) and 836.5 of the California Penal Code.

Security services include:

• Operating the security gates located at the entrances to Rancho Murieta, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, including but not limited to staffing these gates;
• Providing a 24 hour a day mobile patrol of the District and its boundaries;
• Operating a radio communication system to maintain contact with external police, fire and other emergency services as well as the appropriate entities within the District;
• Providing assistance to other agencies providing first aid, fire fighting, police and emergency services within the District;
• Monitoring, controlling and registering guests or invitees of District customers and other visitors within the District;
• Conducting such other activities as the Board in its discretion may authorize for the protection of District customers and their property; and
• Other incidental costs of providing the services listed above.

The stuff in red above is stuff that would be heavily impacted if our local security department can no longer function under PC 836.5. The protection of "life and property" would be limited to providing a visual deterrence.

Patrol officers respond to calls for service as well as perform routine patrol services. Calls for service include: animal calls, key service, house checks, public assist calls, and suspicious person calls. Patrol services are also augmented by an off-duty sheriff program utilizing the Sacramento County Sheriff's department.

Security guards would not likely respond to most of this stuff in red, especially suspicious persons type calls. They might drive by to observe the suspicious person, but they would not talk to the suspicious person. They might drive by your house and see that doors are closed and such, but they won't check it very closely. Public assist calls would probably not be responded to at all. Animal calls? What's that? Loose dogs and cats and barking dogs? Forget it! Security guards might drive by and listen to a barking dog, but they'd refer a complaint to some other entity.

Security services as a security guard would not need further augmentation by the Sheriff's Department. They would be paid a huge amount of money to do what? Be a law enforcement presence? From reading the logs and the RM .com website, it appears that the SSD isn't out here all the time anyway. If the SSD isn't needed all the time, I guess that a 20-30 minute response time would be just fine all the time.

The following is right off of LisaT's letter and, I believe, straight off of the BSIS website:

WHAT IS A PEACE OFFICER'S JOB?
Peace officers are law enforcement officers such as Sheriffs and their Deputies, Constables, Marshals, members of city police forces and other officers whose duty is to enforce the law and preserve the public peace. If a law is violated, peace officers are required to pursue and apprehend the person responsible. This is not required of a security guard!

If Rancho Murieta Security became just a "Security Guard Service", that quote from RMCSD's website could be re-written to be about like this:

The mission of the Rancho Murieta Security Department is to protect life and District property and to also provide prompt, courteous, and professional service to the public within the Community Services District.

Each officer has no responsibility or authority to uphold the law as it pertains to Rancho Murieta Community Services District Ordinances.

Security services include:

• Operating the security gates located at the entrances to Rancho Murieta, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, including but not limited to staffing these gates;
• Providing a 24 hour a day mobile patrol of the District and its boundaries;
• Monitoring and registering guests or invitees of District customers and other visitors within the District;
• Observe and report violations of the law to the Sheriff's Department or other appropriate entities.

I also wonder about retention rates of the patrol officers. I've worked for companies that have excellent and poor retention rates. The ones that have poor retention rates have them for a reason and the reason usually isn't a good one. I hope that LisaT isn't correct in her assertion of why the retention rate is so dismal for patrol...

I guess we do live in a state of Mayberry...

[TDS]

Originally Posted by LisaT

I honestly think that Chief Remson summarized the situation perfectly:

"Hopefully what we'll do is better define our role. And if that role is more enforcement, then so be it. If that role is less enforcement, then so be it. But we'll hopefully eliminate any gray areas with input from the board and the community and what we legally can and can't do. Hopefully we can get a good group of officers that will be comfortable following those rules and regulations as they're handed down to us."

Originally Posted by Wilbur

I too agree with the Remson quote. The good news is that the BOD is aware of the problem, it's out in the open, they know that they and their counsel need to decide whether it's fish or fowl and revise the rules of engagement accordingly.

Nothing ever resolves as quickly as we'd like, but I think this is creeping toward some resolution.

LisaT and Wilbur: I think you're both right... one way or the other, this is going to come to some sort of resolution. It may take a pendulum swing one way or the other first before it reaches a "happy medium" with a clearly defined role though. This needs watching... and perhaps some:

Ultimately I think it'll take a lot of this: and before we end up with:

I just hope that along the way we don't see too much of this:

And for cryin' out loud, Please do NOT blame it all on --->

[LisaT]

Thank you Beth -- it will be a task reaching that 80% !! I miss the days when I used to be oblivious

Absolutely Wilbur, and accepting the creep is often hard to do!! However, I'm also hoping that we all start with using the same definitions once that resolution is determined. Then we can go from there.

TDS, I think that we are sooooo very used to this hybrid of a security/limited law enforcement officer, that we really don't understand what a real security guard does (or doesn't do), and it is going to take a changing of the mindset to really understand it. Or maybe not -- guess it all depends on what the lawyer comes back with.

[Unicorn]

It will be interesting to see how many parents wake up from their land of lalal land and realize where there kids are at night or realize their kids may jeopardize their reputation with the community.

[Birdieman]

5 posters on this thread out of 400 registered users. I told you Lisa, the interest just isn't there. You're paddling a boat with no oars.

[Mama Mia]

Originally Posted by birdieman

5 posters on this thread out of 400 registered users. I told you Lisa, the interest just isn't there. You're paddling a boat with no oars.

I have never seen 400 posters post on any given day....in talking to the residents in this community, I find lots of interest but many folks either do not post on a site or are not verbal about the subject. It doesn't mean that there is no interest, just that they are not expressing their concerns as we do.......