Inside the Numbers: A Further Examination of the DPD Turnover Rate

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee ran an article that found that Citrus Highets and the Davis police departments have the highest staff turnover rates among other law enforcement agencies in the region.

To add fuel to the fire, the Bee recessitates old charges that the climate in Davis involving complaints of racial profiling and the Halema Buzayan case were the prominent if not primary culprits for this turnover rate.

"High-ranking officials from the two departments blame a variety of factors ranging from a new department's normal break-in period to the way a racially charged incident was handled."

The Bee quotes Assistant Chief Steve Pierce discussing issues involving the arrest of Halema Buzayan, then 16 in 2005, along with accusations of racial profiling.

"Davis Assistant Chief Steve Pierce said his department changed its retirement calculation, making retirement more attractive for some officers. In addition, several officers left to work in newly formed departments in Citrus Heights and Elk Grove.

Pierce also said some employees felt uncomfortable working in the city following a 2005 incident involving a 16-year-old Davis High School student arrested for a misdemeanor hit-and-run. Her parents alleged racial bias because the girl is Muslim.

During exit interviews, some departing officers remarked that they "don't want a car stop done on a person of color blowing up in (their) face," Pierce said."

However, that paints at best an incomplete picture. The Vanguard spoke to Davis Police Chief Landy Black who provided context to both the initial interview as well as the data.

First he provided the actual breakdown of those who left from 2006 to the present.

Retirement: 5 (3 sworn)

Attained promotion not available with DPD: 4 (2 sworn)

Failed to complete academy/field training/probationary period (dismissed by DPD): 2 (both sworn)

Non-sworn personnel became sworn officers elsewhere: 3

Resigned to take comparable position elsewhere: 5 (4 sworn)

By his count that allows for at most four sworn officers who left the department under the conditions that were describe prominently in the Sacramento Bee article.

These data suggest a much more mundane explanation for a high turnover rate. Some simply retired, others were able to get promoted to positions unavailable to them in this department, a few failed their probation, and a few became sworn officers elsewhere.

Under those conditions, the turnover rate is neither alarming nor unusual.

Chief Black also suggested that the comments attributed to Assistant Chief Steve Pierce, while accurate were taken somewhat out of context. His comment regarding exit interviews was not unsolicited but rather reflected a direct question from the Bee reporter who asked him point blank what effect the Buzayan incident had on people leaving the department. There was no emphasis made by Assistant Chief Pierce, according to Chief Black, on the Buzayan factor.

"It is unfortunate that the Sacramento Bee article makes it look like he/we put an emphasis on it. He didn't and we don't."

Chief Black continues:

"I was hired after a period of some internal and external turmoil. There was an expectation placed on me to take steps to mend internal and community relations. While I will take credit for what I've done to meet that expectation, the officers and leaders of this department have taken great individual and professional initiative to rehabilitate an image that they and I believe was unnecessarily tarnished. There is always room for improvement, but the vitriol was over the top in many folks' estimation.

I cannot speak to the character of the officers who left in 2006 or early 2007, but the officers who remained and continue to work here have done so, in large part, due to their commitment to this department, their peers, the law enforcement profession, and the citizens & community of Davis."

Chief Black also took on the issue of racial profiling.

"Racial profiling continues to be a publicly debated issue. We are aware of that and the fact that the perception of racial profiling still exists. We continue to develop our department and train our personnel to conduct themselves in ways that minimize the perception of racial bias. Our recruitment and training focuses on finding and developing professionals who have the capacity and inclination to understand the dynamics of a multi-cultural society and are able to be resilient and welcome transparency as a means to improve trust."

Brief Commentary:

From my perspective, it is unfortunate if the Sacramento Bee believed it was important to stir the pot on this issue. I received a number of emails on this article and felt it was important to find out the rest of the story from the Davis Police Department.

This issue rekindled an issue that had arose back in 2006, when many accused community activists including my wife, the chair of the Human Relations Commission at the time of creating an atmosphere that had led a large number of police officers to leave the department culminating with the Police Chief at that time, Chief Jim Hyde who took a job in Antioch.

The truth is that while it appears there may have been some police officers who left for those reasons, it was not the huge number that was being represented in the media or at city council meetings by members of the community.

While the issue of racial profiling remains a sensitive issue in parts of this community, the overall tone of discussions have change drastically. The departure of the previous chief along with the arrival of Chief Black and Ombudsman Bob Aaronson have helped change some of this.

