Thursday, October 18, 2012

Are WIRE Building Vertical Patrols Being Conducted As Claimed By Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department?

Image Of Roosevelt Island WIRE Buildings From Wikipedia

Roosevelt Island resident Frank Farance sent the following inquiry to Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Acting President Don Lewis:
A couple weeks ago the RIRA Public Safety Committee (the RIRA committee that liaises with RIOC's Public Safety Department) included in their monthly report:
[Excerpt ...]
 Vertical Patrols:

None of the committee members present stated that they had seen vertical patrols being conducted in their buildings. Members acknowledged that PSOs were seen at the door station in Westview during the summer months, and is the 595 Main Street lobby as well, but not seen on the floors or in the stairways. Island House leaders stated similar experiences. Rivercross representative stated that he had not been seen PS Officers patrolling the building recently.
[... end of excerpt]
I had similar experiences: I haven't seen a PSO (Public Safety Officer) patrolling the floors in Island House in the past 5-10 years. As reported above, I had similar experiences seeing PS only at the 555 doorstation or the 575 lobby, not patrolling the building.

When I read the IH Ground Lease Amendment, Exhibit H (page 99) includes a letter from PSD Director Keith Guerra, dated March 13, 2012, that states:
[Excerpt ...]

As a follow up to Steve Chironis' letter dated February 14, 2012, this letter is to serve as further explanation to the services provided to the WIRE buildings by the Public Safety Department of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation.

In addition to external patrols, the Public Safety Department provides internal patrols of the buildings at a minimum of one patrol per eight (8) hour shift. That is at a minimum three times during a 24 hour period. Internal patrols include check of all hallways, stairwells and entrance/exit doors, as well as making sure all apartment doors are locked, secured and free of vandalism (i.e., graffiti).
[... end of excerpt]
A couple weeks ago I asked one of the doorman to look at the log book. On the pages I reviewed (which covered several months) I saw that virtually every day lacked a three-per-day patrol ... typically one or two patrols a day, and some days had NO patrols. All of the patrols were short, approximately 20 minutes. Having distributed flyers in the building many times, it takes about 40-45 minutes to cover every floor (Westview residents have similar timings). In some cases, two patrols are being done back to back (3 PM and 4 PM) so the building goes unpatrolled for 22 hours at a time.

I asked several doormen across several shifts if they had seen Public Safety patrolling the building or observed them via security cameras. All doorman said they saw the officers at their doorstation, but did not see him elsewhere in the building (i.e., outside of the 555 and 575 lobbies).

In short, the Public Safety Department is not giving us the service they promise (not enough patrols, inadequately performed, etc.), it is a safety issue, a contractual issue, and a cost issue for us tenants.

To me, this seems like fraud: if someone were billing 40 hours for a week's worth of work and only actually doing half, we would call that fraud, right? On Saturday, consistent with prior observations, I saw a PSO check in at the doorman around 8:10 PM, and then check out around 8:30 PM -- not enough time to patrol the building. He was filling out an Activity Report. How can that Activity Report be truthful or complete if the PSO didn't actually patrol the building? Isn't that Activity Report fraudulent? And why does PSD supervisors believe this is acceptable?

This appears to be a widespread and lengthy problem at Public Safety: the problem exists at a supervisory and executive levels (who schedule the officers, and they don't schedule them properly) and at the officer level (because the officers themselves aren't doing the patrolling they claim to be doing). Mr. Guerra's assertion of PSD performance (Exhibit H) is significantly misleading because: (1) PSD does not do the patrols they promise, (2) the patrols they do are incomplete and inadequate, (3) they represent they do complete performance for other WIRE buildings (other than Island House) when, in fact, they do not do such performance.

This requires an investigation on what kind of performance PSD has provided (so tenants can get a refund), and requires a top-to-bottom investigation of the management structure of Public Safety. I encourage you to look at logs books, security video in WIRE buildings, and so on to verify PSD's lack of performance. I note that when speaking with residents, I have heard second hand from PS officers that some staff is "family", "connected", and such. I looked into this and found out that Mr. Guerra and Mr. Martinez are fraternity brothers (a year a part), and there might be other relationships among the staff. Investigators should use appropriate care.
I asked RIOC Acting President Don Lewis for comment on Mr. Farance's Vertical Patrols inquiry. RIOC's Press Spokesperson replied:
We appreciate Mr. Farance expressing his concerns. We are looking into the issue.
More on Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department Vertical Patrols from these previous posts.

136 comments :

mushr00m said...

What, do I live in a housing project? Why are there supposed to be regular patrols of the insides of buildings? Especially the doorman buildings that have security cams?


Though, I have seen PS officers in the basement of Rivercross on several occasions. I always assumed it was in response to an actual issue, not nanny state nonsense.

Frank Farance said...

Regardless of cameras, you still need to patrol the buildings, PS has agreed to this (contractually, via RIOC ground lease), and they aren't doing it.

Jimmy Brown said...

Island resident Frank Farance likes to exaggerate. He hasn't seen one Officer in his building in 5-10 years? I see them in my building every once in a while. I also see them walking around the outside of the buildings. I do agree, however, that having cameras should not take the place of having Officers patrol the buildings in person. But, again, I do see them from time to time.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. Brown, why not check your facts? No exaggeration, and I confirmed my impressions with Director Guerra. The problem is that PSD doesn't actually do the full patrol inside the building.

Mark Lyon said...

This, luckily, is a problem that can be easily solved. Building management should install and require the use of a watchclock, or cease paying for the patrols. http://www.detex.com/ProductList.aspx?id=302

Joe Shepherd said...

Exaggerate, manipulate, complain, irritate and even lie...
I actually feel sorry for this guy. His wife left him. He has no friends. He got rejected as a RIOC Board Candidate because of something in his past. His shining moment was when he was made RIRA President, but then he pushed away several who supported him with his selfish shenanigans.


He pontificates on this blog because it's his way of socializing. He likes when people comment on his posts, because it makes him feel important. Don't try to have a conversation with this guy, because he only wants to listen to himself. He only cares about his view or opinion - so take my advice - don't engage this guy, because you'll drive yourself crazy. He'll probably comment on this post, because he can't help himself. But, I won't get sucked in. Don't you either...

oldtimer said...

I don't think the buildings pay for patrols. I think a portion of their ground lease that is paid includes patrols in and around the buildings. Some years ago, we used to have some sort of thing-a-ma-jig in Eastwood for the officers, but they rarely worked and were taken down by management.

Jimmy Brown said...

Says you. I have seen them in the building and I've spoken with my neighbors in the laundry room, who have also seen them walking around and in the stairwells. I guess some see them and some don't. Or, are you going to tell me that we don't see them either?

RooseveltIslander said...

The comment was deleted because a portion of it contained personal information that may or may not be true but is certainly not relevant to any discussion of WIRE Building Vertical Patrols or any other issue pertaining to Roosevelt Island issues.

It is meant only to personally disparage particular Roosevelt Island residents.

Have to question why anyone would want to do that rather than address the issue being discussed?

Frank Farance said...

Yes, you'll find many watchclock magnetic pods around the Island, they used them in the 1990s. Public Safety said they could patrol better without watchclock rigidity. However, patrol quality went down. Simply, if there are 400 doorknobs to check (so to speak), then it doesn't matter which order, it just matters that they are all checked ... but that isn't being done, which is why some observations are true: I haven't seen a PS officer patrolling the floors in my building for 5-10 years.

Frank Farance said...

There is a separate Public Safety fee in the ground lease, you can see it in the RIOC budget, PDF page 20, Public Safety Reimbursement, "http://www.rioc.com/pdf/13-14Proposed%20Budget.pdf". In addition to the specific per-building fees ($1.7 million above), another $1.2 million in costs (PDF page 5) for a total of about $2.9 million spent on Public Safety.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. Brown, you're very confused. If there are 400 items to check, and you've seen them checking two or three of them, that doesn't mean they are checking the rest. And Mr. Guerra agrees that they aren't doing complete patrols. Or maybe you believe that just checking the laundry room is enough for a building. Regardless, it's not what we have contracted for, and it's not getting done. And, Yes, I'm telling you that you haven't seen them doing their complete patrols in Island House. Which building do you live in?

RooseveltIslandGuy said...

Walking around your building checking to see if your door is locked? That's ridiculous.

You need to get a life, Farance. Seriously... it's really sad.

If officers are patrolling your building for 45 minutes at a time, then they're not somewhere else where they're actually needed like Eastview.

Let me know when something actually goes down in one of your buildings.

You can't have it both ways though. You can't say Public Safety doesn't do their job because they're not wasting their time walking around my very safe building and then on the other hand say oh this is the safest place in the entire world none of kids could hurt a fly they're all perfect angels why does public safety bother them?


Choose one.

rilander said...

The point that Mr. Farance makes is that a portion of our monthly maintenance/rent includes a fee for public safety. If they are not providing all the service that is specified then the fee should be lowered. In other words, I either get what I pay for or I don't pay for it.

KidKilowatt said...

"Having distributed flyers in the building many times, it takes about 40-45 minutes to cover every floor (Westview residents have similar timings)."


Priceless.

Frank Farance said...

RooseveltIslandGuy, you misunderstand the nature of a security patrol. Just like the watchclock Mr. Lyon mentioned above, Public Safety is supposed to check all door (exits locked, apartment doors not ajar, lack of vandalism). Contractually, that is what RIOC/PSD has agreed to, this is a normal kind of patrol (similar to other buildings on/off Roosevelt Island), Director Guerra asserts a level of performance in the contract, and it isn't being done.

It's not a question of whether or not Eastwood is a higher priority, PS officers can always divert where needed, but they need to finish the patrol at some point. Now based on the log books I saw, PS wasn't even close to the performance they promised (three per 24-hour period), they were not doing the proper coverage on any of the patrols (most of them were around 20 minutes), and they would do them ineffectively (no point in doing two patrols back to back and leave the building unpatrolled for 22 hours).

I've met with Director Guerra since voicing my concerns. It sounds like he doesn't have the resources because he describes having about 4-5 officers available (including at the desk) to cover the Island. Remember, at a staff level of 41.50, PSD is about a third of the RIOC staff. Truly, that's a lot. Yes, I understand there is sick time, vacation, holidays, and so on. However, doing a back-of-envelope calculation with 37 officers spread across three shifts (12.3 officers available per shift), I don't understand how that translates into an expectation of only 4-5 officers available per shift ... that's a utilization of about 1/3, something is wrong here with the planning and management of the force.

Even if you take the 4-5 staff times 8 hours, that gives you 32-40 staff-hours per shift and covering the Island House, Westview, and Rivercross buildings with proper vertical patrols (about 40-45 minutes) would be about 2.00-2.25 hours of that resource, i.e., 5-7% of that resource, which is a very small amount of resource expended.

No matter you slice it, in addition to the contract performance problem, there is a major management problem. Something just isn't right here.

The RIOC Board should take a closer look. They're not doing the job they're supposed to do, and the staff utilization is at a very low level.

YetAnotherRIer said...

They are doing patrols, though, and the only complaint you have is a) they are not thorough enough (that's a matter of opinion) and b) that they don't do the 3 patrols a day. If I were living in IH or WV or RC I wouldn't care if that's happening or not. It's not like my safety is at risk in those buildings or that I need somebody to check if my door is closed or not (if you are having trouble keeping your door closed I sure hope you don't need a nanny to close it for you and learn a lesson when you eventually do get robbed).

