Quoted Text

Buffardi said the town's hands were somewhat forced by the county's desire and a October deadline to get its central dispatch center online and opened in 2014

Quoted Text

Executive Summary
The New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC) is engaged with Schenectady
County, New York on a study exploring options to the County’s emergency dispatch operations.
Recognizing that there are inherent operational and fiscal inefficiencies in maintaining multiple
emergency dispatch centers, Schenectady County commissioned this study to determine the
feasibility of establishing a centralized dispatch operation that could handle service calls from
multiple municipalities and agencies.
Background and Process
Schenectady County currently has five Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), operated by
municipal police agencies, which were established in 1995 with the implementation of enhanced 911
service. At that time, consolidation was considered; however, it was decided that the most
expeditious path would be to upgrade existing police communications centers to PSAPs capable of
dispatching all emergency service agencies within their own jurisdictions. Although this
configuration has worked reasonably well, it segregates emergency response by jurisdiction and
requires greater resources (personnel, supervisory, and equipment) than would a more consolidated
system.
In 2007, the County, the City, the five towns and two villages submitted an application for funding
through the New York State Shared Municipal Services Incentive Program to study the feasibility of
central dispatch. The effort was successful and through funds obtained Schenectady County
engaged NYSTEC to conduct this central dispatch feasibility and implementation study.
Since there is no single model for a consolidated dispatch center, the County directed NYSTEC to
thoroughly investigate the needs and desires of all municipalities and agencies and base
consolidation recommendations on meeting local requirements within a “best practice” framework.
NYSTEC conducted numerous presentations and site visits in an effort to gather inputs from all
interested parties. Either directly or indirectly, NYSTEC consultants met with and captured needs
from virtually every law enforcement, fire, EMS and other public safety agency in Schenectady
County. NYSTEC also regularly participated in a forum with elected officials representing all
Schenectady County municipalities.
Key Findings
A number of call answering and central dispatch service models were researched and explored with
the key stakeholders. Through the community process, a consensus emerged for creation of a
Unified Communications Center (UCC) which would receive all emergency calls and dispatch all
emergency service agencies throughout the County. The police chiefs, currently operating municipal
PSAPs, and the fire chiefs advocated a centralized dispatch center to improve coordination of
information and mutual aid service. Based upon this consensus, NYSTEC created a UCC model
with size and staffing based upon call volume and functionality, developed an operating budget,
identified capital equipment needs and provided facility site requirements.
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 3 of 35 Benefits of a Unified Communications Center include the following:
• Improved Public Safety – The UCC will improve public safety by better focusing
emergency response efforts and resources now and in the future. It will also be a significant
first step toward consolidating related systems such as radios and CAD as these systems are
upgraded or replaced.
• Improved Operational Efficiency – The UCC will improve interoperability among
emergency response agencies, standardize protocols, and result in better situational
awareness.
• More Efficient Use of Resources – The UCC model staffs eight call taker/dispatchers and
one supervisor per shift as opposed to the current structure, which requires twelve between
the existing PSAPs. A UCC also reduces the number of dispatcher consoles from 18 to 12,
which will reduce future equipment upgrade and maintenance costs. A stable supervisory
structure, standardized training, and a promotional ladder promise to improve morale and
reduce personnel turnover.
• Greater Cost Effectiveness – The annual operational cost of the UCC (exclusive of
equipment startup and facility debt service costs) is estimated to be less than the total that
would be spent by Schenectady County and the municipalities. Future grant funding is
