HomeMy Public PortalAbout19981021 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 98-21 Open ,Regional
ice
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 98-24
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA*
6:30 P.M.
Wednesday 330 Distel Circle
October 21, 1998 Los Altos, California
*** PLEASE NOTE ***
6:30 P.M. Special Meeting Start Time
(6:30) ROLL CALL
** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS --Public
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD BUSINESS
(6:35) 1. Final Interviews of Applicants and Appointment of Director-Ward 4
Resolution Appointing Ward 4 Director
(8:00) 2. Continuation of Discussion and Acceptance of the Final Draft Report of
the Operations Program Review by the Warner Group from the September
28, 1998 Special Meeting and Direction by Board for Future Action
ADJOURNMENT
Members of the public are invited to forward written comments to the District Clerk regarding the
candidates and/or questions they propose the Board ask candidates. It is recommended that these
comments and/or questions be submitted to the Clerk by 3:00 P.M., Wednesday, October 21,
1998 at the address shown below so that they can be compiled and duplicated for the members of
the Board prior to the start of the meeting.
*NOTE: Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed Agenda is
subject to change of order.
**TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time
each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other
matters during oral communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to 3 minutes.
Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communications, which the board
appreciates.
1 10 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 « Phone:650-691-1200
FAX: 6 0 691 04F1.5 . E-mail: mrosdrropenspate.org . Web site:www.openspace.org
Board of Diret for, Pete Siemens,Maf}C.. Davey,led(vt,David F.Sniemott, Nonette Nanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C Nitz - General A/Ixmger t.Craig Britton
-y
Regional Open k.,ace
---------------------
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
R-98-127
Meeting 98-24
October 21, 1998
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Final Interviews of Applicants and Appointment of Dire for--Ward 4
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
After completing Your interview process,adopt the attachedireslution appointing the Ward 4 Director.
The District Clerk will administer the oath of office for the new Ward 4 Director after your appointment.
DISCUSSION
You conducted the initial round of interviews for the position of Director—Ward 4 at your October 19, 1998 Special
Meeting.
The procedures that you decided to follow for the second round of interviews are:
1. Random drawing for order of appearance.
2. Each finalist allotted 20 minutes for answering questions posed by the Board.
3. Random drawing for order of appearance for final statements.
4. 10 minute recess.
5. Each finalist will get five minutes for summary.
6. Each Board member casts a signed ballot for his or her choice of appointment.
7. Voting tallied and announced by District Clerk.
8. Clerk keeps ballots for later public inspection.
9. If no candidate receives four votes, there will be additional votes on the full list of finalists until a candidate receives
four votes.
10. Board adopts resolution naming appointment to fill the office.
Absence of candidates from interviews—The Board will consider the written application and supplementary information
provided by candidates who cannot attend this session.
Prepared by:
Peggy Coats, Administrative Analyst
Contact person:
Deirdre Dolan, Administrative Services Manager
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200
FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org ^
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton
I i
A question for the MROSD Ward 4 candidates
Over the next few decades, as the population of the South Bay
continues to grow, residents are likely to feel increased pressure
from high real estate prices and property taxes. In such an
environment, pro-development forces are likely to cast an
increasingly covetous eye upon MROSD lands.
What can the District do to ensure that, over time, the majority of
taxpayers and voters will continue to feel a sense of ownership for
this Open Space, and remain convinced that it is worth preserving?
Ross Finlayson
Mountain View
.ay Area Gardener 1W 650 968-4480 10/21/98 2-25 PM 2/2
Fax Memo to: Deidre Dolan, Mic[Peruinsula Open Space District
From: Carol Moholt
Date: October 21, 1998
Time: 2:00 pm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please convey to the Board that I will not continue with round two of the
interview process. I was "catching" something Monday evening (and am
afraid I was disrupting folks with my coughing and my voice breaking) and it
has turned into a nasty flu. I'm home ill with it and won't be out and about
for several days.
Being too ill to come tonight, and also recognizing my placement in the
ranked voting from Mondays process, has caused me to not go ahead with
the process. I have a great deal of regret over this, but I'm assured that you
have three excellent candidates to choose from.
I am interested in working with the District in some volunteer capacity. I do
have some ideas about diversity and involving a wider group of peninsula
residents in District programs. You can also count on me to support the next
steps with the Coastal program—I, too, am optimistic that it will pass in
November.
The process of applying increased my awareness a thousand fold about the
good the District does. I'm so impressed with both the board and the staff. You
are a great group of folks.
I do look forward to working with you in some volunteer capacity in the near
future.
Best regards,
Carol Moholt
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
APPOINTING WARD 4 DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, a vacancy was created in the position of Director of Ward 4 on
September 1, 1998, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors had previously determined to fill the vacancy by
appointment until a Ward 4 Director is elected in the District's next general election and
takes office; and
WHEREAS, an application and interview process for the Ward 4 vacancy has been
completed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does appoint
as Director of Ward 4 until a Director for this Ward is elected in the District's next general
election and takes office.
_Dianariver@aol.com, 01:22 AM 10/21/98, Recommendation
Return-Path: Dianariver@aol . com
From: Dianariver@aol . com
Date : Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01 : 22 : 08 EDT
To: mrosd@openspace. org
Subject : Recommendation
X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org
To: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors
From: Diane Rivera
Recommendation:
Peace Officers for the MROSD should be able to carry fire arms !
I have been a frequent visitor to the open space district over the years .
However, I do not feel as safe as I use too in the area since the traffic
of
both cars and people have increased.
I have hiked many places in the area, backpacked to Black Mountain on two
occasions and love the opportunity to be in this beautiful setting. I do
not
do so anymore because of the repeated break-ins in the parking lot .
Additionally, I feel that leaving my car in the parking lots just annouces
my
presence on the mountain. I no longer feel safe . I also hear that there
is
increase activity on the mountain that requires the attention of your Peace
Officers who are not currently allowed to carry side arms .
For the safety of your Peace Officers and the general public who wish to
visit
the district, I believe that it would be in all of our best interest to
allow
your trained and capable Peace Officers to carry arms . As the district has
more presences (as it did in one of the most recent episodes of " Back
Country
Adventures" (great show) , you will have to show more authority and
management
of activates by letting those of us who visit the area and those who want
to
start trouble, know that you mean business and are going to protect people
and
property. Your Peace Officers need to be protected as they do their jobs
as
well .
I wish you all well, thank you all for the great service you provide so
Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1
Dianariver@aol.com, 01:22 AM 10/21/98, Recommendatson
close
to home and hope that you will consider my request to allow your Peace
Officers to carry arms for the safety of all of us .
Thank you
It is my understanding at this time that your Peace Officer are not armed.
,Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 2
j L
Dianariver@aol.com, 01:11 AM 9/28/98 Public Safety Recommendation
Return-Path: Dianariver@aol . com
From: Dianariver@aol . com
Date : Mon, 28 Sep 1998 01 : 11 : 40 EDT
To: mrosd@openspace .org
Subject: Public Safety Recommendation
X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace. org
To: The Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Open Space District
From: Diane Rivera
Friend of the District
Reference: Public Safety Recommendation
In the past few weeks, I was able to see "Backroads" featuring the MPOSD.
They did an excellent job and I recognized many of the area ' s that they
featured. Congratulations !
Your district is one of my favorites places to go for a wonderful get away
on
the weekends . We have been fortunate to keep the area natural, wild and
beautiful and you are all doing a great job up there .
However, I wish to voice concerns that I have had for some time . More and
more, I don' t feel safe enough to come up there alone and hike or camp over
night . I hear that there are more auto break-ins among other thin If
g g things .
this
element is there, then I don' t feel safe hiking by myself, either.
For a while, I had secured permits to hike to Black Mountain and stay
overnight .
I didn' t like leaving my car at Montebello parking lot, but we did. Since
then, I have heard of more and more break-ins . Any intruder could secure
my
home address from my auto registration, know that I am in the general area
or
worse . j
We have not been back, unfortunately, because of the auto break-ins and
other
kinds of mischief now happening with more frequency in the area .
I will advise the District to change and project a new image. While your
Peace Officers are out and about alot of the time, they are know for not
being
armed. In the past this image was okay. But times change, new elements
come
into the area and force us to make changes we would not otherwise do. As
sad
as I am to sugguest this, I think it is time to allow the Peace Officers in
(Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1
I
Dianariver@aol.com, 01 : 11 AM 9/28/98 Public Safe�cy Recommendation
the District to carry fire arms .