YetAnotherRIer said...

You are making up the "400 items to check". They do patrols, nobody is in danger, how many crimes are being committed at RC, WV, and IH? Instead of counting beans maybe look at the big picture: do they keep your buildings safe? Sure. The PSD together with the fact that those are locked door/concierge buildings, makes them as safe as they can be.

YetAnotherRIer said...

You pay for being safe. Sad that we actually look so detailed at what exactly is happening.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, you misunderstand. Checking for doors ajar is a normal task on many patrols (not just WIRE buildings). If the door is ajar, then something is wrong. This isn't a nanny checking to see if you've turned the deadbolt or not.

Contractually, the performance can be objectively measured. Simply, if you're not viewing every hallway/door/etc., then you're not complying with the provisions of the contract ("Internal patrols include check of all hallways, stairwells and
entrance/exit doors, as well as making sure all apartment doors are
locked, secured and free of vandalism (i.e., graffiti).").

And it is by agreement between RIOC/PSD and Island House (similarly for other WIRE buildings) that the vertical patrols are to be done, which is for the safety of the tenants of the building.

And RIOC/PSD is not performing (measurably).

Frank Farance said...

There are 400 apartments in Island House. The contract requires PSD to check them all (door ajar, lack of vandalism). You misunderstand the nature of safety. According to you, seat belts would not be necessary because most of our car trips are without incident. Duh, the only way you'll discover something is wrong is to check for it. Besides, it is what RIOC/PSD and Island House (like other WIRE buildings) have agreed to and what residents want.

Frank Farance said...

But it is a bigger problem outside Island House because of the inefficiencies in RIOC/PSD management, see my post on poor staff utilization.

Anonymous said...

Frank is such slower it is beyond words!!!!! Do u have NOTHING to do with your time!!!

YetAnotherRIer said...

We can agree to disagree if checking all doors if they are closed is indeed a safety measure that we should hold PSD responsible for. It definitely is not one of my ways to determine the safety they provide.

YetAnotherRIer said...

No, I disagree that you are out on a witch hunt and the PSD is your current victim. That's what this is all about. Do you feel unsafe? I hope not. You are looking for technicalities to rip them yet again. It is a waste of time and as painful as watching a presidential debate.

Rob Stevens said...

Rick, I was a long-time resident of Roosevelt Island, and I have followed your Blog since its inception. I never posted a comment before today, because I'm not an argumentative sort of person. A year ago I moved to Connecticut because of a job opportunity, but continued to follow the island's activities through your blog. Pleasantly, I have seen it bloom from an upstart, with very little substance, to a very informative vehicle with not only insightful information - but wonderful pictures too.


I say all this because I am particularly disappointed with your support of Frank Farance. You seem to allow him to rip anyone and everyone he wants and then when someone takes a shot at him (with true points) you remove their post - stating that the remarks disparage this resident. But in turn you allow him to do it to others. That's really not fair. I don't believe you want a Blog that you have worked hard to make viable, turn into a smut site. I read the post that you deleted above. I did not see any untruths stated about Mr. Farance.


I've taken the liberty of clicking on Mr. Farance's name to read his blog comments, and as of late, you have allowed him to disparage the Director of Public Safety over and over again. Now, I don't know Mr. Guerra personally, but what I do know is that he has been ten times better than Mr. Frye, Mr. Norwood or Mr. Hetherington ever were. Neither of those Directors did anything for the community.


Anyway, anytime another person posts a comment contrary to Mr. Farance's, he says, "you misunderstand the nature of ... xyz". Then, he goes on with a long monologue trying to convince that poster, and everyone else, that he is an expert on everything from Public Safety to Transportation. From Real Estate to Finance. If you are going to curb people's posts about Frank (who you know many do not care for), do the same when he does it to others. There is a respectful way to get a point across, and I hope I have done that here.


Frank doesn't know how to hide his apparent hatred for a good man in charge of the Public Safety Department, and you are enabling him to display it on your blog. Just my 2 cents.

Rose Marie said...

Bravo YetAnotherRIer ! Bravo !
You are right on point here. Frank is on another one of his witch-hunts [for attention]. This time it's the PSD. Don't worry, he'll go after RIOC. Then, it will be the Maple Tree Group. Then, he'll go after the RIOC Board Members. Then, RIRA. Then PSD - and it will go around and around.

Don't mind Frank. He has nothing better to do than write long dissertations on this blog, and in the WIRE. Everyone knows he does it for the attention. He must really lead a boring life.

His analogies don't make sense, but that's his feeble way of trying to make his other point sound valid.

We live in a safe neighborhood, and our PSD does a decent job. It's also nice that we get an NYPD Police Officer, but he is not here all that often.

Keep at it YetAnotherRIer, because I'm sure there will be another response from Frank. He likes to have the last word.

CheshireKitty said...

Security is excellent at IH with the doorstation coverage and the building entrances securely locked. To me, there is no difference between IH and any other non-RI doorman building - wherein of course you do not have NYPD walking up and down hallways checking doorknobs three times a day. People live in doorman buildings because they are secure - how could having a patrolman walking up and down hallways three times a day add to security if security already exists? And do residents in doorman buildings elsewhere not have security because they do not have cops checking doorknobs three times daily? The answer is no. The buildings contribute to PSD, and I have seen PSD officers at IH doorstation occasionally. The presence of PSD neither enhances nor detracts from the existing security, which is already excellent. With the finite resource of the patrolmen, it makes more sense to deploy them around RI, and in Eastwood, which lacks door-stations. Enhancing security around RI enhances the security of IH residents because it makes the entire island safer. If PSD had patrolmen marching up and down IH hallways three times a day, they would be misallocating resources from areas that need the additional security such as the areas around the buildings, in the parks, etc., to areas that already are secure, such as IH, which has the 24-hour manned door-station and securely locked entrance doors.

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, how can you say security is excellent if you don't live in Island House? There were many break-ins, much graffiti/vandalism, and people smoking dope in stairwells, so the Westview/Island House Task Force (back when the buildings had a combined tenants association) insisted upon the vertical patrols (for which they were already entitled to). They have improved the buildings' security.

To be precise, they are not jiggling every door knob to see if it is locked, they should be walking all the hallways looking at the doors for any ajar and vandalism (normal patrolling stuff).

As for the "finite resource of the patrolmen", RIOC/PSD is contractually obligated to do it and the residents want it. If RIOC/PSD is unable to perform this task, then they should negotiate a different agreement, but before that happens, I think RIOC/PSD needs to explain with 37 officers why that translates into only 4-5 are available per shift.

It's not a misallocation of resources, we pay for this service and RIOC/PSD has agreed to do it. They are contractually obliged to do it for IH (like other WIRE buildings).

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, this is not about a technicality, see the RIRA Public Safety Committee report above "Members acknowledged that PSOs were seen at the door station in Westview
during the summer months, and is the 595 Main Street lobby as well, but
not seen on the floors or in the stairways. Island House leaders
stated similar experiences. Rivercross representative stated that he
had not been seen PS Officers patrolling the building recently.".

This is the observation of many people. If there are 40+ floors of patrolling in Island House (similar in Westview) and Public Safety officers spend their time at the doorman (555) or the building other lobby (575), that is not patrolling the building. That's not a minor technicality, that's a significant lack of performance.

And by being there only 20 minutes (as per the logs) it is another way of confirming they aren't patrolling the building because 40+ floors plus a half dozen or so stairwells can't be patrolled in 20 minutes.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Listen, you have no grasp at how management uses their resources.

Yeah they have 37 officers, you think supervisors are doing patrols?

Last I knew they had 6 sergeants, 2 detectives, 2 lieutenants and 1 captain.

Those people don't patrol in buildings, with the exception of the detectives I would assume. So lets do a back of envelope math again.

37-6-2-1=28 officers.

Not every shift is even. It's impossible to do!

If you we're ever a manager, you would know this.

28/3= rounded 9 per shift, if there were no such things as DAYS OFF, sick time, vacation, injuries, etc.

It's very easy to now see why they have only 5 per shift.

GET A DAMN HOBBY other than being a old retired woman talking trash about everything, instead of helping.

We have amazing resource, it with single sided individuals like you, it's hard to move forward.

People like you are the reason public safety is stuck in the 1980's technology and still have no defensive weapons, other then a stupid stick!

HOW ABOUT WE SUIT FRANK UP IN A UNIFORM AND LET IM DO PATROLS IN BUILDINGS ALONE! LET FRANK STOP a group of fine upstanding youth smoking weed, outnumbered in a tight staircase.

Oh wait, mr. Perfect Frank will just use is useless verbal judo and somehow pull a Houdini and arrest them without touching them!

JimmyLaRoche said...

You wear a uniform and go on patrol!

Stop being a nit picking clown.

No one cares for RIRA other than retired folks, NO OFFENSE to the retired, but those are the only ones at the meetings and so are willing to listen to the crap nagging.

They are not to check doors!

That's rediculous!

I saw how they do it, they go down one staircase, go out, walk the hall to the other, go down and do a zig zag.

Maybe if you weren't such a doosh with PSD AND TOO YOUR TIME to know them, and perhaps chit chatted with them like human beings, you will learn a lot.

You make a bad name for yourself EVERYTIME you post. The ones who post here can't stand you, imagine how many more read this blog and just can't voice it!

You have made a lot of enemies.

You only keep making more.

At the end of the day, your no hero and your not the man. Your just a person with a loud mouth for the wrong reasons.

L

Anonymous said...

YOU TELL HIM JIMMY!!!!!! FRANK THE FONDELER!!!!!!

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, you simply have the wrong numbers and don't know how to calculate with them. If you read the link above, you'd see that PSD has a staff of 41.50, which includes management staff. Still, using back-of-envelope calculations, I'll take your numbers of 5 per shift and multiply that by 3 shifts/day, then multiply that by 7/5 to scale 5 days/week to 7 days/week which equals 21. So during a 24-7 week, 21 officers are working, yet we have to pay for 37 officers (76% extra officers) to accommodate all the days off, sick time, vacation, and injuries. Or said differently, of the 37 people we pay full time, only about half (57%) are actually working ... that's a low utilization. That means 43% of the officers are not working (again, back-of-envelope numbers).

Now Mr. LaRoche, even if we use your result (9 officers necessary for 5 actually working), that means 44% of the officers are not working, which comes close to my calculations of 43% of the officers are not working.

In Camden, their absenteeism rate was 30% (see "http://nilrr.org/2012/08/31/in-camden-not-fighting-crime-pays/") and they disbanded the Camden police force. We have a similar problem with a lack of performance, high expenses (annual $1.2 million PSD deficit), and terrible utilization.

I also point out that PSD is top heavy from a management perspective: with 6 sergeants, 2 lieutenants, 1 captain, 1 deputy director, and 1 director, that's 11 management people for a staff of 29 officers: 1 management person for every 2.6 officers.

Mr. LaRoche you arrived at the same ball park numbers as me. No matter how you slice it, something seems wrong.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Yea they need so mich management to appease you and the loser board members who can't find their own colon, and yet try to solve island problems.

zoilalexie said...

Jimmy, you give Frank too much credit. His heart is never in the right place. He's just a trouble-maker who likes to dog people. He doesn't care about anyone but himself.

CheshireKitty said...

