Blogtown, PDX

Monday, July 30, 2007

News Business Interests Paying For Your Cops: Community Problem Solving, Or Baksheesh?

Posted by Matt Davis on Mon, Jul 30 at 6:41 PM

The Portland Business Alliance (PBA) will continue to pay the salaries of three Portland Police Officers until 2012 if it gets its way at City Hall on Wednesday. According to Street Roots, City Hall paid $210,000 last year for those services. The contract, which has been in place for 10 years, will be renewed after a public discussion on Wednesday. But some people are uncomfortable with the idea of business interests paying the salaries of public safety officers.$1600: 1/131.25th the money the PBA wants to give the city to pay for cops.

The PBA represents a group of constituents whose interests often run counter to the civil rights of homeless people, for example, and it has pushed for 18 months for the (currently beleaguered) sit/lie ordinance to become a reality—making it illegal to sit or lie on the sidewalk. Maria Rubio—public safety policy manager in the mayor’s office, says she does not think there is a conflict of interest in the PBA paying for three cops.

“I think it’s a good partnership with private industry, having them pay for police,” she says, adding that the police bureau likes having the extra officers.

But what about the PBA’s Vice President of downtown private security, Mike Kuykendall, or its Clean & Safe Director, Bill Sinnott, who often work closely with Central Precinct Commander Mike Reese? Is there not a danger that by paying for officers, the PBA gets to tell the cops what to do? To exert undue political pressure on them?

“The officers report to central precinct,” says Rubio. “To the extent that Mike Reese and Mike Kuykendall work together, they are both involved in the mayor’s problem solving committee, but that is the essence of what community policing is—problem solving.”

Problem solving, eh? But at what point does the PBA’s sway become improper influence? At what point does its benevolence become baksheesh? In my mind, it’s the second it opens its checkbook to pay for services that would otherwise be paid for by the city. Remember—the PBA also put up money for a homeless day access center in exchange for the sit/lie ordinance. I’m a stickler on issues like this, but I’ve also been known to blog for the odd bribe—so I can see both sides here. What do you think?

Mike Kuykendall hasn’t yet returned an email asking whether he’s going to comment on the contract’s renewal on Wednesday, and I’ve left a message for Central Precinct Commander Mike Reese. (To be fair it’s 6.30pm. But if he gets back to me I’ll post his response). What do you think?

Permalink

Comments

I'm confused. Doesn't the City of Portland pay the Business Alliance to provide private security in areas such as parks? And then the Business Alliance pays the City to fund three of their officers? Why doesn't the City keep the money, fund the officer positions, and call it good?

Posted by Amanda Fritz | July 30, 2007 8:46 PM

What do other cities do? We can't be the only ones who hire out these types of services. My thought is that if we can get the business community to pony up some money for this type of work, great. Just have the oversight in place so it cannot be abused.

Posted by dieselboi | July 31, 2007 7:58 AM

Amanda: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I hadn't made the connection until now. It's almost as though the symbolic exchange of funds is like a "you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" gesture. Thanks for pointing that out!

Diesel:For me, the problem is having business interests propping up the city's basic structure of government. What next? Your jury service sponsored by OFFICEMAX? (And no, that was NOT a serious suggestion.)

On the "oversight" front, the city's independent police review is currently under independent review, but nobody is naive enough to think giving $200,000 to the police bureau isn't going to give you considerable influence in the way policy decisions are made. Are they?

What it comes down to is buying influence. I can't afford any. So what recourse do I have?

Posted by Matt Davis | July 31, 2007 8:58 AM

Police direct traffic at Ikea, Blazer games and for politicians, not much of a stretch to give Downtown Portland businesses what they want.

Ask about community policing and neighborhood officer programs-you find a new program, new name and new officers every few months.

Ask about community policing-just ask.

Posted by reese | July 31, 2007 9:00 AM

Mike?

Who should I ask?

Posted by Matt Davis | July 31, 2007 9:02 AM

You know there is a legal precedence for this sort of thing, it's been around for 'like ever'... it's called taxation.
In my opinion if they want to maintain the a high level of ethical judgment the city (as in the counsel) should just implement a tax that targets the PBA to fund these extra "peace" officers that the PBA believes it needs so direly needs to patrol downtown.
That way the PBA gets their fake-o-cops and us the people can worry less about private interest controlling law enforcement.
Or maybe the deeper issue at hand is that if the city pays the PBA and PBA pays the city the PBA somehow gets services and tax break (any accountants in the house?) and the city gets easier budgeting for the math impaired.
Any deal like this (PBA > City of Portland) would seem twice as fishy in the business world, albeit more acceptable but still fishy.

Posted by Dex | July 31, 2007 10:04 AM

"...some people are uncomfortable...": Who, exactly, Matt, other than you? Just curious whether any actual reporting went into this.

Posted by Will | July 31, 2007 10:08 AM

Will, you're right. It's just me. Damn!

As I mentioned, I'm a stickler on these issues, and would probably report them in the first person if it didn't make me sound like such a prick. Still, I sound like a prick most of the time anyway. So let's imagine it's changed to : "I'm uncomfortable..." and call it even.

If you're interested in who's uncomfortable, I suggest showing up on Wednesday to see who testifies at the council session.

Posted by Matt Davis | July 31, 2007 11:42 AM

PS. PBA Vice President of downtown services Mike Kuykendall says he won't be making a statement on Wednesday.

Posted by Matt Davis | July 31, 2007 12:01 PM

Well (speaking as an uninformed Chicagoan), the question is how the funding affects the allocation of police forces. It's the same as funding a congressman; money from a particular special interest doesn't necessarily influence a candidate... but it could. So, why not pry? What if robberies or violence in other neighborhoods are not being reported/solved because too many police are allocated in commercial areas?

Just because people aren't screaming about it in the streets doesn't meet they don't want to know about it. The general public doesn't know about a lot of government's dealings. That's why the press exists.

Posted by The Unpaid Intern | July 31, 2007 2:25 PM

This intern is smart.

Posted by Matt Davis | July 31, 2007 3:00 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).