Taser Request By Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department Withdrawn But Modified To Arm Only Supervisors At This Time - RIOC Directors Seeking More Answers Before Making Any Decision
During last night's Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Operations Committee meeting (audio web cast of full meeting is here), RIOC Public Safety Director Keith Guerra withdrew his request for arming Public Safety Officers with Tasers but modified his request seeking only to arm Public Safety Supervisors instead at this time.
RIOC Directors present at the meeting continued to express the strong desire for additional information regarding the need for Public Safety Officers to be armed with Tasers, procedures on the use of Tasers and the safety of Tasers. RIOC Public Safety and staff continue to present only one side of the Taser issue failing to address questions such as these posed in a Gothamist article about a 2011 New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Study on the use of Tasers:
... according to a new report [pdf] from the NYCLU, "police officers are using Tasers in inappropriate, irresponsible and downright deadly manner." As the saying goes: shoot 50,000 volts of electricity into somebody's chest first, ask questions later.The NYCLU study on Police use of Tasers may or may not be correct and the use of Tasers by Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department may or may not be appropriate. However, RIOC should certainly objectively and fairly examine the issues raised in the NYCLU study and others as they consider whether to permit Public Safety Department personnel to be armed with Taser weapons. So far, there is no evidence that this has been done.
Studying 851 Taser incidents from eight police department across the state (including the NYPD), 60% of those cases did not meet the expert-recommended standards that restrict the use of a Taser to "situations where officers can document active aggression or a risk of physical injury." 40% of the incidents involved "at-risk subjects" like the elderly, children, the visibly infirm, or those who were seriously intoxicated or mentally ill.
It also appears that Taser's aren't colorblind: 58% of all Taser incidents in the state involved black or Latino suspects. And in 75% of the occurrences, no warning was reported. In half of the surveyed jurisdictions, no verbal warning is required before an officer uses his Taser gun....
Also, it would be beneficial to know if RIOC Directors and Public Safety Director Guerra believe that the recent Florida Taser incident of a man jaywalking and then resisting arrest is an appropriate use of the weapon.
Here's the Taser discussion at July 23 RIOC Operations Committee meeting.
More information on Roosevelt Island Taser issue at previous post.
45 comments :
I would venture to guess that The RIOC Board of Directos and Chief Guerra would agree that the incident in Florida was certainly inappropriate use of the Taser. Jaywalking? C'ome on... that's not even enforced in NYC with a $2.00 fine attached to it. As for the fact that they only want to arm the Supervisors, I think that's a good idea. Some of the Officers do not look experienced enough to know when to use it. The Supervisors appear to be more experienced and more level headed.
PSD Chief Guerra has done an excellent job transforming the force. I was a big critic of PSD years ago, but I have been impressed with Chief Guerra's focus on standards and discipline. I am also very sympathetic to Chief Guerra's concern about the officers' safety. I attended their annual award ceremony, each award involved officers' potential risk and danger.
I understand their request for tasers, however I still have some uneasiness. I think PSD should have an annual town hall meeting every May-June and explain, like they did summer of 2009, what PSD does and how interactions go better/worse. I think its a good reminder and, hopefully, can quell some situations before they get out of hand.
But, if the Island has really changed where a taser is necessary equipment on *every* interaction with *every* peace office, then I think we need to take a step back and give some thought about how we want our community run and protected.
I agree with Chief Guerra's suggestion that supervisors have tasers (I have quietly made this suggestion to RIOC staff/directors all along). By virtue of the fact they are supervisors, they already have shown a higher degree of judgement, and I think this would be necessary in using tasers. Maybe with the supervisors' experience, they can bring guidance and experience to improve their job and the community.
I believe the RIOC board should clearly understand and approve the policy (in written form) for PSD's use of tasers.
A Question of Trust.
PSD’s decision to just arm and train supervisors with Tasers
because they are more mature, more trained and more experienced than all or
many of its 37-member force does not mitigate the potential for misuse of these
lethal weapons.
Instead, it now raises four important questions regarding
PSD’s original request to arm its officers with Tasers.
First - are all, some, or many of the 37-member force, despite
proposing to train them, ill prepared, to carry Tasers?
Second – who and how would the determination be made to call
a supervisor to the scene in the event a Taser is needed — is it too much too
late?