If the security of IH has improved, why are you complaining about it? Do you have evidence of a recurrence of "many break-ins, much graffiti/vandalism, and people smoking dope in stairwells" in IH? If not, then it means security is just fine at IH - with the current level of PSD coverage! I suspect that you, an IHTA director, are already looking for ways to cut back on the fee paid to PSD for security, since that fee will have to come out of the building common fund once it goes coop. I doubt if you feel sorry that the current landlord has to pay that fee, as you say, "for nothing". So you are already looking to cut corners even before the apartments are sold to the tenancy in the upcoming conversion. Isn't that what this entire "expose" is all about? Try to keep more money in the future common fund? I wonder what else you will come up with - maybe you think the building staff is earning too much, so let's look at a salary review? And why should the common fund be boosted in this way - by cutting payments to PSD, maybe building staff, and who knows how many other corners could possibly be cut. One has to wonder - with a really healthy common fund in the millions of dollars, "watched over" by a handful of directors - the trusted, "responsible people" - a few thousand disappearing here and there would no doubt be easily overlooked! If there's one thing a computer "nerd" with an inside track - like Frank - can easily do, it's "invisibly" divert funds, especially if the amount diverted is almost impossible to detect - a few hundred there, a thousand here, in a fund of millions, perhaps. This is what I think Frank is already up to: Paving the way to beef up the common fund so that when the building converts, he can get away with a little bit of sophisticated financial manipulation in his favor, aka embezzling...

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, let's look how ridiculous your idea is. Tenants associations for Mitchell-Lama buildings typically follow up on the services they are supposed to get. Island House tenants have paid over time for a variety of repairs and services, which are the basis for calculating our rents and rent increases. DHCR administers all of this ... unlike (say) Manhattan Park, the tenants of Island House, Westview, and Rivercross (but no longer Eastwood) have open access to the building's finances/budgets. IH tenants have complained many times over several decades when we don't get what we pay for (e.g., facade work, elevator repairs, etc.). Ditto for other buildings. And you've seen us complain publicly at Budget/Rent Determination hearings.

Even once we convert, DHCR will still administer the process. There are no private monies "watched over" by a handful of people, as you claim -- you have no idea how this process works, it's all transparent.

CheshireKitty, you've given the impression you've lived here (in WIRE buildings) for many years, but if you've never heard of a Budget/Rent Determination, then I'm starting to wonder if you've moved here recently.

As for the tenancy, there is simply a preference to get the services we've paid for. Now I never thought that RIOC/PSD would not be able to deliver on their part of the deal until I spoke with Director Guerra, who gave me a strong sense that they had difficulty doing it because of the low staffing (which surprises me, too).

Regardless, RIOC/PSD has agreed to a level of performance, RIOC/PSD asserts they performance at this level, we're paying for it, and RIOC/PSD is not performing on this contractual provision. After looking into this, there appear to be multiple problems with RIOC/PSD.

Jesse Webster said...

I am loathe to rush to Mr./Ms. Farance's defense, but your reply is just insane. Literally INSANE. Perhaps you might consider this as your new profile pic.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, the ratio of supervisors to officers (also known as Span Of Control ratio) is recommended in the range of 1:15 to 1:25, which would mean we might only need to have a Director and a Deputy Director. A maximum of five levels is recommended for very large organizations, but PSD has six(!) for such a small force: director, deputy director, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, officer. See International Association of Chiefs of Police, "The Police Chief", article "Span of Control for Law Enforcement Agencies" (see "http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1022&issue_id=102006").

Even in smaller forces where rank (but not salary) are used to reward staff, there might be a 1:3 ratio, but supervisors are expected to work. According to Mr. LaRoche, "Last I knew they had 6 sergeants, 2 detectives, 2 lieutenants and 1 captain.

Those people don't patrol in buildings ...", i.e., supervisors don't do patrol. Which gets us back to my point: PSD has a very low utilization of staff.

One thing that works against PSD improving this efficiency is their union. A couple years ago in prior contract negotiations, RIOC CFO Steve Chironis gave budget for salary increases, but it was up to the union to determine how these increases would be applied. Mr. Chironis and Mr. Guerra (along with others in RIRA) wanted to increase the starting salary for PS officers (to get better staff and "grow" them over time), but the union kept the starting salaries low and focused the money on more senior union staff. As pointed out in the article I cited above, having better people affords a higher Span of Control ratio, and higher efficiencies. Having less qualified people reinforces the lower ratio (less qualified people need more supervision). So, in some respects, the union's preferences make this worse in the longer term.

Lastly, I have accompanied PSD on vertical patrols, so I know what they are. In fact, they are very similar to NYPD vertical patrols. According to NYPD's FAQ:

"[Question:] What is a vertical patrol? [Answer:] Vertical patrol is a process by which a Police Officer systematically and methodically checks each building one at a time, covering roof landings, stairwells and lobbies."

As I've pointed out, what RIOC/PSD have agreed to is commonplace for patrolling.

RooseveltIslander said...

I try very hard to maintain a certain level of civility in the comments. Reasonable criticism of public officials performance is not, as you put it, "ripping" that public official and within the bounds of civility even if you or I disagree with the criticism.

However, in my opinion, making a personal attack, not relevant to the topic being discussed is beyond the bounds I want for this blog particularly when I have good reason to suspect there are other agendas being addressed by the objectionable comment and its writer.

I try my best to be fair and objective with this policy regardless of who makes the comment.

CheshireKitty said...

Jesse: Even so, it is sometimes the "pillars of the community" who may not be exactly what they seem: Look at the case of Bernie Madoff, certainly a well-respected pillar of his community, and a giant on Wall St, who robbed thousands of trusting investors. If anyone had suggested he might be a crook before his Ponzi scheme was unmasked, they would have been told to have their head examined. Yet Madoff was a crook - as "nice" and "genteel" as he was, he was a sophisticated, manipulative crook. In Frank's case, just about every commenter on this thread is skeptical of his motives for going after PSD on what is clearly a non-issue - whether IH is safe or not safe - despite what Frank says is a lack of PSD coverage. I asked Frank in my post above to explain why, if IH is safe, enhanced or additional PSD patrols are needed. He bypassed the question of course, because he and everyone else at IH knows the building is safe, and that there is not one iota of evidence from the PSD log to prove IH has "many break-ins, much graffiti/vandalism, and people smoking dope in stairwells" even though according to Frank, there are hardly any PSD vertical patrols. IH is safe because IH is a well-run doorman building. Frank is questioning years of payments to PSD for patrols he says never occurred - even though no-one is complaining about security within IH except Frank. Despite Frank's denial, it seems to me he would be in an optimal position to possibly "profit" from a "healthy" building common fund. As outrageous as it sounds, greed, in this case disguised as concern for residents' safety in a building residents agree is eminently safe - has to be considered as Frank's motive in trying to get these monies returned, or at least get the PSD fee reduced. If you can come up with a more plausible reason for Frank's complaining about a non-existent issue - IH lack of security - be my guest. I do not see PSD changing its coverage strategy for IH - nor should it change the way it conducts its security patrols. If Frank can prove overpayments are made to PSD because of vertical patrols that never occurred, the result will be more money for the IH landlord/common fund. Security will continue to be excellent, the only difference will be more money flowing to IH.

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, you forget that is was the RIRA Public Safety Committee report, not me that reported inadequate vertical patrols. It was RIRA, by 21-1 vote, that approved a request for an investigation into PSD's practices. NYPD does vertical patrols right, while PSD does this wrong. After explaining that DHCR administers this and there are no private monies, you still fabricate some "common fund", which does not exist with no further proof.

You don't understand patrolling and security. Just because, say, there was no one in stairwell M today, it doesn't imply there will be no one in stairwell M tomorrow and it should not be patrolled. NYPD doesn't skimp on vertical patrols, so why should PSD?

Really, why would RIOC want to take on the liability? If PSD promises to do security/safety service X (which is clear from a contractual perspective), and then something bad happens while they are *choosing* not doing X, then they will be held accountable.

The IH tenants would rather have the job done properly for our own security and safety.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Is there anything you do not know about? Just read in the WIRE that you even know everything about bridge and road engineering. How do you do this?

Anonymous said...

"You don't understand patrolling or security" what the Hell do you know you about law enforcement. Just cause you look things up on Google doesn't mean you know anything. What is your profession Frank? Do you even have a job? Stick to what you know and stop trying to do everyone else's job

YetAnotherRIer said...

You seem to refuse to answer a very simple question: "Do you and your family feel unsafe at Island House?"


Listen, we can discuss if the funds paid to the PSD are indeed needed or if we get what we pay for. I just don't get (and totally disagree) with your approach. But I have been having problems with your way to tackle issue ever since the time you were RIRA president.

JimmyLaroche said...

I want to know how do you know nypd doesnt skimp? I wil bet a million dollars that you never stepped foot inside a project stairwell.

Stop wikipedia'n everything. It makes you sound rediculous.

Fact and fiction don't mesh well. You mean to say psd does not need sergeants and lieutenants and captain?
I guess you can write a letter to comissioner kelly requesting the rank of lieutenent in the nypd to be eliminated because you, the expert in all says its not needed.

Frank Farance said...

Answer: The tenants want the level of PSD patrols, as agreed to with RIOC/PSD, for their safety and security.

You're right, I'm not going to answer the question for my own situation because it is a building-wide issue. And just think about it:

- if I say Yes it is safe, then you'll say You Don't Need The Patrols (when, if fact, it is a security/safety issue for everyone in the building)

- if I say No, then you'll pick that apart and say I'm trying to get my own individual needs when the rest of the building is safe (again, misunderstands safety/patrolling)

In fact, it has nothing to do with me individually, the same problem would exist if you asked another tenant. The problem is you've asked a faulty question: looking to infer something out of an individual response and make it represent the whole.

Which is why I keep giving you the answer for the tenancy as a whole.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, thank you for the compliment. I spend much time learning about things, it improves my perspective on the world, and it makes for more-informed decision-making.

What's wrong with becoming more informed?

Anonymous said...

Cause learning about things and actually experiencing them are two different things.

The Director has had plenty of experience in law enforcement and management,so who are you to question the way he does things just cause you have read some information. Throwing around big words doesn't make you any different. Your still fat.

Second,yes nypd does vertical patrols. Then again,they also have over 35,000 officers!!!! And on top of that,they have a different part of the department that does it,its called NYPD Housing. All they do is vertical patrols. Surprised you didnt read that somewhere. LAME

If PSD wasn't doing vertical patrols at all,then I would understand where your coming from. But you basically want them there all day long and basically forget the needs of the rest of island,this way when something happens on main st,you can once again bash the department for not being on main st or the parks.

And when you are told its cause all the officers were doing vertical patrols,you going to say,its poor management,with 2.00000441736 officers,and 1.2094773848200 supervisors multiplied by how many craps you have taken on the toilet divided by how much crap your full of should = PSD having enough officers to cover it all.

Do us a favor and move.

CheshireKitty said...

