From: Coleen Cusack [mailto:pedagogue@email.phoenix.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:35 PM
To: info@savemapd.com
Subject: Re: POLICY PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Police Shared Services Agreement

Dave - here's a copy of my reply to the Mayor.

Mayor Ondish -

Honestly, the reason I got involved was because of how poorly the BSC study was prepared and substantiated. Perhaps shared services might be financially feasible, but the report, itself, does not bear that out. It's only a reduction in savings if you are paying less for the same service. Here, you'll be paying more and getting fewer officers. There are so many unknowns; unknowns that should have been addressed in a feasibility study of this magnitude. Can fewer officers provide service equal or greater than is presently the case? Perhaps - but there was insufficient exploration of how that would be accomplished. On a surface level, it appears incongruous. I am not sure what you got for your money, here.

If you truly want to examine the cost effectiveness then the financial statements, budgets, and operational data, together with the other items we specified on the laundry list in the Cost-Benefit section of our evaluation, should all be made available to whoever you retain to continue this exploration. You might want to scratch everything and start all over with a more thorough examination.

What are the tax consequences? My review was initially limited to the BSC report, but I had to do what I could to find additional facts necessary for the analysis; facts that should have been gathered and summarized for you and the Council's consideration in the BSC report. If there are tax benefits or liabilities, they aren't mentioned in the BSC report and, of course, I have no access to the tax structure.

You ask, "Did you happen to explore what it is going to cost to keep our police department years down the road in comparison to a contract service with another department?" This is why an Actuary Report was necessary and should have been computed from the data that should have been gathered. Certainly, your consultant was authorized to employ a CPA or financial analyst for this purpose, but chose not to do so. I'd be interested in seeing that computation, myself. It is included in the laundry list we've indicated should be prepared in order to enable a meaningful cost-benefit analysis.

If you skip to our recommendations, I've indicated that the report doesn't demonstrate that there would be any realized improvement to officer or resident safety over the current situation. As to the cost savings aspect - - there is no way to adequately make that determination. On its face, however, paying more money for fewer officers, would not appear to be a cost savings.

While it might appear, on faith, to reason that consolidation of services will result in cost savings, that doesn't necessarily follow. If it was always the case, there would be no need for feasibility studies - you could simply skip right to the implementation and evaluation stages. There's an article on the steps to shared services you might find helpful. Varga, A. (2007). Steps to shared services. Law & Order. Wilmette: 55(7), p. 49. My only access to this article is through a password protected site, so I cannot provide a link. Very briefly, the steps include:

1. Determine the Need

2. Approval for a Feasibility Study

3. Apply for Study Grant

4. Feasibility Study

5. Approval Process (public vote)

6. Application Implementation Grant

7. Implementation

8. Evaluation

Here, the "need" really wasn't addressed in the BSC report. Instead of addressing concerns of officer and resident safety, the report recommended increasing staffing by 61% in order to address ethical problems; problems that were not part of your original needs analysis. With Mine Hill, the situation was different. Without a chief for an extended period of time, there were ethical concerns. When conducting the feasibility study, you have to particularly consider the needs of the community. Just like with children - - what works for one child in one family might not work for the other. Each child has its own needs and personality. So, too, with decisions such as these. The Mine Hill community appeared grateful to get some improvement not just in cost savings, but in the quality of their police services. Quality does not appear to be a "need" in your community. To quote a colloquialism, "If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it."

Next, there was no true "feasibility" determination in the BSC study. Instead, feasibility almost appeared to be conceded and the report centered around which of the three jurisdictions under consideration would be best for the job. This logic is dangerous; assuming the conclusion is the antithesis of evidence-based crime policy and could end up costing your municipality untold sums in the unreported and associated costs.

Moreover, if trying to cut costs, there are grants that could have been obtained to pay for the services of your consultant and for the services of a financial analyst. I'm not sure why you would leave it up to the consultant (as per the Resolution) to decide whether to pursue such an option. If the consultant is guaranteed its pay without applying for a grant, there doesn't appear to be much motivation for the consultant to expend additional energies to obtain such a grant simply to reimburse the Borough. There are also grants for the implementation, should your Borough elect to proceed further.

You might want to review the Local Government Budget Review of the Borough of Sea Girt (1999) for an example of the level of analysis that would better approximate the detail required to support a conclusion that shared services would result in a cost savings. You can access that review here http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/lgbr/munpdf/seagirt.pdf and the police services analysis begins on page 66. That level of analysis just wasn't present in the BSC study. In the Sea Girt budget review, there are also a variety of other cost savings ideas that were generated with respect to police services and other borough departments. These may provide you with some additional avenues to cut costs.