Third - is the scaled back “Call to arm PSD Officers With
Tasers” only temporary, to be revisited at some later time?
Fourth – would Island residents prefer to live in a Taser
free environment or be pressured by PSD Chief Guerra’s reported remark in the 7/28
issue of the Wire — he responded to calls praising Public Safety suggesting
Tasers are not really needed because the Island is safe by mentioning the
movie-theater mayhem in Aurora, Colorado, “that was safe, too, he said, until
the gunman started firing”.
This is not merely a question of to what extent the
potential for criminal activity on Roosevelt Island dictates extreme measures.
It is more a question of the quality of our lives here on Roosevelt Island.
David Enock
531 Main Street
Roosevelt Island, NY 10044
The board holds ABSOLUTELY NO POWER TO APPROVE OR DISAPROVE. If psd has the money already from the budget, then it's a RIOC decision.
Read the laws of RIOC. Even then repealed law says the board can't hold that much water.
Mr. LaRoche, the board of a corporation IS its decision-making entity. If the board sets a policy, its decision (e.g., to limit the use of tasers) overrides any financial availability (e.g., money in PSD's budget to purchase tasers).
By your reasoning, if employees have money in their budget, they can spend it on whatever they want, including things that are counter to the board's wishes -- just ain't so.
If the Rule is "Purchases over (say) $50K require board approval", then spending more than $50K without board approval is prohibited (violates corporate governance). However that Rule does not prohibit the board from making decisions on amounts less than $50K, i.e., the Rule still *permits* the board to make decision on smaller amounts, but the Rule does *not require* the board to make decisions on smaller amounts.
Prove this in black and white, from the law book.
It just isn't so.
Yes, Mr. LaRoche, please point to the provisions you are referencing. Thanks.
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/api/1.0/html/bill/S7985-2009
That IS THE LAWOF RIOC. Show me where the BOARD is the one all say all within the LAW.
Assumptions and facts are different.
The board means diddly squat for PSD to arm tasers, guns, shotguns or cannons. All their job is to allocate the funds, hold open public meetings for the residents on RIOC matters, and to just make sure RIOC doesn't get OUT OF CONTROL with spending and whatnot. Almost like a check and balance. But ultimately they DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE ON THAT ISSUE!
The state law doesn't specify what kind of power the board has. This is usually done through the bylaws and those say: "The business and affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by a
Board of nine (9) directors that shall exercise all of the powers of the Corporation." (Article II, Section 1)
I think what matters most is how much say does the RIOC have over the daily operations of the PSD?
What's a bylaw?
Was that set forth in legislature?
If not,MIT can be over rules and wiped out.
The law is the law.
The board has responsibility for the activities of the corporation. See NYS Public Benefit Corporations ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_benefit_corporations_in_New_York_State"), look under corporate governance: "Public benefit corporations and public authorities are controlled by boards of directors made up of political appointees."
Thus, PSD is a department under the Operations which is controlled by the RIOC Board PSD is managed by Mr. Guerra and his boss Mr. Martinez (VP Ops), both are RIOC staff.
Board members and employees of public authorities usually are not considered to be state employees, but are rather employees of the authority. Ciulla v. State, 77 N.Y.S.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1948). However, public authority employees are covered by the ethics regulations included in section 74 of the Public Officers Law, and the Public Authorities Accountability Act of 2005 imposed additional ethics requirements on board members of some public authorities. Importantly, authority board members are now required to attend training sessions on ethics and governance issues.[10]
[edit]
Not every public benefit corp is made equal.
Unfortunently, the laws of RIOC do not state that in black and white.
Mr. Farance read page eight I think you missed something.
Isn't it a legal requirement for a corporation to have a board of directors and bylaws? Just because it is not spelled out in the state legislature doesn't mean there aren't any other legal statutes that govern the RIOC.
YetAnotherRIer, at PSD (like the military) there are pictures of the chain of command: Guerra, Martinez, Torres, Cuomo. You say "I think what matters most is how much say does the RIOC have over the daily operations of the PSD". RIOC (and its board) have complete control over the daily operations of one of their departments. In a practical sense, Ms. Torres and Mr. Martinez are not micromanagers, and PSD officers see Mr. Guerra as their Chief, but if the RIOC Board issues a directive, then staff (including PSD) need to follow it.