With this new image, the public will be put on notice. I know I would
feel
safer. I also think that this new image would give a very different
message
and deter the undesirable elements that have become complacent in the area.
Last but not least, you will insure the safety and well being of each of
your
Peace Officers who work in the District .
I hope that you will consider allowing the District Officers to carry arms
for
our safety and theirs .
Thank you for your consideration and keep up a great job.
Bye for now
Il
Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 2
---
CHu1099325@aol.com, 04 :56 PM 9/27/98 Rangers and guns
Return-Path: CHul099325@aol . com
From: CHul099325@aol .com
Date : Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16 : 56 : 36 EDT
To: mrosd@openspace . org
Subject : Rangers and guns
X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org
Hello, my name is Cliff Hudson and I live 1 mile South of Windy Hill . I ' ve
been hiking these hills for the last 30 years and have never felt it was
necessary to have the rangers carry guns . For your information, I ' am a 53
year old Vietnam Vet. and have seen anger and pain and now think its time
to
move on. I would like to strongly recommend a NO vote for rangers and
guns .
ThankYou. P. S . I
would like to walk my dog on our lands, now I drive to the East Bay hills
where dogs are welcome . Guess what? NO PROBLEMS with DOGS .
Cliff Hudson
5 Big Tree Way
Woodside, Ca . 94062
650 851-2193
I
i
;Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1
BABettenco@aol.com, 02 :14 PM 9/26/98 , PEACE OFFICERS
Return-Path: BABettenco@aol .com
From: BABettenco@aol . com
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14 : 14 : 06 EDT
To: mrosd@openspace .org
Subject : PEACE OFFICERS
X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org
Dear MROSD
As South Skyline resident, I am accutely aware of the lack of police
protection in the area . Please do not downgrade the status of your rangers
from Peace Officers to Public Officers . We residents need the added
protection
and your rangers need the added protection as they patrol the Open Space.
Bruce Bettencourt
(Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1
OCT-21-98 02 :44 PM MR01 SKYLINE 6509491781 P. 01
October 16, 1998
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA.
To whom it may concern:
We are writing this letter on behalf of the rangers, residents, and
users of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space district. We have
resided within the Skyline Ridge Preserve for the last three years,
and consider ourselves very fortunate to live in such a wonderful
area.
It recently came to our attention that there has been some
discussion regarding the rangers' appearance and duty equipment and
the possible modification of same.
Unfortunately, not everyone in and around the preserves is there to
enjoy the natural resources. The Open Space District is traversed
by two state highways (35 and 84) , and adjoins two others (9 and
92) , with the possibility that Highway 1 will soon be added.
As residents, we have encountered the following situations: A
convicted rapist (two rapes in the Stanford area) was paroled from
prison and took up residence approximately 100 yards from our
residence shortly after we moved in.
Two escapees from the San Mateo County Men's Honor Camp,
unbeknownst to us, spent the night in a shed on our property. When
one of them was arrested the following day in Palo Alto, he stated
that he had spent the night at the residence, along with his fellow
escapee, who is still at large.
A visitor to the Skyline Preserve, irate that we had a chain on our
driveway gate when "the land belongs to everyone" left a full-page
diatribe on sharing the land, etc. tacked to our gate. To "teach us
our first lesson in sharing" he threw our gate chain, which
contained locks belonging to us, open Space, P.G. & E. , and others
"into the woods." Needless to say, we were rather worried that he
might come back to teach us some more lessons.
We have found pornography, condoms, human excrement, and drug
paraphernalia on the preserve. Last spring, we encountered two
people carrying approximately 25 pounds of fiddle heads, seemingly
torn from the middle of every fern they could find within the
preserve. (they dropped the fiddleheads and drove off)
OCT-21-98 02 :48 PM MROr -WYLINE 650949 1 78 1 P. 01
We have also encountered some very nice people, who truly have a
love for nature and the desire to have a pleasant experience. It is
for these people that the trails, the parking areas, and the
preserves in general, must be kept safe.
It should be mentioned that in all of the negative instances, the
rangers have responded and taken the appropriate action. We are
very pleased with the level of service and concern provided by the
Skyline office rangers. Accordingly, on a personal and a
professional level, we are concerned for them.
We are both employed as deputy sheriffs with San Mateo County, but
we are not writing as representatives of that agency. However, as
deputies, we are aware of many incidents unknown to the general
public or those not living or working within the preserves. For
example, there have been three known suicide attempts within the
last few years on Skyline Boulevard (Hwy. 35) alone. One of the
attempts was successful, and involved the victim shooting himself.
Log Cabin Ranch, a correctional facility for San Francisco youths,
is located near Pescadero and Alpine Roads, and has had escapes
that involved searches through the preserves. As mentioned above,
the Sheriff's Honor Camp has had several escapes, again with
escapees ending up on Open Space lands. Additionally, the visitors
to these facilities are travelling through these areas.
In August, near the site of the recent Open Space aquisition on
Cloverdale Road, Sheriff's deputies responded to an accidental
shooting. The individuals involved were allegedly going to check on
their marijuana field; what if they had encountered a citizen or
ranger on the trail? Marijuana fields are found frequently
throughout rural San Mateo County. In late September, over 175
plants were discovered growing on Open Space land on the north side
of Alpine Creek. Again, the possibility of an encounter between an
armed 'marijuana grower and a ranger on trail patrol is very real,
with no possibility of timely back-up for the ranger. The same
scenario exists when it comes to poachers.
If a defensive posture on the part of the ranger fails to placate
the "discovered" individual(s) , the defensive ranger is now
defenseless.
We were pleased to see that the District had taken the step of
allowing the rangers to carry collapsible batons. If anything, it
might be appropriate to increase the capabilities of the rangers
and expand their enforcement role. Naturally, this would have to
involve the proper training and be based on the qualifications of
each individual ranger. Perhaps it would be feasible to have two
separate classifications: Natural Resource rangers and Law
Enforcement rangers. Each classification would then draw
individuals most suited to that role.
OCT-21-98 02 :49 PM MR01 SKYLINE 6509491781 P. 02
With the paring down of Sheriff's personnel on patrol in this area,
the rangers are virtually the only law enforcement personnel
around. Even -though that might not be the role that the District
desires for them, that is the reality. By their very presence, they
have probably gone a long way towards deterring crime in the area.
Additionally, they have proven invaluable in responding to medical
emergencies. The current equipping of Open Space vehicles with
emergency equipment allows them to do so expeditiously.
As far as liability is concerned, it would seem that the District
could be held liable for any physical or emotional trauma suffered
by a visitor, so the prevention/deterrence of, and adequate
response to, those situations would actually decrease the liability
of the District.
The only people who should reasonably feel threatened or react
negatively to rangers with a law enforcement image are those who
are violating the law and/or the District policies. To "soften" the
rangers' image would only serve to lessen their effectiveness and
increase their vulnerability, as well as that of the law-abiding
visitors to the Open Space lands.
Sincerely,
TeMiultz Gil Gagnon U
22322 Skyline Blvd.
La Honda, CA. 94020
650.917 .1253
RDubaSoDak@aol.com, 05: 33 PM 10/17/98, Ranger Duties
Return-Path: RDubaSoDak@aol .com
From: RDubaSoDak@aol .com
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17 : 33 :28 EDT
To: mrosd@openspace .org
Subject : Ranger Duties
X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org
ATTN: Board of Directors,
Although I live in Marin County, I hike in your open space district two
or
three times a year as part of a geology club to which I belong . I
understand
there is some concern about the image being projected by your rangers . I
want
you to know that I have never been the subject of or witnessed a negative
action by one of your rangers . In fact, I am impressed by the professional
manner in which they perform their functions . I am certainly not offended
by
their uniforms and the accoutrements . In fact, it gives me some assurance
that if I am the subject of some sort of criminal action, there is someone
there who is qualified to give me some help. In fact, I believe your
rangers
should be given all the law enforcement weapons (including firearms) which
are
standard in State Parks, BLM rangers and National Parks . The public is
used
to seeing armed rangers . Indeed, in today' s world of unexpected violent
acts,
it is comforting to see rangers who are prepared for every eventuality.
Thank
you for considering my opinions .
Yours truly,
Roger L. Duba
2802 Las Gallinas Ave .
San Rafael, CA 94903
Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1
--- -Terrie Winnett'-1--1_.. 18 PM 9-/-2-7--/-9-8 ' Warner GroupR ep r_t for-Sept ----
Return-Path: mach@batnet .com
X-Sender: mach@pop.batnet .com (Unverified)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23 : 18 : 07 -0700
To: mrosd@openspace .org
From: Terrie Winnett <mach@batnet . com>
Subject : Warner Group Report - for Sept. 28 meeting
X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org
A Word 7 version of this letter is attached.