If you are referring to the Housing Police - part of NYPD - doing vertical patrols at NYCHA houses, of course those patrols are needed and should be pursued by the NYPD. Why? Because most NYCHA buildings aren't doorman buildings. The only thing protecting tenants in NYCHA buildings is the lock on the front door and if security becomes porous for any reason, then the building can become unsafe. IH is a doorman building with securely locked entrances. It has no graffiti, no dope-smoking, and as far as I know, no incidents. I have asked you repeatedly - on what are you basing your assessment of building security, or as you claim, lack of security? I really think you are fabricating a non-existent issue to "needle" RIOC/PSD, perhaps for your own amusement (if not to get additional monies placed in the IH common fund). PSD must allocate patrolmen according to where they are most needed: The non-doorman building - i.e. Eastwood - as well as isolated areas around buildings, park areas and so forth. Security is already excellent at IH. If you are so sure there is a lack of security at IH, why not conduct a poll of IH residents to get a clear picture of what they think. You cannot point to the RIRA vote as reflective of IH residents' experience. First of all, you are one of only 2 IH reps on RIRA - not a representative sample of a building that houses probably over a thousand residents. If only IH was singled out as a building that was "suffering" from crime because of a lack of vertical patrols, no-one on RIRA would have voted to have the matter investigated. The report mentioned "WIRE" buildings - and logically, the only "investigation" worth doing is finding out about vertical controls and their relationship to the level of crime in Eastwood - the only building that lacks doormen. How can you say the RIRA vote indicates there is crime at IH? Far from it - RIRA members no doubt assumed the investigation would be focusing on Eastwood vertical patrols, and voted accordingly. Second, the fact that vertical patrols are either performed or not performed at IH proves nothing - unless there is evidence of crime in IH, which, unless I am very much mistaken, there is none. Security at IH is excellent already - so PSD is wisely allocating resources to areas that actually need additional security, such as around the buildings, or within Eastwood. I would be concerned if vertical patrols are not being performed at Eastwood - since Eastwood has no doormen. But I would not complain about IH "lack of security" - a non-issue IMO. If you are so concerned about PSD performing the vertical patrols, why don't you review the log books regarding Eastwood patrols? Otherwise, complaining about IH, which is safe already, makes no sense.

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, you're not very good at reading. It's a contractual issue so "I [PSD] don't think it is worth doing" is not a satisfactory response. The tenants want the full level of patrolling for their own security and safety. You might think they should want otherwise, but it doesn't matter, that's what the Island House tenants want and the agreed upon performance level is enshrined in the ground lease (a contract). Lower levels of crime do not waive provisions of the contract. In fact, we want the continuance of full patrolling to keep crime at lower levels.

As an IH resident, I have focused on what the Island House tenants want. If Westview wants to follow up on this issue, they call (although their tenants association seems disorganized). If Eastwood wants to follow up, they have several tenants associations (which seem to fight with each other), but they might have a harder time gaining access to records because they are no longer M-L. I agree other buildings should demand the services they are paying for.

Finally, I mentioned the NYPD vertical patrols to point out: the notion and methods of a Vertical Patrol are well-defined and commonplace, not just a Roosevelt Island thing. In other words, a PSD officer standing in a lobby (not systematically patrolling the whole building) is not what we would call a proper vertical patrol.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"The tenants want the full level of patrolling for their own security and safety."


You mean the few loud voices that are involved with the RIRA? I am very sure most tenants care very little about it.

Frank Farance said...

It is the position of the Island House Tenants Association (IHTA) that they want the full patrolling for their safety/security.

Graham Cannon said...

Its clearly a contractual issue -- Island House pays a public safety fee that not only covers the overall operations of Public Safety but also, specifically, security services at Island House. Its not illegitimate to ensure there's an agreed process for determining and measuring service performance for those payments especially as the building moves into coop status and those fees will be paid as part of the maintenance of shareholders.

YetAnotherRIer said...

I get that and I agree. I guess the way Frank "attacked" (in the truest sense of the word) this issue made it hard to keep a cool mind.

JimmyLaRoche said...

I still want frank to say he will suit up as a patrolman with no gun and no taser and patrol the island for a month.

I want I'm to move along a group of 10 wonderful amazing youths from he deli, 591 and 580 all by himself with no defensive weapons.

I want him to perform patrols in good old Eastwood with no gun either and arrest the trespassers and weed smokers in the stairwells.

I want him to respond to robberies in progress and apprehend the perpetrators with no gun.

I want frank to pull motorists over with out of state plates with dark tints by himself on Main Street, and issue an infraction. Or better yet tell Brutus the 6'6" man who is a recent graduate from a nys penitentiary that he is under arrest for driving under the influence. Again, with no gun or defensive weapons other than a stick.

I want frank to chase after graffiti vandals and arrest them.

I want frank to arrest a burglar.

I want frank to chase after an armed teen who doesn't think killing a cop with the gun is that serious because he doesn't understand life yet. Again, chase the teen unarmed of course!

I want frank to do EVERYTHING what I mentioned, because those are the things our public safety department does! This is what they do for us everyday!

As they say, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

JimmyLaRoche said...

It's the position of you.

You have an agenda and we all agree on here.

We the people are not that stupid frank. True not all of us might Wikipedia the world but it doesn't make us any less dumb.

I hope you understand that.

Regarding the IHTA. You mean to say all of them never see a patrolman?

I guess the rest of us are just stupid or blind.

Their job is to not jingle every door.

Their job is to make sure there is no interior vandalism or trespassers, weed smokers within.

KidKilowatt said...

Is there any way Frank could do any of this on the Internet?

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, that's not the way it works in this country. Many who protested the Vietnam War were never in combat, but it didn't invalidate their complaints. When a homeowner complains of a leak, the plumber doesn't bark back "You've never had your hands in sewage", right?

Or let me state it differently: when officers do tough jobs, this means they're entitled to do an incomplete job, or falsely claim they've fully patrolled a building? Or take Sgt. Veras, because she's had some awards, then we're willing to give her (and other officers) leeway on being abusive?

No one is saying it is an easy job. We're just saying the job isn't getting done.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Absolutely not.

Wikipedia is off limits, as is the entire Internet. Blog as well, he can only observe postings and critiques.

Solo patrol all day for a month. I want him to be deputized and deal with the nonsense psd deals with day in and day out.

I will even take franks role on the Internet and have my own agenda and pretend I know everything without actually performing said task.

I will be a jack of all trades and a master OF NONE just like mr. Frank.

I want him to read that he only jingled 398 doors and not 400. I want to critique he spent exactly 42 minutes in the building and not the extract frank formula of 45 minutes.

I want him to forget to report the broken light for the 6th time to management, even though he did 5 times.

I want him to read after his first oh crap serious emergency and great apprehension, that he didn't do it a particular way because the expert says its to be done a different way, even though said expert never did law enforcement and said experts only closest interaction was an episode of cops on tv.

I want frank to go to trial and testify against said perpetrator that was arrested.

I want frank to do a damn police job with no damn gun! I don't pray for harm but I pray for reality to kick him in the buttox, hard!

I can never imagine doing their job, and even if it was a $100,000 a year, I would pass. Especially dealing with naggers like mr.frank and the other senile people who are oblivious that we live in the middle of a city where crime has no boundaries.

KidKilowatt said...

Is it possible that PSD lacks the manpower to do the "vertical patrols" that it may or may not be contractually required to do?

JimmyLaRoche said...

Any incidents that you care to share that your claim of inadequate patrols caused someone to get robbed, mugged, raped, burglarized?

I think you have none.

If you have an agenda at least have evidence.

JimmyLaRoche said...

What's no exactly getting done?

Of there are no crimes committed, then it's being done!


We all know a patrolman can't be everywhere or at the scene of a crime when it happens all the time.

Your argument is weak.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, you should read the posts before you write. People had said they hadn't seen PSD patrolling the building. My experience is not having seen them patrol in the past 5-10 years. So rather than take those impressions as-is, I looked to harden them by looking at the log book data. You say "I guess the rest of us are just stupid or blind", but it was the log book data that show there was a problem (as I described above). I met with Director Guerra where we talked about this and he confirmed that they (PSD) don't do full patrols.

You look to transform these kinds of complaints into "Cops are heroes, so we cannot have any complaints". Complaining about government is enshrined in our First Amendment right.

You've provided no counter data, other than mindless points along the lines of "Frank won't himself dress in a uniform, thus we shouldn't listen to his complaints about PS". And YetAnotherRIer catches himself/herself on over reacting (keeping a "cool mind") because the message came from me. That's you and others' faults. When I look at your and others' comments elsewhere, I don't dismiss it because of the source, I read it carefully. So it is easily possible that in the span of one hour I might strongly agree with person X and disagree with person X.

So can you agree that PS officers are supposed to go to every floor (40+ of them), look for doors ajar, and report vandalism? And if so, can we agree that it is impossible to do this in 20 minutes? And if you believe it is possible, then let's make an appointment to do it together so I can see how 400 doors and a half dozen stairwells are patrolled.

JimmyLaRoche said...

I want you to do a patrol in a NYC housing project. Full of urine and feces.

The come back and do a patrol of dear island house and see it is is amazing shape.
Virtually no crime, no problems and no serious vandalizm or burglaries, robberies, etc.

If we had a problem within the building, then I can see that there is a very big problem.

Is it possible a patrolman forgot to sign in and out of the log? Perhaps went into the second enterance. Maybe the doorman was not there for a moment to buzz them in?

I want to see psd stats, not a doorman log.

Is 20 minutes too short? Yeah, I can agree to that. But I'm sure it's pretty boring doing a patrol in a boring building where there is literally no action.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Also, their job is not to jingle every door. That would be 1)creepy and 2) intrusive.

You distributing fliers for 45 min is not the same as walking through.

westviewgirl said...

maybe Chesire Kitty is a police officer on here to police everyone, she really seems to know all the answers to every issue. It must be hard to know so much, and be " on cue " all the time, how do you keep up the energy to be on here so much and post over 400 postst and aruge and debate with everyone? Do you ever get tired of firing back at people? Do you ever just have a conversation? I guess proving how smart you are and being right about everything is an important thing.. Try some decaf, or elevate your feet...will help with the swelling of the feet and head..just a suggestion, I do not claim, nor ever will claim to know as much as you, just saying.

Terrance said...

First, the PSD Chief must be out of his mind to meet with Frank. He doesn't represent anyone or anything but his own agenda. Oh sure, he'll say the RIRA Public Safety Committee wants more Vertical Patrols, but that's only his cover to go in and rant about his new favorite topic. Check the amount of posts on this thread. It's Frank, then Jimmy, then Frank, then Kitty, then Frank, etc., etc, etc. Frank on one side of this dumb topic and a ton of others on the other side. The more posts there are on the other side of Frank's view, the more Frank posts. He gets off on this people. Just leave it alone. I'm sure the PSD Chief, and the RIOC and even the RIOC Board are more than capable of dealing with this issue. Frank is neither of those, so just let him rant.

Terrance said...

Maybe Frank is the one who thinks he is the Police Officer on here to police everyone. HE is the one who thinks he KNOWS all the answers to EVERY issue. He is the #1 commenter on this blog. Shoot, without him, there might not be any disagreements. LOL.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Hey your barking up the wrong tree, mr. Farance is mister perfect.

Don't you dare say the truth!

He does not get it. People do not like his nagging and nosesiness.

My belief is that he knows people do like enjoy his presence, but somehow thinks he will be a superhero by coming out with some breaking news! Dig up some rediculous dirt about a whole lot of nothing like mr.martinez and mr.guerra being from the same frat.

No one cares!

Frank Farance said...

Terrance, you're wrong. CheshireKitty is in first
place with 464 posts on this blog; YetAnotherRIer is second in second place
with 381 posts. Mark Lyon and I are in the 200s; JimmyLaRoche and theohiostate
are around 100.

Frank Farance said...

I got that impression from Mr. Guerra. He felt that with 4-5 officers available per shift, only 20 minutes could be allocated to one of IH/WV/RC and 40 minutes for Eastwood. Just like 20 minutes isn't enough time for IH/WV/RC, 40 minutes is definitely not enough time to patrol all 1,003 apartments of Eastwood. I asked: Why not get more resources? But he felt there were limitations (board, State, etc.).

