Police Department Internet Accessibility for Citizen Complaints

Comments 3

• CO1
  controller has been approved using approximately $12.5 million in grant funds. The National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee has
• CO2
  approved allocation of sufficient numbers of frequencies for EBRCS to operate. Preliminary design estimates total $60 million, not including radios and/or dispatch consoles, of which $47 million remains unfunded. Interoperability repeaters "Tac & Stack" have been purchased (nine sites in both counties, which augment Alameda County's ten existing repeaters on 800MHz). Approximately $8.8 million from additional grants has been
• CO3
  received to support the EBRCS, including approximately $3.0 million in 2006 Super Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds (SUASI), $2.8 million from State Homeland Security Grant Program, and $3.0 million from 2005 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funds. Current radio communications systems in Alameda County are: 800 MHz 800 MHz VHF/UHF Trunked System - Trunked System - Motorola Based M/A-Com Based Albany Alameda County BART Oakland including: Hayward Fremont Berkeley Alameda Piedmont Emeryville Fire Coast Guard Union City Port of Oakland Federal Bureau of Newark San Leandro Investigation California Highway Patrol Dublin California Department Livermore/Pleasanton of Forestry Univ. California Berkeley Emeryville Police East Bay Municipal Utility District CalTrans Lawrence Livermore Lab 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report As part of its investigation into Alameda County's participation in the proposed EBRCS, the Grand Jury reviewed written reports by the following: The National Task Force on Interoperability: "Why Can't We talk?" (1) (2003); (2) Motorola Corporation: "Communications Planning and Coordination for Emergencies" (2004); Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee Statewide (3) Integrated Public Safety Communications Strategic Plan, Version 6 (January 1, 2007 draft); (4) Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (March 21, 2007); CTA Communications: "East Bay Regional Communications (5) Systems Final Draft Design Evaluation Report" (March 20, 2007); and (6) A large collection of newspaper and other media reports. In addition, the Grand Jury heard from and questioned technical experts and knowledgeable representatives from the JPA, UASI, SUASI, and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, as well as one police chief, the Sheriff, and Fire Chief of Alameda County. Contra Costa County hired an independent consultant, CTA Communications (CTA), to look for fatal flaws and to evaluate projected costs of the Motorola system from Contra Costa's point of view, but not to make comparisons with possible alternatives. The review was completed on March 20, 2007. No fatal flaws were found; however, CTA expressed some disagreement over costs. Perhaps, most significantly for Alameda County, CTA suggested as a cost saving measure for Contra Costa County, that perhaps the City of Richmond's radio system users could save money by purchasing M/A-Com subscriber equipment that is P25 compliant and therefore compatible with the EBRCS's proposed system. Further, Richmond might even upgrade its system in accordance with the InterSubSystem Interface (ISSI) recently introduced by the P25 standards 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report committee, and become the West County simulcast cell. This would "preserve the infrastructure that those cities have built and paid for." CTA also recommended that P25 equipment be purchased which covers both the 700 and 800 MHz bands so that 700 MHz frequencies will be accessible when that spectrum becomes available in 2009. Finally, CTA recommended, in purchasing equipment, that Contra Costa anticipate Phase-2 of P25, due in 2009 or 2010, which will double the capacity of the present P25 Phase-1 system. The report showed that the two counties have different requirements for compatibility. Contra Costa uses simulcast cells, and Alameda County requires compatibility with existing equipment in its SmartNet system. While the Grand Jury received no presentation on the applicability of CTA cost savings and upgrade recommendations to the systems in Alameda County, a comparable analysis of those systems might be useful, especially in light of the potential for backward compatibility presented by the new P25 ISSI standards. In late April 2007, Alameda County officials requested assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to provide design review of the EBRCS. It is suggested that future Grand Juries monitor the results of that review. Both national and state reports were in general agreement that governmental organizations created to improve interoperability should develop a vision with specific supporting goals and objectives. The decision-making process should include as many affected jurisdictions as possible, rely on their assessment of local needs and vulnerabilities, enhance communication, coordination, and cooperation among them, provide for dispute resolution, and prevent turf wars. Both of these reports also agreed that moving directly to an optimum system at their respective level is not financially feasible, and that solutions must be found which allow affected jurisdictions to "leverage existing systems while migrating gracefully but expediently to the ideal." The California Statewide Integrated Public Safety Communications Strategic Plan emphasized that training and exercises that practice communications interoperability are essential to ensuring 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report that the technology works and that responders use it effectively during emergency operations. The goal of promoting wide membership in order to facilitate public funding would seem to argue for inclusion, or at least provision for collaboration and coordination with as many potential members and subscribers as possible. There is conflicting information on the extent of inclusion and coordination prior to adopting the JPA. Whatever the case, from here forward, every attempt should be made to be as inclusive as possible. The Grand Jury believes that the ultimate goal of radio communications interoperability is worthy, particularly in view of the Bay Area's susceptibility to flood, fire, major earthquake, and possible terrorist attack. Once individual cities have the opportunity to decide whether to join the JPA, future Grand Juries should closely monitor the cost of the EBRCS and its implementation. While there is a general, although not unanimous, feeling that high levels of interoperability are desirable for disasters such as 9/11 and Katrina, a lesser degree of capability may be sufficient for day-to-day police and fire operations. Federal grants should be aggressively pursued. Independent cost analysis should be obtained to determine if there are costs savings. Competitive bidding should Comprehensive operating procedures including training and be utilized. regularly scheduled exercises should be developed. Ultimately, the public will benefit from a truly inclusive JPA that will provide the capability to deal at an acceptable level with major disasters anywhere in the Bay Area, as well as ongoing daily interactions in local jurisdictions. This system will hopefully include the potential for long range integration into a statewide system, backward compatibility allowing cities to enter the system using present equipment effectively, and a capability to upgrade to the ideal level, as local conditions and financial circumstances permit. 