Small Town News

Portola approves new contract with sheriffs office

---

The Portola City Council approved a nine-month contract with the Plumas County Sheriff's Office, presented with only minor changes from its draft version, at a special meeting held Sept. 1. The contract was the only agenda item.

The contract is expected to go before the Board of Super-visors at one of its next upcoming meetings. Acting Undersheriff Greg Hagwood reported that the original draft and adjustments since then had been presented to the county administrative, office and to county counsel. They had given their approval and Hagwood was "not anticipating any complications in moving forward."

City Manager Jim Murphy had attended the Sept. 1 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, hoping to dispel council members' concerns regarding election of a new sheriff and current Sheriff Terry Bergstrand's retirement at the end of the year.

Murphy reported that the BOS had accepted the retirement, but had not - named a replacement for the interim period upon county counsel's advice that "since the retirement was not effective until the first of the year, the board had plenty of time to consider what they wanted to do."

Council member William Weaver expressed concern that the negotiations had been with Hagwood, rather than with Bergstrand.

Hagwood assured him that he had signing authority for the sheriffs department and explained, "All contracts are approved through the County Administrative Officer. Although I represent the sheriffs department, understand that you're not contracting with me; we're contracting as the county with the city."

The contract is effective for the rest of the fiscal year, from Oct. 1 of Ihe current year through the end of June 2010, and was proportionally adjusted to $52,500, an amount already budgeted for the empty community service officer position.

The contract lists the services that the sheriffs office will provide as follows: enforcement of state statutes and city codes and ordinances; traffic enforcement; traffic accident investigation; parking enforcement; working with the city's community service officer(s); entering into a California Department of Justice Interagency Agreement with the city to allow a CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) terminal at city hall; and all other police and law enforcement services the sheriff deems necessary to maintain law and order in the city.

The contract stipulates that if the sheriff's department experiences a manpower shortage--a situation that exacerbated city-sheriff problems in the past--the "PCSO shall use its best efforts to continue to provide law enforcement services to the city pursuant to this agreement and not reduce services to the city any more than it reduces services in all of the unincorporated areas of the county."

New to this sheriff's contract is the idea of an ex officio chief of police for the city. The contract appoints the sheriff to act in this position, unless the sheriff, with the city's consent, delegates it to a subordinate officer.

"The chief shall confer with the city manager on all questions related to the performance of the law enforcement services to the city... All direction from city to the chief shall come through the city manager.

The contract states that PCSO will provide the city manager with weekly reports that include services performed, crime statistics, major incidents that week, criminal tends, etc. The city also expects an annual report and prompt notification of serious felonies, as well as detailing other meetings and communication between the city and the sergeant assigned to the sub-station.

Personnel matters such as hiring, supervision, scheduling, salaries and internal affairs investigations remain responsibilities of the PCSO and the county, with the stipulation that the city be notified as to the resolution of complaints made against local deputies. The city, for its part, vowed confidentiality.

A contract section entitled "credits" caused some confusion. Fees, fines! penalties, forfeitures of bail and other revenue stemming from law enforcement, the contract stated, were to be credited to the city. Coming as it did, after the compensation paragraph, "credits" seemed to be associated with the payment.

Murphy explained that all law enforcement revenue was credited to either the city or the county, and that this was currently in force, even without the contract. Its inclusion was merely to underscore the city's desire to see this policy continue.

Hagwood added that credits of this nature had nothing to do with the $52,500 to be paid by the city.

The Portola Substation will continue to be leased by the sheriff's department for $1 per year and is covered by another contract which is still in effect.

As the meeting closed, Hagwood thanked everyone and said, "This contract, I think, is significant in a number of different ways. It will definitely benefit public safety within your city, without question. I think there is a measure of symbolism--at least to me--in that it represents our. collective abilities to move forward, in good faith, to the betterment of your community and to our county, overcoming issues that have existed in the past and allowing those issues to go by the wayside."



Copyright 2009 The Chester Progressive, Chester, California. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from SmallTownPapers, Inc.

© 2009 The Chester Progressive Chester, California. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from DAS.

More from The Chester Progressive