recommended to be targeted at the equipment and facility needs of the project.
Proposed Operational Model
Creation of a Unified Communications Center will improve public safety and reduce dispatch
expense in Schenectady County. The following framework emerged through the study process:
• Shared Services Model – Schenectady County will have general responsibility for the
operation of the UCC. Each of the participating municipalities would contract with
Schenectady County to provide the services for its community.
• Long-term contract of 20 years or more is needed to assure UCC continuity and
consistency.
• Policy advisory committee composed of chief elected officials and a technical advisory
committee of police chiefs, fire chiefs and other public safety personnel will ensure that the
UCC meets its mission while being responsive to the needs of all municipalities and
emergency service agencies.
• Labor – Staff of the UCC will be county employees under the proposed model.
• Maintenance of Effort Cost Sharing Model – The proposed cost sharing model, which
apportions municipal contributions based upon their 2008 adopted budget for PSAP
expense, is designed to create cost savings for all municipalities that currently support
dispatch operations. Municipalities not currently paying for dispatch services will pay flat fee
amounts increased incrementally over a multi-year period.
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 4 of 35 Study Background and Approach
Schenectady County, the City of Schenectady, the Towns of Rotterdam, Niskayuna, Glenville,
Princetown, and Duanesburg, and the Villages of Scotia and Delanson are jointly interested in
evaluating the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of centralizing emergency dispatch functions.
Enhanced 911 capabilities have been in place since 1995, with each municipal police agency agreeing
to dispatch police, fire, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) within their respective jurisdictions.
At the present time there are five public safety answering points (PSAPs) in use in Schenectady
County. These PSAPs are operated by the City of Schenectady, Town of Rotterdam, Town of
Glenville, Town of Niskayuna, and, from its location in the Town of Princetown, the New York
State Police. Over time, this de-centralized arrangement has posed challenges resulting in
operational inefficiencies, primarily in information sharing. The municipalities have reached a
consensus to explore improvement options and to look specifically at the feasibility of a central
dispatch center. The overall goals of this multi-jurisdictional initiative are improved public safety,
cost savings and efficiency.
In 2007, this inter-municipal consortium applied for and received $100,000 in New York State
Shared Municipal Services Initiative grant funding to study the feasibility of centralizing emergency
dispatch functions. Schenectady County, as lead agency, let a request for proposals, interviewed
prospective consulting firms, and contracted with NYSTEC for this study.
Timeline
This study and report is the product of nearly a year’s worth of analysis, fact-finding, facilitation
among various shareholders and shared decision making. The following timeline reflects major
milestones and deliverables.
December 2007 Project Kick-Off – The study kicked off in December 2007 with a
presentation to the Technical Advisory Group, a multi agency group
of public safety professionals.
January 2008 – May 2008 Analyze Existing PSAP Systems - Current PSAP operations
throughout Schenectady County were examined. Budgetary and
staffing figures were compiled and analyzed.
NYSTEC worked with many local agencies in gathering data for the
central dispatch study. Visits to existing dispatch centers, including
visits during various shifts, were conducted to see firsthand current
procedures and operations. Activities completed for the analysis of
current operations included:
• Site visits to the City of Schenectady, Niskayuna, Glenville,
Rotterdam and State Police Princetown dispatch centers
• Interviews with municipal chiefs of police
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 5 of 35 • Interviews with other law enforcement officials
• Interviews with fire and EMS agency representatives
• Interviews with working dispatchers
• Interviews with County communications and emergency
management personnel
• Meetings with elected officials
• Compilation of communications center data
• Gathering of operational, management, and governance model
information