--------------------------------------------
22400 Skyline Boulevard
Box 25
La Honda, CA 94020
September 28, 1998
Board of Trustees
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Dear Folks :
Many of us up on Skyline are fascinated by the law enforcement
recommendations contained in the Operations Program Review Methodology
section of the Warner Group Report . In brief, I think that you should arm
the rangers and make it clear to the public that they are fully trained and
accredited Peace Officers with the confidence and backing of the Board to
act in this capacity. Under no circumstances that now exist should you
consider disarming them in any way or limiting their function to that of
Public Officers . In short, please don' t consider leaving your front line of
public contact naked before the world.
Since the cutbacks of Sheriff' s patrols on Skyline, a reasonable response
time to a Skyline Open Space Preserve could be as long as 30-45 minutes
from Woodside or the coast . The Report blithely mentions establishing law
enforcement contracts with the Sheriff' s office to patrol selected portions
of District land. Do you really intend to do this? Is the Sheriff' s office
amenable? If you have a contract with the Sheriff' s office and something
occurs in Long Ridge, can a Sheriff's deputy patrolling north of Rt . 84
respond in less than 20 minutes? You already have qualified Peace Officers
on your staff . Why not use them as such and offer them maximum support?
It can be very dangerous dealing with unruly and occasionally dangerous
members of the public. Visitors to the rural preserves deserve safety and
the fullest possible protection, and it seems logical to expect the on-site
ranger to be the first-response provider of this protection .
Under no circumstances should the District consider further disarming
rangers . Forcing a ranger to leave his/her baton and handcuffs in the
patrol vehicle and redesigning the badge and uniform to pretend that the
- — pp - pDistrict_ -_ _ p- p --- - - --
Printed for en Space <mrosd@o ens ace.or-g> 1
I
I
Terrie Winnett, 11 :18 PM 9/27/98 , Warner Group Report - for Sept
ranger does not serve a law enforcement function seems like so much public
relations eye-wash to me . To recommend this while also making body armor
mandatory is sheer madness . I think that body armor for rangers is a good
idea, and if the patrol function is dangerous enough to require body armor,
rangers should certainly be armed with something more than pepper spray and
radios .
Rangers should carry sidearms, and the public will certainly not respect I
them less if they look like competent law enforcement officers, as well as
helpful rangers . To imply such disrespect is to seriously underestimate the
public' s wish for a law enforcement presence in a dangerous world. Arming
rangers will not detract from the quality of the ordinary visitor' s Open
Space experience, and discouraging the few bad guys and keeping order on
Open Space preserves will be easier if rangers are appropriately equipped.
Respectfully submitted,
Cliff
Jenkins
Portola Heights
Attachment Converted: C: \NETSCAPE\EUDORA\MROSDran.doc
Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 2 J'
i
22400 Skyline Boulevard
Box 35
La Honda CA 94020
September 30, 1998
Betsy Crowder, President
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos CA 94022-1404
Dear Betsy:
attended the board meeting on Monday, September 28, to hear the presentation of the
Warner Report. I came to the meeting with an open mind, and did not speak.
In the Skyline area where I live, MROSD owns about half of the land, and has been a
good neighbor preserving, stabilizing, and protecting the land. Sheriff's patrols along
Skyline have been reduced by San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the point that
they are not existent. There have been many occasions when assistance of a Santa
Cruz County sheriff was requested only to be refused. Sometimes the ranger at Castle
Rock State Park, Miles Standish, who is authorized to carry a gun has responded for
Santa Cruz County. Response times to emergency calls to sheriffs are at least 45
minutes, usually hours and some times days. MROSD rangers are the only peace
officers available in the Skyline area.
At the board meeting local people and so many of your rangers pointed out the
shortcomings of the Warner Report with respect to ranger safety needs and concerns,
law enforcement, lack of cooperation among District management and field staff in
decision making, better equipment for wildland fire protection, and lack of
comprehensive management plan.
You have assembled an outstanding group of rangers and field staff who are
dedicated, well-trained, and in my experience, courteous, friendly and helpful to visitors
to District lands. Changing uniforms as the Warner Report recomments means nothing.
The rangers professionalism, courtesy, helpfulness to District visitors are deeper than
uniforms. They know the visitors, land, and problems far better than the Warner group.
MROSD would have been better off taking input from the rangers and field staff than
from the Warner group.
If the rangers, who are trained peace officers, feel they need guns, trust their request.
They are the ones with relevant field experience.
Sincerely,
OCT 6 1 98
Ruth Waldhauer j
I
22400 Skyline Boulevard
Box 25
La Honda, CA 94020
September 28, 1998
Board of Trustees
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Dear Folks:
Many of us up on Skyline are fascinated by the law enforcement recommenda-
tions contained in the Operations Program Review Methodology section of the
Warner Group Report. In brief, I think that you should arm the rangers and
make it clear to the public that they are fully trained and accredited Peace Offi-
cers with the confidence and backing of the Board to act in this capacity. Under
no circumstances that now exist should you consider disarming them in any way
or limiting their function to that of Public Officers. In short,please don't consider
leaving your front line of public contact naked before the world.
Since the cutbacks of Sheriff's patrols on Skyline, a reasonable response time to a
Skyline Open Space Preserve could be as long as 30-45 minutes from Woodside
or the coast. The Report blithely mentions establishing law enforcement con-
tracts with the Sheriff's office to patrol selected portions of District land. Do you
really intend to do this? Is the Sheriff's office amenable? If you have a contract
with the Sheriff's office and something occurs in Long Ridge, can a Sheriff's
deputy patrolling north of Rt. 84 respond in less than 20 minutes?You already
have qualified Peace Officers on your staff. Why not use them as such and offer
them maximum support?
It can be very dangerous dealing with unruly and occasionally dangerous mem-
bers of the public. Visitors to the rural preserves deserve safety and the fullest
possible protection, and it seems logical to expect the on-site ranger to be the
first-response provider of this protection.
I
Under no circumstances should the District consider
� er further disarming
m�ng rangers.
Forcing a ranger to leave his/her baton and handcuffs in the patrol vehicle and
redesigning the badge and uniform to pretend that the ranger does not serve a
law enforcement function seems like so much public relations eye-wash to me.
To recommend this while also making body armor mandatory is sheer madness.
I think that body armor for rangers is a good idea, and if the patrol function is
dangerous enough to require body armor, rangers should certainly be armed
with something more than pepper spray and radios.
Rangers should carry sidearms, and the public will certainly not respect them
less if they look like competent law enforcement officers, as well as helpful rang-
ers. To imply such disrespect is to seriously underestimate the public's wish for
a law enforcement presence in a dangerous world. Arming rangers will not de-
tract from the quality of the ordinary visitor's Open Space experience, and dis-
couraging the few bad guys and keeping order on Open Space preserves will be
easier if rangers are appropriately equipped.
Respectfully submitted,
Cliff Jenkins
Portola Heights
-OCT-21-98 03 :58 PM MPOSD SKYLINE 6509491781 P. 02
10/19/98
To: MROSD Board of Directors
From District Maintenance Staff
re: Warner Group Study
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this review of the operations program, We look forward
to participating in more detailed reviews of a number of these issues. We would like to comment now
on a few problems we see in the results of the Warner Group Study, These issues were discussed
during individual interviews and study groups but did not make it into the final report.
Regarding the fire equipment and fire program:
• We think the Districts role in fire suppression as noted by staff and outside experts is appropriate.
Out role of providing initial fast attack capability and information for access by other agencies is
good. We are happy with our role but we are not happy with how we are equipped.
• The current fire pumpers on each patrol truck are inadequate for safe fire suppression. At a
training bum at Fort Hunter-Ligget, we were not allowed to use our pumpers on one of the training
days because the winds came up a little bit and our equipment did not meet minimums for hose size,
gallons per tank and pump output capacity. The pumps do not have sufficient output to effectively
and safely put out fires in light winds and tall grass conditions which would include many typical
fires in Open Space, State guidelines are available that describe adequate size pumper units. We
would be happy to develop standards for District equipment.