Since my meeting, I have read more on the proposed RIOC budget, which explains this (see excerpt below). However, once you grok the numbers and look at the metrics (which I did above), a bunch of problems present themselves (see my prior comment on staffing and low utilization).

Really, something isn't right here, even if we ignore the operating deficit. It seems like PSD has the resources, but it is very poorly managed.

Here's the excerpt from PDF page 5 of proposed fiscal 2013-2014 budget:

Public Safety – management is committed to limiting the current Public Safety level to 41.50 employees (PS Director, Deputy Director, Captain, 37 Public Safety Officers, and an administrative assistant and a part-time crossing guard), the same level that has been maintained the past four years. Even though a number of recent events have placed additional demands on the public safety department: (i) The NYPD request to post a public safety officer at each Tram station during rush hours (7am-10am & 4pm-7pm). (ii) The full occupancy of Southtown Buildings 5 & 6 has increased overall population. (iii) Multiple construction projects, construction workers, traffic and dangerous work sites. (iv) Opening of Southpoint Park has increased more areas to patrol and an increase of visitors to the Island. (v.) Increase in gang activity requiring special training, overall crime has decreased on the Island. As discussed in last year’s budget, the “Island Security Camera Project” will enable the increase in demands to be met through enhancing patrols and also strategic Island surveillance. For the 5 year period below the Public Safety net loss has essentially remain constant as follows:

[all figures are net losses]
2009: ($1,209,257)
2010: ($987,862)
2011: ($1,171,083)
2012: ($1,203,126)
2013: ($1,167,726)
2014: ($1,212,250)

JimmyLaRoche said...

This is a whole lot of babble with nothing.

So?

They have resources?

I think not. Not by far.

CheshireKitty said...

So now we have 2 IH residents - the head of the IHTA, Graham, and a director of IHTA as well as IH RIRA rep, Frank, complaining about enforcing the terms of the contract with PSD, i.e. PSD must provide security at IH in return for the public safety fee. Graham, no-one is arguing that PSD is obligated to provide security to the Wire buildings; there is a dispute on the level of services PSD should provide to buildings that are already quite secure, and the choices PSD must make in allocating scarce resources. Graham, if you were in command at the PSD, would you pull resources (manpower) from an insecure building like Eastwood in favor of a secure building (with or without the PSD thrice-daily patrols) like IH? You are a smart man - if you had Guerra's job you would also no doubt decide that having a strong police presence at Eastwood and the areas around the buildings makes the Island safer for everyone - including IH residents. I again ask Frank, and Graham, to say once and for all, what exactly is wrong with the security arrangements at IH, and especially, what have been the effects of those arrangements on the tenancy. Are the tenants cringing in fear in their apartments? Are they fearfully riding the elevators, or folding their wash in fear in the Laundry Room? The answer is - no! The building is completely safe, thanks to the seamless coverage at the doorstation and the many dedicated staff members who are always around and always ensure the doors to the building are securely locked. A secure building cannot be made more secure by additional security if it is already secure. I for one do not fault Guerra for providing the coverage that is needed at IH. As far as the security fee is concerned - now we are getting to the real reason for Frank's concern: He wants the maintenance lowered by cutting back on the fee since the unneeded thrice-daily patrols are not being performed. So now Guerra faces having his budget slashed by having the free paid by IH lowered, or perhaps pegged to the actual number of patrols done. The more patrols done, the more money Guerra's department gets. Either Guerra deploys patrols to IH, and thus lessens patrols where they are really needed, at Eastwood, or his budget suffers. If he does not do the IH patrols, the budget crunch means PSD possibly has to lay off men and women; if he does the IH patrols he cannot also deploy at a meaningful level at Eastwood and around the buildings: Either way, security Island-wide declines as a result.

CheshireKitty said...

The Island is largely safe because of PSD's providing security where it's needed - on the street, in Eastwood, around the buildings, in the parks. Island residents - the vast majority of them - applaud PSD for making RI safe and livable.

CheshireKitty said...

Sgt. Veras did nothing wrong in issuing a moving violation ticket. The tickets are issued at the discretion of the police officer - meaning they can indeed be issued. If someone has a complaint about a traffic ticket, they can always fight it in court. It is not appropriate, nor is it going to change the issuance of the ticket, to start yelling at the police officer who issued the ticket. It is of course never appropriate to start yelling at any fellow citizen, much less a police officer. Sgt. Veras did show forbearance and patience in a situation that became heated due to the thoughtless behavior of the detainee.

CheshireKitty said...

So PSD is doing the best it can with the scarce resources at its disposal. And yet you still complain?

CheshireKitty said...

Hold on there, Frank: The IHTA is an organization whose directors ran unopposed the last election - therefore, all directors "won" by default. The tenancy is generally satisfied with the work of the IHTA - but over the years, exactly how many tenant meetings have occurred, and how much communication is there from IHTA to the tenants? Meetings tend to be annual, and communications pretty sparse. Maybe it is the position of the 5 IHTA directors (out of a total tenancy of possibly 1,000) that they want the full patrolling for their "safety/security" but I challenge IHTA to conduct a poll of ALL the IH tenants - by asking the question: Are you satisfied with the current level of security in IH - yes or no? If the answer is yes - as it must be, since the building is already secure, then the "full patrolling" is unnecessary. Ask the tenants if they want patrolmen on Main St and around the buildings as they are currently deployed - the answer will again be yes, since that is where potential chaos/trouble exists.

CheshireKitty said...

You're saying you, Graham, and the other IHTA directors won't be "in charge" once the building converts? If not, then who will? There's going to be another election to elect directors or coop board members? The building has exited M-L. It was by the sufferance of the landlord that he agreed to rent stabilization for the non-buyers - he definitely didn't need to do that. It has privatized, which is exactly what happens after a certain number of years under M-L. At IH, the prospective coop buyers then become the "new landlord" of their apartment building or apartment shares, however the coop is organized. You aren't going to have 300-400 apartment owners overseeing the common fund. You'll have a coop board doing so. And as for transparency - hah! Every organization is supposed to be transparent, and honest. Madoff was supposedly the soul of respectability, and honesty. Wasn't he once the head of NASDAQ? His honesty was unimpeachable - it was thought. He kept his Ponzi scheme well-hidden, until it all fell apart. If the IHTA doesn't translate into the future coop board, I'll be very much surprised. Not a single tenant contested the most recent IHTA election - meaning IHTA will probably become the coop board upon conversion, by default.

Anonymous said...

The insanity on this tread is absolutely stunning. This is like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. This blog is basically an electronic asylum.

KidKilowatt said...

Astonishingly, I've read all the posts on this topic. Here's my common-sense take: Without some evidence that there the current patrol system is having a negative impact on safety, I would oppose any effort to force Public Safety to increase its "vertical patrolling" of Island House (or any other WIRE building where there isn't evidence of a safety problem). Unless there's an increase in resources, this is a zero sum game, and every new job you force Public Safety to do means there's less they can do elsewhere. If Frank wants to fight for more funding or launch an investigation into RIOC's finances, that's fine by me. As for the "contractual" argument, there are two responses. The first is that it's not entirely clear that Exhibit H imposes the contractual obligation that Frank claims it does. It may, but it may not. It looks far from a slam dunk to me. The second response is a policy response. There's no requirement that everyone who breaches a contract must be sued or threatened with a lawsuit. And if this stems from the Island House ground lease, then it's an Island House issue. Let Island House deal with it, but Island House shouldn't expect anyone else to fight alongside them.

Frank Farance said...

Just like Octagon which pays approx. $110K/year for an express bus, we
would expect RIOC provide that bus, even if it were lightly loaded. Now
RIOC provides other bus service to all the buildings (which has
had problems from time to time), but the Octagon Express Bus service is a
contractual one, just like the vertical patrols in the individual WIRE
buildings. IH expects to get the service it has paid for, which is
independent of the other patrolling on the Island - just as the Octagon
express bus service is independent of the regular red bus service, yet
they use the same pool of drivers and buses.

CheshireKitty, you say "I again ask Frank, and Graham, to say once and for all, what exactly is wrong with the security arrangements at IH". It has been said many times: The agreed upon security level, AS GUERRA HIMSELF STATED, on March 13, 2012, is three vertical patrols (i.e., full patrols) during a 24 hour period, 7 days a week. The vertical patrols are not being done completely and not being done at the frequency RIOC has agreed to. Simply the tenants want it done at the agreed upon performance level for their safety/security. The tenants do not prefer a lower level of services with some potential refund, we prefer the patrolling to be done properly as was agreed to ... that is the desirable outcome.

CheshireKitty, your reasoning on this is ridiculous. So when IH tenants complain about problems with the facade work (as did Rivercross with the same vendor), we're all looking to put that money into some individual-controlled piggy bank, yet pass all DHCR audits? A more plausible (and truthful) explanation is: the tenants want to get the services they have paid for - a very simple idea.

Certainly other buildings (Westview, Eastwood, Rivercross) might have their own concerns, too. I find it horrible to hear that only 40 minutes is allocated for an Eastwood patrol. But it is up to Eastwood tenants to advocate their concern ... I'm willing to collaborate with Eastwood tenants (assuming that is what they want), but I'm not going to get out an stand for Eastwood tenants (as an individual building's concern) because I don't live in Eastwood.

As an Island resident, I can complain about the (apparent) poor management of PSD. CheshireKitty said "So PSD is doing the best it can with the scarce resources at its disposal. And yet you still complain?". PSD has 37 FULL-TIME PAID officers available, I still don't see how that translates into only getting 4-5 patrol officers per shift. And even at 4-5 patrol officers per shift (32-40 staff hours), it would be possible to do a full patrol of the WIRE buildings (over half the Island's population) utilizing just 10-13% of that staffing resource (see my numbers above plus a 2 hour estimate for patrolling Eastwood). That's a small amount of effort compared to the resource available, which itself (4-5 patrol officers per shift) a small amount compared to the resources available (37 full-time paid officers).

In other words, contrary to your concern about layoffs at PSD (there is no need to have layoffs) or a scarcity of resources (there is an abundance of resources), we just need to make sure that what we've paid for (the Island has paid for in the RIOC PSD budget) is working effectively. Right now, I'm seeing poor management of PSD.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"A more plausible (and truthful) explanation is: the tenants want to get the services they have paid for - a very simple idea."


Don't you think that most tenants will rather say "Oh, we should get all those patrols? Huh. Oh, well, it's not like we live in a dangerous place." In what way does the IHTA actually represent ALL tenants? How many complaints have the tenants brought to the IHTA?


So, leave the tenants out of this. This seems to be a pure IHTA issue and you guys probably want to cut the fee you pay the RIOC for PSD services, right? Or do you really want the PSD to ramp up the patrols?

Frank Farance said...

Real simple, we (the tenants) really want the full patrols. The tenants had bad experiences in the 1990's with break-ins and found the patrolling to be effective. DHCR and RIOC recognize IHTA as the entity that represents the tenants (noted in the ground lease extension).

Ratso123 said...

is this correct

Terrance said...

I thought the numbers being thrown around by Mr. Farance of 4-5 officers on patrol per shift were off, because I see more than that working. Anyway, I called PSD and found out that those are the minimum amount of officers per shift. So, all of those mathematical equations and talk about poor utilization and daily performance are wrong.