As for the tasers, as I understand it, Chief Guerra sought the board's opinion on the policy ... which makes sense for PSD and the RIOC Board. No need to put forward a policy that is out of sync with your board (who can always overrule you).
As for the $50K limit, it is in the document "Guidelines Regarding the Use, Awarding, and Monitoring of Personal Procurement Contracts", dated March 25, 2010:
E. APPROVAL PROCESS
The award of Procurement Contracts and/or the waiver of selection criteria shall be approved as follows:
(i) Procurement Contracts and waivers in amounts under $50,000 shall be approved by the President/Chief Executive Officer;
(ii) Procurement Contracts and waivers in amounts $50,000 and over shall be approved by the President/Chief Executive Officer and the Board of Directors of the Corporation; and
(iii) Procurement Contracts for services to be rendered over period in excess of one year shall be approved by the President/Chief Executive Officer and the Board of Directors of the Corporation and such contracts shall be annually approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation thereafter.
It is about time you wrote something where you know what you are talking about. FINALLY. You need a reward.Take the rest of the day away from the blog
I think everyone is getting a little off track here. Who cares if the Board has the power to approve or disapprove the Tasers. The point is that the Chief went to the Board to gain their approval. He went to the community to gain support. He modified his proposal to the Board after listening to both. Kudos to him for not just going ahead and purchasing less than $50K worth of Tasers.
He, in my humble opinion, does things the right way. I think providing the proper training to the supervisors and only allowing them to respond to a certain type of call (dictated by proceedures) is much better than arming the entire force. I also trust that since the NYPD and other Departments in the surrounding counties also do it this way, it's probably the best way to go.
Yes, but if psd ALREADY HAS THE MONEY in the budget, they need nothing from the board for approval!
Hello!
That's what it is!
Since the PSD does report to the board, I am very sure that there are things the PSD has to seek approval from them before they can do it. Just like in every organization, they cannot just make drastic changes without approval from above, and arming the officers is just that: a drastic change. You would ask your boos, too, before you did something drastic that impacts your workplace, no?
Psd reports to RIOC, mr. Martinez and mrs.torres, NOT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
Mr. LaRoche, I can tell you're unfamiliar with business finances. A budget is a management tool, it's not a checking account or a pile of money in a box. Let's say your department wants to buy something. To do that, you have to "procure" it (see excerpt above), which means talking to one of your financial people to select a vendor (a selection process, such as an RFP/RFQ, is involved) and then order from that vendor (purchase order) or contract with that vendor (legal department), and it needs the proper accounting/tracking so other financial people (e.g., auditors) can verify money was spent properly.
That's a lot of steps/people outside your department ... and virtually none of them are under the management chain of PSD (e.g., Mr. Martinez, Chief Guerra, etc. can't order them to purchase it). So if those financial people believe it is not approved by the board and/or the President/CEO (see my excerpt above), it isn't getting purchased. And purchasing it yourself on (say) a credit card can get you stuck with the bill (best case), fired (that's worse), or jail time (even worse). And if the company gets billed for it, it's those financial people in Accounts Payable who write the checks (or refuse payment), so no authorization means no payment to the vendor (again, with the same negative consequences).
Having budget money doesn't mean having authorization to spend it, as the RIOC process clearly shows.
Really, your whole point about budget is meaningless because business doesn't operate the way you think: having budget does not mean you have a private box of cash.
10 nypd police officers shot this year! Nuff said.
The point is, assuming it was already there, it would be a hard argument to decline it to be spent.
In everyone's budget, in all departments and entities, it's either you use it or lose it for next years budget.
Mr. LaRoche, please explain how, via RIOC's procurement process, how you think monies can be spent if the Board/President don't approve?
Second, use-it/lose-it doesn't apply to many budgets and to some "colors" of monies. RIOC has the ability to roll over monies into next year's budgets for much of its spending. You know this because budget surpluses just add to the cash balance ... if it were Lose-It money, the surplus would have no positive affect on next year's cash balance. And if you look at RIOC's financials, there doesn't seem to be any kind of accounting for Lose-It style money.
Regardless, please answer my question in paragraph 1. Thanks.
I can't answer that. I don't work for RIOC or know THEIR exact procedures. I am only reading the laws of RIOC.