• The current fire pumpers are unreliable. We have rebuilt 5 out of 7 pumps on Skyline trucks this
year alone due to poor pump specifications for the output we are demanding to get even a minimum
of fire suppression ability. Management has been receptive recently to trying new pumps but
budget concerns and a failure for staff to sit down and decide what is needed for an"adequate"fire
suppression ability have significantly hindered this process,
• Our staff does not receive adequate training in the Incident Command System(ICS)which is the
standard in the fire industry. Our staff does not do an adequate job of taking command of District
staff participating in significant incidents. Most staff tries to work with the system based on training
received outside the District. All Rangers and Supervisors should be trained and authorized to take
command of incidents until better qualified personnel take over.
• The District has started a fantastic program for control bums and we would like to see the program
continued and expanded. To do the job properly, we need training and equipment. For example, a
pumper truck with 200 gallon tanks, 60+gallon per minute pumps and adequate hose capacity are
much better suited to safely suppressing fire. Training and equipment should be better for fire
ignition, fire break construction, evaluation of burning conditions, analysis of smoke conditions, etc,
• There should be a District-wide plan for fire prevention, evaluation of fire risks, plans for control
points in a major fire, recognition of areas that should not be impacted by bulldozers, definition of
the Districts role in fire attack and decision making, etc. These issues are addressed in a haphazard
manner at this point.
cJemo/warner.doc 10/19/98
*OCT-21-98 03 :59 PM MROSD SKYLINE 65094�- 781 P. 03
Regarding the District Maintenance Program:
We feel the scope and importance of the maintenance program was given too little attention in the
report. A very few pages try to cover a very large and complex program. The need for equipment
and training for maintenance staff to perform a wide variety of tasks needed further discussion and
evaluation. Functions performed by maintenance staff include trail maintenance and construction,
volunteer projects, emergency responses, resource management, facilities/structure maintenance
(plumbing, electrical wiring, painting, carpentry, flooring, etc)and capital improvements.
• The study does not address staffing needs to meet District needs and standards for maintaining
current and future trail needs. It feels like the maintenance staff is currently overwhelmed with work
so more staff would be appropriate now. As the staff grows, recognizing maintenance staff skills by
having promotions for increased skills such as OST 1, OST If and OST III positions with higher
expectations for skills and experience would provide substantial increases in opportunity and
motivation for staff. Performance standards should be developed to make it clear what skills are
expected for each job. An option to increase staffing during peak summer use would be a
pernianent/intermittent position for patrol and/or maintenance in which employees would only work
8-9 months during the year with a guaranteed job the next season, This position could have some
benefits associated with it and allow us to retain some superb seasonal staff without quite the cost of
full time positions.
• Training for maintenance staff could be significantly improved.
• Delegation of decision making to field level supervisors could be substantially increased. Many
small projects seem to wait a long time for planning approval. Another option could be to assign a
planner to work part time in each field office to deal with small projects.
• Funding for maintenance programs seems inadequate and is too limited by the funding growth caps
to keep up with rapidly increasing use and development of preserves.
• There should be a comprehensive Maintenance Management Plan. Scheduled, frequent maintenance
is important to prevent erosion and major damage. Trails can include a wide variety of technical
challenges(width, grade, surfacing, etc.)and still be frequently maintained and held to high quality
standards.
• Standards should be developed for construction and maintenance of trails,
• Staff has many ideas for techniques to decrease maintenance. Lets figure out a way to implement
more of those ideas.
• Maintenance vehicles are typically hand-me-down patrol vehicles and have significant down time for
break downs. More emphasis on providing reliable vehicles for maintenance would be great. It is a
routine morning task to determine which vehicles are still working and which ranger trucks we can
borrow to perform our job. It is not unusual for 2 or 3 maintenance trucks out of a fleet of 7 on
Skyline to be out of service on a given day,
Regarding Search and Rescue program.
• We think the current role is adequate but the training is not.
• Current rope rescue training happens at most once a year. Adequate training should take place at
least quarterly.
• District should provide training in organizing and handling searches since District staff initiates many
searches long before the arrival of outside agencies.
c,'/emo/warner,doe 10/19/98
r
oOCT-21-98 04 :00 PM MRQSD SKYLINE 6509491781 P. 04
Regarding the EMS services:
• Past incidents on District lands are mostly trauma. Carrying oxygen in patrol vehicles would be a
significant improvement in initial care provided by District staff. Carrying defibrillators would
provide very little improvement in service for a high cost.
• Training rangers to the EMT level seems appropriate for the types of responses they make.
Maintenance staff trained as First Responders seems appropriate for their responses and the
potential for on-the-job injury.
J J rY.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input and we look forward fo reviewing these
issues in more detail at future meetings.
vv/
X J,
,r
QtiV4 spy
DPENI
e mo ra n d u m : MI REGIONAL NSULA
OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
To: Members of the Board
From: Gordon Baillie
Subject: Operations Program Review- Supplemental Information Packet
Date: October 14, 1998
Please find attached a supplemental information packet for the second meeting regarding the
Operations Program Review. This information packet has been submitted by the Warner Group
in response to questions raised during the meeting of September 28.
The continuation meeting for the Operations Program Review is scheduled for October 21.
i I
i
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
operations Program Review
Final Report
Supplemental Information
October 10, 1998
Nl,qThe Warner group
MANAGEMENT C01"4S 1LTANTS
This supplemental information is provided to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors, in response to requests made during the September 28, 1998 Board of
Directors Meeting. This package includes the following documents:
1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Organization Chart
- To be inserted in the Final Report in Section III
2. Field Enforcement Activity for 1997 and Seven Year Summary(Board Report R-98-05)
- To be inserted in the Final Report as an Appendix
3. Field Staffing Ratios
- To be inserted in the Final Report as an Appendix
4. Introduction to Appendix C
- To be inserted in the Final Report in Appendix C
5. Comparable Agency Representatives
- To be included in the introduction to Appendix E
6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Responses to Comparable Agency
Questionnaire
To be inserted in the final report in Appendix E
The Warner Group
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
9/8/98
District Constituents
l� Board of Diractars
guess,Schactman L.Craig Britton Michael
Legal Cousel General Manage Controller
VACANT Del Woods Susan Dale ,
Research Attorney Senior Mgmt Specialist Office ManagerKecty W GM
JI
Mary Anne King
Receptionist
"Adtmlnlstratl�
John Esocbw Malcolm Smith
ices Manager Operations Manager Public Affairs Manager
Krises Webb David Topley Annette Coleman David Sanguinettl Public Affairs Assistant
Support Services Supervisor Area Superintendent(Foothills) Area Superintendent(Skyline)
Peggy Coats Kathleen Hut J earleest Bruins
Administrative Analyst secretary John Kowaleski Patrick Congdon Visitor Services Supervisor
Bunny Congdon Su wvising C&M Ranger Su ervising C&M Ranger
Accounting Specialist Gordon Balllio
Operations Analyst Paul McKowan
Jodi Isaacs Michael Jurich Stan Hooper Volunteer Coordinator
Resource Mgmt Specialist Lead OST Lead OST Laura Raymaker
Michael Bankosh Travis Jensen Docent Coordinator
OST OST
Scott Cotterel Grant Kern Mike Williams
OST LOST Real Property Representative
idrdW Oruta•e Adaldr Ralph Molica Gina Morin
east....
OST OST Usa Zadek
-- Mark Caaaretto Frank Otson Real Property Assistant
MEZ
EMO DST
John Johnigan Craig Beckman
FMW EMO PLANNING
TomLasseter Dennis Danielson TEAM
J""i's edftie� Su ervising Patrol Ranger Su wvistng Patrol Ranger
adtsreps.ma seerson
tom Kerry Carlson Brendan Oowetstg PlAndanerit SCdr
Ranger Range Mary de Bemsvleres
y,ay , C trs• Phil Heart" Linda Hymen Acting Senior Planner
sosr soar Ranger Ranger John Cahill
V ACANT Matt Ken Planner II '..
Ranger Ranger Matt Fraeman
sseo•Sqa pra.ac t!•e6.•• OF•d•.•d Ken Miller Brian Matters Planner i
OST•Op.a spe.T•stvdei.n Ranger Range Doug Vu j
FNM•I—ht iae•a.ae•Wedled Michael Newburn Lord Paterson Planning Tech j
Ranger Ranger Ana Marie Montano
Tom Randall Warren Phillip Planning Tech
Ranger Ranger JoAnne Swirsding
Secretary
I
i
I
R-98-05
Meeting 98-03
February 11, 1998
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Field Enforcement Activity for 1997 and Seven Year Summary
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Accept the 1997 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activity Summary and the Seven-Year Field
Activity Summary.
