|
City of Flint Dot Net |
|
|
To: Flint City Council, Mayor Don Williamson, and Ombudsman From: Ted Jankowski Date: Thursday, July 06, 2006 Subject: FUNDING THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE
I was reading the Flint Journal today and read the story, Flint puts off funding request Ombudsman wants to hire investigators FLINT THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Thursday, July 06, 2006 By Robert Snell
I have to wonder, what is going on down there at city hall? I've noticed that at the last few Council meetings. The City Council seems to be quick to dodge its responsibility to the people of Flint. The ones that come down to meetings requesting help. That is completely within your authority and jurisdiction to resolve. Only to have the City Council move to refer it to the Office of the Ombudsman. Why aren’t you referring it to the Mayor, or the police dept, or even the branch or division of city government that it pertains to?
This has me concerned. It brings many questions to mind as to the why. Since my understanding of the office, is that this is a last resort. Meaning, you go to the ombudsman after you have exhausted all other means of taking care of the problem. I.e., you've gone to the Police, the Chief, the Mayor, the Council and still nothing. Then you go to the Ombudsman. This Council seems quick to write a referral, to have the Ombudsman look into something the people or Citizens of Flint, have come to Council, to take care of. I personally see that as an attitude of indifference. Why does it appear the Council is not willing to do the whole job they were elected to do. Just as Mr. Buchanan’s friend mentioned. It appears as arrogant. The problem doesn’t seem to be a problem that the Council as a whole wants to deal with. So you pass it off on the Ombudsman. Council doesn’t have the time to look into such matters. When people come to Flint’s Council body for help and the resolution is well within their own investigative and judicial powers to handle. You guys shouldn’t be passing the buck. Because if I see it as that. I am not the only one. “Some council members said it was premature to ask for more money, especially five days into the new fiscal year, though the request would have restored some money cut last month. "The office has plenty of money to run," 9th Ward Councilman Scott Kincaid said. "They're not in a crisis situation." “ Ok, what is considered a crisis? The council as a whole continues to want to throw more money at the Flint Police. The Flint police dept. has more officers per capita than 95 percent of US communities. They don’t even have to be responsible to handling more than two issues or incidents per day. Yet, the Council Expects Ms. Purifoy to handle almost 13 investigations a day. Then to even top that off, be productive or comprehensive in her investigations? I’m having a problem understanding the logic. I would sure hope someone could break it down so even an imbecile like me can understand it. The people of Flint. Overruled the Council. We wanted the office. We demanded the office. A small few of us even went over and above and formed a group to fight to retain the office. If the council and Mayor are not going to put the funding into the office that the Ombudsman has requested? Then why did you appoint this person? If you do not trust her judgment? Why did you appoint her? If your not going to listen to her? Why did you appoint her? We wanted the office. We fought to keep the office. The Council and Mayor should be bending over backwards to give her all the support she is asking for to fund the office. Especially after the people overruled the council, it appears we wanted the office. The people that elected you also elected the office of the Ombudsman. Don’t you see this as a conflict of interest? We voted for it. And it now appears the council is undermining the office. Which appears to be a petty snub to the people that voted to retain the office? Now, some of you may argue that it didn’t win by a large majority. Well the same can be said for many of the positions you all now hold. Taking this into consideration, I have to wonder about the Council’s eagerness to continue to refer issues to the Ombudsman office. While not being willing to fund it properly. Leaves me exceedingly, at a loss. I cannot resolve this idea in my mind. Let alone comprehend the thought process that says. Let’s lay more work on the office, but refuse to support its funding based on lack of information as to how much work is actually accomplished. Especially when Council is so willing to fund and support a police department that spends more time sitting at Seven Eleven or visiting their side business’ while on the clock. Why is it when a Flint police officer twenty years ago handled 20 to 30 incidents a day with four or five arrests? That today, the average officer having to be responsible for less than two calls a day, is too much work and we need more officers? Then, only to hear you say in Council meetings, “we need more officers for public safety”? This should really bother some of you. Because, if any of you are taking the time to actually verify any of the information I’ve sent to you so far. You know, I’m not making this up. I’m getting it right from the horse’s mouth. Are we just attempting to hire so many officers? That we might eventually get a few that are willing to work ten times as hard as the majority, thereby, cutting crime. It seems as if we are attempting to hire ten times as many needed. In order to get that ten percent, that is willing to do the majority of the work, so 90 percent can sit in the building downtown and laugh it up about the game last night or the lady