While many undoubtedly still blame my wife for fanning the flames, many of these incidents were taken to her from people within the community and to the best of her ability she followed the charge of the Human Relations Commission as the only place where people could go to air grievances of this nature at that time.

It is my hope that we have all learned from that incident and should an incident of this sort arise in the future, we can all handle it better and avoid a repeat of what occurred in the winter and spring of 2006.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Thanksgiving Eve: Woodburning, Child Abandoning, and a Legislative Surprise

Well Vanguardians, it is that time of year, Thanksgiving. As we have done the previous two years, for the only time during this year, the Vanguard will take a vacation. Today will be the last new entry, barring the biggest story of the year, until Monday morning. Everyone have a happy and safe Thanksgiving.

There are three briefer stories that will be covered in this article

WOOD BURNING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED

On Monday, the Natural Resources Commission drafted an ordinance on wood-burning stoves. It was not a complete ban that the city is moving towards. However, it would implement no-burn days when atmospheric conditions and the winds are insufficient to disperse the smoke. Even on those days when would could be burned, it would be limited to six hours per day.

The effects would take place on March 1, 2010. The city would study Davis' air quality to determine the impact of no-burn days and the impact a more stringent ban would take place.

The council will take up this issue on December 16, 2008.

I fully understand the reasoning of waiting on restrictions. I also understand why they did not want to undertake an outright ban. That said, I do not think a March 1 start date makes any sense. Why wait until the end of winter to start the ban? What practical sense does that make? What value is that for conducting a study. It essentially means that we are waiting for the 2010-11 winter to get real data on the impact. That is fine, but if that is the case, why not begin the ban on September 1, 2010?

Second point, and maybe someone knows who attended the meeting, but did they put an exemption in for lower income people? Especially if you are not banning wood burning, it makes sense to exempt low income people who use the fireplace as their primary means for heat.

At some point this is going to become like a smoking ban, incrementally it will get tougher and tougher and people realize exposure to even small amounts of particulate matter in the air is unhealthy, particularly for a broad range of sensitive people. (A number that likely exceeds the number of people who burn wood on a regular basis).

SAFE HARBOR LAW AND DAVIS TEEN

Good article in the Sacramento Bee this morning describing the incident and the conditions that led a Davis woman to leave her 14 year old son in a hospital in rural Nebraska.

I suppose not yet being a parent myself, I do not have standing to admonish this woman, since I do not know what she's been through. Taking that chance, I would offer that my first response to hearing this was this was a despicable act by an irresponsible person who should now lose custody of her other two children. Harsh? Perhaps. Let's take a look at what happened.

But on the other hand, it seems that authorities share some of the responsibility here for failing to assist her calls for help. Do we not have a system set up to help people such as her so that she does not have to take drastic steps such as drive 1600 to Nebraska. A few years ago, I did that drive, you can drive from Western Nebraska to Davis in about 18 or 19 hours of driving if you take minimal rest stops.

The Sacramento Bee article seems a bit less judgmental of her situation than I did, running through exactly what the problem was and how she tried to get help.

Fortunately, Nebraska wisely closed the loophole that was supposed to be for infants to prevent infanticide by desperate mothers who are overwhelmed by the prospect of suddenly having to care for a young baby.

As the Sacramento Bee describes, help is hard to find:

" For parents of such problem teens, there is a network of resources available through schools and mental health providers. But there are cracks in the system, and the frustrations of dealing with a patchwork of services.

When authorities declined to intervene after her son raised a knife against the family, she said, her only option was to abandon him in a state that would accept him.

Her son was the last of three dozen older children abandoned in Nebraska in recent months before the state's Legislature closed a loophole in its new safe haven law. Now, only newborns can be dropped off without legal liability there."

According to the article, start with the child's school and school psychologists. However, they warn that students who *only* have substance abuse problems may not qualify for special education.

"His mother, who works as a custodian, makes about $2,000 a month and lives in a modest house, said she was able to get him into a residential treatment program in Sonoma. He seemed to be improving, she said.

But then he started acting out and getting into trouble. It was the same behavior – defiance and aggression, drugs, drinking and smoking – that had caused such trouble at home, she said."

The woman told the Bee that she adopted the son when he was four and he was aggressive toward all his family members--verbally and physically abusive.

"After the latest knife-waving incident, the woman said, she called police, who did little to help.

Police in Davis and Sacramento said such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis, with the officer assessing the nature of the threat and the likelihood of violence.