Also, how does Mr. Farance know for a fact that the NYPD doesn't "skimp" on their vertical patrols. Was he a cop with the NYPD? Or is he just acting like he knows everything again? My nephew is assigned to PSA 7 in the Bronx. (For those of you that don't know, PSA's are Housing Precincts in the NYPD.) He says the vertical patrols are left to the discretion of the officer doing them. He doesn't hit every floor and definitely does not check every door. He also doesn't call it "skimping". Frank, get a life!

KidKilowatt said...

"The Octagon Express Bus is a service provided contractually twice an hour weekday mornings. The Octagon Express Bus runs regardless of whether or not it has a full load of passengers."


This kind of gets at my point. I can understand that Octagon management has an interest in enforcing its contractual rights and that Octagon tenants have an interest in seeing those rights enforced. However, I'm not an Octagon tenant. So I'm fine with the Octagon trying to get what it bargained for, but the Octagon should know better than to tell me that this is an issue of great importance for the entire Island and that I should be outraged that a contract that I'm not a party to and don't benefit from is being breached in a way that conceivably favors me.

CheshireKitty said...

There are plenty of IH tenants who would rather keep PSD exactly where they are - on the street keeping an eye out. Sorry - IH is safe; if anyplace on RI is unsafe, it's walking in isolated places after dark. Look at the police blotter. How much crime - such as muggings, assaults and so forth - occurs within IH, or the other doorman-protected buildings on RI? How much Frank? Answer: Not much. The crime that does occur on RI is street crime, when there is an opportunity for a culprit to get away with a rip-off because of a lack of people and/or cops around. The atmosphere within safe, secure, doorman-protected buildings is similar to that of one's living-room. I for one would rather have the PSD doing patrols where they are actually needed - on the streets, around the buildings, in the parks. There's a long isolated walk from the Gristedes to Octagon - you're telling me it makes more sense to deploy PSD personnel to IH over having them look over isolated roads such as the one to Octagon, and the areas around Octagon?! Frank - on this we must disagree: Have the PSD return the monies to IH, if that is what is bugging you, but there will be many objecting if you force PSD to remove patrols from where they are needed - areas around the buildings and so forth - to areas where they are most definitely not needed, such as within IH.

CheshireKitty said...

Frank, why not start a PSD Auxiliary - just as there is a NYPD Auxiliary. You can have citizen volunteers "beef up" the PSD, help with patrols and so forth. Finally - Auxiliary Officer Frank, on the job, endlessly patrolling safe building hallways - since that's the contractual obligation - while the street outside "simmers" ...

CheshireKitty said...

So now you attack the PSD officers' union, as another reason for PSD's "lack of efficiency". You would rather starting salaries were increased - even though the PSD is running a deficit - because they could then hire "better people". You are maybe in a position to provide the extra money for the higher starting salaries? And what's the implication of your "analysis" of the salary negotiations: The union greedily "focused" on more money for the PSOs that already work at PSD (and wouldn't vote for higher starting salaries for new workers). If this isn't a dis against PSD officers - those already working in PSD and those that get hired since the lower starting pay means in your analysis "inferior" candidates are hired, I don't know what is. I think you have a problem in general with PSD, and just look to find any possible reason to criticize them. I have no problem with the PSD - I think they are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have - money and manpower.

CheshireKitty said...

YetAnotherRIer - Do you mean his letter about the spiral ramp possibly falling apart if the debris and construction equipment and supplies are trucked in rather than brought in by barge? IMO - that's complete nonsense. We should try to press Cornell to use barges as much as possible, if at all feasible, but the ramp, bridge and so forth, are not going to collapse from the trucks. They didn't collapse from the trucks rumbling over them when Southtown was built and they ain't gonna collapse when Cornell-Technion is built.

CheshireKitty said...

Frank, you and IHTA are concerned that PSD is not patrolling as they are contractually required to. Have you bothered to ask the landlord what he thinks? It's his money that pays for the patrols. Why don't you inform Mr. Hirschhorn about the lack of patrols, and get his reaction. While you're at it, though, make sure you confirm that there is a singular lack of crime within IH, despite the (purported) lack of PSD patrols.

CheshireKitty said...

Did crime increase in the past 5-10 years? Answer: No.

CheshireKitty said...

Good idea Mark. Question: Who pays for the purchase and installation of the system. The landlord? Or PSD?

CheshireKitty said...

Since most accidents occur in the home, maybe we should all be walking around the house with helmets on. That's how dumb your analogy with seat-belts is. It is of course a good idea to buckle up, but notice that the NYPD rarely seems to issue seat-belt tickets. Why is that? It is not exactly up there as a "vital issue". And people do not walk around with helmets on at home (at least the people I know don't) even though the home is the most likely place to have an accident. PSD, having assessed the current crime situation at IH, which is pretty much non-existent, may or may not perform patrols. Instead, PSD focuses on areas or buildings such as Eastwood, that are not as safe as IH. They are putting scarce resources where they are most needed and will "pay off" the most - in terms of enhanced safety for the community as a whole, including IH residents who may need to walk along deserted streets at a time when there are few people around.

Frank Farance said...

KidKilowatt, I ask you to re-read the original posting and my posts and you'll see they are all about a contract performance issue for IH. We want them to do the job that's agreed upon. IH tenants have an interest in getting the services they pay for in all areas: elevator repair, facade work, and so on. The PSD performance issue is of particular interest because Mr. Guerra states the performance in his own words, yet in fact he does not do what he says in actual patrols -- which is the first set of concerns I expressed. After meeting with Mr. Guerra, where he explained staffing issues and only allocating 20 minutes for a vertical patrol, the second set of concerns involve the overall poor management, low utilization, and major inefficiencies.

You suggest that only someone with a "contract law fetish" might be interested in this, but that isn't so. If one were caring about RIOC (e.g., directors, executive staff), they would realize that saying their are doing X, and then not doing X can bring on a significant liability. Their directors, executive staff, and general counsel should frame it this way. For example, for someone who suffers injury-damage-whatever attributable to the lack of vertical patrols, that plaintiff will point out (which nullify RIOC's counter arguments as a defendant):

(1) PSD were supposed to do this patrolling
(2) their Chief explained the level of performance
(3) PSD did not perform (using Chief's own words against RIOC)
(4) the notion of "vertical patrol" isn't a Roosevelt Island specific idea, there is commonality in understanding what is supposed to be done, as evidenced by NYPD's notion on their FAQ web page, and local newspapers (NY Post) providing details and photos
(5) RIOC knows how to split contract obligations vs. general service in operations (e.g., bus service), which blows away the argument "there wasn't much crime, so we didn't patrol"
(6) PSD is poorly managed, and RIOC executive staff and RIOC directors do little to improve it

It would be irresponsible for a director/executive to ignore those kinds of concerns.

Frank Farance said...

Terrance, the 4-5 officers is from Mr. Guerra. But if untrue, it isn't the first time Mr. Guerra's position has shifted. Regardless, you can see that in the way I've framed this: even with 4-5 officers full WIRE patrols are possible because they only consume 10-13% of staff hours. However, if there is more than 4-5 officers available per shift, then PSD has no excuse with "not enough resources", right? Why not share with us the staff loading numbers you purportedly heard from PSD?

And, yes, the mathematical stuff still applies because the span of control numbers are independent of the number of people on a shift.

Terrance said...

Who says the PSD is poorly managed? You. Because you want a vertical patrol, in a safe building, done a certain way? Who tells you how to do your job? Oh, that's right, you work for yourself. Great. From my vantage point, the officers look better, act better and crime is down. I would say it is managed properly.

KidKilowatt said...

Some big assumptions in here, Frank. The biggest one is that PS is bound by contract to do what you say. If you can direct me to a complete copy of the lease and all of the exhibits, I'd be happy to take a look when I have time. What I've seen so far is highly excerpted and not at all clear. A description of current services provided by PS may or may not be construed as a promise by RIOC that PS will continue to provide that level of service. There may be caveats carved out in other provisions. Reliance disclaimers, damages limitations provisions, relevant statutes. That's the starting point of the whole contact analysis. It wasn't clear to me earlier that your interest was purely patriotic. All the talk about busting RIOC for fraud may have confused me. But I see now that you're just concerned with helping RIOC avoid liability. (Why not apply for a job as corporate counsel rather than do this work in your spare time?) Of course, if you have a change of heart, you're well-positioned to capitalize on PS's failures and be the plaintiff in a suit against RIOC. All you have to do is stay at home with your door ajar until someone bonks you on the head and you're golden.

In all seriousness, though, where is the complete lease with all exhibits?

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, I'm not attacking the union. It was *Guerra's* and *Chironis'* position that they preferred a flatter pay scale so the starting salaries could be higher and get more qualified candidates. According to Mr. Chironis, there was a fixed amount of money for salary increases and the union chose a steeper scale.

The problem for the union is: while that might help some existing members in the short term, given the inefficiencies of PSD and its cost, the union could end up losing in the long term because it might make sense to outsource this part of RIOC to the State Police or NYPD. Unions react differently. Regardless, having less qualified people makes for smaller span-of-control ratios, which makes for less efficient management, as reported in the Police Chief Magazine article I cited.

Virtually every resident I've heard say: we want an NYPD substation here. Whether that configuration is best one could be topic of study, but uniformly people would prefer NYPD here.

Maybe Mr. Guerra was not aware: when he started the taser discussion, it got people thinking: if it's unsafe for officers without tasers, then don't equip PSD with tasers, just get NYPD. In that sense, I don't think Mr. Guerra was thinking many moves ahead because any experienced executive might guess that the loss of his/her department could be one of the outcomes.

Terrance said...

Actually, you are the one whose position has shifted. 3 months ago you stated on this blog - and I quote, "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."


So, you were a big critic years ago...Then, you were impressed the excellent job he did in transforming the force...Now, you are a big critic again.Shift - shift - shift !

Frank Farance said...

Terrance, there is a distinction between reporting facts differently surrounding the same event, and having different opinions over time. I don't regret my statement then, it was my opinion based upon what I knew. Now I know more, so my opinion changes. That's the way intellectually honest people look at things. There is nothing wrong with changing one's opinion based upon additional information.

However, Mr. Guerra has provided *factual* reporting of the same event significantly differently several times.

But you knew all this already, right? What numbers did you get from PSD?

JimmyLaRoche said...

Seriously, seriously, very seriously... You need a hobby other than being the local pandered.

WE ALL KNOW YOU HAVE AN AGENDA!

WE ALL KNOW you want to make a name for yourself!

WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE AN EGOMANIAC!


Stop already. Seriously stop. Not only is it very annoying, it's just disturbing.

You would rather nit pick and waste your time and energy going after things that are easily approachable and fixed with closed dialogue, instead of spending time with

Frank Farance said...

Terrance, I think you're off on the facts. In September 2008, PSD had 1303 incidents YTD; September 2012, PSD had 1888 incidents YTD, a significant increase. Burglary, noise, harassment, and disorderly conduct are higher in 2012 (YTD) compared to 2008, but criminal mischief, graffiti, and trespass are down. Overall, it is about the same level, slightly lower on index crimes.

JimmyLaRoche said...

And I assume you are going to say 1888 incidents happened in island house?

You are so deceptive, it's not even fun to play your game anymore

How many arrests have been associated with those upped index crimes?

You talk and talk but all you do is fluff it with nonsense. When someone calls you out, you backtrack.

Common side effect of being proven wrong.

Again, your not a hero. Never will be.

