HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201988 - IO.6 TO� s�OARD OF SUPERVISORS I . 0. 6
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE COr tra
December 12, 1988 Cowa
DATE: r�J/yV Il��/
Delta Regional Communications ` I /f,.11
SUBJECT: Center (DRCC)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Request the County Administrator to consult with the cities
of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, Sheriff Rainey and his
staff, the Director of General Services and his
Communications staff, each of the Fire Districts currently
served by DRCC, plus Consolidated Fire District, Regional
Ambulance Company, County Counsel and any other parties he
deems appropriate in an effort to determine the following:
A. A historical perspective on why DRCC was formed, what
the total costs and County costs have been since the
formation of DRCC and the nature of the legal structure
which now operates DRCC.
B. A summary of the perspectives of the various agencies
which are identified above on what problems there.
currently are with the operation, governance, technical
capacity and administration of DRCC, what should be
done to resolve each problem and whether the
jurisdiction is willing to bear its fair share of the
costs of any solutions which are recommended.
C. A description of the alternatives which are available
to solve each of the perceived problems with DRCC,
including the cost of each alternative, the long-term
implications of implementing each alternative, and any
technical problems which may be involved in
implementing each alternative. The alternatives which
are explored should include, at a minimum, making
changes which are necessary to make DRCC work to the
general satisfaction of all affected parties,
consolidating all communications with the Sheriff in
Martinez and allowing the Sheriff to withdraw his
communications from DRCC in order to consolidate them
in Martinez even if other agencies wish to continue to
maintain DRCC.
D. A series of recommendations on those issues where there
is general agreement among all of the parties involved,
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): Sunne W. McPeak Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON Decem er APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED 0464, yr�(/!/ e70 198 8
Listed on Page 5
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY_P� ,DEPUTY
Page 2
D. (continued)
plus recommendations on the most appropriate solution
for resolving those issues on which there is not
general agreement, along with a suggested process for
dealing with those issues on which there is not general
agreement on the most appropriate solution to the
problem.
E. The County Administrator ' s report should provide
answers to the following questions, among others:
1 . Are the savings projected by the. Sheriff from
consolidating DRCC in Martinez valid?
2 . Are there cost-effective ways to relieve the
pressure on the current channel from the volume of
voice traffic?
3 . Does the fact that DRCC is not linked to other
dispatch centers in the County present an actual
or potential problem?
4 . Is there validity to the contention that people
dispatching emergency response vehicles in East
County should be familiar with East County and
that the only way to accomplish that familiarity
is to be physically present in East County?
5 . What would it take to solve the major problems at
DRCC and make it a high-quality dispatch center
for East County?
6 . Is the expressed concern about having all
dispatch centered in Martinez in case of a
disaster which might . knock out the Sheriff ' s
dispatch center valid and, if so, under what
circumstances? Is there any feasible way to guard
against such a situation?
7 . What is the most cost-effective way to provide the
highest feasible quality of emergency dispatch
service to the residents of East County?
8 . If, as is generally the case, the highest possible
quality of service must sometimes be compromised
for cost considerations, what are the logical
incremental points at which such decisions must be
made in terms of hardware, software, staffing,
physical location, and other considerations?
Once each of the above steps has been completed, request the
County Administrator to present a report to the 1989
Internal Operations Committee by not later than June 30,
1989 encompassing the above points. This report should
actually be completed and released to the members of the
Board of Supervisors and all affected jurisdictions by May
31, 1.989 to provide time for each jurisdiction to carefully
study the report and take a position on it.
2 . Request that the County Administrator share this report and
its attachments with each of the agencies served by DRCC
with a request that the governing body of that jurisdiction,
or the Board of Fire Commissioners in the case of
Board-governed Fire Districts, consider their position on
the future of DRCC, the problems with the current operation
of DRCC, and the nature of the solutions that governing body
would support.
Page 3
3 . Request the Director of Personnel to share with each of the
jurisdictions served by DRCC a copy of the personnel
announcement distribution used by the Personnel Department
for the position of Sheriff ' s Dispatcher with a request that
that jurisdiction suggest any additional organizations,
individuals or jurisdictions that should be notified of
examinations for Dispatcher.
4 . Request the Chief of the Consoldated Fire Protection
District to review the December 2 , 198.8 report from the
Director of Personnel on the salary and recruitment issues
involving the Sheriff ' s Dispatchers versus Fire District
Dispatchers and comment to the 1989 Internal Operations
Committee by February 1 , 1989 on the need to continue to
schedule dispatchers on a 56-hour a week schedule,
necessitating the payment of more than $400 a month per
dispatcher in overtime under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and why Fire District Dispatchers
should not be scheduled on a 40-hour week as are Sheriff ' s
Dispatchers.
5 . Request the Director of Personnel and Sheriff to report to
the 1989 Internal Operations Committee by February 1., 1989
on the steps which have been taken to resolve the
recruitment, examining, screening, certification and
retention problems which are outlined in the Director of
Personnel' s memo of December 2, 1988 and the Sheriff ' s memo
of December 7, 1988 .
6 . Request the Director of Personnel to advise the Board of
Supervisors as soon as negotiations with Local 1 have
reached a point where there appears to be either substantial
progress on the issue of salaries, benefits and working
conditions for Sheriff ' s Dispatchers, or it is clear that no
such agreement will be reached.
7 . Remove this issue as a referral to our Committee, referring
to the 1989 Internal Operations Committee the issues
outlined in recommendations 1, 4 and 5 above.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of .Supervisors approved a report from our Committee on
the subject of DRCC on November 29 and requested that several
reports be made to our Committee on December 12. On December 12 ,
we received the four reports which are attached to this report.
Present at our meeting were Councilwoman Barbara Price from
Antioch, Sheriff Rainey and members of his staff, the Chief of
the Antioch Police Department and a member of his staff, the
Chief of the Brentwood Police Department, a representative from
the Pittsburg Police Department, the City Manager of Brentwood,
Communications staff from the General Services Department, the
Chiefs of the Byron, East Diablo, and Riverview Fire Protection
Districts, a representative from the Personnel Department, a
representative from the Firefighters Local 1230 and the Foreman
and several members of the 1988-89 Grand Jury.
Sheriff Rainey and his staff reviewed the two memos from his
office and noted the steps which are being taken to try to
improve the salary and recruitment of Dispatchers. Sheriff
Rainey also noted the substantial savings which could be achieved
by consolidating DRCC with the Sheriff ' s Communications in
Martinez. Eileen Bitten from the Personnel Department reviewed
J
z
Page 4
the memo from the Personnel Director which noted the salary
comparisons of Sheriff ' s Dispatchers versus Fire District
Dispatchers, the use of overtime by each department, and the fact
that salary negotiations are currently under way in an effort to
resolve some of the salary differences between the two classes of
Dispatchers.
