Author Archives: Menno Zacharias

City Considers Counting Our Movements

Patrons will need to use the washroom so add a user fee.

In a recent post I used the above line to illustrate how the owner of a sports franchise could raise revenues without increasing ticket prices.

Needless to say,  I was surprised to read in the paper this morning that the city is looking at imposing a per flush user fee on  toilets in private homes.  They are actually seriously (apparently) looking at installing a meter on each and every toilet in the city and counting how many times we push down the handle.

When I suggested a washroom user fee I was joking guys.   I was not serious.

I guess I’m going to have to be more careful in the future.  The revenue (and idea) starved city bureaucrats are liable to jump on any idea that could generate revenue without increasing property taxes.

What’s next?  Another little meter attached to the dishwasher (why wash them if they are just a little dirty), a meter attached to the shower head (why shower if you are just a little smelly)?Where does it end?  Perhaps with a little camera or two in every home, hooked into the City’s CCTV network to monitor water usage and whatever other activities that the City thinks it might be able to apply a user fee to ?

Note to city bureaucrats and politicians:  The above examples are intended to make a point, they are a joke, NOT FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

Oh What Tangled Webs We Weave….

…when first we practice to  deceive (or  raise the frontage levy)

When not raising property taxes becomes a dogma,  common sense tends to become a rare commodity and politics take over.

If property taxes alone don’t yield enough revenue to pay the bills, but you doggedly stick to the idea of not raising property taxes – something has to give.  What are the options?  The options include raising existing levies (such as the frontage levy), raising or adding  user fees (at libraries,  or swimming pools), or reducing services (arenas).

Picture this:  let’s say the owner of a sports franchise  (for the sake of argument, the Goldeyes) doesn’t want to raise  ticket prices but  still wants to increase revenues.

How can you increase revenue without raising ticket prices?  The answer seems to lie in adding surcharges for the little things that patrons rely on in order to enjoy the experience.   You could charge for vehicle parking.  When patrons walk in the door you raise the price of printed event  programs.  Raise the price of the food and drinks at concessions. Patrons will need to use the washroom, so add a user fee.  You see where this is going.  There are all kinds of things that can be done to raise additional revenue without raising ticket prices.

In other words there are many ways that patrons can be ‘Sammed’.

This is what seems to be happening at city hall.  Councillor Russ Wyatt has brought forward several more examples of how we are being Sammed. According to Wyatt:

In 2007, after much public criticism, the Mayor ended the practice of ‘transfers’ from the water and waste utility of the city into the General Revenue Fund (in other words sewer and water rates were being used to balance the budget).  The Mayor at that time agreed, and likened the practice to the Province raiding Hydro revenues to balance their budget. So he ended the policy.

Now he is attempting to unearth and resurrect the same policy, except he is calling it a ‘dividend’ and not a ‘transfer’.  Don’t be fooled, as it means the same, and confirms that Winnipeger’s are obviously paying too much for their sewer and water rates, now the highest in Canada!

Today this tax/rate grab is equal to $17 million.  The wonders of an 8% dividend policy is that as the water and sewer rates continue to rise (as they are projected to do so), so does the tax/rate grab.

What is even more interesting is that this would never be allowed outside the City of Winnipeg.  Outside the city, municipalities are subject to a little thing called the Public Utilities Board. The PUB would never allow such a rate grab, indeed, they would demand such revenues to be returned to the customer.

At the time of the new Water and Sewer Utility debate, there was great internal discussion of making the utility subject to the PUB.  The issue of loss of control killed this idea.  We now see the benefits to balancing the budget at the expense of w and s rate payers.

Councillor Wyatt then goes on to summarize the impact in terms of the additional revenue flowing into the city and the impact on taxpayers.  He puts it this way:

What does all this mean to the bottom line for tax payers.  The Frontage Levy increase brings in $14 million (and no new money to roads), the dramatic increase in Rec fees hauls in $1 million more (which helps the city ‘market’ out their arenas, now that the Chair of Finance has said Parks and Recreation are NOT a core municipal service–Giving Wpg a monopoly on wisdom compared to every other city in North America), and $17 million more from the Water and Sewer Dividend.

The total is $32 million, or the equivalent of an 8 % Property Tax Increase. Now, I have been the strong advocate over the last few years of a modest tax increase in our budgets.  However eight percent is actually eight times higher than the latest Consumer Price Index for Winnipeg which was projected recently at 0.8%.

I believe these latest developments vindicates my position, as now Winnipeger’s are facing this massive rate/tax/levy increase all at once.  And why?  Last year the Mayor included tens of millions of ‘one time’ money just so he could balance his budget and get past the Civic General Election. Furthermore he continues, without any sense of reason or rational debate, to perpetuate the property tax freeze, now in its 14th year.