• Research on possible operational configurations, governance
models, and management structures.
January 2008 – May 2008 Best Practices – Concurrent with the fact-finding, NYSTEC
compiled a Best Practices document. Best Practices serve as a
benchmark and guideline upon which to base a new/revised PSAP
operation.
May 2008 Model Summary – Based on input gathered from the fact finding, a
number of PSAP models were constructed. These high-level outlines
provided conceptual blueprints upon which to base the final
consolidated PSAP. These models were presented and ultimately,
with input from shareholders, a Unified Communications Center
(UCC) was selected as the best option for the county.
June 2008 – November 2008 Prepare Draft Report – A draft report was compiled and highlights
from the report were shared with various shareholders such as police
chiefs, fire administrators, the Schenectady County Committee on
Intergovernmental Cooperation and others. Key decision points
were made during this process which led to the finalization of this
report.
December 2008 Final Report/Final Presentation – Upon submission and distribution
of this report, NYSTEC and others will provide final presentation of
the proposed solution and respond to questions.
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 6 of 35 Decision Making/Facilitation
NYSTEC contractors worked with Schenectady County staff to keep key stakeholders informed of
the study’s progress. The effort was to be inclusive, capturing as much input and information as
possible. In addition to the fact finding described above, progress reports and key findings were
shared during the following:
Regular Updates – NYSTEC staff met with County Legislative Committee Chairs and staff and on
a regular basis to keep them abreast of discussions, meetings and general feedback received from
public safety officials.
Formal Meetings – NYSTEC staff updated the Schenectady County Manager’s Office on an ad
hoc basis with regards to overall structure of the UCC, facility options, policy issues and cost sharing
models. Members from the Schenectady County Committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation
sometimes sat in on these discussions.
Presentations – NYSTEC and County staff presented a summary update on the report to the
Schenectady County Fire Advisory Board. Informal updates were provided to law enforcement on
an ad hoc basis.
Schenectady County Committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation – NYSTEC and
Schenectady County staff provided milestone updates to this body, comprised of elected officials
representing all county municipalities, on a regular basis. During these meetings NYSTEC helped
facilitate navigation through key decision points which emerged as the analysis of centralizing
dispatch operations progressed. Core decisions regarding UCC structure, cost-sharing, staffing and
labor were made during these meetings. Driving issues resolved by the Committee on
Intergovernmental Cooperation were:
• Utility – The Committee concurred that a UCC would provide Schenectady County with
improved public safety, lower costs and a strong basis for greater cooperation among
municipalities.
• Structure – Based on data provided by NYSTEC and the input of stakeholders interviewed
by NYSTEC, the Committee concurred that a fully functional UCC that took public safety
calls and dispatched personnel was the best option for the county.
• Governance – Based on practicalities of a countywide function, Schenectady County was
proposed as the entity to operate the UCC with advisory committees of county/municipal
representatives and public safety representatives helping to create and steer UCC operations.
• Cost Sharing – Upon reviewing various cost sharing models, the Committee concurred that
maintenance of effort was the preferred model for sharing costs.
• Grants – The Committee strongly encouraged the pursuit of grants to underwrite
development of a UCC.
Recommendations mentioned throughout this report were guided by the Schenectady County
Committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation and its members representing every county
municipality.
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 7 of 35 Analysis of Existing Operations
At the current time five public safety answering points (PSAPs) exist in Schenectady County. These
are located in the City of Schenectady; the Towns of Rotterdam, Niskayuna, and Glenville; and the
Town of Princetown, where the New York State Police man a state-run PSAP. NYSTEC visited