BACKGROUND
Since April 1995, staff has given the Board written monthly reports on emergency incidents
and enforcement activities on District land. At the end of each year you have been given a
summary for that year as well as a comparison with previous years.
DISCUSSION
Two summaries are presented for your review. The 1997 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activity
Summary (Appendix A) and the Seven-Year Field Activity Summary (Appendix B), with
highlights represented in graph form (Appendicies C and D).
The Miscellaneous Enforcement Activity Summary lists, in chronological order for the past
year, contacts made or reports taken by staff of potentially serious, violent, or other criminal
activity on or near District land. Only contacts that resulted in some form of written record,
such as a District incident report, written warning, citation, or mutual aid assistance report,
have been included in these summaries. General assistance to preserve visitors, informational
contacts, and verbal warnings have not been included.
The Seven-Year Field Activity Summary has been expanded to include emergency response,
criminal activity, and mutual aid incidents. Staff continues to modify the format of the
summary and the methods of collecting and compiling data. Several categories within the
summary have been converted into two or more categories to accommodate the collection of
more detailed data. Blank boxes appear in categories for past years of the summary where
counts were not actually tallied.
The total number of violations has decreased slightly this year. One year's data is insufficient
to indicate if this is a change in the trend, which has shown an increase each year for the last
six years.
R-98-05 Page 2
The following trends and issues are noted.
1. Recorded violations of District Land Use Regulations decreased approximately 9.6%
from last year.
2. Recorded bicycle violations have decreased from 585 in 1996 to 531 in 1997. This is a
decrease of 9.23%. Speed and helmet rules were still being implemented in 1994,
which included a much greater use of unrecorded verbal warnings by ranger staff. This
is the third full year of general enforcement of regulations related to bicycling.
Mountain bicycling continues to grow in popularity, and staff feel that the decrease in
bicycle violations could be the result of various factors including more hours of staff
time spent on education.
3. The total number of weapon-related incidents has decreased. The "weapons report"
category now includes all evidence of firearm use on District land in which no contact
is made with a violator, such as vandalism to District property, reports of hearing
gunshots near District lands, finding spent shell casings or weapons, or reports of
subjects with firearms that are not actually contacted. Acts of vandalism with a firearm
are also recorded in the "vandalism" category.
4. The number of written warnings exceeded citations for the first time in the seven year
period. This suggests a greater use of the educational approach to enforcement by
District staff.
Prepared by:
Gordon Baillie, Operations Analyst
Contact Person:
John Escobar, Operations Manager
R-98-05 Page 3
1997 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activities
APPENDIX A
KEY CP County Park OS off District lands PAPD Palo Alto Police
SO Sheriff's Office CHP Ca. Highway Patrol LAPD Los Altos Police
CDF Ca. Dept. Forestry EPAPD East Palo Alto Police
Date Nature of Incident Outcome Rangers Law Enf.
present assistance
Jan.
7 Suicidal Subject Mental Health Hold 1 2
20 Mentally Unstable Subject/Unlicensed Arrest 1 1
Driver
26 Dog off leash/resisting arrest Citation 1 0
Feb.
8 Outstanding warrants/Bicycle Prohibited Citation 1 Notified
21 Theft of District property Investigation 1 0
March
13 Assault & Battery on a Peace Officer Citation 1 1
April
5 Human remains Found Report - SCSO 2 2
7 Drug possession/Misdemeanor warrants Arrest - SCSO 2 1
16 Assault, Kidnapping, Robbery Report - EPAPD 2 1
23 Stolen vehicle found Vehicle recovered - SCSO 1 1
May
1 Mutual aid - assist County ranger with Arrest 1 1
physically confrontational suspect (OS)
9 Assault Report 1 0
18 Furnishing alcohol to minors Citations 1 0
21 Witnessed auto burglaries (OS) Arrests 2 2
21 Mutual aid- Assault & Battery (OS) Referred to D.A. 2 3
23 Search for missing person Not Found 5 30+
26 Cultivation of marijuana (57 plants) Destroyed- SCSO 3 1
June
13 Resisting arrest - Dogs off leash Subject fled 1 0
20 Breaking & Entering Report 1 0
23 Mutual aid - Witness to physical domestic Handled by SCSO 1 3
dispute (OS)
29 Indecent exposure Report 1 0
R-98-05 Page 4
July
3 Search for suicidal person Body Found 7 2
5 Cultivation of marijuana (60 plants) Destroyed - SCSO 2 1
8 Mutual aid - car jacking Report - SCSO 1 4
17 Mutual aid - Vehicle w/ associated warrants Report - SC Rangers, 1 3
(OS) SCSO
Aug.
6 Indecent exposure Report - SCSO 1 0
16 Mutual aid - shots fired Report - SCSO 1 3
30 Mutual aid - Grand theft (tractor) (OS) Vehicle recovered 2 1
Sept.
3 Cultivation of marijuana (3,000 plants) Arrest/plants removed 3 5
24 Cultivation of marijuana (1,000 plants) Plants removed 3 5
Oct.
12 Mutual aid - Domestic dispute (OS) Investigation SCSO 1 2
Nov.
8 Shots fired - shotgun pellets fell near Parent contacted at nearby 3 4
ranger residence
13 High risk search/suicide Body recovered - SCSO 3 30
28 Firearms prohibited (paint ball guns) Citations 1 0
Dec.
30 Firearms prohibited (paint ball guns) Report 1 0
Staff received reports of 7 auto burglaries in 1997.
R-98-05 APPENDIX B Page 5
SEVEN YEAR FIELD ACTIVITY SUMMARY
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
A.VIOLATIONS
I.Bike-closed area 120 172 197 154 125 149 112
2.Bike-speed 43 101 149 112
3.Bike-helmet 203 255 287 263
4.Bike-night riding 44
S.Bike-Unsafe Operation I3
6.Dogs-prohibited 2I 31 58 58 62 63 72
7.Dogs-off leash 33 82 92 76 67 81 101
8.Offroad vechicle 41 39 26 20 15 16 11
9.Closed area 176 252 286 262 9 38 30
1 O.After hours 127 194 148
11.Fishing 0 0 2 6 6 5 0
12.Vandalism 14 13 27 19 28 26 20
13.Parking 119 180 173 114 173 192 154
14.Parking after Ins. 225 182 228
15.Dump/litter 13 11 11 18 15 7 9
16.Campfires 18 18 7 12 9 6 4
17.Camping 10 19 22 19 6 5 4
18.Weapon contact 12 26 10 16 7 5 4
19.Weapon report 26 15 3
20.Other 127 54 59 121 11 90 33
Total 704 897 970 1,141 1,267 1,510 1,365
B.ACCIDEN'TS/FIRE
].Bicycle 24 46 41 41 57 52 47
2.Equestrian 5 4 3 5 6 7 13
3.Hiking/Running 27 II 18 19 19 14 22
4.Other first aid 1 13 14 11
S.Search&rescue 13 6 11
6.Vehicle 7
7.Helicopter landings 8
8.Fire(-acres) 1(<1) 3(<1) 5(6) 4(1) 3(13) 3(3/4+) 3(1)
Total 57 64 67 69 108 93 122
C.ENFORCEMENT
].Citations 373 445 463 430 654 716 629
2.Written warnings 199 255 236 429 468 695 655
3.Arrests 7 8 7 6 3 2 4
4.Police assistance 32 22 36
Total 579 7081 706 865 1,157 1,435 1,324
D.CRIMES
].Auto burglaries 32 23 8 7
2.False information 7 11 13
3.Resisting Peace Officer 3 9 9
4.Assault 1 0 3
S.Poaching 1 3 2 2
6.Possession/Cultivation-Marijuana 9
7.Minor in possession of Alcohol 23
8.Other 15 16
Total 0 0 0 32 37 45 82
E.MUTUAL AID
I.Accidents 12 18 26 54 28 26 36
2.Enforcement I 11 28 29
3.Fire(acres) 2(2) 4(48) 3(1+) 2(10+) 4(5) 5(2+) 8(28)
4.Helicopter landings 2 11 11
S.Other I 1 1 4
Total 14 22 29 56 45 70 80
District Enforcement Activities
Seven Year History
1600
1400
1200
1000
c
m
u
800
o 000000,
6 0
600
t
400 "
200
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Bicycle Violations --X—Written Warnings Citations —Total Violations
Accidents By User Type
60
50
40
a 30 —-
o — -
z -
20
10
0
1991 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996 — —
1997 ®Equestrian ®Hiking/Running
0 Bicycle I
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Staffing Ratios*
Trail Miles Trail Miles
Acres of Miles of Ranger Maint. Field Acres Per per Acres per per Maint.