I am up in the air just as you are.
Your GUESS is just as good as MY GUESS.
S 9. ANNUAL BUDGET AND REPORT. 1. On or before September [fifteenth,
nineteen hundred eighty-four] 15, 1984 and on each September fifteenth
thereafter, the [chairman] GENERAL MANAGER of the corporation shall make
and deliver to the director of the budget for his OR HER review AND TO
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS a proposed budget for the operation of the corpo
ration for the next fiscal year of the state. The [chairman] CHAIR of
the corporation shall also deliver a copy of such budget to the [chair-
man] CHAIR of the senate finance committee and the [chairman] CHAIR of
the assembly ways and means committee at the same time that the budget
is delivered to the director of the budget. The budget shall include the
total amount needed for corporate purposes, including the funds required
by the corporation for operation of Roosevelt Island facilities and
improvements, the source of all funds that the corporation expects to
receive and such other information as the director of the budget shall
require OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The governor
shall recommend in his OR HER annual budget such appropriations to the
corporation for its CAPITAL NEEDS AND operations WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED IN
THE AUDITS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION SEVENTEEN OF THIS ACT as he OR
SHE deems necessary. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE AND A PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE A VOTE ON THE BUDGET MAY BE HELD.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER SHALL PUBLISH IN A PAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND A NOTICE THAT THE
PROPOSED BUDGET IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. SUCH PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE BUDGET SHALL BE HELD WITHIN 30 DAYS, BUT NOT LESS THAN 15 DAYS,
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL APPROVE THE
BUDGET PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
3. The [corporation] GENERAL MANAGER shall submit to the director of
the budget, [chairman] CHAIR of the senate finance committee [and chair-
man], THE CHAIR of the assembly ways and means committee AND THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, within ninety days after the end of its fiscal year, a
complete and detailed report setting forth (a) [its] THE CORPORATION'S
operations and accomplishments, and (b) its receipts and expenditures
during such fiscal year in accordance with categories and classifica
tions established by the corporation, [with the approval of the director
of the budget,] for its operating and capital outlay purposes. THE
GENERAL MANAGER SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION A COPY OF
SUCH REPORT.
S 10. FUTURE MANAGEMENT STUDY. The [corporation] BOARD OF DIRECTORS
shall [also] APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND RESIDENTS TO study
the future operation and management of Roosevelt Island AT LEAST ONCE
S. 4405 10
IN EACH DECADE. [Such study shall be completed by December thirty-
I think Mr. LaRoche`s point is well founded.The laws of RIOC are what you have to go by. I think it`s something you need to ponder. Take a few days away from the blog it will be helpful for all involved.
Here's what we can look forward to if our PS officers are armed with tasers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html
That's so insensitive and in bad taste.
How do you know what psd is capable of?
Typical liberal speculation.
"insensitive and in bad taste"? The police officers opened fire in a quite crowded area of the city. For absolutely no good reasons because the shooter was well known and the police would've caught him in a matter of days. So, it was really bad judgement. Now, why is it "insensitive and in bad taste" to point out that it is easy to misjudge a situation and the PSD is not immune to that (as we all know).
I can't believe, actually I can believe the idiocy that is said on this island.
THE PERPETRATOR HAD A LIVE GUN WITH AMMO. HE POINTED SAID GUN AT THE POLICE. THE PERP COMMITTED MURDER!
Now I know for sure you are out of your mind.
I am sure you wouldn't mind having a murdered with a loaded weapon sitting next to you on the train.
I am sure YOU would have ducked, or slid under a dashboard of a taxicab somewhere.
From the video, it looks pretty clear that he had a loaded weapon pointed at officers. I don't think there's any good outcome in that situation, but to say that the police opened fire "for no good reason" probably isn't the most thoughtful analysis.
I think society would have wanted him arrested sooner rather than later, and I think the cops reacted correctly: It was either going to be them or him. I do not think, once he drew a gun on them, they had any choice but to shoot him. I think he was either insane or had a death wish in pulling a gun on cops. I just do not agree that they should have let this guy just get on a train and arrest him later, if that is what you meant Yet. If they knew this was the killer, then yes, they should arrest him right away - that's what the cops are there for. He pulled a gun and was definitely aiming it at them - they had to shoot him because he was going to shoot them. This is a scene out of the "Wild West" or the Mid-East - it's hard to believe it can happen on 5th Ave and 34th St. As I wrote above, I don't think the cops had any choice in shooting, and I think they reacted correctly under the circumstances.