each of these facilities to interview staff, collect data, and observe operations.
Participating Agencies
Personal interviews, surveys and related information gathering were completed with the following
agencies. Some were approached individually, others as part of a consortium or other representative
body. Currently, no agreement formal or informal has been established with any of the agencies
below. However, should Schenectady County consolidate its dispatch, the following agencies would
comprise its utilization.
Law Enforcement
Town of Glenville
Town of Niskayuna
Town of Rotterdam
Village of Scotia
City of Schenectady
County Sheriff
State Police1
EMS
Duanesburg VAC
Rotterdam EMS
Esperance
ALS: Niskayuna #1,
Schenectady Fire Department,
Rotterdam Police.
Mohawk Ambulance Service –
call transfer for MAS dispatch.
1
E-911 call taking/dispatch only.
Dispatch procedures will need to be
established with the State Police.
Fire
Delanson
Duanesburg
Mariaville
Quaker Street
Alplaus
East Glenville
Scotia
Beukendaal
West Glenville
Thomas Corners
Glenville Hill
Glenville District 4
Niskayuna Consolidated 1
Niskayuna District 2
Stanford Heights
Plotterkill
Rotterdam Junction
Rotterdam
Carman
Pattersonville
Pine Grove
South Schenectady
Schonowe
Stratton ANG FD
City of Schenectady
Other Emergency Services
Organizations
Schenectady County Office of
Emergency Management
Schenectady County Office of
Fire Coordinator
Schenectady County E-911
Communications
Schenectady County Public
Health Department
Schenectady County Auxiliary
Police
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 8 of 35 Existing PSAP Findings
The five PSAPs answered a total of 75,024 wireless and wire line E-911 calls and over 291,000 7-
digit calls in 2007. Appendix A provides a chart detailing the available call volume data by
municipality.
The City of Schenectady answers more than 72% of all 911 calls in the county. This figure includes
answering 60% of all wire line E-911 calls and answering all wireless 911 calls for the entire county.
Wireless calls answered by the city for dispatching in other jurisdictions are subsequently patched
through to the appropriate agency for response. As the wireless answering point for all of
Schenectady County, the city PSAP is required to meet New York State E-911 Board standards.
These standards are not yet mandatory for traditional wire line PSAPs in New York State. The city is the
only one of the four municipally run PSAPs which meets these standards.
The outlying suburban areas of Niskayuna, Glenville and Rotterdam account for 52% of the
population and 26% of the total 911 call volume: Glenville 11%, Rotterdam 9%, and Niskayuna 6%.
Wire line call volume for the towns of Duanesburg and Princetown comprise approximately 2% of
total county E-911 call volume. Overall, however, 911 calls comprise just 20.5% of all calls to
PSAPs in Schenectady County with 7-digit, usually non-emergency calls constituting the remaining
79.5% of PSAP calls in the county.
Some municipal PSAPs offer services for residents beyond call taking and dispatch. For example,
the towns of Glenville and Rotterdam offer service windows staffed by dispatch personnel while
Rotterdam and Niskayuna answer private alarm calls through their dispatch centers.
Appendix B provides an overview by PSAP as to the current staffing, protocols and equipment.
A total of 52 full-time-equivalent (FTE) dispatchers are working for the four municipal PSAPs. The
city of Schenectady employs 20 full-time dispatchers, including dispatch-supervisors, plus one fulltime director. Rotterdam employs 11 full-time dispatchers plus one dispatch-supervisor while
Glenville employs 11 full-time dispatchers and Niskayuna 9 full-time dispatchers. Employment
figures for full-time dispatchers are based upon budgeted positions; vacancies are not uncommon.
In reviewing PSAP employment data it was determined that countywide turnover of 6-7 dispatchers
per year is normal.
The adopted 2008 budgets for the county and its municipalities total a countywide figure of
$4,318,160 for dispatch operations. This does not include amounts spent by the New York State
Police for the fee-free dispatch operations it provides the towns of Duanesburg and Princetown nor
amounts spent by the Schenectady County Sheriff’s Office in having its regular staff answer a small
number of dispatch calls.
Schenectady County Consolidation Page 9 of 35 Overview of a Proposed Unified Communications Center
After careful examination of the operations, procedures, and staffing at the five existin