Agency Preserve Trail Field Staff Staff Ranger Ranger Maint. Staff Staff
Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space
District 38,000 250 18 16 2,111 14 2,375 16
Albuquerque Regional
Open Space District 26,500 60 13 10 2,038 5 2,650 6
Boulder Open Space
District 30,000 75 6 N/A 5,000 13 N/A N/A
East Bay Regional
Parks" 87,000 930 N/A 40 N/A N/A 2,175 23
Marin County Open
Space District 9,000 124 11 N/A 857 12 N/A N/A
Marin Municipal Water
District 20,000 140 9 9 2,222 16 2,222 16
County of San Mateo
Environmental Services 14,000 193 45 N/A 311 4 N/A N/A
Santa Clara County
Parks 40,000 183 40 41 1,000 51 976 4
AVERAGE 33,063 244 20 23 1,934 101 2,080 13
Notes:
* The numbers provided above were provided by agencies interviewed, and their accuracy cannot be verified. The agencies interviewed have
different geography,different intensity of use, and different job descriptions for Ranger and Maintenance staff. These differences should be
taken into consideration when comparing their reported ratios to those of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
East Bay Regional Parks'40 Rangers only do maintenance. These positions have been included in the Maintenance Staff column.
The Warner Grou
Staffing Ratios.xIs 10/13/98 p
Acres Per Ranger
6,000
5,000
5,000 -
4,000 -
L 3,000 - - -
a 2,111 2,038 2,222 1 ,934
2,0001 ,000 - - -
857 1 ,000
311
0
Cp
.p�dl"
le
Staffing Ratios.xls Graphs Chart 5 10/13/98 The Warner Group
Trail Miles Per Ranger
18
16
16 14 -
14 _ - - A-3- - 12
12 10
10 -
6
4 -
2
cp
Staffing Ratios.xls Graphs Chart 4 10/13/98 The Warner Group
Acres Per Maintenance Staff
3,000
2,650
2,500 2,375 -
2,175 2,222
2,080
2,000
N
v 1,500
a
1,000 --- - 976
500 - - -
0
Midpeninsula Albuquerque East Bay Marin Muni. Santa Clara Co. AVERAGE
Water
Staffing Ratios.xls Graphs Chart 6 10/13/98 The Warner Group
I
Trail Miles Per Maintenance Staff
25
23
20 - - -
16 16
15 - -
N 13
Q
10 - -
6
5 - - 4 -
0
Midpeninsula Albuquerque East Bay Marin Muni. Santa Clara Co. AVERAGE
Water
Staffing Ratios.xls Graphs Chart 7 10/13/98 The Warner Group
Appendix C - Operations Staff Focus Group Notes
Two focus group sessions were held with Operations field staff to gather their perspectives on
the Operations Program. Specifically, participants were asked to provide input on the strengths
and weaknesses of the Program and its services. Participants also provided suggestions for
improving the Program.
A total of eight field staff members participated in each focus group session, which lasted for
approximately two hours. Each group was composed of both Patrol and Maintenance staff from
both Skyline and Foothills Areas. Staff from both geographical and functional areas were
brought together in each group to help gather input from a good cross-section of field staff and to
provide a forum for sharing perspectives.
After generating input through a brainstorming process, participants were asked to prioritize the
items generated by voting. Generally, participants were allowed from three to five votes within
each section(e.g., three votes for strengths, five votes for weaknesses, etc.) The number of votes
varied by group and by section, and was dependent upon the number of items generated. The
number of votes each item received is included in the notes in this section.
The Warner Group
Comparable Agency Representatives:
Agency. Representative
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District John Escobar, Operations Manager
Albuquerque Open Space District Matt Schmader, Assistant General Manager
City of Boulder Open Space Department Bryan Pritchett,Natural Resources Manager
East Bay Regional Park District Renee Crowley, Parkland Unit Manager
Marin County Open Space District Chris Bramham, Chief Ranger
Marin Municipal Water District Steve Phelps,Environmental Resources
Division Manager
County of San Mateo Environmental Services Kendall Simmons, Assistant Director of Parks
and Recreation
Santa Clara County Parks Alan LaFleur, Deputy Director
The Warner Group
i
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Overview
• Over 42,000 acres of land preserved, over 38,000 acres managed
• Approximately 250 miles of trails
• 80% of trails are multi use, 20%are primarily open to only hikers.
• 18 Rangers; 12 Maintenance staff
0 Low impact users
• $2.9 million for Operations; $11.3 million for acquisition
Interview Summary
1. Please briefly describe the main responsibilities of your agency (e.g., land management,
preservation, recreation, etc.)
The main responsibility of the District is to acquire and preserve a greenbelt of open
space land on the San Francisco Peninsula and to allow for use and enjoyment of the land
in such as manner as will leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Who do you consider to be your customer base?
The main customer base for the District is the approximately 600,000 people who live
within the 330 square miles which are encompassed in the District boundaries. However,
District lands are frequently visited by residents of the greater San Francisco Bay area
and some preserves and features are listed in national and foreign guide books.
a. On an annual basis, how many people use/visit the lands managed by your agency?
The large number of access points to the District's 23 different preserves have not made
an accurate visitor count possible. The District uses a rough estimate of 1,000,000 people
per year.
2. What is your agency's total annual budget(related to open space
acquisition/management)?
The District's total annual budget is approximately $24.3 million.
a. What portion of your total annual budget goes toward land acquisition?
$11.3 million(46.5%) of the budget goes towards land acquisition [$6.5 million—26.7%)
for debt service].
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
What portion of your total annual budget goes toward operations?
$2.9 million(11.9%)of the budget goes towards operations.
What is the total annual cost for the patrol function? (Including salaries, benefits,
equipment purchases, etc.)
The patrol function, including law enforcement, fire, search and rescue and visitor
services is estimated to be $806,651 (27% of the Operations budget).
b. What is the total annual cost for the maintenance function?(Including salaries, benefits,
equipment purchases, etc.)
The maintenance function is estimated to cost $1,335,909 (45% of the Operations budget)
3. At this time,is your agency focused more on land acquisition, or on maintaining land
that has already been acquired?
The main focus of the agency is on land acquisition, but operations and maintenance have a
significant and increasing role.
Land Usage
4. Are there residences or private lands encompassed within your agency's lands?
Yes --there are private parcels interspersed among District parcels.
a. Are there residences or private lands directly adjacent to your agency's lands?
Yes, the District has extensive dealings with neighbors and many neighbors are actively
involved in assisting with the formulation of District policy and frequently give input to
the District's Board.
5. What are the general visitor uses of your preserve? (e.g., hiking, cycling, camping, etc.)
Hiking and mountain bicycling are popular. Other uses include horse riding, nature study,
and a limited number of specialized uses such as hang gliding, rock climbing and backpack
camping.
6. What portion of your agency's trails are multi-use (e.g., hikers, cyclists and equestrian
groups use the same trails), and what portion are single use(e.g., hikers only)?
Of the District's 250 miles of trail, approximately 200 miles (80%) are multiple use (hiking,
bicycling and equestrian)while approximately 50 miles(20%) are for hiking only or for
hiking and equestrian use.
r
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
a. What measures are taken to minimize conflict on multi-use trails?
A trail etiquette brochure has been produced. The District has a 15 mile per hour speed
limit,which is enforced through a radar program. The District has also done education
campaigns to encourage responsible use of the trails by all users. The trails are patrolled
both by staff and by an active trail patrol volunteer program.
7. What are the primary types of unauthorized activities occurring on your agency's
lands?
Bicycle related violations (speeding, helmet required and after-hours use) composed 531 of
the 1,365 violations of District ordinances in 1997. Dogs off leash or in prohibited areas
accounted for 173 violations.
a. How many incidents occur annually?
The following numbers of incidents occurred in 1997:
i
Violations of District Ordinances: 1,365
Violations of other laws: 82
Accidents/Fires; 122
Mutual Aid (to outside jurisdictions): 80
b. How do staff respond to these incidents?
Rangers provide patrol services and respond to events which they observe or are
dispatched to.
I
8. Does your agency have a:
a. Comprehensive management plan/strategic plan(including plans for visitor services and
land acquisition)?
There is currently no comprehensive management plan.
b. Resource management plan?