"There's no formula," said Steve Pierce, assistant chief of Davis police. He said he did not know the details of the particular case, but confirmed police had gone to the house a number of times."

She also called Yolo County Child Welfare Services, according to the Bee, they could only protect abused children, not parents.

Nebraska has sent the child back to Yolo County, now he will be placed in foster care, and a court will decide his fate.

Okay, I still blame the mother after all of this, but I can partially understand her actions. But what really seems amiss is the system. And the worst part is that our social services simply do not have the resources to help in this matter. Nor do we have the systems and protocols laid out. So what does a working class woman who makes a fairly low salary and is apparently a single-mother with other children going to do when these problems arise? She went to the system multiple times and the system failed her?

So at the end of this analysis, I still do not agree with the safe harbor strategy and dumping him on someone else, which she has essentially and completely done, he is now going into a foster care system which is equally overwhelmed and unable to attend to his needs. This is an exceedingly sad case and this boy will likely live a very tough life unless he ends up in a home that will have the resources and patience to make a difference in his life.

DEMOCRAT WILL WIN AD 10 ELECTION

In an open race that featured Democrat Alyson Huber and Republican Jack Sieglock, for most of the post-election period Huber had been trailing her opponent by over 1000 votes. This was one of the very few competitive races.

While we have not discussed this race, it is race that I am familiar with and know quite a few people who spent hours working to get Alyson Huber elected to the Assembly.

Well the news came last night that based on the counting of several thousand ballots from Sacramento County, Alyson Huber has surged to a 531 vote lead. She had a net gain of over 900 votes when they completed counting Sacramento County.

There are a couple of hundred ballots outstanding in El Dorado County, and a few in Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties, but not enough to overturn the election. The counties must certify their results by December 2.

At this point barring an unexpected change it looks like Huber will win and bring the Democrats to 51 seats in the Assembly next session. It's not the two-thirds the Democrats were aiming for and not enough to forestall another budget lock-down; however, Democrats will be happy to have 51 seats in the Assembly.

The two sides could not even agree on a package of cuts and taxes to reduce the $17 billion budget deficit for the next two years. Republicans refused to budge apparently on new revenues. The Republicans argued that the plan lacked a spending cap, economic stimulus, and did not contain enough cuts.

At some point perhaps we will realize that we have enough checks and balances already in place that requiring a two-thirds vote makes it impossible to have real changes. Simple majority approval by the legislature and the governor's acceptance are all the checks and balances we really need to do something, but the current 2/3 system does not permit that.

Happy Thanksgiving all! Remember, December 2 is the Virtual Town hall Meeting. Big issues are coming up in Davis in December - that is for sure - and the Vanguard will be there to bring you the most up-to-date information and happenings in Davis. See you again on December 1st!

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Davis Police Officer Arrested In Sacramento

Davis Police Officer Antoine Feher, 26, was arrested on the evening of Friday, September 12, 2008, outside the Park Ultra Lounge Night Club in Sacramento for a violation of California Penal Code 647(F), public intoxication.

The officer on the scene described Feher in a police report as having slurred speech, being unsteady and belligerent, while having a "strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath."

Officer Feher was asked numerous times to leave the premises by security guards and officers, but he refused. He remained belligerent and argumentative and was taken into custody for public intoxication.

In his police report, Officer Hanks of the Sacramento Police Department described the incident. He and Sgt. Lau observed Officer Feher "arguing and being belligerent with three security guards that work for the bar."



The security staff had asked Officer Feher to leave but he "refused to leave and stated that he wanted to talk to the police. We advised Feher that the security at the bar no longer wanted him there and that he had to leave."

Officer Feher then purportedly told the police officers, "So this is how your (sic) are going to treat another cop."

Officer Hanks responded "that it didn't matter if he was a cop or not, if you are asked to leave the bar by security you have to leave."

Sgt. Lau reportly asked Officer Feher what agency he worked for. His first response was YONET. He was asked again and responded, "BNE."

"Feher identified himself as working for YONET. I recognized this as Yolo Narcotics Enforcement Team. I asked Feher which agency he worked for. Feher again stated, "YONET.” I said that I understood that but that YONET was a task force and which agency he actually was employed by. Feher stated that he worked for BNE (Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, Ca DOJ)."

"It wasn't until after S-Feher was placed under arrest that we found out that S-Feher actually worked for Davis Police Department. A Davis Police Department Identification was located in his wallet."

A security guard for the night club also spoke to the arresting police.