Quoted Text

Executive Summary
Schenectady and its neighbors levy some of the highest property taxes in the nation. According
to the Final Report of the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief, New York State
has the highest local taxes in America, more than 75% above the national average. (Thomas R.
Suozzi, 200. To help get New York’s economy growing again, newly elected Governor
Andrew Cuomo has proposed a strict cap on local property taxes. In addition, he pledged that he
will not raise personal, corporate or sales taxes and that he will veto any attempt to do so. The
new governor has committed to oppose pay raises for state employees and promised a statutory
and constitutional State spending cap.
Schenectady and all local governments in the state will have to do more for less in the
foreseeable future. To help prepare Schenectady for this new fiscal environment, Mayor Brian
Stratton secured a grant from the New York Department of State to explore the feasibility of
consolidating or sharing police services in Schenectady County. This report seeks to identify
opportunities for consolidating and sharing police services in Schenectady County in a way that
will both improve service and save money. The following four recommendations are based on
the results of a survey of best practices in police services consolidation and sharing in New York
State, an inventory of the police services available in Schenectady County, and a survey of key
Schenectady County stakeholders who are knowledgeable about the county’s police services.
First, we recommend that the Mayor of Schenectady direct his executive public safety staff to
develop a menu of police services that could be delivered more efficiently and effectively if
shared or contracted amongst the various police forces in Schenectady County. The Mayor
should then work with the Schenectady City Council and key stakeholders, including elected
officials and police professionals from neighboring jurisdictions, to determine which services
have support from multiple jurisdictions and are a target for sharing or contracting.
Second, we recommend that services of mutual interest be subjected to a quantitative and
qualitative benefit/cost analysis to establish a prioritized list of shared services targets. Key
elements in establishing priorities will include the service’s timeliness, technical feasibility, and 4
potential for cost savings. Decision makers should also seek to identify a package of services
that could be shared more efficiently and effectively if combined simultaneously.
Third, we recommend that key decision makers meet with appropriate state and federal officials,
including representatives from the New York Department of State and New York Governor’s
Office, State Legislative representatives from Schenectady County and appropriate staff from the
federal Department of Homeland Security, to assess the availability of state and federal funds to
assist in the sharing and contracting among local governments for police services. Consideration
should be given to the availability of funds for planning and analysis, implementation, operating
and capital costs, and for the acquisition of equipment and technology.
Fourth, following the completion of the previous steps, the Mayor should develop a Project
Implementation Plan of shared and contracted police services for consideration and approval by
the Schenectady City Council and appropriate officials from the prospective partner jurisdictions.
The plan would identify the police services to be shared or contracted, the benefits and costs of
implementation and operation, potential sources of state and federal funds, and a detailed
schedule of key milestones over the next three years.
Implementing a comprehensive program of shared police services among the local governments
in Schenectady County will not be easy. However, given the fiscal constraints faced by New
York State governments, Schenectady County should consider the potential benefits and savings
that shared police services will achieve. A number of local governments in New York State are
already benefiting from consolidation or sharing of police services and others are working on
plans to share or consolidate. The local governments in Schenectady County should consider
sharing police services as well.5
1.0 The Problem—Why Should Schenectady Consider Consolidation and
Shared Police Services?
1.1 The Current Economic Reality for Local Government
The national recession officially ended eighteen months ago, but Upstate New York is still
experiencing persistent high unemployment rates, a mortgage crisis brought on by the collapse of
the real estate market, and, until recently, weak consumer spending. These factors have left local
governments, such as the City of Schenectady and its surrounding towns, with less revenue than
expected from the key local tax sources, such as the property tax and the sales tax. Local
governments also face increasing public pension and employee health benefits costs. New York
State government is experiencing a massive, multi-year budget deficit and will likely need to cut
aid to local governments for schools and health care costs, worsening the fiscal challenge for
Schenectady and its neighbors.
Many economic experts are optimistic about a national recovery gaining steam in 2011 but
significant concerns that temper that optimism (Chan, 2010). The housing market is still weak,
particularly in the Capital District, and consumer confidence remains low. Additionally, there is
mounting national and internation

Quoted Text

Daily Gazette article
By Justin Mason
Thursday, July 9, 2009
http://www.dailygazette.com/
See HTML Version of article
Schenectady County call center grant official
SCHENECTADY COUNTY — Schenectady County will receive $1 million to create a consolidated emergency dispatch
center by early 2011, state and local officials announced Wednesday.
The effort would centralize 911 dispatch services now operated by police departments in Schenectady, Scotia,
Rotterdam, Glenville and Niskayuna. Centralized dispatch would also include Duanesburg, Princetown and the village of
Delanson, which now rely on the call center at the state police substation off of Route 7.
The state grant will be for equipment to create a unified communications center; no location for the center was cited.
New York Secretary of State Lorraine Cortes-Vasquez said the consolidation will save more than $7 million over a 10-year
period.
“In this difficult time for all Americans, reducing expenses is as important on the state and local municipal level as it is
for every household,” she said.
Under the consolidation plan, most of the municipalities would pay less for dispatch services. Only Princetown,
Duanesburg and Delanson would pay more because they now receive free services through the state police, which may
move its dispatchers out of the county starting in April 2010.
All 52 dispatchers working with local and county departments would be retained under the centralized system. County
Legislator Anthony Jasenski, D-Rotterdam, said some of these positions would be lost through attrition and the new
center would probably employ about 42 dispatchers.
“Right now, everyone who is employed will remain employed,” said Jasenski, chairman of the county’s Public Safety
Committee.
County municipalities spent roughly $4.3 million on dispatch operational expenses in 2008, with the city of Schenectady
paying the lion’s share. County officials anticipate spending $3.9 million during the first year of the centralized system,
with this amount dropping an additional $150,000 once optimal staffing levels are achieved by the second year, according
to a study conducted in 2007.
“This is an informed decision of all the entities involved,” Cortes-Vasquez said.
State money
The grant will be through the state Local Government Efficiency program. Since 2005, the state has distributed more
than $29 million and cites an estimated savings of $250 million.
Annually, centralized dispatch would receive about 75,000 wireless calls and 291,000 from land lines. Twenty-five fire
departments, seven police agencies and three emergency medical services operate in the county.
An initial report published Wednesday from sources cited a $1.5 million grant, which included money that will go to
municipalities outside the county as well.4/15/13 SchenectadyCountycall center grant official
http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2009/jul/09/0709_dispatch2/?print 2/2
The new dispatch center would contract with participating municipalities for 10 years, with a review of the operation
after five years. Elected officials from each municipality would form an oversight board, while a group of emergency
officials would comprise a technical advisory board.
Still unclear is how small municipalities that don’t pay for dispatch services will aid the centralized system. Some
estimates suggest that Duanesburg and Princetown would pay about $174,000 and $66,000 respectively over five years,
but Jasenski said the cost has not yet been determined.
“It’s a fluid number we can’t predict,” he said.
Location question
Also in flux is the location of the new dispatch center. Jasenski said the county is considering four different locations
but declined to discuss any specifics.
One option might be to include the dispatch center with a new police and courts facility under study for Rotterdam. In
preliminary discussions, Supervisor Steve Tommasone offered to include the central dispatch in the new structure.
“I’d love to see it located in Rotterdam,” he said. “We have areas where a centralized dispatch building would fit.”
Governments from all of the county’s municipalities passed resolutions supporting the dispatch center. The move was
also praised by emergency officials across the county.
Schenectady Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett said the centralized system would help save time during
emergencies that extend across municipal boundaries.
“From the operational point of view, to have all these people together in a room where they can literally talk to each
other certainly expedites things for all law enforcement officers and emergency personnel,” he said. “You’re more
cognitive of what is going on in a much quicker fashion.”
Princetown Supervisor Nick Maura Jr. also offered support. He said the savings would come but the public safety benefit
would be immediate.
“If Schenectady goes to a centralized dispatch, thing are going to be done more safely,” he said.
But not everyone is on board. Several contractual issues could arise, explained Therese Assalian, a regional
spokeswoman for CSEA, which represents the county’s dispatchers.
“We need to be brought into any discussion,” she said.
Duanesburg Supervisor Rene Merrihew was equally skeptical. She said the county still hasn’t shown how Duanesburg
would save with a consolidated dispatch center.
“It’s no savings for us,” she said. “Even if and when [the state police] do move, they could still dispatch us through their
new camp

Quoted Text

Illegal Police Department Activity Threaten to Bankrupt Counties Nationwide
Posted on February 8, 2013 by Paraclete
Occupy Corporatism – by Susanne Posel

Local police departments (LPDs) across the nation are incorporated as specialized non-profits. Most LPDs are known to the Secretary of State in their respective state as an association which gives the impression to the average citizen that this is a union. However this is not the case.

The LPDs are contracted by the City Council to preform police services and securitize the city they are hired in. This is the exchange of a local government hiring a private security firm to stabilize the local population and generate revenue for the city through tickets, arrests and recording infractions. However, this does not include upholding local laws, as the County Sheriff’s Office is elected to take charge of.

The problem with this system is that the LPDs, being corporations, are subject to corporate law. And corporations fall into dissolution (i.e. the termination of the corporation) for various reasons quite often. When it is the LPD that dissolves; this becomes a question of legal authority over the citizens by the hired private security firm known as the LPD.

Corporations that dissolve are not allowed by law to conduct business. These same rules apply to the LPD that is actually a corporation hired by the local government or city council to preform police services.

For example, in the State of Oregon, over 12 LPDs are in dissolution. On the Secretary of State website, when a LPD is dissolved it is classified as “INA” or inactive. This includes LPDs in the following cities:

• Beaverton
• Canby
• Charleston
• Eugene
• Gresham
• King County
• Lake Oswego
• Lebanon
• Portland
• Sherwood
• Weston

According to corporate law, if a corporation dissolves, it must withdraw as a business entity. This means that once the LPD is dissolved, they cannot continue to perform police services for the city in which they were hired.

And in fact, should this be brought to the public, it might be common place (as it is in the State of Oregon) that LPDs are in dissolution and not legally allowed to conduct police services because they lack legal authority as a dissolved corporation.

It also stands that the local governments that are privy to this information would be involved in not only egregious corruption but are knowingly misleading the citizens of their towns and cities. Once the LPD is dissolved, from the date of dissolution, any arrest, ticket, or police service preformed is now an illegal act. It is tantamount to a citizen impersonating a police officer which as serious legal ramifications.

Should citizens become aware of this fact in their city – that their LPD is a corporation that has dissolved and is continuing to operate as if they have legal right to do so – there would be justified legal recourse for every citizen who had been arrested, jailed, forced to pay a ticket of any kind and forced to appear in municipal court under those circumstances (including court costs, attorney’s fees and fees attributed by the court).

In 2012, Louis F. Quijas, Assistant Secretary of theOffice for State and Local Law Enforcement (OSLLE), for the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS)explained the purpose of the OSLLE as a front “office that provided coordination and partnership with state, local, and tribal law enforcement.”

The OSLLE was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. It was created to “lead the coordination of DHS-wide policies relating to state, local, and tribal law enforcement’s role in preventing acts of terrorism and to serve as the primary liaison between non-Federal law enforcement agencies across the country and the Department.”

Intelligence is disseminated through OSLLE to LPDs or “non-Federal law enforcement partners” to keep information flowing through initiatives such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™”, the Blue Campaign, the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI), and the Department’s efforts in Countering Violent Extremism.

OSLLE consistently works with LPDs on education, actionable information, operations and intelligence for the purpose of their part in the operations of the DHS with regard to keeping “our homeland safe”.

OSLLE also works as a liaison between LPDs to maintain DHS leadership and considerations of “issues, concerns, and requirements of state, local, and tribal law enforcement during budget, grant, and policy development processes.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) upholds relationships with LPDs for the purposes of and participation with National Preparedness Grant Program that began this year.

To ensure that local police departments continue to meet the requirements of training from DHS, officers regularly attend the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.

LPDs are focused through OSLLE and DHS to “remain vigilant and to protect our communities from all threats, whether terrorism or other criminal activities” as DHS expands its control over local law enforcement and the communities they oversee.

As stated in the DHS directive from the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement (SLLE), the assistant Secretary for SLLE has “the primary official responsible for leading the coordination of Department-wide policies related to the role of state, tribal, and local law enforcement in preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man- made disasters within the US.”

This directive also sets guidelines of advocacy for DHS by the LPDs. Authorization of DHS to take over LPDs is given in Title 6 of the United States Code, Section 607, “Terrorism prevention”.

In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that LPD “make up more than two-thirds of the 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the US” which translates to an estimated 12,501 law enforcement agencies. Of those LPDs, there are more than 461,000 sworn officers.

Last year President Obama signed an executive order (EO) that created the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council and Steering Committee which tied DHS to local partnerships, federal and private institutions “to address homeland security challenges.”

Members of the Steering Committee include:

• Department of State
• Department of US Treasury
• Department of Defense
• Department of Justice
• Department of Transportation
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• The Federal Bureau of Investigations

In 2011, Congress encouraged private sector “police companies” to replace law enforcement on the State and local level by coercing a new police protection insurance that would tack on a fee to citizens for the use of “police protection”.

This move was justified by having citizens pay for the police to be called to scenes as a “communal service” that is contractual just as any other service or good is paid for. As a customer, the citizen would tell 911 dispatch their insurance information for payment purposes to be billed after the police were deployed to the scene, or services were rendered.

Turning LPDs into private security firms that provide services to the public was the scheme behind privatizing law enforcement.

Under state government contract, private security firms preform law enforcement services. With legislative bodies on both the state and Congressional level supporting this change, private corporations enter into contractual agreements with city councils to provide armed security patrol. Just as a rent-a-cop is hired to secure private property, local police departments are masked rent-a-cops that were hired by local government to secure their city.

This fact has been hidden from public scrutiny and has added to the blending of social perception of what the police are and what they do so that police services are able to function without question. At the same time, citizens are expected to pay fees for these “services” that were once inherent to life in a structured town or city.

In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a reportentitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.

DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.

Private corporations have been parading as public servants policing cities and towns across America without the knowledge of the average citizen for quite some time. Although they wear the same badges as LPDs of the past, these private security firms are not there to uphold peace or enforce any laws and city ordinances. Just like any other corporation, they seek out opportunities to collect revenue for the benefit of the city that hired them.

Quoted Text

Public safety facility belongs in old Grand Union, not warehouse


    I don’t live in the town of Rotterdam, I live in Niskayuna, but I do spend time shopping, eating and enjoying recreational activities in Rotterdam. I recently attended a meeting at the senior center on the upcoming location of the Schenectady County central dispatch, [Rotterdam] police department and justice center.
    First, let me say, I understand it is between two sites — one on Hamburg Street and the other in an industrial park.
    Functionally, I don’t imagine there would be a large impact for one or the other; however, for several reasons I am dumbfounded why the Hamburg Street location has not been selected. The site has been vacant for years, Hamburg Street merchants are closing, and the corridor is beginning to resemble Detroit.
    The Grand Union location would give the area a needed transfusion of life and benefit the residents of the town. The design for the building is beautiful and functional. Putting a new facility hidden in an industrial park furthers only the interest of the landlord. There will be no influx of people into the area, creating sales tax revenue from shopping and eating, as with the Grand Union being revitalized. Few would even know the facility exists, buried behind the park’s fences, among the warehouses.
    If the industrial park site were to be selected, at the end of the lease period, town taxpayers would be at the mercy of the landlord to not raise the monthly rent. Contrary, if the Grand Union were bought, at the end of the mortgage period, only maintenance fees would be required.
    I have seen on Broadway the industrial park landlord’s work falling down for the past year. I’m sure the town would take greater pride in their own building.
    I am sure I, as well as the 300 in attendance at the meeting, are totally in agreement that revitalizing the Grand Union building, as opposed to that of a warehouse, is in the best interests of the residents of not only Rotterdam, but Schenectady County.

BILL ZILBERMAN
Niskayuna