Chief Herendeen, (Antioch) noted that the examination announcement
for Sheriff ' s Dispatcher does not get distributed broadly enough
and asked that he and the other jurisdictions be given an
opportunity to review the current distribution list and suggest
additions to it.
Chief Frank (Brentwood) indicated his strong belief that it was
important to have Dispatchers physically located in East County
where they have an opportunity to become familiar both with the
territory in East County and with the various requirements of the
jurisdictions for which they will be dispatching. Chief Frank
also noted that he has a UHF channel available which could be
used for service traffic by DRCC.
Chief Herendeen . suggested that the use of mobile 'digital
terminals (MDT' s) would reduce the voice traffic considerably on
the existing channel.
Both Chiefs Herendeen and Frank warned about the consequences if
all dispatch services were consolidated in Martinez and an
earthquake or other disaster were to knock out the Sheriff ' s
dispatch center, thereby crippling the emergency dispatch
capabilities of a large portion of the County.
There was general agreement from all parties present that DRCC is
not currently working to anyone's satisfaction.
Chief Little (Riverview Fire) indicated that he wants areater
input to DRCC' s operations or a separate fire dispatch operation
for East County.
Our Committee believes that the County' s obligation is to provide
the best possible service to the residents of East County at the
lowest cost. It is clear that the staffing needs to be beefed up
at DRCC. We are also concerned about the "structural" overtime
which is being paid at Consolidated Fire and would like a report
from the Chief on the justification for the scheduling which
makes this necessary.
We would like to know whether additional capacity could be added
at DRCC if it were at full staff. We are also concerned with the
fact that DRCC is not interlinked with any other dispatch center
in the County. We believe we need to explore each of the
feasible alternatives and have appropriate financial data on each
alternative.
If we are to continue DRCC we have to make the present operation
work, whether with a true Joint Powers Authority or other
structural reorganization. We would like each jurisdiction which
is served by DRCC to receive a report on this meeting and have an
opportunity to detail their concerns and preferences to our
Committee.
In order to bring some closure to the discussion, we are asking
the County Administrator to undertake the study detailed in
recommendation #l, insure that every affected jurisdiction is
i
Page 5
consulted and has an opportunity to provide their input, that all
available alternatives are fully explored, that cost data for
each is provided and that, to the maximum extent possible, an
attempt at a consensus is undertaken before this issue is
returned to the Internal Operations Committee next year. We
would finally ask that the County Administrator ' s final report to
our Committee be made available to all affected jurisdictions and
to the members of the Board of Supervisors at least 30 days
before the meeting at which it is to be discussed to give all
interested parties an opportunity to review the report carefully
and provide their input to the 1989 Internal Operations
Committee.
cc: County Administrator
Sheriff-Coroner
City Councils: Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood
City Managers: Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood
Chief of Police: Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood
Fire Chiefs: Riverview, Byron, East Diablo, Oakley,
Bethel Island FPD
Chief, Consolidated Fire District
Director, General Services
Bob Guaspari, Communications Mgr. , General Services
V. J. Westman, County Counsel
Regional Ambulance, Inc.
Personnel Director
Henry Clarke, Local 1
Mike Price, President, Firefighters Local 1230
Phil Sitzman, Foreman, 1988-89 Grand Jury
- Contra Personnel Department
Administration Bldg.
Costa l/// 651 Pine Street
County Martinez, California 94553-1292
DATE: December 2, 1988
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Harry Cisterman, Director of Personnel
4
SUBJECT: Report on Salary and Recruitment of Sheriff's Dispatchers
The Internal Operations Committee has requested information regarding the
relative salary levels between Sheriff's Dispatcher and Fire District
Dispatcher, market data for dispatchers from surrounding jurisdictions and the
steps being taken by the County to increase recruitment and retention of
Sheriff's Dispatchers.
The Committee should initially be advised that meet and confer negotiations
were begun in August 1988 between the Sheriff's Department and Contra Costa
County Employees Association. Local No. One which represents Sheriff's
Dispatchers to restructure the class series and increase salaries upward to a
competitive level . Negotiations are actively underway at this time.
A. Current Sheriff and Fire Dispatcher
1. Sheriff's Dispatcher Filled Vacant
DRCC 9 4
COM 7 20 11
Main Jail 5 0
34 15
2. Senior Sheriff's Dispatcher
DRCC 5 1
COM 1 (Training Officer) 1 0
COM 7 3 2
Main Jail 1 0
10 3
3. Fire District Dispatcher 6 0
4. Senior Fire District Dispatcher 3 0
9 0
i
B. Relative Dispatcher Compensation
Sheriff Fire
Dispatcher Senior Dispatcher Senior.
1. Top Step (Monthly) $ 2368 $ 2723 $ 2866 $ 3161
2. Top Step (Hourly) 13.66 15.71 11.81 13.03
3-. Shift Differential 118 136 None None
4. Holiday Pay 178 204 230 254
5. Uniform Allowance 25 25 37 37
6. M.O.U. Overtime 835* 884* 159 176
7. FLSA Overtime ---None ---None -- 7(T--- —14+55-2c:-
Total
-Total Gross: $ 3524 $. 3972 $ 3702 $ 4080
W/O MOU OT: $ 2689 $ 30W', $ 3543 $ 3904
1 �
Differentials $854 $816
(31.8%) (26.4%)
Sheriff scheduled 40 hours per week (173.33 hours per month)
Fire scheduled 56 hours per week (242.67 hours per month)
3] Shift differential : 5% for .all Sheriff's Dispatcher
4] Holiday pay: Fire = 8.04%/mo, Sheriff = 13 hours/month.
6] MOU OT: Average overtime hours worked above schedule in 1988
Sheriff = 37.5 hours/mo. , *OT primarily of an
involuntary nature necessitated by a very high vacancy
factor. Fire= 9 hours/mo'.
7] FLSA OT: Fire dispatchers assigned 56 hour work week, but
compensated on 40 hours base schedule resulting in
structural OT of 14.29%
C. Market Data
In 1987, the County Personnel Department surveyed 53 public agencies
statewide to evaluate the relative compensation of Contra Costa County
Sheriff's Dispatchers with other public safety dispatchers. (See
attached) . Of the 53 agencies, 32 utilized the same job classification to
dispatch for both law enforcement and fire from one Central facility. Of
these, 21 had two working levels like Contra Costa. Among all 53 agencies,
Contra Costa ranked 20th at the journey level and 10th at the advanced
level . Base salary difference between journey level police and fire
dispatchers in Contra Costa County was 22.3% in 1987 and is 21.0% today.