There is currently no resource management plan. A Resource Management Specialist has
been hired and is working on policies in this area. There are a few site specific plans.
c. Maintenance management plan?
There is currently no maintenance management plan. Staff have attended seminars on
this subject and are considering various options in this area.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Staffing
9. How many full-time staff are utilized in patrolling and maintaining the lands?
There are 18 bad ed staff and 12 maintenance staff. Bad ed staff also assist with
g g
maintenance services.
10. What are the primary responsibilities of patrol staff?
To provide for public safety, to educate the public about District ordinances and to ensure
compliance with District and other selected laws.
What are the primary responsibilities of maintenance staff?
To provide a safe environment for the public and to ensure that resources are protected by
providing well maintained trails and other low impact recreational facilities.
11. How are staff trained (both on an initial and continued basis)?
Staff are trained in a variety of areas,depending on their job descriptions. Patrol staff receive
initial and ongoing training in defensive tactics, legal issues, emergency medical care, fire
and maintenance. Maintenance staff receive safety training and training on specific
equipment.
12. What is the typical staffing pattern (e.g., number of staff per shift, number of shifts per
day)?
The maintenance crew work during the regular Monday—Friday work week, with
modifications for 9/80 and other schedules. The 9/80 schedule is in place for seven months
of each year.
Rangers generally have two weekdays off. The District is divided into two geographical
areas. Within each area,the minimum staffing is one early shift and one late shift. Typically
there are more staff than this working, especially on the weekends. There are some 4/10
schedules available.
a. What are the seasonal changes in staffing patterns (including the use of temporary staff)?
Seasonal Open Space Technicians are used during the summer. There are no seasonal
ranger positions at the District. Scheduled patrol hours are extended during the summer,
to cover a greater portion of the day.
13. What is the level of authority delegated to field managers and staff?
There is one Area Superintendent per geographical area. They each have a budget of
approximately $100,000. They have the authority to negotiate contracts and make purchases
up to $5,000.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
14. Who makes hiring decisions for patrol and maintenance positions?
The Area Superintendent for the area, and the Supervising Ranger(patrol or maintenance as
appropriate for the position) screen the applications and are involved in all stages of the
interview process. The Operations Manager makes recommendations to the General
Manager, who has the final hiring authority.
g g ty
Staff and Visitor Safety
15. What steps are taken to ensure the safety of employees while on duty? (e.g.,
policies/procedures, safety equipment)
Staff are issued with soft body armor, pepper spray and collapsible batons. Policies reflect a
strong emphasis on maintaining a defensive posture and staff are not expected to enter any
situation that they do not feel is safe. Written policies specifically require staff to use the
lowest level of enforcement to deal effectively with a situation. The District has a radio
system which provides very good coverage and staff are expected to keep in radio contact.
16. Does your agency rely on local law enforcement agencies to respond to emergency
situations?
Yes, the District relies on the appropriate county sheriff or local police force to respond to
higher level crimes.
a. If so, how effective is this response?
The response is considered to be adequate, however staff has expressed concerns about
the length of the response time in some situations. Additionally concerns have been
expressed that the agencies do not have knowledge of the District's properties and do not
have four wheel drive vehicles, which are necessary on many District roads and trails.
17. Does your agency rely on its own armed force to respond to law enforcement situations?
No, District rangers are not armed.
a. If so, what prompted your agency to establish an armed force?
N/A
18. Who is responsible for responding to fire emergencies on agency lands?
The District provides first response fire services for wiidland fires. California Dept. of
Forestry, or the appropriate local jurisdiction,provide fire services to District lands.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
19. Who is responsible for responding to medical emergencies on agency lands?
The local fire jurisdiction provides emergency medical services. District staff provide first
aid services.
Who is responsible for search and rescue operations on agency lands?
The County Sheriff has responsibility for search and rescue. District staff provide assistance.
Trends and Future Plans
20. What are some of the key trends in open space management and operation?
The increasing price of land in the greater San Francisco Bay area makes acquisition
increasingly challenging.
Use levels continue to rise and with that comes an increasing level of conflict between user
groups such as hikers and bicyclists.
There are also concerns about the impact on the resources caused by the increasing amount
of use.
a. How does your agency plan to deal with these trends?
Cooperative agreements between the District and non-profit organizations such as POST
(Peninsula Open Space Trust) continue to be very beneficial in gaining lands.
Continuing efforts to enforce District ordinances, as well as a review of the District's trail
policies, are being utilized to minimize conflicts between user groups and to ensure
protection of the resource.
22400 Skyline Boulevard
Box 25
La Honda, CA 94020
September 28, 1998
Board of Trustees
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos,CA 94022-1404
Dear Folks:
Many of us up on Skyline are fascinated by the law enforcement recommenda-
tions contained in the Operations Program Review Methodology section of the
Warner Group Report. In brief, I think that you should arm the rangers and
make it clear to the public that they are fully trained and accredited Peace Offi-
cers with the confidence and backing of the Board to act in this capacity. Under
no circumstances that now exist should you consider disarming them in any way
or limiting their function to that of Public Officers. In short,please don't consider
leaving your front line of public contact naked before the world.
Since the cutbacks of Sheriff's patrols on Skyline, a reasonable response time to a
Skyline Open Space Preserve could be as long as 30-45 minutes from Woodside
or the coast. The Report blithely mentions establishing law enforcement con-
tracts with the Sheriff's office to patrol selected portions of District land. Do you
really intend to do this? Is the Sheriff's office amenable? If you have a contract
with the Sheriff's office and something occurs in Long Ridge,can a Sheriff's
deputy patrolling north of Rt. 84 respond in less than 20 minutes?You already
have qualified Peace Officers on your staff. Why not use them as such and offer
them maximum support?
It can be very dangerous dealing with unruly and occasionally dangerous mem-
bers of the public. Visitors to the rural preserves deserve safety and the fullest
possible protection, and it seems logical to expect the on-site ranger to be the
first-response provider of this protection.
I
I
Under no circumstances should the District consider further disarming rangers. �
Forcing a ranger to leave his/her baton and handcuffs in the patrol vehicle and
redesigning the badge and uniform to pretend that the ranger does not serve a
law enforcement function seems like so much public relations eye-wash to me.
To recommend this while also making body armor mandatory is sheer madness.
1 think that body armor for rangers is a good idea, and if the patrol function is
dangerous enough to require body armor, rangers should certainly be armed
with something more than pepper spray and radios.
Rangers should carry sidearms, and the public will certainly not respect them
less if they look like competent law enforcement officers, as well as helpful rang-
ers. To imply such disrespect is to seriously underestimate the public's wish for
a law enforcement presepce in a dangerous world. Arming rangers will not de-
tract from the quality of the ordinary visitor's Open Space experience, and dis-
couraging the few bad gpys and keeping order on Open Space preserves will be
easier if rangers are appropriately equipped.
i
Respectfully submitted,
Cliff Jenkins
Portola Heights
i
I
22400 Skyline Boulevard
Box 35
La Honda CA 94020
September 30, 1998
Betsy Crowder, President
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos CA 94022-1404
Dear Betsy:
I attended the board meeting on Monday, September 28, to hear the presentation of the
Warner Report. I came to the meeting with an open mind, and did not speak.
In the Skyline area where I live, MROSD owns about half of the land, and has been a
good neighbor preserving, stabilizing, and protecting the land. Sheriff's patrols along
Skyline have been reduced by San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the point that
they are not existent. There have been many occasions when assistance of a Santa
Cruz County sheriff was requested only to be refused. Sometimes the ranger at Castle
Rock State Park, Miles Standish, who is authorized to carry a gun has responded for
Santa Cruz County. Response times to emergency calls to sheriffs are at least 45
minutes, usually hours and some times days. MROSD rangers are the only peace
officers available in the Skyline area.
At the board meeting local people and so many of your rangers pointed out the
shortcomings of the Warner Report with respect to ranger safety needs and concerns,
law enforcement, lack of cooperation among District management and field staff in
decision making, better equipment for wildland fire protection, and lack of
comprehensive management plan.
You have assembled an outstanding group of rangers and field staff who are
dedicated, well-trained, and in my experience, courteous, friendly and helpful to visitors
to District lands. Changing uniforms as the Warner Report recomments means nothing.
The rangers professionalism, courtesy, helpfulness to District visitors are deeper than
uniforms. They know the visitors, land, and problems far better than the Warner group.
MROSD would have been better off taking input from the rangers and field staff than
from the Warner group.