Life is short, take advantage of being happy with family. The nonsense is not important.

CheshireKitty said...

We're not talking about facade repairs, and organizing to get the landlord to do things. The building has privatized, and the tenants were lucky to get the landlord to agree to rent stabilization for those tenants that do not wish to buy their apartments. Who do you think is going to be at the head of the coop board? IHTA. What about the coop common fund? You say it's going to be overseen by DHCR? Maybe - but at some point, the coop board is going to be making decisions on spending the common fund monies - on stuff like facade repairs and so forth, exactly what Mr. Hirschhorn had to spend his money on previously. An insider with technical know-how can then "invisibly siphon off" common fund monies - and of course the more monies there are the easier it is for the theft to be disguised. No-one is as focused on these monies as Frank, and he would be the person "turned to" for advice, even if he is not the IHTA Treasurer. (Incidentally, if the IH payments to the PSD "for nothing" problem is so earth-shattering, why hasn't the IHTA Treasurer stepped up to complain? Answer: The IHTA Treasurer is a level-headed, rational, gentleman "of the old school". That alone gives you the answer why he has not complained.) So why hasn't Graham - or anyone else on IHTA - looked into this "alarming situation" of the lack of PSD patrols for the past 5-10 years? What does that say about the IHTA "leadership"? Even Mr. Hirschhorn hasn't complained as far as we know. That to me says Mr. Hirschhorn, Graham, and the other IHTA directors, are "normal" - not obsessed with meaningless patrols, since the building is safe already. Maybe to them, knowing IH is already safe, it's more important that the island overall is kept safe since, if it is, it's more likely they'll retain tenants.

CheshireKitty said...

On top of everything, Frank, you are anti-labor - saying that unless "more qualified" candidates are hired, the whole department will shut down, because starting salaries - which would affect the few employees that are ever hired in any given year - weren't upped to the level management recommended and instead, the workers got raises. This smacks of union-busting: Agree to lower pay raises at the expense of setting aside monies for guys that may or may not even be hired, or else your job is lost once the State of NY decides to outsource the entire PSD to the State Police or NYPD, because of the supposed "inefficiencies" of new hires, who are, of course, not much different than the existing workers. You control wages by holding the threat of outsourcing over the department. Nice, Frank. With that attitude toward labor, maybe you should run for Mayor - as a Republican, of course.

JimmyLaRoche said...

That makes no sense.

What does the nypd do differently than psd?

If its because one is armed and one is not? That's stupid. Just arm them and amend the criminal procedure law and make them police instead of peace officers.

You DO know, and I assume you do.. that there are very little variations between a peace and a police officer, right?

Psd arrests people just fine. Nothing is perfect in law enforcement. One day they can be heros, the next day, zeros. Just like the nypd!

If you want nypd, you will have zero discretion, zero tolerance, and the patrol cops would not give two rats behind about your crusades. They will hunt you down and lock YOU,mr.farance up every minute of the day because you are a neusance. Don't jay walk frank!


Get real.

The people who want nypd here are the ones who think psd is a security force and doesn't arrest or rather cannot arrest.

Those are the people who have been brainwashed by the likes of you.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Cite your sources if you want to convince people. Where, for example, did you get to learn that the helix ramp is unable to support construction vehicles when Cornell is being built? Do you have the blueprints, did you consult an engineer who actually knows this stuff inside out, how did you calculate what the ramp can hold and what not? Gut instinct?

Mark Lyon said...

Someone mentioned that a watchclock had been previously in use, so there may not need to be a new system purchased, but I would generally expect the people wanting to ensure rounds are completed (in this case, the building & residents) would likely be the ones who need to buy and install the system (then require its use).


It's perfectly reasonable for people to expect to receive what they pay for. Even if the building were the safest in the world, the residents have every reason to demand that the patrols for which they pay are being fully performed. If PSD is unwilling to do that, then they should stop taking the money.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, answering questions about the helix on the PSD vertical patrols thread is off topic, but seems to be designed as bait. Metal fatigue accumulates over time.

"The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons [80,000 pounds].
According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to
the road as 9,600 cars." (see "http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/sep/11/overweight_trucks_strain_roads_bridges/")

Here's another quotation:

"C. Michael Walton is a civil
engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin and he serves
on the executive committee for the Transportation Research Board at
the National Academy of Sciences. Walton says research clearly shows increased truck traffic shortens the life of bridges. "Many of these structures you could
say have perhaps provided an economic life beyond what they may have
been expected to," says Walton. "They've reached their design life much
earlier because of the increased traffic and loads."
" (see "http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/10/bridgetruckweight/")

Of course, there is a nice article on fatigue in general (see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_%28material%29") and on why weights affect bridges differently (see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bridge_Gross_Weight_Formula").

All of those are consistent with my statement "There are only so many times you can run an 80,000 pound truck over the
helix: the wear and tear will be substantial, costly, and *unpredictable*.
"

That should be enough to get you started. However, my guess is you already know this topic and you're fishing for a Gotcha. (Why would anyone dispute the idea that heavier trucks decrease the life of a bridge?)

According to Mr. Kraut (RIOC Director who is on the Operations Committee), RIOC is concerned about the wear and tear of the helix and if/how its roadway/structure would be replaced. Mr. Martinez and Mr. Kraut both expressed concern about heavy trucks during construction.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, I agree with you that NYPD and PSD do things similarly, i.e., they have a similar definition of what vertical patrols are. You're confusing me with Terrance.

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, it is not anti-union to say that you want new hires to be better qualified. Flat or steep pay scale, the same amount of money staff will be available. Mr. Guerra has said many times: PSD loses newer staff because of lower pay, and a flatter pay scale would have better staff and keep them longer (see the Police Chief Magazine article and its observations on flatter pay scales). The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that flatter pay scales is anti-union, it's not ... and RIOC left the decision up to the union.

And hiring State Police or NYPD is not anti-union because they all have unions. The problem is: there is too much overhead (inefficiency) creating a department from scratch for such a small department, when you can outsource it to a larger union with a larger pool of available workers who are better trained and better armed/equipped at similar costs (not to mention, a CCRB that comes with NYPD). In other words, let NYPD worry about paying for extra officers who are sick/unavailable, we just pay for N officers per shift. Certainly an idea worth looking into.

JimmyLaRoche said...

No. They have very very similar law enforcement powers. The only differences are that psd as peace officers cannot execute search warrants and cannot arrest someone solely on an open warrant.

Outside of that, why not make psd our local and only police force, who will WORK with nypd on whatever cases may arise to the attention that nypd needs to get involved.

Same as with MTA POLICE, TBTA POLICE, PORT AUTHORITY, ETC. they all work in unison with nypd.

Why can't we?

We have direct links to rioc and psd.

Do you HONESTLY THINK that nypd REALLY gives a rat behind if they come here?

You really think they are going to give leeway like psd does? Do you think they are going to do vertical patrols? They are not housing police! Nypd patrolmen do not do vertical patrols unless a crime occurred in the building or there is a missing person.

How do I know? Family! How do you know? You don't, you assume.

Does the nypd guy make vertical patrols? How can we verify? What is his purpose? How many arrests has he made alone, without the help of psd? How many summonses did he issue? What is his overall performance? Why is a patrolman with over 15 years in the precinct given this post? Is this a retirement spot going easy?

JimmyLaRoche said...

So let me get this straight. You would have just a director and a deputy director?
And no sergeants and lieutenants?

So the one chief and one deputy director are going to cover 24/7, 365 days of patrol to make sure all is well?

No supervision of officers?

Your ideology is idiotic at best.
Seriously.

Span and control?

YOU NEED FRONT LINE SUPERVISORS. And you need admin support. You need someone for training. Someone for payroll, someone for like internal affairs, someone for patrol supervision.

Law enforcement is not easy like let's say working for a supermarket where you have cashiers and a manager.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, I agree with much of what you said, especially your points on coordination (like TBTA, PANYNJ, etc.). However, the general problem (in contrast to the specific vertical patrolling problem with IH) is that PSD has to hire all those people who it isn't using (low utilization). I recognize that people need to have sick days, but with such a small force, we have hire a larger percentage than would be required for a larger force (of which we are outsourcing our patrolling/policing).

I listened to Mr. Guerra's explanation of 4-5 officers being available for patrol, I suggested that he get more resource, and then I discovered that he is limited in staffing (via RIOC budget document).

It was after that, I started thinking about the structure/sizing of his organization and looked for comparables in other forces (see Police Chief Magazine article and other articles).

Although you asked it elsewhere, I'm guessing the ideal structure would be similar to NYPD-FDYNY-EMS with 1:7 span of control ratio. Something like:

1 PS Director
1 second level person (not sure of title)
4 supervisors (not sure of title)
rest: officers
[note: I haven't addressed "detectives", they probably should remain]

So whether the second level person is a Deputy Director or a Captain, I don't have a strong feeling. Ditto for the supervisors (lieutenants or sergeants). But six levels is too much (according to the recommendations) and PSD needs to come in line with comparable forces and industry practices.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Not for nothing but the nypd has numerous ranks.

Police officer
Detective
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Captain
Deputy inspector
Inspector
Deputy chief
Assistant chief
Bureau chief
Chief of department
First deputy commissioner(civilian)
Commissioner(civilian)

As well as 15 or so deputy commissioners who are non law enforcement and are just civilian managers.

This is with a force of about 34,000 officers of all ranks.

Excessive, no?

So lets say you have 4 sergeants. How is that going to pan out for 7 days, 24/7 coverage? I will tell you how, impossible!

Mathematics was never my strongest attribute but common sense was and still is.

I see exactly where you are going with this.

Your plan, and correct me if I am wrong, is to demote or try to thin the ranks within PSD.

Mr.Farance, if I am wrong, I will leave an envelope with a crispy $100 bill with the doorman.

Your agendas and actions make it very obvious of your intentions. We went from vertical patrols to your master theory on how to run a law enforcement agency.

Come on now. Stop trying to play with people's livelihoods.

Again, if I am wrong please forgive me. But I want everyone here to have this as evidence that this is your next agenda.

If you had nypd here and you tried to pull this on them they would point and laugh at you.

So lets see, let's have nypd, who gets paid $100,000+ a year with minimal overtime, not patrol the hallways and not respond to nonsense nuisance complaints all day, or check up on the elderly when a loved one calls, and do motorgate patrols.

Or, support the PSD, help them progress, give them the tools they need for the job, which in my opinion is a damn gun, and give them a whole lot more training and moral support. What cop in the US goes on patrol and pulls cars over with no guns?

Insane if you ask me.

I got summonses on my car, did I get mad and disapprove of them and say f them? No! I was wrong.

Once we step out of the hate and move towards peace and mutual understanding, we can all move forward.

CheshireKitty said...

Much of what you have to say is anti-labor: You criticize the way the PSD officers do their job, then you criticize the way the pay negotiations were handled by the union. Your solution to both: Do away with them - the PSD officers - in favor of having security handled by the State Police or the NYPD. You are clearly against the PSD no matter what they do, or whichever way they do it. You evidently have a grudge against the PSD and will look for any "excuse" to gang up on them. Notice that no-one is taking the bait. RI is relatively safe (and the buildings - except for the one non-doorman building, Eastwood - are essentially completely safe) thanks to the diligence and hard work of the compact yet efficient and greatly appreciated PSD. And this despite the "widespread mismanagement" that Frank has "helpfully" identified. Frank has attained the skills of a management analysis guru - all on his own. Since he was able to "diagnose" all the "problems" of the PSD in a few casual blog posts, maybe he should next turn his attention to the US Army, and give them the benefit of his deep insight into management issues of large organizations, and even Frank's "famous formulas" for winning wars - be they a war on crime or a counter-insurgency conflict.