- 2 -
D. Recruitment and Appointments in 1988
Filing for Sheriff's Dispatcher has for several .years been on an open
continuous basis. Groups of candidates are regularl-y administered a
written examination (30%) , a performance/aptitude test (30%) an and oral
interview (40%) . Candidates are ranked on the employment list according
to earned score and any veterans' preference points to which they may be
entitled. (See attached job announcement) .
The following statistics are pertinent:
.. Total applicants tested 1988 to date: 518
. Number of candidates placed on employment list: 163
Number of candidates referred to Sheriff's Dispatcher: 70
Removed for background: 11
Not interested: 24
Interested, but not hired: 18
Referred awaiting action: 7
Appointed: 10
70
. Number of candidates on current list (11/29/88) : 141
Number of candidates in testing process: 427
Number of candidates scheduled to begin testing: 173
At present, the Sheriff's Department intends to fill one Dispatcher
position at DRCC in January 1989 and one in February 1989. This will
leave 2 vacancies to be filled in 1989 under a procedure where one of each
two Dispatchers in training will be assigned to DRCC until full staffing
is achieved at both DRCC and COM 7.
Senior Sheriff' s Dispatchers has traditionally been a promotional only job
class allowing qualified Dispatchers to move up to a Lead position. Given
current vacancy rates, insufficient eligible or interested dispatchers are
available to fill the current 3 vacancies. To address this problem, the
County has agreed with Local One to announce a one-time-only open
examination for Senior Sheriff's .Dispatcher to encourage qualified
applicants from other agencies. A job announcement is attached. The
Personnel Department plans to complete the testing process in Mid-January
1989.
E. Proposed Classification Restructuring Under Negotiation:
The current class structure for Sheriff's Dispatchers includes two levels:
Sheriff's Dispatcher: $1948 - 2045 - 2148 - 2255 - 2368
Senior Sheriff's Dispatcher: $2241 - 2353 - 2470 - 2594 - 2723
Dispatcher is the entry level requiring only a high school diploma and no
previous work experience. Senior Dispatcher requires three years of
dispatching experience and is utilized as a shift supervisor. Promotion from
the former to the latter is by competitive examination to an existing vacancy.
- 3 -
The County has proposed a restructuring of the existing class series for
Dispatcher/Senior Dispatcher which offers salary adjustments and retitling
of existing jobs. The proposed restructuring of the current Sheriff's
Dispatcher series is intended to (1) recognize the level of work being
performed by Dispatchers and Senior Dispatchers in the Sheriff's
Department in relation to both the outside market and to the County Fire
Districts; and (2) address significant vacancy and turnover rates which
result in low morale and high overtime costs. Specific details of the
County's proposals and the Union' s counterproposals are withheld from this
report while current meet and confer sessions are underway.
F. Revisions to Selection Process
As is apparent from a review of the statistics in Section D regarding
applicants vs. appointments, the County is able to recruit more potential
dispatchers than are eventually employed. Several factors contribute to
the drop-off rate.
1. Approximately 40% of applicants invited to the written/performance
test do not appear.
2. Approximately 25% of original applicants are ultimately successful
and are placed on the eligible list.
3. Approximately 25% of eligibles referred to the Sheriff's Department
are not offered employment after the final employment interview.
4. Approximately 12-15% of candidates offered employment by the
Sheriff's Department fail the background investigation.
In 1988 the Sheriff's Department and the Personnel Department have
undertaken or are in process of implementing the following revisions to
the Dispatcher selection process:
1. More timely removal of disinterested candidates from the eligible
list so that additional new referrals can be considered.
2. More test administrations.
3. Revision of the competitive oral interview to insure that those
placed on the eligible list are both qualified and seriously
interested in employment.
4. Efficiencies in the conduct of background investigations have been
implemented to reduce delay.
5. Increased commitment to training and assistance for new Dispatchers.
Staff believes that the combination of increased salaries to improve
recruitment and retention and more rigorous evaluation of candidates at
the oral interview will do much to bring current staffing problems under
control by mid 1989. Opening of the new Sheriff's Dispatch center on
Glacier Drive in 1989 should also have a positive impact on retention and
employee morale.
RKH:amc
DISPATCHER SURVEY #1
SALARY (TOP STEP)
::,-AGENCY JOURNEY (RANK) ADV. JRNY (RANK) DISPATCH FIRE
Sunnyvale $3120 (1) $3432 (1) yes
..San ,Jose $2834 (2) $3279 (2) no
Mountain View $2641 (3) $2964 (3) yes
Santa 'Clara $2604 (4) $2892 (4) NA
(County)
Newark . $2576 (5) none (8) yes
Palo: Alto $2556 (6) none (9) yes
•`.:Alameda (County) $2484 (7) none (11) yes
San Mateo (County) $2478 (8) $2693 (5) yes
San Mateo (City) $2447 (9) $2683 ( 6) yes
B.A.R.T. $2393 (10) none (13) no
San Bruno $2380 (11) none (14) yes
Fremont $2362 (12) none (16) no
.Pleasanton $2307 (13) . 'none (17) yes
Richmond $2303 (14) $2443 (12) yes
Livermore $2296 (15) none (19) yes
San Leandro $2287 (16) none (20) yes
Concord $2261 (17) $2374 (15) no
: Orange (County) $2219 (18) none (22) no
::,Martinez $2213 (19) none (23 ) no
[CONTRA COSTA $227.7 , (20) $26 )q (10) no y
Walnut' Creek $2175 (21) none (24) no
Millbrae $2167 (22) none (25) yes
Alameda (City) $2157 (23) none (26•) yes
Sacramento (County) $2147 (24) none (28) no
:Solano (County) $2145 (25) none (29) yes
DISPATCHER SURVEY
:'PAGE2
AGENCY JOURNEY (RANK) ADV. JRNY (RANK) DISPATCH FIRE
Hayward $2138 ( 26) $2300 (18) yes
::Pleasant Hill $2130 (27) none (30) no
Berkeley $2107 (28) none (31) yes
.:-Marin.. (County) $2100 (29) none (32) yes
•- .Vallejo $2099 (30) none (33) yes
Santa Rosa $2093 (31) none (35) yes
C.H.P. $2093 (31) none (35) variable
": Sacramento (City) $2044 (33) $2248 (21) yes
San. Pablo $2023 (34) none (41) no
San _Joaquin $1995 (35) $2096 (34) yes
> (County)
Santa Cruz $1995 (35) . none (42) yes
v'(County)
<` Stockton $1985 (37) none ( 43) yes
4"~Oakland ' .. . $1967 (38) '$2578 . (7) no
Kern (County) $1932 {39} none (45) no
Santa Barbara $1922 (40) $2020 (40) yes
.: (County)
Riverside' (County) $1881 (41) $2151 (27) no
San Diego (County) $1878 (42) $2021 (39) yes
.-Los-Angeles (County)$1876 (43) none (49) NA
Napa (County) $1874 (44) none (50) yes
Pinole $1870 (45) $1917 (47) yes
Monterey (County) $1832 (46) $2045 (37) yes
: Fresno (City) $1820 (47) $2045 (37) yes
_.;:Ventura (County) $1809 (48) $1944 (44) no
.';:San Rafael $1798 (49) none (52) no
a-
-`S an :Bernardino $1780 (50) $1917 {47} no
: (County)
DISPATCHER SURVEY
PAGE -13
AGENCY JOURNEY (RANK) ADV. JRNY (RANK) DISPATCH FIRE
Stanzslaus (County) $1754 (51) $1931 ( 46) yes
:e
= Amador . (County) $1688 (52) none (53) yes
Fresno (County) - $1670 (53) $1843 (51) no
V�
�� Mil►��I , � ""I"ml I '.f�l�
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
-w+1_ R� c�(rtl 2a�iet '61? ��?ea . 7V'l ADMINISTRATION
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET,MARTIINEBZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 are 415 de 646-4047
S E N I O R S H E R I F F'S D I S P A T C H E R
$2241 - 2353 - 2470 - 2594 - 2723
THE POSITION
The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Communications Division is recruiting individuals with at least
three years of safety dispatching experience to fill two (2) vacant Senior Sheriff's Dispatcher positions.