they spent the night with. Than we can’t find a few hundred thousand for the Ombudsman? OH PLEASE!! You purchased Peterbilt Garbage trucks because of the name on the side of it. When everything about the trucks was exactly the same a the Internationals. The only difference – the cab and the frame. Everything else was made to order. Warranties exactly the same, quality of components exactly the same (because they were the exact same). How many hundreds of thousands more did it cost for the EXACT same garbage truck? How much more are we paying to cut the city’s grass because it’s now an emergency instead of a planned expense? Planned expenses rarely cost more than reactionary expenses. Let's look at how much the police currently have to do. If the average patrol officer responded to and was accountable for every incident in the City of Flint in 2005. They would only have to be responsible for 1.88 incidents per day based on a 5 day 40 hour week. The figure is 2.7 per officer if they actually responded to every 911 call at a number of 124,428 for 2005. So Far "There were 457 unresolved complaints before her appointment and she has fielded 120 written complaints in less than two months. Ms. Purifoy also has referred about 350 complaints to other offices. "So since I like numbers let's add them up. That's at least 577 complaints. Now doing the math. For her to handle each investigation herself, let's just use her first NINE WEEKS (9) That would be almost 13 investigations a day in order to keep her up to date. Yet we only ask for Police to handle TWO (2) a day and then want to hire even more police? I don't get it? I don't understand the reasoning? I’m pretty sure each investigation that the Ombudsman will be conducting will require more time to investigate than the vast majority of responses we’ve received from the Police for Years. You know the ones. They come out and see the evidence, then say, “Well that could be anybodies fingerprints on the inside of your window.” Or “Why do you live here, if you don’t like the crime move out of Flint” or my personal favorite “Well what do you want me to do about it?” Not only did we wait two to six hours to be told that. That ended up being the resolution to the situation. What is really going to get my goat. Is if Council decides to pay the Mayor's settlement for his arrogance, concerning the Journal carrier at City Hall. There is a lot more law suits waiting in the wings. I can foresee a class action lawsuit against the city for fining residents for getting their cars stolen in Flint. (Remember the Flint Business Association that took flint to court over the inflated fees for inspections?) Flint is the only municipality in Genesee County that makes money off the hardship of the citizens that have been victimized. (There is a state law that doesn’t allow cities to make a profit of fees, I’ll submit that to you once I get the documentation in my hands) The Flint Journals Story, Wrong turn Area thefts spike while state numbers fall BURTON THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Sunday, July 02, 2006 By Bryn Mickle
"In Genesee County, Flint has the biggest problem with stolen cars: More than 1,563 cars were reported stolen in 2004, 265 more than in the previous year. Still, that's down 23 percent from the 2,020 vehicles stolen in 1998. "
What they failed to show. Was that from 1998 until 2003, Auto theft was down as much as 36 percent! Not just the 23 percent they claimed in the article. They did that to spin it so as not to show that Car theft in the City is actually going up! 20 percent! Since 2003!! In 2005 the rate was 4.43 cars stolen in Flint a day. So what major factor happened in 2004? Flint began to formulate a plan to make money of those people least able to fight the system. Fine them for getting their car stolen. Make money off the towing fees by calling the “found stolen car” abandoned. Then charge the victim for impounding the car. Then to top it all off, the city adds insult to injury by not doing a darn thing to investigate or catch the criminal responsible for stealing the cars. Here is what is even worse than that is. Criminals purposely leave evidence because they know police won’t do a thing to find them. The Flint police have determined that it is too difficult to take finger prints off cars even when it is clearly visible in the glass, or clearly visible on the dash or even seen in the film on the glove box. Criminals that steal cars are even so brazen as to leave their cigarette wrappers, CD’s, I’ve even heard about a condom once found ((used) talk about DNA evidence) on the floor boards. (Police won’t even attempt to take prints.) And those are vehicles that the owner doesn’t even smoke or haven’t had sex in. So we know who left the evidence? According to Flint police, not the person stole the car or broke into the house!
These are the issues that the Mayor has created. If we don't have an effective Ombudsman office yet, to help with resolving these issues, by the time these finally come to a head. I can see Flint being turned back to the State within 3 years after the Mayor is out of office. So why wait two years before finally submitting to the “Will of the People?” Why wait until Flint has 10 law suits from citizens that have been taken advantage of by the city’s new policies. We spoke with our vote. Now please people, please city council. Give the lady the money she needs to hire the people she needs to run the office. At least let her have enough to be able to work only three times as hard as the Flint Police Department. C’mon guys. It can’t be that big of a deal.
Thank you for reading. I do hope some of this at least gets you thinking.
Ted Jankowski |