I think the Councillor from Transcona has a point!

Increase in the Frontage Levy: Are we being “Sammed”?

Question:  If the government (at any level) passes legislation that requires citizens to pay  money to government  and the people have no choice but to pay it or face consequences, what is that called?

Answer: A tax.

Question:  So when the government passes legislation to increase the amount we already pay, what is that called?

Answer:  A tax increase.

The increase in the frontage levy means we just got “Sammed”.  What is the differenced between being Sammed and being scammed? Just the letter “C”.

His Worship is up to it again. During the election campaign he mocked and ridiculed the idea of increasing taxes.  He suggested that a tax increase of 20-30 dollars per property would cause some Winnipeggers to have to give up their homes.

Did the economic condition for the average Winnipeg homeowner change dramatically in the past 6 months?   It must have because His Worship now thinks that homeowners can absorb a much greater increase and presumably not lose their homes.

Does it really matter what you call it or what the money is intended to be used for?  If it’s money that flows to government, and citizens have to pay, it is a tax by another name.

I’m sure the owner of a small older bungalow on a property with a 50 or 60 foot  frontage, valued at 200 thousand dollars won’t mind that they will be paying more than the owner of a 400 thousand dollar home in a new development built on a narrow lot.  I’m sure they will see that as their civic duty.  Not!

Yes, I believe we just got Sammed – again.

The Little Commissioner (Bettman) May Have it Wrong

In the late 1700’s Jean Jacques Rousseau proposed the concept of the social contract.  It works like this:  each individual gives up a degree of independence and personal freedom by  giving authority to the “sovereign”, in most cases government, to act on their behalf for the good of all.  In return the individual receives security and protection.

In the United States the principles of the social contract are  embodied in the Constitution.   In  Canada, the principles can be found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The idea of the social contract,  though originally directed only at the relationship between the people and their government, has pervaded many other aspects of western society.

There is an informal social contract between the National Hockey League (NHL) players, owners, sponsors, the public and the government that allow things to happen on the ice, which, if they happened anywhere else would be a crime.

Hence the phrase “that’s part of the game” in reference to fighting and the many other forms of hooliganism we see on the ice.

There is a tacit understanding  that a certain degree of physical violence is acceptable, perhaps indeed required, to maintain public interest in professional  sports.  A little violence here and there  ensures the seats in stadiums and arenas are filled, the television ratings stay high and the leagues continue to be able to sign those much-needed lucrative television contracts.

So every day we have things happening in hockey arenas, football fields, boxing rings and other sports venues that if they took place outside such venues would be criminal.

The other side of that understanding is that professional sport organizations police themselves and enforce a code of conduct that protects individual players.  The protection comes from professional  leagues providing adequate “penalties” in the form of fines and suspensions to regulate behavior.

The social contract breaks down when the league fails to do its part to protect players.

A recent example is the hit by  Zdeno Chara  of the Boston Bruin which  propelled  Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens into a stanchion, resulting in  serious injury. The NHL’s response was the tried and true “that’s part of hockey”.  Essentially no repercussions.

Other professional sports like the National Football League have  finally taken serious steps to protect players by changing its policy on hits to the head.  The NHL however seems to be content to allow the senseless violence to continue.

There have been a few examples of violence in hockey that resulted in criminal charges.  Those cases involved obvious intent to injure.  Chara, of course, claims it was not his intention to injure.  Would you expect him to say anything else?

The Chara/Pacioretty incident in Montreal has sparked public furor.  In Montreal hockey and Les Canadiens are a religion and Montreal Police are conducting a criminal investigation into the incident.  Even the Federal government is getting in on the act.  Sponsors like Air Canada and Via Rail are voicing their opinion and concerns.  The long-standing social contract may be unraveling.

What is NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman’s response?  He is basically thumbing his nose at everyone.

All of this should serve as a wake up call for Gary Bettman (the little Commissioner) and the National Hockey League. Perhaps their defence that fighting and violence is an  inherent part of the game is wearing a little thin with a whole bunch of people.

People are realizing that there is another brand of hockey out there, the brand of hockey that is played at the Olympics, and the World Juniors that is at least as entertaining and perhaps more skill based than what the brand of hockey the National Hockey League is pushing.  A brand of hockey that does not tolerate mindless on ice violence and that makes a serious attempt to ensure that players like Sidney Crosby get to showcase their talent for all to enjoy as opposed to being sidelined due to concussions.