This position requires an individual who is willing to work nights, swing, holidays and week ends.
Senior Sheriff's Dispatchers may be assigned to the Delta Communication Center in Antioch, or to the Central
Dispatching Bureau in Martinez. These facilities operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Incumbents are
assigned to one of three shifts occurring within the 24-hour period at one of the three work sites.
Senior Sheriff's Dispatchers provide working supervision to dispatchers engaged in the operation of
telecommunications, compL;ter and radio equipment. Typical ongoing assignments include: prioritizing
transmissions and relay of communications; orienting and training of new employees; observing and reviewing
both departmental and facility procedures, reporting and directing improvements as needed; authorizing and
reviewing absences of shift personnel and insuring coverage through replacements; handling personnel problems
and complaints that occur; and conducting performance evaluations. The Senior Sheriff's Dispatcher will act
for the Communications Center Director in his/her absence.
The eligible list established as a result of this examination will remain in effect for six (6) months.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Education: Possession of a high school diploma, G.E.D. equivalency or high school proficiency certificate.
Experience: Three years of full-time or equivalent experience in a public safety agency performing the duties
of a communications dispatcher, at least one year of which must have been with a County Sheriff, City Police or
State traffic enforcement department.
THE EXAMINATION
The oral interview will be held in Martinez, California. A Qualifications Appraisal Board will evaluate each
candidate's job-related qualifications in areas such as: knowledge of accepted techniques, procedures and
methods used in the operation of a law enforcement communications center; ability to train and direct the work
of others; and ability to make decisions in situations of stress occurring in a dispatch setting. Candidates
must receive a rating of at least 70 from a majority of the board members to be ranked on the employment list
(Weighted 100%).
FINAL FILING: December 16, 1988 ORAL INTERVIEW: To be announced
OPEN ONLY
#7900
11/23/88 - MR
Class Code: 64TA
S E N I O R S H E R I F F'S D I S P A T C H E R
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER... ITIS THE POLICY Of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE Of
RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE OR HANDICAP.
MITTl
� EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
� ' 'I rt• I'I'I�J � ��/�`���/� q/�,�� � / //},��7j
7VIPelGADMINISTRATION BUILDING
l
4#4 to PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET,MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553 are 415 de 646-4047
SHERIFF'S DISPATCHER
$1948 - 2045 - 2148 - 2255 - 2368
THE POSITION
The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office encourages the application of individuals interested in
on-the-job training to become a fully qualified dispatcher. Positions are found at the department's
three communications facilities: the Central Dispatching Bureau in Martinez, Delta Regional
Communications Center in Antioch and the Main Detention Facility in Martinez. All facilities operate
on a 7-day, 24-hour basis and incumbents may be assigned to any of the three shifts within a 24-hour
period. only candidates willing and able to work all three shifts and holidays should apply for this
examination.
Sheriff's Dispatchers receive telephone and radio messages, often of an emergency nature, and record
and relay the information to such units as patrol cars, fire departments, ambulance units and County
Office of Emergency Services. Dispatchers routinely handle a large volume of calls, many of a
life-and-death nature, and are responsible for 15-20 Sheriff's patrol units on a daily basis.
Individuals appointed to this class will serve a one year probationary period. Promotional
opportunities include Senior Sheriff's Dispatcher ($2241-2723) and Sheriff's Communication Center
Director ($2767-3363) . Dispatchers currently receive a uniform allowance of $25 per month. Shift
assignments receive a 5% pay differential above the listed salary. Several positions are designated
bilingual (Spanish-speaking) and are paid $40 per month differential. In order to qualify for a
bilingual position, candidates will be required to pass a fluency test.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
License Required: Valid California Motor Vehicle Operator's License.
Education: Possession of a high school diploma, G.E.D. equivalency or high school proficiency
certificate.
THE SELECTION PROCESS
1. WRITTEN TEST: A 60-question multiple choice test will be administered to all accepted applicants.
Questions will assess each candidate's ability to retain oral information, ability to handle simulated
dispatch situations and aptitude for dispatching work. Candidates must attain a score of at least 70,
which may be an adjusted score. (Weighted 30%)
2. PERFORMANCE TEST: A performance test will be administered on the same day as the written test and
will contain the following segments: 1) an exercise involving copying simulated dispatch information
from a tape recording, and 2) an exercise using a detailed street map book of Contra Costa County that
measures ability to understand and follow directions and quickly find data. (Combined Weight 30%)
3. ORAL INTERVIEW: Candidates who successfully compete in both the written and the performance test
segments will be invited to an oral interview. A Qualifications Appraisal Board will evaluate each
candidate in such job-related areas as: ability to make decisions in situations of stress; ability to
deal tactfully and courteously with the public, and ability to speak clearly and distinctly.