Those two birdbrains live in fairy tale land.
Movies and short stories is what they live for.
No wonder psd has such a difficult time obtaining the tools they need. People who are in la la land are the red tape for them.
I guess they would have cowered and hid if they were police.
The point is that if innocent bystanders get shot even by policemen who have had training and a legitimate reason to shoot, imagine what can happen here, with much less well-trained public safety officers who have a history of flying off the handle for little reason. (I know you don't believe that they are anything but helpful and reasonable, but there are plenty of instances to the contrary.)
if somone was attacking a child and causing them pain and harm, how would PSD stop this maniac? Do they even carry a Billy stick? How in God's good name could any of the PSD protect my child, your child from be harmed by a crazy person? Which by the way, there are some here and visiting the SP Park. When are they going to put up a booth down there like at the train station? There is a pervert that has been expsoing himself at SP park and still going down there, why is that person not arrested? Think again about an NYPD office here on the island, it is time because yes we are part of NYC and yes, we pay taxes for the protection! Think about it Frank, if you child was in danger and being hurt, what would you want to happen? All of PSD should be trained as if they were Pollice. In saying this, also if ANY of RIOC lived on this island, they would think different about things as well...their children and family would be priority one, further proving my point from before that all of RiOC should live on the island to know what is best for the island. They really have no clue.
"imagine what can happen here"
Well, we're talking about tasers, so one thing that *couldn't* happen is innocent bystanders getting shot. Could innocent bystanders get tased? I suppose so, although I'm not aware of that being a widespread phenomenon. It's a lot more difficult to tase an innocent bystander than to shoot one. Unlike tasers, bullets can penetrate many objects (such as people), can travel great distances, and can ricochet in unexpected directions. And of course, the stakes are lower. Tasers can be fatal in some circumstances, but guns are designed to be fatal in almost all circumstances.
That's not to say that there aren't good arguments why public safety shouldn't carry tasers. But I don't think risk to innocent bystanders is one of them.
I agree. I am concerned about unwarranted use on people perceived by PSD to be committing an offense, when, in fact, they are not. Despite all the protestations, this happens with some regularity.
That's law enforcement. Dang if they do, dang of they don't.flying off the handle to you may be isolated due to specific actions. Every action gets a reaction.
Gizmodo has a new post: http://gizmodo.com/5944932/its-officially-safe-to-taser-shiftless-teens-now
Via Simple Justice: TASER invents its own cause of death. http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/10/21/taser-invents-its-own-cause-of-death.aspx?ref=rss
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, however, does not recognize excited delirium as a condition. Consequently, neither does the American Psychiatric Association. The association referred questions about excited delirium to Dr. Howard Zonana, a psychiatrist at Yale University.
“At the moment, I don’t see a lot of support for it,” Zonana said. “It’s usually an exclusionary diagnosis. If you can’t find anything else, then you say that.”
Whether excited delirium, by itself, can kill someone is controversial. Taser International says it can. Whenever the manufacturer catches wind of an arrest-related death involving a Taser, the company reaches out to the investigating medical examiner and suggests he or she consider the condition as a possible cause of death.
Guy, nothing is 100%. Neither is leaving your house in the morning, or even staying home. Neither is getting in your car, getting on the red bus, riding the subway, anyway, you get my drift?
Make sense will ya.
You want it like friggin England here? Unarmed cops amongst he worst criminal element within a city of more than 9,000,000.
Crime is EVERWHERE. wake up and realize that. You do know not every crime that happens throughout the day is in the ny post, dailysnooze or channel 7 at 11 pm. Right? Once you grasp reality, then come back with your propaganda.
Stop being an ostrich with your head in the ground.
Perhaps you misunderstand. If their current weapons are inadequate, I would rather see PSD armed with firearms than TASERs. I've seen far too many cases where officers are lulled into a false sense of security that the devices are "non-lethal"; they aren't. At least with a firearm, officers understand the significance of its use.
Ok sir, i deeply appoligize. You make perfect sense in the fact tazers are not enough. Please accept my appology.
Post a Comment