The little Commissioner and the league need to remind themselves that if they don’t do their jobs, someone else will step in and do it for them.  For the privilege of operating outside of the normal rules that apply to all citizens, they have an obligation to ensure the safety of players in the arena.  When they violate the social contract all bets are off.

Helicopters, Lasers and the Media

The recent reaction by Winnipeg Police to the actions of an idiot (and that is being kind) shining a laser beam at the police helicopter is an example of a poorly conceived media strategy.

The incident, although deadly serious and with grave potential for serious consequences for the helicopter crew, is of the type that is best dealt with in a low-key manner.

By expressing such immediate and public outrage at the incident, the police are exposing their raw nerves to other potential fools.   An isolated incident that could have been effectively dealt with and without fanfare has instead resulted in a media furor – one that has spun out of the control and out of the hands of police.   It has grown legs.

When police over react, the media will over react, which is what we are seeing.  One news outlet actually featured a rambling interview with the suspect marvelling at how by simply  using a two-bit laser pen, he was almost able to bring down a 3 million dollar helicopter.   This only serves to sensationalize what is a serious issue.  The suspect was nabbed quickly and efficiently by the police.  No fanfare was needed.

Police officials have provoked a media circus with the potential of rousing other fools in the possession of two-bit laser pointers who may now feel the urge to tear themselves away from their video games and play a dangerous game of cat and mouse with police.

The Four Ten (4/10) Shift Schedule

In a previous post I wrote about the 18:1 ratio and indicated that in a future post I would outline why it takes 18 officers to staff one patrol unit.

First, let me start by providing an overview of  the uniform patrol shift schedule used by the Winnipeg Police Service.  It is generally referred to as the 4/10 shift schedule.

Police officers assigned to the six  general patrol divisions are split into 2 platoons, essentially 2 police departments,  A-Platoon and B-Platoon commonly referred to as A-Side and B-Side.  When A-Side is working, B-Side is off and vice versa.

Each platoon is subdivided into 3 sub-platoons to correspond to the 3 shifts: day shift, evening shift and midnight shift. Platoons are identified as A1, A2 and A3 and the same on B-Side.

A person working an 8 hour day, 40 hour week ends up working 2080 (52 x 40) hours a year with every Saturday and Sunday off.  This works out to 260 working days, and 104 days of weekly leave.

Police officers working the 4/10 also work 2080 hours per year.  With 10 hour shifts that means they work 208 days and have  157 days off.

Many people refer to this shift schedule  as the four on/four off shift but that is not entirely accurate.  In order to have a true 4 on/4 off system, the shifts would need to be around 11.5 hours in length.  Because the shifts are only 10 hours, police officers quite often work 5 and sometimes 6 ten-hour shifts and then get 4 days off.

The 4/10 shift schedule also has provision for overlap days where all members of both platoons are scheduled to work.  These overlap days are intended to be used for training, catching up on report writing and other administrative functions.  They are also used as an opportunity for officers to take additional time off.

Lastly, because the day has 24 hours and 3 ten-hour shifts work out to 30 hours, there is an opportunity to overlap the shifts and create a 6 hour period where the number of patrol units on the road is doubled.  This overlap normally occurs between nine at night and three in the morning.

Using the 4/10 shift schedule as a back drop the next post will explain why it takes 18 officers to staff one patrol unit.

End Note

I have noticed recently that although this post was written some time ago it is still getting a steady stream of hits on a daily basis.  If you have any questions about the 4/10 shift schedule in terms of pros and cons or just questions in general please feel free to contact me via email.

For a follow-up on this post click here

New Police Oversight Board In Houston

Houston Mayor Annise Parker recently announced that an independent police oversight board will be appointed to replace the existing Citizens Review Committee.  The mayor’s announcement is in response to a heightened concern about police misconduct and brutality.

Negotiations are also ongoing with the police union to replace the current slate of independent examiners.  In Houston an officer who is disciplined can file an appeal and have their case reviewed by an independent examiner.

It seems that in Houston, despite the best attempts of the police executive to discipline and in some cases fire offending officers, their efforts are all too often undone by the independent examiners.

Over the past 17 years, hearing examiners have reduced or overturned almost 70 per cent of the cases that came before them.

In a recent case, Police Chief Charles McClelland fired two officers involved in the police beating of a burglary suspect.  The case was overturned by the hearing examiners who ordered the officers to be reinstated.

The City is appealing the ruling.  If the officers are returned to the force the Chief’s dilemma will be in deciding what to do with officers (i.e. assigning duties) in whom he has lost all faith.

The police union is resisting any change, arguing that the present process is fair and that the reason so many cases are overturned is the result of the police department meting out discipline that is too harsh.