Candidates must receive a rating of at least 70 from a majority of the board members to rank on the
employment list.. (Weighted 40%)
All candidates considered for final appointment must: 1) undergo psychological testing measuring their
ability to work under stress and to adapt to a strict working environment, 2) successfully complete a
background investigation that will include reference checks with current and past employers, 3) pass a
typing test demonstrating the ability to type accurately at a speed of 25 words per minute, and 4)
successfully complete a health examination, which includes hearing and vision tests. Failure to
qualify in any of these screening processes may result in removal from the eligible list.
CONTINUOUS FILING TESTING SEGMENTS SCHEDULED AS NEEDED
OPEN ONLY
7/1/88 - MR
Class Code: 64WA
SHERIFF'S DISPATCHER
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER... ITIS THE POLICY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE Of
RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE OR HANDICAP.
Sheriff-Coroner Richard K. Rainey
Contra Costa County SHERIFF-CORONER
Warren E.Rupt
P.O. Box 391 Assistant Sheriff
Martinez, Calrnia 94553-0039 Gerald T.Mitosinka
(415) 646 Assistant Sheriff
Rodger Davis
Honorable Sunne McPeak
Assistant Sheriff
TO Honorable Tom Torlakson date: December 7, 1988
Internal Operations Committee
From: Richard - Sheri ff-Coroner subject: DRCC
We offer our comments regarding recommendati.ons 1,.--2 and 5 of the November 14,
1988 meeting of your Committee.
Recommendation #1:
The problem of recruiting. Sheriff' s Dispatchers is complex in that we are
dealing with a problem that is felt nationwide (all . agencies, especially in
California, have been dealing with this) and we are working within a County
system that does not-currently allow for the expedient recruiting, testing and
hiring of dispatchers. We are working closely with Personnel inlan attempt to
streamline"the procedure system.
The staffing at DRCC is dependent on. the total staffing level of the Sheriff's
Dispatchers.
Dispatching has been universally recognized' as a- female-dominated class. We
have had to deal with retent ion problems 'a`ssociated`with this type of work
including mandatory overtime:, its affects, on family life and child care
problems.
Low pay, combined with high workload has caused us to lose several dispatchers
over the past year (we are currently negotiating with Local 1 in an attempt to
give the dispatchers a pay raise to ' bring them closer to' -equality with Con-
solidated Fire dispatchers) .
Currently we are not using band certification for dispatch hiring. This has
caused us problems in that it decreases our flexibility in looking at larger
numbers of candidates during the final stages of hiring.
The present system we are using (Rule of Ten) has proven to be very
restrictive as candidates who are determined to be not acceptable remain on
the certification list preventing us from obtaining new names. The limited
ways of removing names from the list is causing the system to become
ineffective. We are working with Personnel to overcome this problem and have
suggested band certification or having a person's name removed atter remaining
on the list for one year without being hired. Personnel has agreed to look
into the problem.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Internal Operations Committee
December 7. 1988
Page 2
Other problem areas we are currently attempting to deal with are:
1. Due to the large volume of candidates applying for the job and the
various stages of testing, the hiring process has at times taken ten to
twelve months. This is unacceptable and we are working with Personnel in
an attempt to cut this down to a realistic three months.
2. The County has tended to limit the oral boards to "in-house" members.
This has proven to be a problem in that all members do not understand the
dispatch function and therefore this screening process tends to over-
burden the system by allowing under-qualified candidates to progress. We
are currently working with Personnel to change the oral board make-up to
include qualified outside help.
3. The large number of candidates combined with the current make-up of the
questions have not allowed the oral board to garner anything other than a
superficial view of the candidates. We are working with Personnel to
overcome this problem.
4. It is our opinion that too many candidates are passing the written and
performance tests. This also overburdens the system and places too much
of a workload on the oral board members. The current pass for the
written test is 35 out of 58 questions, or 60%. The performance test
only requires 53 out of 100 or 53%. Personnel is currently .looking at
this problem for us.
5. The current requirement of 25 WPM on the typing test has been proven
inadequate. With computerization, the typing skills become more impor-
tant. Personnel has agreed to evaluate this area of the testing proce-
dure.
6. The class is generally viewed as "entry level " since it ' requires only a
H.S. education, California Drivers License and 25 WPM 'typing. Conse-
quently numerous people apply, though a large percentage fail to show up.
This puts an added burden on Sheriff's Department and Personnel staff to
process names, applications and test scores for people clearly unsuited '
for the work. It also attracts people who have no idea what the work
involves. The manner of recruiting needs to be scrutinized to enable us
to obtain qualified and interested candidates. This is being looked at
by Personnel .
7. Training must be done by existing staff rather than outside private
contractors or even County trainers because the job requires so much
knowledge of department policies and procedures. As a result, existing
staff has the added burden of teaching while they occupy a spot in the
room to satisfy the minimum staffing requirements. This contributes
I
Internal Operations Committee
December 7, 1988
Page 3
heavily to job dissatisfaction and burn out. With the help of Personnel
in working with us to change the areas mentioned, the burden on our
training staff will be reduced.
The result of all of this is that we are down a total of 14 positions in the
Dispatch class. One supervisor and four dispatchers at DRCC and two super-
visors and seven dispatchers at Comm-7. The position is very stressful ,
requires more knowledge than a field unit because dispatchers deal with so
many different agencies, and dispatchers have to have equal knowledge as the
field unit in order to deal with the incoming phone calls.
Recommendation #2:
The Board of supervisors did not request a report from the Sheriff on August
16, 1988. The Sheriff did, however, submit a report dated July 26, 1988 per a
request from Supervisor Tom Torlakson as to the limitations of radio air time
at DRCC (report attached) . The information contained in that report is as
pertinent today as it was then.
A report was requested of the DRCC Operations Committee on August 16, 1988.
This was brought up for discussion at the September 8, 1988 Operations Commit-
tee meeting by the Chairman, Captain Jay Glenn of Antioch Police Department.
Captain Glenn stated he would compose the reply after receiving input from the
committee members at the next Operations Committee meeting. It is my under-
standing that this topic was not discussed again by the Operations Committee
and that a report was not submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
As to the request that we comment on problems with the operation of the Joint
Powers Authority for DRCC, we will honor that request now.
The above incident is one fault we have with a Joint Powers Authority or
Committee-type of management. No one has the responsibility to carry out
mandates. Discussion over matters relating to DRCC can be voted on and passed
by committee, yet on many occasions the responsibility of carrying out these
matters is not discussed and therefore not handled. Fire' has repeatedly
brought up the problems relating to the proper training of fire dispatchers.
All have agreed that the training is needed, yet the responsibility has not
been delegated and the problem remains.