The security guard reported that, "As I was walking around my post, I was grabbed by a customer who stated that there was an altercation in the patio near the entrance of Mason's bar. I responded to the area and saw [Feher] arguing with about 5 different customers."

He continued, "As I approached the group, all the patrons around Feher told me that he was harassing the girls in the group and would not leave them alone."

"I asked Feher to leave. He refused and became argumentative. I was concerned that Feher may become physically violent and called for additional security staff via my radio to assist. We had about five of our interior staff escort him out. He remained argumentative and belligerent. He would refuse to leave then slowly walk toward the exit then stop and argue again."

According to a female witness at the bar, who was there with several companions, Feher repeatedly attempted to talk to one of her companions and refused to leave her alone when requested to do so.

The witness then stated, "One of [Officer Feher's] friends tried to get him to leave and he shoved his friend and became aggressive towards him. He tried again to talk to [her companion] and I got afraid and pushed him away from me. He pushed me back and a bunch of people stepped in. I didn't throw a drink on him. The drink got on him when everybody stepped in. He is really drunk."

When Officer Feher was arrested, Feher demanded that the above witness be arrested as well. The Sacramento Police reluctantly arrested her after Officer Feher filled out a citizen's arrest.

He told the arresting officers:

"Well if that's the game you want to play and take sides with the bar then I want to press charges... I want to press charges for 242 pc. The girl in the bar pushed me. I want her arrested."

In his statement to the police Officer Feher said:

"I was inside the club trying to talk to girls when that girl pushed me with both hands in my chest area then threw a beer on me. I demand that she be arrested for 242PC. If you are going to make me leave, I want her arrested and you'll be creating paper for yourself. I work for BNE. I'm a cop and I want her arrested. I work on YONET.

I can't believe you guys are going to take sides with the security here over another cop. If you refuse to take my arrest, you'll be making a big mistake. You will be talking to my superiors. I'll be in contact with my watch commander. Are you going to arrest her or not? I can't believe you guys aren't arresting her. So this is how Sac PD does it huh? I will sign a citizen's arrest against her for assaulting me. You wait till you're in my jurisdiction because this type of treatment goes both ways."

According to the records from booking, Officer Feher was told that "as long as he remained calm and cooperative he would be brought in discreetly in the back door." They were concerned for his safety as a police officer and so they attempted to conduct the arrest and booking as discreetly as possible.



Officer Feher remained highly uncooperative as he was transported to the Sacramento County Jail by Officers Duink and Suehowicz.

He complained to Sacramento County Jail booking supervisor, Sgt. Vagt, that this was "bull****" and said "that this was no way to treat a brother officer."

Sgt. Vagt told Officer Feher, "I don't know if it's the alcohol you have had tonight, but you are not cooperating like I asked you."

Feher then apologized and said, "I don't have a problem with you guys it's Sac PD. However, the Sgt then described: "He then looked over at myself and [Officer] Suehowicz and began giving us "hard, challenging" stares. He looked at me and said words to the effect of
"you ain't ****, Sac PD ain't ****, I work narcotics."

Officer Feher then is purported to have said:

"You think you are the ****, you ain't man. I would love to meet you out somewhere and..."

The Sgt said: "And what?"

The reports says, "He smiled and looked hard and said "talk."

According to reports, once inside, Feher again became mildly uncooperative with sheriff's deputies by being "slow to follow instructions and making condescending comments."

At one point when he was taking off his socks, he "tossed it towards the deputy and looked at him in a challenging manner. The deputy had to step back and allow another deputy to continue the booking search."

The Vanguard spoke to Davis Police Chief Landy Black via phone last week. Due to this being a personnel matter, Chief Black could not directly respond to the specifics of the incident. However, he confirmed that an investigation is in progress and when it is completed a decision will be made that takes into account all factors. Chief Black pointed out that he has access to additional information in addition to the police report and that that will be weighed into any decision that the department makes.

Chief Black did very adamantly stress to the public that he believes that the Davis Police Department has the public interest at heart in all matters. He stressed that they will weigh the situation accordingly and do what they believe is right for all of the community and all involved and he promised to make sure that his department would always do right by the public. Having the public's confidence is one of his top priorities and one of the reasons that he decided to take this job.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard:

"The solemn oath to enforce the law comes with the equally solemn obligation to obey the law. The people of all communities deserve to feel confident in those with whom they entrust their quality of life, from day-to-day city employees to members of the City Council."

Officer Feher remains on administrative leave pending the outcome of the Davis Police Department's internal investigation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting