Cop changes could save city $40,000
JANESVILLE — A reorganization of the Janesville Police Department is expected to save about $40,000, according to a news release from Police Chief Dave Moore.
The changes include:
-- Eliminating the position of patrol captain.
-- Adding the position of records supervisor, a civilian position.
-- Promoting two officers to the rank of sergeant, one to fill a vacant sergeant position and one to replace a sergeant who will retire at the end of the month.
-- Hiring one officer to fill a vacant officer position.
"This reorganization provides for the efficient administration of the police department," Moore said.
Some of the projected savings are expected to come from eliminating the higher-salary patrol captain position and creating a lower-salary records supervisor position, he said. The department also hopes to save about $17,000 in overtime that was being spent to cover the duties of vacant sergeant position that now is being filled, he said.
The reorganization provides for two deputy chiefs, Moore said. Deputy Chief Steven Kopp is in charge of investigations, community services and records. Deputy Chief Danny Davis, who previously served as patrol captain, is in charge of patrol.
Under the former organization of the department, there were two deputy chiefs, but their responsibilities were divvied up differently. Moore was in charge of investigations and patrol. Kopp was in charge of community services and records. The patrol captain also provided some assistance.
Moore said creating the records supervisor position will relieve Kopp of some duties, enabling him to oversee investigations and leave Davis solely responsible for overseeing patrol.
Police officers Todd Kleisner and Chad Pearson have been promoted to sergeant as part of the reorganization.
Kleisner has been with the department for 17 years. He has experience as a field training officer and is a certified emergency vehicle, radar and laser instructor. He also is a background investigator and a member of the department recruitment team.
Pearson has been with the department for 11 years. He has experience as a bike patrol officer and field training officer. He also is a member of the department street crimes unit.
The reorganization comes as a result of Moore moving from deputy chief to chief in late April. After the changes, the police department still will have 104 sworn officers.
Jun 8, 2009 at 12:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Devilsadvocate, the article also stated that the position of patrol captain was being eliminated and that the deputy chief was previously helped by that patrol captain, sounds like more work coming his way that used to be handled by another, justifies an increase in salary and we still save due to eliminating salary increased by multiple patrol captain positions. Also we aren't in Bakersfield, CA which has a population of almost 250K I am sure our police department can do just fine and that Chief Moore has put some thought into his decisions.
Jun 7, 2009 at 11:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Congrats Todd and Chad. They finally made some movement. Having worked with both, they will be excellent sergeants.
Jun 7, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
It seems the Chief from Bakersfield, CA (new ideas) eliminated the records supervisor position and created the Captain's position. Now Chief Moore eliminates the Captain and reinstates the records supervisor. Effectively undoing the "new" and going back to the "old ways" This can be problematic, when the head of the organization has been with the same organization for 30 years, a tendency to do things, "as we have always done them."
----
Deputy Chief Davis was in charge of patrol as a Captain, is still in charge of patrol but as a Deputy Chief, same job duties, higher salary. Sounds like a good deal :)
Jun 5, 2009 at 1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well I am at kind of a loss to figure out why, in an article about a PD trimming some fat why the comments are about K9 units checking a school, but since that is right up my alley I may be able to shed some light for Mr. Jackson. Here are the court cases that say it is OK.
New Jersey v T.L.O. (469 U.S. 325 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court
Doe v Renfrow (631 F. 2d 91 (1980) Seventh Circuit
Zamora v Pomeroy (639 F. 2d 662 (1981) Tenth Circuit
Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District (690 F. 2d 470 (1982) Fifth Circuit
Jennings v Joshua Independent School District (877 F. 2d 313 (1989) Fifth Circuit
Hearn v Board of Public Education (191 F. 3d 1329 (1999) Eleventh Circuit
B.C. v Plumas Unified School District (192 F. 3d 1260 (1999) Ninth Circuit
"And where and when did we make it legal to use dogs to give the police probable cause, not the other way around?"
