ROLANDO R. LAVARRO
SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL
I am writing to refute misinformation about a proposed ordinance, the Crime Prevention Law, which I introduced at the last council meeting; and to assure Jersey City residents that our fight for safer streets will continue.

I am outraged that my council colleagues voted against the Crime Prevention Law and against the public safety interests of Jersey City residents. The bill would have strengthened a law already on the books spearheaded by the late Mayor Glenn Cunningham when he was a councilman. This law would have empowered the city to figure out, among other things, how foot patrols could be implemented in the most crime-infested parts of the city - especially given our current fiscal state. Instead of solutions from the mayor and police chief, however, all we have received is tinkering around the edges and a dog and pony show to maintain the status quo.

Gunshots struck a man on Randolph and Harmon streets just this past Tuesday, the same place where a man was shot dead weeks earlier with a bystander hit in the leg. At the corner of Bostwick and Bergen avenues, a teenager was shot twice last August after being followed by a group of people. The people of Jersey City walk their streets in fear. Oddly, the administration drones on and on that crime is going down. But a comparison of 2010-2011 COMPSTAT reports show that crime was up in the North and West district by 7.5 percent and 6 percent, respectively. But regardless, the bottom line is that people do not feel safe.

Additionally, a comparison of the East and West districts show a shameful disparity in crime with 200 more robberies, 136 more aggravated assaults, and 252 more burglaries occurring in the West district in 2011. Council President Brennan referred to this situation as "comparing apples and oranges," essentially saying that this is just the way it is.

Those comments are telling of the administration's position: there is a certain level of crime that is acceptable in certain neighborhoods. This mentality is antiquated and flat out wrong.
We the people of Jersey City demand equal protection. We will not accept a tale of two cities, and neither should the council president.
Last February's anti-crime rally put the administration on notice that people want foot patrols. Yet all we have received is talk, with the administration saying we need more police. I know that, and you know that. But the administration also says that the city is in a tough state of fiscal affairs - keeping the police we have is hard enough. We must, nonetheless, figure out ways to make sure people feel safe; and we have to figure out how to do it with what we've got.

For a drop (.04 percent) in the $500-plus million bucket that is the city budget, the Crime Prevention Law would have done that. The refrain that the JCPD is understaffed is no excuse. The mayor and police chief should welcome resources that aid in strategic planning. For months, we have requested that the administration provide a table of police organization to see how we can get cops walking the street. The response? Nothing. We need a plan for foot patrols, and the proposed law would have given us one, where all we had was useless banter and contrived indignation.

For every life we would have saved, for every mother spared the loss of a child, and for the right to walk down the street without having to look over your shoulder, it would have been worth it.
The administration must take action or step aside. Make no mistake about it: Our fight to get foot patrols, eliminate disparities, and make all people feel safe continues with even greater resolve. We deserve nothing less.Special to the Journal

The current law is that the mayor is supposed to conduct an audit every 4 years, but we learned at the council hearing that no audit has ever been performed in the past 30 years. The amendment that lavarro proposed essentially forces the mayor to have the audit conducted.

Audits are a good idea. Putting it under council control isn't - mixing legislative and executive is never a good idea. We need a strong independent police force that is answerable to the public, not the pols. Having an elected Chief of Police or Ombudsman would improve public accountability. Failing that, leaving the appointment to the Mayor is probably the lesser of 2 evils.

Studies, as long as they have a clearly defined scope and budget are perfectly reasonable, in fact they are neccessary to ensure that an entity is functioning as it is supposed to (for its constituents). In this case, "study" is simply just another word for "audit." Audits are of course designed to avoid waste and ensure that resources are being optimally directed... which is of course why some on the council dont want to even consider this getting the chance to go to public comment (second reading).

if we are lucky, the audit will have been a waste of money (because that implies that the police dept is functioning optimally), if we are "unlucky" the audit will pay for itself by either finding cost savings (uniformed cops working desk jobs replaced with professional admins for a lower price) and/or better directing resources to prevent crime (desk cops directed to patrol the streets).

Quote:

I'm probably more critical of the cops than most people but the last thing we need is to spend money on consultants. They'll poke around and get a blue wall of silence and we will have learned nothing that we didn't know already. We basically have an old boys club that is entrenched in our police, fire and all other city services. We don't need a consultant to point out the obvious. Change will come at the ballot box. It's simply going to have to be a slow and painful lancing out of the long entrenched leeches who are sucking our city dry with their double and triple dipping and blatant nepotism. Lets start by voting Healy out.

Measure requiring regular study of Jersey City Police Department rejected by City Council

Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 8:12 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

A measure intended to force Jersey City to perform a regular study of the efficiency of its Police Department failed to move forward at tonight?s City Council meeting, with opponents calling it a waste of money and possibly illegal.

The action was a major blow to Councilman at large Rolando Lavarro, who proposed the ordinance in an effort to address inequities in the city?s efforts to fight crime, Lavarro said tonight.

The council rejected the measure 5-4, with members Peter Brennan, Bill Gaughan, Michele Massey, Viola Richardson and Michael Sottolano voting against. Lavarro was joined in support by council members David Donnelly, Steve Fulop and Nidia Lopez.

The measure, which would have resulted in the hiring of a consultant to review the Police Department every four years, was opposed by the city?s top attorney, who called it an illegal infringement on the mayor?s power to hire consultants. Police brass also opposed the ordinance.

Richardson, a retired police officer, said tonight that studies are ?a waste of money,? and she vowed never to vote for another one.

?We get nothing from it,? she said.

The measure would have also created a three-member council committee that would have identified potential consultants and devised criteria for the quadrennial study.