In 2009 Chief McClelland fired 9 officers.  All 9 cases were appealed. In four cases the appeals were denied, four resulted in the officer being reinstated, and in one case the appeal with withdrawn by the officer.

The Houston Police Department has 5,400 officers and serves a population of 2.2 million.

Is Justice Served by a Technical Acquittal?

The news  coverage of Hymie Weinstein and Sheldon Pinx revelling in their  victory over Robert Tapper  brought to mind the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice”.

The media coverage showed Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Pinx basking in the glow of their victory, unable to hide their unseemly glee.  Their motion for a directed verdict was based on what they argued was a failure on the part of Mr. Tapper to identify the accused in court.  Mr. Tapper’s position is that identification was achieved.  The court disagreed and granted the motion.  The case was dismissed.

What does this mean?  It means that the jury that heard all the evidence was not given the opportunity to render a verdict.  It means that two officers were acquitted not on the merits of the case but rather on a procedural technicality, the type of technicality that normally causes great concern among officers.  It means that in the minds of many Winnipeggers the reputations of  two officers who were not convicted on a crime were none the less tarnished.  It means that if they decide to continue their careers as police officers, every time they appear in court to testify there will be nagging doubts about their testimony in the minds of crowns, defense counsel and judges.

In the world of sports, as in our courts, there is a recognition that referees and judges don’t always get it right the first time around.  Mr. Tapper has indicated that he will be throwing the challenge flag, appealing the case to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The role of defense counsel is to represent the best interests of their clients.  At first blush it would appear that Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Pinx did that.  Their clients were acquitted.

If, at the end of the day, an acquittal is the appropriate outcome in this case,  it needs to be an acquittal rendered by a jury based on the evidence; not a technical acquittal that leaves unanswered questions and doubt.

I think a “replay” may be to everyone’s benefit in this case.

Toward an Accurate Editorial

Todays Winnipeg Free Press features an editorial titled  “Toward a better watchdog”.

The editorial begins:

“Attorney General Andrew Swan has announced the appointees to the Manitoba Police Commission, five people who will advise the province on police matters and help train the new boards that will watch over municipal police forces.”

In actuality, nine people have been appointed to the Commission.

The editorial goes on to describe one of the duties of the Police Commission as being to “recruit and train the civilians for the municipal police boards”.  The legislation does mention training of civilian police boards as one of the duties of the Commission, but is silent on the issue of  recruiting.

The Effect of Adding 18 Positions to General Patrol

Of the additional 58 police positions promised by the mayor as part of his re-election platform, 18  are destined for General Patrol, commonly referred to within the Service as GP.  GP officers are the uniformed officers assigned to work marked patrol units.  When citizens call 986-6222 or 911,  GP officers are the ones who respond to their calls for service.

Media reports have indicated that the 18 positions being added to GP will produce “another shift” .  The implication of that is rather misleading but up to this point I have not heard either politicians or the Police Service saying anything to correct the misconception or explain the actual effect of adding 18 officers.

Here’s how it works:

The Police Service currently fields a minimum of 27 2-officer patrol units at the start of each shift, 365 days a year.  This means that the day shift starts with 27 units, as does evening shift and midnight shift.  The reason the term ‘minimum’ is used relates directly back to the wording in the Collective Agreement between the Winnipeg Police Service and the City. The minimum number of units the Police Service puts out on the street  forms part of the collective agreement.  The Service can field more than 27 units if personnel are available but it cannot field less.   Starting a shift with less than 27 2-officer units would violate the collective agreement.

So, how many police officers does it take to field one additional 2-officer unit?  The answer is 18.

The 18:1 ratio

Prior to the mid-1990’s the Police Service used a rather loose calculation to determine how many officers were required to field one unit 365 days a year.   The commonly used ratio was in the 14:1 range with an allowance for additional personnel in Divisions 11 (downtown) and 13 (north-end), based on workload.  The problem identified by Uniform Division Commanders operating under the 14:1 ratio was that  they could not field the required number of patrol units unless they drew resources from other areas such as Traffic, Community Constables,   plain clothes units  or called out off duty personnel at overtime rates.

Around 1995 a couple  of newly promoted Superintendents decided to have a look at the ratio being used. This review resulted in a report being submitted to the Executive of the day  recommending that the ratio be changed to 18:1, which it was.

That perhaps makes it easier to understand why the Mayor picked the number 18.

Eighteen additional GP officers translates into 1 additional  patrol unit.

That’s 1 additional unit, not “another shift”.

In a future post I will examine why it takes 18 officers to staff one patrol unit.