Keep in mind, as well, that economic considerations are not the end of the inquiry in a feasibility study. This is all detailed in the report, where we discuss collective (or community) efficacy. You write, "Being part of a larger department affords more opportunity for the police officer. I am having difficulty finding a problem with that." There are advantages and disadvantages to working at all sized departments, whether they are small, medium or large. Perhaps there is more opportunity, but there is also more competition for that opportunity. Perhaps there is better pay, but there is also more work and potentially greater risk.

Personally, I'm a "small town" girl myself originally from the Valley Forge, PA area, but I have friends who prefer the more metropolitan setting. It would appear to simply be a matter of personal preference. Many of the residents at Mt. Arlington, however, appear to want to retain that small town aspect; a concern that should be given due consideration. As a criminal defense attorney, there is something to be said for living in a town where everyone knows your name. I bet you don't have a lot of criminal defense attorneys in your community - - which is one of the reasons why I find myself in a larger urban setting than even I thought I'd prefer!

I hope that you've found my responses helpful. I would be happy to continue exploring these issues with you and to discuss any additional concerns you might have.

Coleen

Coleen M. Cusack, J.D.

University of Phoenix Online Faculty

(858) 866-8255 PST

(858) TOO TALK

pedagogue@email.phoenix.edu

ALT: 8588668255@grandcentral.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Art Ondish

To: Coleen Cusack

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:33 AM

Subject: Re: POLICY PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Police Shared Services Agreement

Hello Coleen,

Thanks for you time spent on this. The state of NJ is encouraging consolidation of services. There have been consolidations that work very well, how is it that Mount Arlington is so different and it would not work here? I see a considerable cost savings. Did you happen to explore what it is going to cost to keep our police department years down the road in comparison to a contract service with another department? If you haven't done that is your recommendation based on total tax savings for each and every resident based on assessed value of their homes or is it based on personnel issues?

Not sure if you are familiar with NJ and the state political structure. Unfortunately the state is passing down costs, for state spending, to the local municipalities. We, local municipalities, have to find a way to cut our spending in order to keep up with the increased costs being levied on us by the state. There are many that can not afford to pay the increases in taxes.

The contract police service has been successfully implemented in several municipalities in NJ. Why is it that it will not work in Mount Arlington? Being part of a larger department affords more opportunity for the police officer. I am having difficulty finding a problem with that.

Thanks.

Mayor Ondish

-------Original Message-------

From: Coleen Cusack

Date: 10/18/2007 12:23:46 PM

To: aro34@optonline.net; kam3@optonline.net; bs0348@earthlink.net; maureencer@aol.com

Cc: info@savemapd.com

Subject: POLICY PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Police Shared Services Agreement

October 18, 2007

To the Mayor and Council of Mount Arlington -

Two weeks ago, I was contacted by David Rubenstein, a fellow faculty member at the University of Phoenix. Mr. Rubenstein explained another colleague had recommended my services as a policy analyst to objectively critique a policy proposal to disband the Mt. Arlington Police Department. Before this phone call, I don't recall having had any interaction with Mr. Rubenstein.

As I had a full calendar, I was reluctant to tackle another project, but Mr. Rubenstein's impassioned plea convinced me otherwise. I knew from the outset that this grassroots movement was subsisting on donations and compensation for my efforts would not be likely. I agreed only to review the report, once it was released, and would decide at that juncture whether I felt I had anything of value to offer in response. I then, in turn, solicited another colleague, Luis Martinez, M.Ed., to assist me in this venture as my expertise is primarily in criminal justice policy analysis and Mr. Martinez has expertise in police operations.

When the report of Blue Shield Consultants was released, I realized that Luis and I could be of assistance to both Mr. Rubenstein, as well as to the Mayor and Council as the Borough faces the important and potentially community-altering decision of whether to maintain or disband the existing police force. I have no personal stake in the outcome of this controversy, beyond my commitment to upholding the standards of evidence-based crime policy.

Accordingly, please find our Policy Proposal Evaluation which not only assesses the validity of the findings in the Blue Shield report, but which also offers its own independent recommendations, based on the ascertainable facts, retrievable data and applicable research in the field. I hope that you find it useful in your decision-making process. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,