Lavarro rejected Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis? claim that the measure would have been illegal. A council composed of part-time members with part-time aides cannot use its investigative powers without outside help, he said.

?It essentially renders us toothless and powerless,? he said.

Police Chief Tom Comey appeared at last night?s council caucus to voice his own objections to the measure, saying he didn?t want the city to spend any money on it.

?I think I?d rather pay for the cops on the street,? he said

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... quiring_regular_stud.html

Quote:

We can't all be Vigilante

Waste of time and money.

Rolando Lavarro posted a new message

Support the Crime Prevention Law at Council Meeting Tonight

At tonight?s Council meeting, I will be introducing the Crime Prevention Lawto enforce an operational study of the JCPD every four years. Not only is it legally sound ? despite the objection of the Mayor and Corporation Counsel ?it?s the right thing to do. Despite the Mayor and the Chief's assertions that crime is down in Jersey City, Jersey City residents all across the city feel less safe in their neighborhoods. We can do better and this ordinance is a step in the right direction.

This ordinance establishes an Ad Hoc Council Committee that will direct the hiring of a consultant to study the nearly $100 million-budget Police Department including table of organization, efficiency and effectiveness of deployment, hiring, etc. so that we can examine and make better decisions with our limited resources including the possibility of foot patrols in our neighborhoods. It is not a unilateral study, rather it incorporates input from the Mayor and the public.

Here?s background story:
http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... review-gets-a-second-try/

I could really use your support on this by showing up tonight and making your presence felt in the Council meeting. Since it is the first reading of this ordinance today, the public can?t speak on the ordinance before the vote. To make your presence, I would suggest simply sitting in the front rows and holding up simple signs on letter-size paper with statements such as:

?Pass Crime Prevention Law?
?Foot Patrols?
?Public Safety Is Your 1st Priority?
"We Need Action Now. Pass Crime Prevention Law!"

The meeting is at 6pm at the Council Chambers. Perhaps get there a little early to get a seat on the front rows. The First Reading ordinances come up first in the agenda.
Thanks as always for your support and I hope to see friendly faces tonight.

Rolando

Jersey City officials slam effort to conduct regular studies of police department

October 09, 2012, 7:04 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Top Jersey City officials came out strongly tonight against a City Council member?s proposal to conduct quadrennial studies of the Police Department to examine the department?s effectiveness.

The proposal, which Councilman at large Rolando Lavarro plans to introduce at tomorrow?s council meeting, is unenforceable, a violation of state law and a waste of money that would be better spent hiring new police officers, the officials said at tonight?s council caucus.

The measure ?purports to do exactly what the Supreme Court says you can?t do,? Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis said tonight.

Lavarro?s proposal would require the city to hire a consultant to conduct the study of the police department, in addition to forming a committee of council members that would identify possible consultants, identify the consultant?s criteria and more.

But the power to hire an outside consultant is the mayor?s job, and the council can?t require the mayor to do so, Matsikoudis said tonight.

?That?s taking away the mayor?s power to negotiate,? he said.

Police Chief Tom Comey made an appearance tonight to argue against approving the ordinance, which would require two affirmative votes by the council and withstand a possible mayoral veto.

The city has done a commendable job avoiding layoffs and demotions in a time of economic turmoil, Comey said tonight, adding that the money to conduct the study would be better spent elsewhere.

?I think I?d rather pay for the cops on the street,? he said.

Lavarro, who presented an outside attorney tonight affirming the ordinance?s legality, said there?s an ?urgent need? for a review of the department, saying his measure ?allows for transparency.?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_officials_slam_eff.html

This is actually an excellent idea. You don't see police officers in the streets unless they are doing an off duty job, protecting a job site. The police department needs a better organization with more patrols.

More wasted taxpayer money. There is definitely a crime issue in JC, with dtjc crime on the uptrend. Our war should be with the criminals, not the cops.

Yes, stomp out police abuse but what are we doing to increase patrols, prosecute more criminals, and prevent crime? What are our judges doing to hand out harsher sentences?

Does anyone remember about 15 years ago Jersey City had a cable channel that showed pictures/mug shots/surveillance stills of wanted criminals and called it "Jersey City's Most Wanted"? It would give brief descriptions of crimes committed and descriptions of the suspects as well. They should bring that back.

Jersey City councilman wants crime panel, regular reviews of police department

October 04, 2012, 12:04 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City Councilman at large Rolando Lavarro is pushing a measure that would result in a ?thorough and comprehensive? study of the city?s Police Department every four years, and would create a council-led crime prevention committee.

The measure, which would revise existing city code, would give the council a ?pro-active role in ensuring the safety of Jersey City residents,? Lavarro said in a statement. Lavarro, who is dubbing the measure the ?Crime Prevention Law,? has been pushing some of these ideas for months.

?The Crime Prevention Law will utilize the council?s investigative powers and gather vital information that our Police Department can use to deliberate and implement comprehensive crime prevention solutions,? he said. ?This ordinance is a first step in addressing the public?s outcry on crime and nullifies the administration?s objections to conducting a study of our police operations.?

The measure would provide ?meaningful and cost-effective crime prevention solutions,? Lavarro added.

If the ordinance is adopted by the City Council, two months later the council would commission the study of the Police Department. A new study would be commissioned every four years.

The committee would consist of three members appointed by the council. It would conduct hearings, assist the city in identifying a consultant to conduct the department study, and have subpoena power.

City spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill declined to comment on the substance of Lavarro?s proposal, saying the city administration hadn?t had time to absorb it.

"This was just submitted to the agenda for next week's City Council meeting late this afternoon, and the Law Department has not yet had a chance to review the proposed ordinance," Morrill said yesterday.

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... y_councilman_wants_c.html