CheshireKitty said...

If there is really anything to this, then Bloomberg should provide the money to at least have a study done to check on the ramp and the bridge. Cornell-Technion is Bloomberg's pet project, so anything connected with it should be directed to Bloomberg. If he turns around and says, Oh, the ramp is the responsibility of RIOC or the State of NY, they should tell him to at least cough up some of the expense for the study, since the trucks "degrading" the ramp will be used to build his pet project. But, I still say that if nothing happened to the ramp after the construction of Octagon and Southtown, and even hauling material for the FDR Memorial, then it's unlikely anything will happen with the Cornell-Technion project.

CheshireKitty said...

I think this is a question that should be put to the IH tenants - not a decision taken by IHTA. Obviously the landlord is not worried about the possible lack of patrols. I don't see him buying the watch-clocks. If the tenants want to take a vote on buying such a system, then that's different. If it means an increase in rent or, after conversion, maintenance, to finance the watch-clock system purchase - the tenants/cooperators should vote on the decision first. I'm sorry but I do not think IHTA speaks for the tenants on all issues at all times - they have just about annual meetings, and in general few tenant communications.

JimmyLaRoche said...

His next step is guaranteed to follow officers, keep taking photos, maybe even investigate officers on his own in the likes of getting them fired, for whatever reason possible.

Thinning the heard to his liking.

This is defiantly a typical frank move.
Typical and disturbing.

Frank Farance said...

RIOC PSD Sgt. Veras was suspended without pay 11 times, yet she is promoted in Public Safety. I asked RIOC about this and await a response:

Mr. Towns, Mr. Lewis:

PSD Sgt. Veras was at the center of attention on the Stueber incident: she instigated the event with her own cursing at Mr. Stueber, she overreacted, and she fabricated her testimony in the criminal complaint. By a 21-1 vote, the Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) has asked for an investigation into the this incident. PSD Chief Guerra defended Sgt. Veras has just having received an award for service. However, Sgt. Veras has been SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY from the force 11 times since 2007, three times this year, including a 4-day suspension this year for "Reckless Driving", and a prior suspension for "Failure to Record Actual Hours Worked". She has been suspected by Jim Fry (once), by Rene Bryan (twice), and by Keith Guerra (eight times) ... but she is promoted to Sergeant?

This is the kind of caliber officer that is promoted? This is the best we have on the force? How is does this motivate a good work force?

Mr. Shinozaki, Mr. Kraut, Ms. Smith: Why does RIOC's Operations Committee support poor executive and management practices?

Why is this person still on the force?

JimmyLaRoche said...

Do you show that she did CPR to a lifeless individual two times and successfully revived them?

Once as early as a couple weeks ago?

Keep your smut to yourself.

If she was suspended for being late or crashing a car, big deal. Apparently she was not suspended for failing to do her job, or doing it wrong.

I knew you would harp on a new crusade.
Typical.

Frank Farance said...

Is JimmyLaRoche actually Chief Guerra using an alias on this blog?

It's clear from the history of JimmyLaRoche's posts that he works for Public Safety because there are details that only Public Safety (or Mr. Guerra) could know.

Last week I sent an E-mail to RIOC, the only RIOC staff on the E-mail were: Don Lewis (Acting President), Fernando Martinez (VP Operations), Steve Chironis (CFO), and Keith Guerra (Director of Public Safety). Mr. Guerra was the only PSD person who new about the story on Sgt. Vegas. Then Mr. LaRoche, who was quiet for several weeks, starts posting comments about the Stueber incident over the past couple days without any other posts related posts. Mr. LaRoche's posts talk in anticipation of a story from me. JimmyLaRoche knows my post about Sgt. Veras is coming because JimmyLaRoche is Mr. Guerra, or Mr. Guerra told a Public Safety Officer who uses the alias of JimmyLaRoche.

Now with us knowing that JimmyLaRoche is an alias for someone in Public Safety (possibly Mr. Guerra), look back at JimmyLaRoche's posts and you'll see all these scare tactics about "active shooter scenarios", killing officers, a heavy promotion of weaponry for Public Safety officers, and so on. In other words, Public Safety is on this scare blitz for this community by using the alias of JimmyLaRoche and others. And since Mr. Guerra regularly reads the blog, either this is Mr. Guerra writing as JimmyLaRoche, or Mr. Guerra tacitly approves of these Scare posts because JimmyLaRoche is someone who works for Mr. Guerra.

Don't worry, I've saved all your posts on the blog.

JimmyLaRoche said...

I can swear on a bible that I am not mr.guerra.

I am a joe schmoe that just doesn't like the way you operate.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche (or is it Mr. Guerra?), if Sgt. Veras was SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY 11 times at PSD, then clearly she was doing her job improperly. You don't get suspended without pay for *doing* your job properly, right? When Sgt. Veras "[Failed[ to Record Actual Hours Worked", that's fibbing on her timesheets, right? Most places that gets you fired.


Mr. LaRoche, your attitude is: as long as an officer does one (or two) good things, then we can ignore all bad things. That kind of management keeps Bad Eggs (like Sgt. Veras) on the force.


Really, if suspended-without-pay for 11 times, including fibbing on your hours, doesn't get you fired from PSD, then how many suspensions does it take to get fire? Twenty? A hundred? For many places, it's three strikes and you're out.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, my mistake it is you Mr. Bryan, right?

CheshireKitty said...

As a great man once said, let he who is without fault throw the first stone. Why not find out the details of everyone at PSD, and even RIOC for that matter? We recently heard that the Governor is going to focus on RIOC personnel matters - that might include PSD. Someone along the chain of command is making decisions taking into account factors that you may not have access to - even in a FOIL request, wherein Veras, and possibly many other officials in RIOC and PSD whose records may not be completely free of problems, remain on the job. Guerra has stood by Veras in the matter of the moving violation ticket for Stueber, and unless Cuomo asked Torres to leave because of the brouhaha over Stueber's firing after he became disorderly at PSD, RIOC has stood by its decision to fire Stueber. I don't see how the revelations about Veras or information you may find out about any/all members of PSD or even RIOC is going to change the reality that Stueber pled guilty to the disorderly conduct rap, his daughter received a moving violation ticket, and Steuber was also fired from his red bus driver job. Steuber could have avoided the negative repercussions of arrest and job loss, and maybe even beaten the ticket in court, by accepting the ticket without an argument, leaving the PSD premises peacefully as instructed. He could have tried to fight the traffic ticket in court, instead of lashing out at the cops, who were then forced to deal with him in as safe a manner as possible, considering they had to place him under arrest. The most important thing to remember is to be polite to law enforcement officers, just as you would be polite to any fellow-citizen. If you disagree with a ticket, you can always try to fight it later in court. Do not talk back or otherwise provoke a policeman - just as you would not do this to anybody else - since you then risk the situation getting out of control and subsequently possibly facing arrest. Only someone lacking good judgment or a dope will risk his liberty over a dispute with a cop over a traffic ticket.

JimmyLaRoche said...

Seriously frank, I really don't appreciate it, but as I said, I can swear on anything holy I am not affiliated with them. I just do not agree your attacks.

Can we move on like civilizd people?

I am very serious,

Frank Farance said...

CheshireKitty, I wasn't focused on that. It was Chief Guerra who egged me on to look at Sgt. Veras' background, i.e., without Mr. Guerra's insistence, I would not have looked into Sgt. Veras. Mr. Guerra said she received an award and, thus according to Mr. Guerra, my sense that Sgt. Veras was problematic was all wrong. Mr. Guerra spoke with confidence in his voice, yet the truth about Sgt. Veras is completely different. This is an ongoing pattern with Mr. Guerra ... simply, it seems that one should not rely on what he says, it needs to be confirmed independently. And this is the third, fourth, fifth(?) flub on this with Mr. Guerra's story about the incident shifting every time. Here, with Sgt. Veras, he talks about how she is good, but didn't he think I was going to look at her records? Just like the video of Mr. Stueber, didn't he think I was going to look at the video? (which Mr. Guerra's characterization had little basis in truth)

CheshireKitty said...

It won't make any difference re Steuber's ticket or arrest: Even if Veras is let go eventually, PSD backed her up on both. The only way you will ever get to the bottom of what goes on at PSD and RIOC is to request full access to the records. If you do get access to the info (for example, maybe it's not that unusual for PSD to issue suspensions, maybe there are other officers with multiple suspensions) then what are you going to do? Demand that any officer with more than 3 suspensions be let go? Or what if you find out some unsavory info about people in RIOC? You're going to ask Cuomo to terminate them? Maybe local gov on RI is a festering sink-hole of corruption after all - my point is, no-body's perfect, and we do not know all the ins and outs of the reason Veras was retained despite the suspensions. Maybe it's a custom at PSD to issue suspensions for relatively minor transgressions that some employers would not suspend employees for, such as a minor error in a timesheet. Many times errors on timesheet do not draw a suspension. The employee is asked to correct the timesheet and reminded to be more careful next time. So we do not know what all the suspensions were about - if they were about often trivial administrative matters such as minor timesheet errors - which they may have been since she was not let go after so many suspensions - then the knowledge you gain is that PSD uses suspensions like other organizations use warnings, or a write-up in a personnel record.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, you're not affiliated with Public Safety? I don't believe you and, given your history of 135+ posts, many others believe you're in PSD.

You reveal personal details about Sgt. Veras' that I did not reveal, nor did I know from public records. When Ms. Torres mentioned a bunch of PS officers you boast "My name is listed!". You reveal details about internal PSD data that only a PS officer would know ... many times. Somehow you know about my post even before it is posted (something only Director Guerra knew).

Not only are you close to PS, Mr. Guerra knows you, too. Mr. Guerra is way too smart to allow himself to not know the "embedded" person who is writing under JimmyLaRoche. Thus, Mr. Guerra tacitly approves your postings.

Mr. LaRoche, what did you expect us to think when, in those 135+ posts, you sought to give the impression you're inside PSD? All your little PSD internal details made your posts more authentic, so why are you upset that we came to believe what you wanted us to believe? My hunch is you're Mr. Bryan (or very close to him) because you've revealed details about yourself that would support that conclusion.

JimmyLaRoche said...

I can swear to gods green earth I am not public safety nor am I anyone you claim I am. I am a simpleton who just gets annoyed by your attacks on everyone. If you attacked the bus drivers, I would conter act you there too. You are predictable.

You don't have to know history, just talk to people in conversation.

It was my mistake and I apologize. Sergeant Veras did not save the life it was another officer it was posted here on the blog. My mistake and apologies.
Again, your overly paranoid. It's not much fun now with your paranoia.

Perhaps I did not post because we had a little thing called a hurricane and I left the state?
I won't say it again but I am not your fantasy people.

Frank Farance said...

Mr. LaRoche, you avoid the question: you have insider knowledge of PSD and your comments are the same to everyone (not just me, check your history of comments). It's up to RIOC and the authorities to investigate, right?

Anonymous said...

hey there and thank you for your info – I've certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this website, as I experienced to reload the website many times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I'm complaining, but sluggish
loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high-quality score
if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I'm adding this RSS to my email and can look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Make sure you update this again soon.
My webpage Outside