Many times prior to the hiring problems faced by the Sheriff, it was brought
to the attention of the Operations Committee that the staffing level was too
low at DRCC. Members could not agree on whether they wanted to pay for more
dispatchers. DRCC is now staffed at an unacceptably low level due to the East
County growth and the committee's inability to proceed with increasing the
staffing level at an opportune time.
Internal Operations Committee
December 7, 1988
Page 4
Approximately two years ago a request was made to the Operations Committee by
the Sheriff's Delta Station House Commander to increase the staffing level at
DRCC because of the increasing workload on the dispatchers and the inability
to provide the proper service. After discussion, it was decided by the
majority of the committee that an increase in personnel was not the answer --
mobile data terminals were the answer. At the time there was no software in
the DRCC computer to support MDT's, yet that was the decision of the commit-
tee. This year the Sheriff's Department offered a system to the Operations
Committee that would support the use of MDT's by East County. This offer was
not accepted and eventually withdrawn by the Sheriff due to time constraints.
The focus by the Committee was then placed on the County's inability to hire
more dispatchers.
On June 2, 1988, the Operations Committee discussed the need to use a con-
sultant to determine the need for equipment replacement at DRCC. As of this
date, a decision as to which consultant to use or the type of study to be
performed has not been made.
During the initial stages of the DRCC operation, the Sheriff attempted to act
as the lead agency by taking on the responsibility of following through on
committee requests. The Sheriff's leadership was met with total resistance
from some user agencies and we have backed off from that involvement. In our
opinion, the inability of the committee to assume responsibility has created
chaos. DRCC is not a JPA as is believed by some users. The Operations
Committee operates somewhere between "in-charge" and "advisory," but no one
person or agency has ultimate responsibility.
Recommendation #5:
To answer this point as stated is simple. All member agencies of DRCC are
on—line with the computer. They have been since the day the Center opened
April 1, 1982. The problem is keeping them on-line with the poor quality PG&E
electrical service in Antioch, the lack of an uninterruptible power supply
(UPS) and the poor air conditioning system in the Center. Those design/
equipment problems could probably be resolved with some major modifications of
the Center, but it would likely require dispatch to be out of service for a
period of days for remodeling. Such a retrofit makes little sense when it
would end up supporting console and computer equipment known to be many
generations old and inadequate to meet the needs of the users.
We suspect the question meant to be asked relates to the Records Management
System (RMS) . For that, a more lengthy response is in order. Today, most of
us are familiar with the idea that computers can run many different types of
application programs and that systems the size of DRCC and the Sheriff's new
facility can run these applications simultaneously. Typical programs include
Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD) , Records Management Systems (RMS) , Warrants,
Internal Operations Committee
December 7, 1988
Page 5
Management Information (MIS) , Message Switching, Word Processing, Booking,
Jail Management, and on as far as the imagination will allow. DRCC planners
from the various agencies wanted a lot of these capabilities, but dollar
constraints limited them to CAD. The system was sized accordingly (CAD only)
with assurances it could grow if that became desirable.
In 1984 interest in RMS was again revived. Pittsburg Police Department and
Riverview Fire contributed a total of $50,000 to purchase the system. Captain
Bill Quigley of Pittsburg Police Department spent months between illnesses
customizing the vendor's RMS package, working with Riverview and trying to
bring the RMS on-line. He was later assisted by a part-time Pittsburg Public
Works employee, Tony Mankini , who also worked part-time for Brentwood. In
1985 Antioch Police Department also bought into the RMS system by paying
Pittsburg $35,000. When Bill Quigley retired with his illness, Tony Mankini
continued to occasionally work on RMS, but eventually he too stopped.
Pittsburg staff has been able to pick up the pieces and they effectively use
the RMS system which was apparently customized for Pittsburg.
No one from Antioch and Riverview was ever assigned to work alongside Captain
Quigley so they had little input about the RMS design and they apparently
don't know how to make the system work for them. To further complicate
matters, the DRCC system has run out of ports with which to connect additional
RMS terminals. These could be purchased, but all the same issues of who pays,
who owns, who maintains and who benefits come up again. In frustration, it
appears Antioch has now gone to another vendor and paid them for RMS which
today is still not working. To summarize:
- Pittsburg Police Department has RMS using the DRCC computer.
- Riverview Fire has RMS data in the DRCC computer, but doesn't
know how to deal with it so they do their records management on
P.C. 's.
- The other four volunteer fire agencies are not involved with
Records Management.
- Antioch Police Department has gone to another vendor for RMS.
- Brentwood Police Department has agreed to go with Antioch's
vendor.
- The Sheriff's Department is manually entering RMS data into the
Series 1 computer in Martinez. When the new CAD/RMS system comes
on-line, East County data will have to be manually entered into
it while the rest of the Sheriff' s data is automatically entered
via CAD.
RKR/meg:37,77
Sheriff-Coroner Richard K. Rainey
Contra Costa County SHERIFF-CORONER
Warren E.Rupt
P.O. Box 391 Assistant Sheriff
Martinez, Cjjfpxnia 94553-0039 Gerald T.Mitosinka
(415) 646- `+uC Assistant Sheriff
Rodger Davis
To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Date: December 2, 1988 Assistant Sheriff
Attn: Claude VanMarter, Assistant Administrator
From: Richar . Raine Sheriff-Coroner subject: Consolidation of
rADispatch Services
In a memo dated November. 16, 1988; -George Roemer requested I submit this
document to you. It is written in Iresponse to his October 3, 1988 request to
study what system efficiencies and cost savings might result from consoli-
dating DRCC dispatch services into the Sheriff's new communications center.
Historical Perspective
DRCC is a multi-agency, computer-aided communications facility serving the
citizens of Contra" Costa County by dispatching all police, fire and ambulance
service east of Willow Pass Hill . It is - located in rented space in the
basement- of Anti och's City Hal l , and operates on a 1.2 mi 11 i on 'dol l ar annual
budget. The cities of Antioch, Pittsburg `and Brentwood pay 52.5% of this
(approximately $628,000) andthe', County,,% thro,ugh,. the five fire agencies and
the Sheriff, pay the rest. The Sheriff accounts for 15% of the work and
ambulances for 3.'5%, with. :the 'combined- 18.5%"coming from,the Sheriff's budget.
The dispatchers are Sheriff's employees,- the- :money is managed by the County
and the mutually owned equipment is held ' in the County's name for all the
users.
On July 16., 1987, the Operations' Committee was advised �of a proposal to
eliminate computer-aided dispatch hardware at DRCC and combine operations with
the Sheriff's new dispatch facility in Martinez. , The Committee was asked to
consider the proposal in terms of both advantages and disadvantages.