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY The Grand Jury received a complaint related to an outside vendor contract with the Berkeley Public Library. The vendor, Checkpoint Systems, Inc. (Checkpoint) was to provide products and services including software, hardware and training in the use of an automated checkout system. While the library is generally satisfied with the installation of the new Checkpoint system, its procurement and management of the Checkpoint contract raises concerns about the library's lack of policies and procedures. For this reason, the Grand Jury reports on the library's experience with the Checkpoint contract. The Grand Jury reviewed volumes of documents, and interviewed the Chairperson of the Board of Library Trustees (BOLT) and key library and City of Berkeley personnel. A five-member volunteer board governs the Berkeley Public Library. Pursuant to the Berkeley City Charter, the library is fully independent from the City of Berkeley in its decision-making powers. Section 30 of the City Charter reads: Five Library Trustees shall be appointed and may be removed by a vote of five members [of the City Council]. The Board of Library Trustees shall have power to manage the library and to appoint, discipline and dismiss all officers and employees of the library. The Berkeley Municipal Code provides that BOLT has the power to purchase necessary books, journals, publications and other supplies and personal property. The City Manager, who oversees all other boards and commissions, has no oversight authority over the operations of the library. Further, the library is not subject to the policies and procedures promulgated by the City of Berkeley, including controls on the manner in which expenditures over $25,000 can be made. 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Library operations are funded primarily by a voter-approved parcel tax. Each year, the City Council determines the rate of the parcel tax and the library receives additional funds from various grants, the Library Foundation, and private donors. CONTRACT HISTORY In January 2004, the library issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an automated checkout system using radio frequency identification devices (RFID). It received five responses. On April 14, 2004, BOLT voted to authorize the Berkeley Public Library to enter into a contract with Checkpoint in the amount of $643,000. The library chose Checkpoint in part because it had installed more library automated systems than any other company. Of the $643,000, $500,000 was financed through a bond, and $143,000 came from existing fiscal year 2004 library budget monies. BOLT approved the vendor and financing terms unanimously. The library then entered into a contract with Checkpoint on June 24, 2004, which required payment of the entire $643,000 within 30 days. This was the largest vendor contract in the library's history. The contract provided that "Checkpoint Systems, Inc. [would] deliver, install and make operational the intelligent library system (RFID technology) at the Berkeley Public Library." The term of the contract was to begin on July 1, 2004 and end on December 31, 2005. The contract also provided that it could be extended by written notice and that it had a one-year warranty on all parts and labor. According to the terms of the contract, Checkpoint was to have delivered, installed, and made operational this system and to have completed training by December 31, 2005. During the term of the contract, the library did not hire or assign a person to oversee and manage the implementation of this contract nor did it request assistance from the City of Berkeley that has resources to manage and oversee a contract of this size and nature. Additionally, the library's financial manager was 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report assigned to work at the City of Berkeley's housing authority and therefore was unavailable to manage the contract. As a consequence, documentation and management of the project was woefully inadequate. As of the writing of this report, the library was using the automated checkout system which was generally working. The new executive director is working with members of her staff and with Checkpoint to improve the system. The Grand Jury restates that it is concerned about the library's lack of policies and procedures for procurement and management of large contracts. It bears repeating that the City of Berkeley has sufficient resources, policies, procedures and expertise in place to manage a contract of this magnitude. The library is not obligated nor has it historically asked for assistance from the City of Berkeley because it seems to value the independence granted to it by the Berkeley City Charter. In this case, the library may have been lucky that significant contract disputes with Checkpoint did not develop. Use of proven policies and procedures exist to prevent contract compliance issues. Had the library managed this contract properly, it would have obtained assistance on (i) negotiating the terms of the contract, including the timing of payments, (ii) day-to-day management (particularly in a technology context), (iii) scheduling of delivery of services, equipment and training, (iv) contract compliance, and (v) adequate documentation, to name a few. The Board of Library Trustees must realize that adopting proven procedures available through the City of Berkeley in the use of public funds gives the public the assurance that those funds are being managed properly. Its current laissez- faire approach to managing such large contracts is not in the public's best interest. 2006-2007 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report