A well trained canine uses their nose in much the same way we Humans use our eyes. So, a well trained canine team has expanded reach because the canine can smell things that is way below our frail human nose can detect. So what it sounds like Mr. Jackson would also wish all Police Officers should also have their eyes surgically removed? Because that could give the PC also...
"The school admin. is responsible for educating our children. The police are responsible for keeping society safe."
Now come on Mr Jackson lets pick a side. Really you cant have it both ways... Canine teams have been a part of law enforcement for many years now. And how can law enforcement keep "society safe" when so many drugs are transfered within the school systems and some people reach out and say that trying to do that within a school should be illegal?
And for everyone, most officers dont wake up before their shift and think "hey I think Ill go harass the kids at the local high school" Normally the local school or BOE requests our presence in order to curb a perceived problem. Most handlers have their plates overfull from the time they go on shift till they are allowed to go home to their families.
Jun 4, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
If and when people decide to have children they should be 100% involved in everything all the time. The school admin. is responsible for educating our children. The police are responsible for keeping society safe. Neither is responsible for babysitting your kids. If you had problems with yours I'm sorry, but I will always feel that you missed something. I will agree however that someone should have let you know the minute they were not been in school.
Jun 4, 2009 at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
AndrewJackson: the current key ruling is Illinois v. Caballes.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
Jun 4, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andrew: It's people like you who are so caught up in the clouds you don't know what's going on in the world and locally our public school! I too was one of those until I found out my kid got involved with drugs AT SCHOOL! They were skipping school and I was never even notified! There they were off doing drugs and Partying and I had no idea! I wish they had done drug searches back then, maybe we wouldn't have had the years of problems because of it. Face it kids do drugs,and they do them at school and they hide them in their cars and lockers and purses too!! There is every reason to do these searches, but obviously you don't care if your kids are doing drugs, I do. Search away!!
Jun 4, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
And where and when did we make it legal to use dogs to give the police probable cause, not the other way around?
Jun 4, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Whythink,You are sweeping the whole room because you "think" you can see dirt in the corners. The expulsions happened after the fact. Interesting article on the website Salon.com titled "Tianamen Silence Turns 20". It should be a "must read" for anyone on this planet.
Jun 4, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mr.Jackson
.
If you read the articles about expulsions in the paper you will see JPD does have probably cause to use the drug dogs.
.
If the students not breaking the laws by using, possessing and selling drugs at the school don't like the dogs showing up they should become a leader and start ostricising those who do those things.
.
Back in the day the students, more than administration, dictated what behavior was and was not tolerated in schools. The students have let themselves down so now the admin and police are involved.
.
Don't blame the police or district on this one.
Jun 4, 2009 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Whoanellie, what an incredibly short sighted thing to say,"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about". The reason for the probable cause doctrine is to lessen the INTIMIDATION problem that the public has with the ever increasing and expanding powers of the police. If you want to live and act like sheep, fine, that is also your right. Baaaaaaaaa, Baaaaaaa
Jun 4, 2009 at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
I say a good move on the cheifs part. Thanks for saving us money! I agree with the dog searches though, so I can applaud them for it. If you have nothing to hide you don't have to worry. If you have a child in the school who is doing drugs behind your back,(I might add Illegal), wouldn't you want to know?? I would and it happened to me and I wish I had known!
Jun 4, 2009 at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Police are "bashed"?! They are always lauded at the JG. One can't go a day without a story praising them, nor can one read stories that are not essentially press releases by the police department. Would that we could hear about the parents' concerns about the drug sniffing dogs.
Jun 4, 2009 at 8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bobb, it's kind of like when the city manager took similar action a few months back. He reorganized city administrative positions to save $275,000, but all it got was a sidebar in the Gazette and no real discussion in the comments section.
It's funny how the people who always scream "THOSE ARE MY TAX DOLLARS AND SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL!" always conveniently overlook items like this.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.