In August of 1987, an offer was made to the Operations Committee to use the
new system. The offer was made at no cost to DRCC except for phone lines.
After much discussion over a three-month period, with few positive comments
from the Committee, a decision was made by the Sheriff to proceed with a
system designed for Sheriff's Department use only. This decision was relayed
to the Operations Committee on December 17, 1987, and was based on the lack of
interest shown, particularly by the East County police agencies, and the
rising costs associated with a delay in obtaining a contract.
On January 28, 1988, the Operations Committee was presented a letter from the
Antioch Police Department stating their concerns over the rising costs of
repairs to the DRCC system. On March 22, 1988, Antioch Police Department made
a proposal that a new system be purchased for DRCC with a hook-up to a new
computer to be purchased by the City of Antioch. On April 12, 1988, Chief
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Consolidation of Dispatch Services
December 2, 1988
Page 2
Herendeen presented his proposal to the Committee while re-emphasizing his
desire not to relinquish control of DRCC. Chief Frank of Brentwood Police
Department echoed these concerns and recommended the Committee pursue the
Antioch proposal .
Over the last two years, all agencies involved in DRCC have made their con-
cerns known as to the state of the DRCC equipment, the rising repair/
maintenance costs and the officer safety/dispatch workload issue due to the
overcrowded channel . With that in mind, on June 2, the Committee decided to
hire a consultant to study the problems and propose a solution. As of this
writing, the consultant has not yet been selected.
DRCC Member Input
Following George Roemer's direction, all fire department and law enforcement
department heads were contacted. Input was solicited related to system
efficiencies and cost savings possibly resulting from a consolidation move.
Chief Herendeen and Chief Frank were of the opinion that, although a cost
savings would probably be attainable, they were against consolidation. Chief
Castiglione, Pittsburg Police Department, felt his main concern was good,
quality dispatching with the ability to set guidelines as to the dispatching
of police officers. He felt that the location of the dispatch center was
largely irrelevant.
All of the fire agencies involved felt that the Sheriff would save through
consolidation by the reduction of staff and the duplication of building costs.
They also felt it would be beneficial to them to consolidate. All fire chiefs
felt that a total re-designing of DRCC was needed and that a savings would be
recognized through such a consolidation. Such a move would also allow a
rewrite of service demands, allowing fire to receive the service they require.
They feel the current lack of fire training for DRCC dispatchers could be
rectified through a contract with the Sheriff. In their opinion, system
efficiencies would include dedicated fire dispatchers and a working Records
Management System.
Chief Herendeen felt that, through consolidation, he would be surrendering too
much control to the Sheriff. He felt the citizens of Antioch wanted the
dispatchers in their city. He further stated that he would like to operate
under a Joint Powers Agreement so all users could act as equals.
Under consolidation, Chief Herendeen felt the personal touch would be lost.
He said he was not totally against a satellite set-up, using the Sheriff's
computer under certain restrictions. However, his fears were that if DRCC
lost control . of the computer, it would soon lose the dispatchers and he was
against that.
i
Consolidation of Dispatch Services
December 2, 1988
Page 3
He also said it was important to have phones answered by East County dispat-
chers. Chief Frank stated he felt one Center was too vulnerable and no
back-up would exist. Politically, he felt consolidation would not work, and
he would not give up control to the County. He said currently the Sheriff is
supposed to be an agent of the Operations Committee, not a decision maker;
however this is not occurring. Too many people in the County were making
decisions for DRCC. If the computer was in Martinez it would be even worse.
Chief Frank stated that only a Joint Powers Agreement set-up would work.
Chief Frank said that through consolidation money could be saved by reduction
of staff and possibly some equipment. He believes this would be a short-term
cost savings because law suits from officer injuries and poor service would
overshadow the savings.
Chief Castiglione felt that consolidation would save the Sheriff money on
personnel reduction and the elimination of equipment redundancy. Politically
it might be beneficial to have the Center in East County, however he felt that
the political issue would be secondary to efficiency, service and cost
savings.
System Efficiencies and Cost Savings of Consolidation
For the purpose of this document, the concept of consolidation means the
elimination of DRCC as a location for equipment or a place for dispatchers to
report for duty. The functions presently being done in Antioch would be
accomplished in Martinez through a combining of staffs. Due to the complexity
of the issue and the short time frame to prepare this document, very little
assessment has been done to determine what costs would shift to the new Center
from the DRCC agencies. There would definitely be costs that the cities would
have to bear to upgrade the new Sheriff's Dispatch Center in order to dispatch
for them.
In the cost benefit analysis below, the County cost savings was computed by
using the combined percentages paid by the Sheriff (18.5%) and the fire
agencies (29%) and multiplying that percentage (47.5%) by the total cost.
BENEFITS
1. Cut personnel by approximately three dispatchers and the reduction of two
supervisor positions to dispatcher level for a cost savings of approxi-
mately:
Total Savings: $140,000.00 per year
County Savings: $ 66,500.00 per .year
Sheriff's Portion of Savings: $ 26,000.00 per year
• I
Consolidation of Dispatch Services
December 2, 1988
Page 4
2. Cut added expense of building and related costs for a cost savings of
approximately:
Total Savings: $ 39,750.00 per year
County Savings: $ 18,900.00 per year
Sheriff's Portion of Savings: $ 7,400.00 per year
3. Elimination of the maintenance costs for DRCC equipment for a savings of
approximately:
Total Savings: $102,000.00 per year
County Savings: $ 48,500.00 per year
Sheriff's Portion of Savings: $ 19,000.00 per year
4. Elimination of existing telephone service costs for a savings of approxi-
mately:
Total Savings: $ 7,800.00 per year
County Savings: $ 3,700.00 per year
Sheriff's Portion of Savings: $ 1,500.00 per year
5. Elimination of two drops in the microwave loop (Antioch and Pittsburg) .
This is a reusable equipment savings of approximately:
County Savings: $ 75,000.00 one time savings
6. Elimination of the need to replace the existing computer aided dispatch
hardware, software and radio consoles. We conservatively estimate this
to be a total cost of $1,000,000.00. This would produce- a:
County Savings: $475,000.00 one time savings
Sheriff's Savings: $185,000.00 one time savings
7. Pac Bell will rebate the $75,000.00 charge of moving the 9-1-1 lines to
our new building if we also move the 9-1-1 lines from DRCC to the new
building.
County Savings: $ 75,000.00 one time savings
8. Dispatchers who are transferred to DRCC are currently trained to use two
completely different systems. Under consolidation, an in-depth training
period on one system would allow the dispatchers to become more profi-
cient and save approximately $5,000.00 in training costs per dispatcher
"assigned" to DRCC functions.
