Introduction
I've been asked to provide my position as an elected official on public safety concerns for this City Council-directed program, as part of the discussion for city elections on November 2. In the past, I've noted my positions on where I believe the department should be headed -- that's all included in my proposed Public Safety 2022 plan, available at www.robgreeniowa.com/ps22. Given my experience on City Council and as Mayor, here is where I stand on a few items:
-
The “Public Safety Supervisor - Captain” and “Public Safety Supervisor - Lieutenant’ positions do not appear to add more practical value to the department than the existing “Police Lieutenant”, “Police Captain”, “Fire Captain” and “Battalion Commander” supervisory positions.
I've been asked about where I stand on the Public Safety Supervisor positions, and in the PS-22 plan, I propose eliminating them. Prior to the establishment of these positions, Police Lieutenants and Police Captains could already have a “PSO addendum” added to their title to fulfill the city’s cross-training goals. This allowed the police supervisors to join in as firefighters during fire/rescue operations. It worked. I believe the PSS Lieutenant and PSS Captain positions resulted in the coercion of police officers to join the PSO program as the only means to progress in their careers, and as a way to block firefighters from advancement. As I stated in the PS-22 proposal, the PSS Captain and PSS Lieutenant positions should be eliminated; anyone desiring to serve in a supervisory fire position should compete for Fire Captain or Battalion Chief, along with other qualified candidates both internal and external to Cedar Falls. -
Civil service promotional interviews should continue to be conducted by professionals from outside the City of Cedar Falls.
I've been asked for my position on promotional interviwing. For the PSS-Lieutenant and PSS-Captain positions, city staff conducted the interviews. Promotional interviews had previously been conducted by impartial professionals from elsewhere in Iowa. I believe the use of external, impartial interviewers is important ensuring that candidates are evaluated solely on professional knowledge and competence to serve at the next higher level. Interviews that are conducted only by internal staff add a risk of bias and favoritism through the influence of personal relationships or past experiences. Objective, unbiased promotional decisions are precisely why the Civil Service process exists -- to minimize the risk of cronyism, nepotism, or favoritism in the selection process. As it is, I believe the recent change by the Public Safety Department to have promotional interviews conducted by senior city staff runs counter to the intent of the Civil Service process. -
Future Position Solicitations should include deadlines for meeting any “ability to obtain” requirements.
I've been asked about the job solicitations, and whether or not they should be open-ended for achieving requirements. Without a published deadline to obtain required certifications, no accountability mechanism exists for the promoted person who fails to obtain them. Sure, in extenuating circumstances (like training not being offered due to COVID) the department should grant a reasonable extension to a deadline. Moreover, ambitious and talented personnel should already have completed that next level of certification prior to application as part of their expected professional development, to be more competitive in the promotional process to hit the ground running upon promotion. -
The Public Safety training program needs greater scrutiny and attention from senior administration.
The city's ShieldWare training records system is ancient, and I'm glad to see that Black Hawk County and Cedar Falls Public Safety are upgrading to a new system. I've recently learned that a year's worth of law enforcement training is currently not present in the system. This is completely unacceptable, particularly given the heavy scrutiny placed on law enforcement professionals nationwide. The city is already investing in new training records software, but accountability is also needed for past failures in recordkeeping. Accurate training records will be of key importance for the PS-22 Plan because ‘public safety officer’ would be a two-year certification. The public needs confidence that the officers in achieving this biennial certification truly have the necessary training and skills. -
New supervisors should be prepared to serve in their roles from Day One.
While some learning is necessary for any new role, supervisors should already have had some degree of experience as an “Acting” in that higher role, as part of their professional development. This is standard practice in military and paramilitary environments. For example, when I became Executive Officer (XO) of a Coast Guard cutter, a key point of that role was to prepare me to serve as a Commanding Officer (CO) in my next patrol ship assignment. It wasn’t to learn how to be an Executive Officer -- that training had already occurred previously, while I was a cutter Operations Officer. That happened because, as OPS, I served as Acting XO from time to time, preparing me to step up to the next level. I didn’t spend a year as XO “under instruction”. The Public Safety Department should have the same approach; if the City is promoting officers without ever having served in an “acting” capacity for that higher role, then we are failing them in their professional development. -
The police-focused Cooper Test for physical fitness is not enough to gauge suitability for fire/rescue duties.
I've noted in the PS-22 Plan that I believe all firefighters should be able to pass a comprehensive firefighter-targeted agility test. While the CPAT is is just as much about technique as strength (for instance, the way you swing a sledgehammer or drag a mannequin), a clinic could be held prior to the exam to show candidates the proper techniques, to give them the best chance at passing the exam. The alternative -- not requiring a CPAT type test at all -- simply does not make sense. -
Cross-training is a well-established practice worth continuing.
I have no concerns about the value of police officers cross-training to do fire/rescue work, or firefighters cross-training to do police work when needed. But it has to be voluntary, and not an advantage or prerequisite for promotion. I address this in the PS-22 Plan -- firefighters and police officers who wish to be interchangeable in the department would become certified every two years for a “Public Safety Officer” addendum to their job title (as was past practice). And anyone seeking a supervisory position would do so by applying to become Fire Captain, Police Lieutenant, Battalion Chief, or Police Captain, depending on their background, certification, and experience.
In Closing...
Significant weaknesses and gaps in the existing “PSO Model”, and I'm confident that the PS-22 plan will address these shortcomings. I will pursue the changes I can directly affect as Mayor in the weeks ahead. Other larger changes will require City Council approval, and I look forward to working with the City Council in the future to adopt them.
Thank you for reading to the end, and for doing the hard work to be an informed and engaged citizen.