Consolidation of Dispatch Services
December 2, 1988
Page 5
9. The use of MDT's by all Sheriff's personnel and the opportunity for other
agencies to also use MDT's would drastically relieve the voice traffic on
the now over-used channel . This would reduce the workload presently
placed on dispatchers and eliminate one serious element of the officer
safety problem in East County.
10. All Sheriff's Department functions County-wide would be entered into the
system, allowing total usage by the Sheriff of the Records Management and
Management Information Systems.
11. Efficiencies and cost savings would accrue to other user agencies,
however these have not been calculated.
DEFICIENCIES
1. East County agencies would lose hands-on control of the system.
2. East County agencies would experience a reduction in the interaction of
their field units with dispatch staff.
Conclusion
Consolidation of DRCC into our new Central Communications Center could be
handled. However, based on discussion with the DRCC users group, total
consolidation is not palatable and would be difficult to sell . But, while
there is resistance, consolidation could result in both cost savings and
system efficiencies.
Our analysis indicates a minimum annual recurring savings of $290,000.00. Of
this, the County could realize a savings of $138,000.00, including a savings
to the Sheriff of approximately $54,000.00 annually. In addition, the County
and Sheriff would benefit from a one-time savings of approximately
$625,000.00.
RKR/WER/meg:37,77
cc: Mr. George Roemer
�OPlte'a Costa Ca�rA,
RECEIV
December 2 , 1988 DEC 7 1988
Office of
Supery-isor Tom Torlakson
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
Board of Supervisors
Internal Operations Committee
RE ; PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OF D.R.C.C. WITH SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT CENTRAL COMMUNICATIONS
.On December 1 , 1988 your Committee will be examining the
feasibility of consolidating all or part of D.R.C.C. with the
Sheriff ' s new Communications Center located in Martinez . To this
end , you have been provided with a report from the Sheriff 's
Department as well as correspondence from the D.R.C.C. Operations
Committee .
While the report from the Sheriff 's Department contains accounts
of interviews with each of us , we believe the matter is of such
importance that we provide you with our direct input as well .
On these specific concerns we share , we would like to take this
opportunity to point out that as Chief law enforcement
administrators , we believe our primary duty is to provide
efficient and effective law enforcement services to the
communities we serve . The c=ommunications function is the
heartbeat of law enforcement services and every officer is both
personally and professionally dependent upon the quality and
competency of that service . It is for these reasons we .feel it
important , despite any other information provided you, to provide
you with this direct input as to our needs and concerns.
During the course of D.R.C.C. 's existence , several issues have
continually created minor concerns and conflicts that do not
require specific comment at this time. However , there have been
specific issues that , in our opinion , are of such magnitude that
they bear comment . They are as follows :
EL CERRITO'
Under the auspices of training the Sheriff ' s Department
unilaterally implemented, entirely within the D.R.C.C. system ,
CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch ) for the City of El Cerrito . In
c=onjunction with this , the County began to utilize the D.R.C.C.
data system for the development of their c=ounty-wide geographical
file . This enhancement for the City of E1 Cerrito had the
following detrimental effects on D.R.C.C.
1 . Utilization of otherwise needed computer time and disk
space for the creation of the county-wide geographical
file .
2.. E1 Cerrito' s message switcher costs being incurred by
D.R.C.C.
Page two
3. Utilization of limited computer "ports" .
4 . An overall degradation of the system as manifested by
significantly reduc=ed system availability and a
lessening of system c=ontrol .
All of this was implemented without the knowledge, consultation ,
or consent of the D.R.C.C. Operations Committee and was only
brought to our attention when the system began to malfunction .
EQUIPMENT REFINANCING
Again without our knowledge or input , the County
Auditor/Controller unilaterally elected to refinance portions of
D.R.C.C. 's hardware , resulting in an extension of payments of
approximately two (2) years. This action had the direct result
of interfering with the Operation Committee's ability to begin
scheduling replacements and upgrades of selected hardware.
PERSONNEL
While recognizing that all users agreed to abide by the County
personnel procedures , certain aspects of that function have , in
our opinion , been either excessive or unnec=essary . These are
demonstrated by the following :
1 . There is significant evidence that promises regarding
D.R.C.C. staffing made at its inception have not been
fulfilled, but the basic staffing philosophy has been
unilaterally altered by the County .
2 . The recent County Administrators hiring freeze which
did apply to D.R.C.C. ' s staff , when in fact staffing
levels for D.R.C.C. are the sole responsibility of the
Operations Committee .
3 . The overall delays and obstacles in recruiting
dispatchers found in the County personnel offic=e.
All of these issues have resulted in a continual lack of
authorized personnel resulting in the Operation Committee 's
inability to implement a secondary service c=hannel which would
serve to materially reduce the critical congestion problem on the
primary channel .
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND COST CONTROL
Since the advent of County GSD taking responsibility for radio
maintenance , the quality , reliability , and ability to control
p=osts of equipment maintenance has been signific=antly denigrated.
Page three
D.R.C.C. AUTONOMY
This final issue , and one that is perhaps the most significant ,
is the Sheriff ' s Departments operational posture based on their
continual perception of D.R.C.C. as being just another Sheriff ' s
c=ommunication center for which they exercise final authority .
The undersigned wish to matte it clear that we are in complete
support of the D.R.C.C. c=oncept of localized c=ommunications for
East County . Within this concept , we believe it imperative that
citizen ' s requesting services be able to do so utilizing a full
service center located within East County . Furthermore, the
conc=ept of centralizing all communications in Martinez is in
direct c=onflict with the original study on this subject which
recommended multiple =enters to avoid vulnerability and to
provide necessary backup and support during times of emergencies
and disasters .
We also believe that D.R.C.C. can still resolve its . operational
problems if one major change is implemented . We recommend that
D.R.C.C. be kept intac=t under the direct control of a formally
adopted Joint Powers Authority . This would enable the D.R.C.C.
Operations Committee to have full control over its equipment ,
finances, personnel. and operational procedures. It should be
noted that this proposal is ours and has not yet been endorsed by
either individual City Councils or the D.R.C.C. Operations
Committee. We would therefore urge the Board to c=ontinue their
involvement in D.R.C.C. , but to recognize the need for the
operation to be conducted under a Joint Powers Authority. We
believe that this will meet the evolutionary needs of D.R.C.C.
and the ultimate growth of East County .
LEN CASTIG ON D\C-h ' ef
FRANK LEN HERENDEEN
Chief of Police of Police Chief of Police
Pittsburg Polic=e twood Police Antioch Police