If the rangers, who are trained peace officers, feel they need guns, trust their request.
They are the ones with relevant field experience.
Sincerely,
OCT 6 1'499
Ruth Waldhauer
Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
R-95-95
Meeting 95-19
July 26, 1995
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed Additions to Rangers' Assigned Personal Equipme t
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIO
1. Authorize the general manager to add collapsible batons, soft body armor, and radio
shoulder microphones to the list of assigned personal equipment provided to each ranger.
2. Direct staff to develop or modify existing field procedures for the use and care of these
new assigned personal equipment items.
BACKGROUND
At the request of Local 715, the bargaining unit representing District rangers, the District
agreed to evaluate the use of collapsible batons by Distinct rangers and report to the Board
with a recommendation within 120 days of ratification of the current labor agreement. The
general manager also agreed to meet with the ranger staff to discuss ranger safety issues. A
meeting was held on April 21, 1995. After listening to rangers' comments at the meeting
and participating in two ranger ride-alongs, the general manager decided to add soft body
armor and radio shoulder microphones to the list of assigned personal equipment items to be
addressed in this report.
During negotiations, the bargaining unit representatives expressed concerns about the
personal safety of rangers when performing patrol and enforcement duties. They also
expressed a concern about the District's ability to address more serious crimes taking place
on District land. In response, the District agreed to work on the liaison program with local
law enforcement agencies to improve communication and working relationships. The District
also agreed to review and modify field operating procedures, if necessary, while continuing
to insure ranger safety as a primary goal.
Trainine
Beginning in 1976, District rangers performed resource related enforcement duties. Since
1978, the District has provided formal law enforcement training for rangers by sending them
to the National Park Service Seasonal Ranger Academy at Santa Rosa Junior College. A
District representative has been on the academy advisory committee since the early 80's,
insuring that the training program continues to meet the needs of the District.
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone:415-691-1200 • FAX:415-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd®netcom.com
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Teena Henshaw,Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Wim de Wit
General Manager:L.Craig Britton
R-95-95 Page 2
In addition to the initial seven-week Ranger Academy, District rangers receive 20 to 30
hours of annual law enforcement refresher training. Every year, rangers typically receive 12
to 16hours of self defense tactics cs training d4 to 8 hours of ins
truction in law chan
ges and
review as they relate to peace officers in California. Training also includes other topical
issues based on staff interest and identified need, such as: working with juveniles, drug
abuse, ranger safety, and review of operations manual changes.
When compared with similar agencies that have rangers with comparable duties and
responsibilities, the District's training program is strong. Exhibit A, Park Ranger
Association Survey Dated October 1994 compares training hours at 36 agencies that manage
regional parks and open space throughout the state. A recent staff survey (Exhibit B) also
supports the strength of the District's training program. The bargaining unit agrees that the
District's law enforcement training is adequate, given our current level of equipment. Over
the years, the District has developed relationships with a number of highly qualified outside
instructors. The District continues to seek instructors who will improve the quality of
training offered to all employees.
F.Quipment
In 1980, rangers started carrying Mace and handcuffs. The Mace was provided in response
to staffs expressed personal safety concerns. The handcuffs were intended primarily to be
used to assist other law enforcement agency personnel upon their specific request. In 1987,
the District contracted with Bill Orr, director of the Ranger Academy, to conduct a study of
the District's law enforcement program. The primary focus of the study was to draft a field
operations manual. However, in an executive summary to the general manager, Mr. Orr's
opinion was that District rangers should be issued police batons. He also expressed his
opinion that the District should eventually arm its rangers or remove law enforcement duties
from the job description. On the advice of the District's defensive tactics instructor, rangers
were trained in the use of their flashlights for self-defense in the beginning in the spring of
1990. This training is very similar to police baton training, and has continued on a periodic
basis. Rangers are currently prohibited from carrying their flashlights during daylight for
defensive purposes. Past court decisions have not been completely supportive of the use of
flashlights as a law enforcement self-defense tool.
In the fall of 1990, management and supervisory staff held a meet and confer session with
bargaining unit representatives to review a draft of the operations manual. Ranger safety
issues were extensively discussed. The standard police baton was considered, but for various
reasons was not approved for use by District rangers at that time. There have been only
minor revisions and additions to the operations manual since then and no additional safety
equipment has been added. In 1993, the District-issued Mace was replaced with pepper
f defensive tactics instructor and a review of the available
spray, based on the opinion o the
P Y
literature. Pepper spray is believed to be effective on a greater percentage of the population,
as well as on dogs and other animals, and has fewer possible health risks. It should also be
noted that in May of 1993 the District's new radio system and dispatching service became
fully operational, considerably improving emergency communications.
I
R-95-95 Page 3
DISCUSSION
Addressing Concerns
The recommendations contained in this report comprise the first step in addressing the ranger
staffs concerns about their personal safety when performing patrol and enforcement duties.
The general manager is committed to continuing open communication with the ranger staff
on these and other matters. For example, a comprehensive review of the operations manual,
with a goal of continuing to promote officer safety, will begin as soon as equipment changes
are approved by the Board and staff can draft and implement necessary field procedures.
The Board is already receiving monthly enforcement activity updates, and annual summaries
will be reviewed as a regular agenda item. Training needs will continue to be assessed,
based upon input from District staff and law enforcement experts. Staff is also in the process
of assuring better liaison with other local law enforcement jurisdictions. Staff anticipates that
all of these activities will be well underway by the end of August.
Ranger Job Description
The current ranger job specification continues to meet the needs of the District. The rangers
are generalists, whose job responsibilities encompass a variety of land stewardship functions,
including land use regulation enforcement, wildland fire suppression, first aid, visitor
assistance and information, site maintenance, and resource management. Increases in visitor
use and the addition of the open space technician and equipment mechanic operator job
classifications have resulted in a shift in the amount of time devoted to each of these duties;
however, overall duties generally remain unchanged.
Enforcement Activity - Work Environment
As the summary of use activity in Exhibit C illustrates, the most significant increase in
enforcement contacts is associated with changes in trail use regulations. Compliance with
land use regulations continues to be the primary focus of the ranger staff and an important
concern of visitors. For the purposes of this report, miscellaneous incidents in 1994 with a
potential to impact ranger safety have been summarized in Exhibit D. Auto burglaries in
parking lots and along highway road frontages have not been included in the summary. In
the past two years, auto burglaries have taken on epidemic proportion. Other park agencies
in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties are also experiencing increased rates of auto
burglaries.
Members of the bargaining unit feel that serious criminal activity is increasing on District
land at a significant rate. However, it is difficult to identify any real trend in the occurrence
of serious crimes, since a limited number actually happened on District land. Crimes of
violence remain a very rare occurrence, while visitor use continues to increase. The number
of firearms contacts on District lands fail to suggest any identifiable trend. Although the
importance of these serious crimes should not be discounted solely based on the frequency of
their reported occurrence, it illustrates that maintaining good working relationships with local
law enforcement agencies is essential, since these agencies remain ultimately responsible for
responding to and investigating criminal activity on District land.
R-95-95 Page 4
Based on training and experience, r angers can cont
rol many, but not all, of the variables in
their work environment. By the very nature of the position, rangers are responsible for
contacting and temporarily detaining violators, often in remote areas. Response times for
assistance from the local law enforcement officers can exceed 45 minutes. Increased public
use and enforcement of trail use regulations have increased the frequency of confrontational-
type contacts. Actual physical assaults on rangers is a rare occurrence. In the history of the
District, only two assaults have resulted in injuries that required medical care. The nature of
the assaults and their outcomes are outlined below.
i
Year Nature of Assault Outcome Medical Treatment
1979 single punch in mouth escaped dental work
1984 single kick to chest arrest/drunk driving none
1985 wood 2x4 hit to shoulder arrest/indecent exposure chiropractor
1987 one-handed push/grab removed by spouse none
1987 pulled off truck seat arrest/assault none
1994 attempt w/ bicycle arrest/assault none
Specific SafetyEquipment Items
Collapsible batons are one of the more recent variations on the standard police baton. The
collapsible baton is currently available in three sizes, 16, 21, and 26 inches. It is typically
carried in a case on the belt, collapsed down to a size of 6.2 to 9.5 inches. The collapsed
metal baton is extended by a flick of the wrist and forearm. Its primary purpose is to fend
off unarmed physical assaults by striking blows to the lower body of the aggressor, or to
keep a person at bay. The baton is not intended to be used to strike the upper body or head.
The collapsible baton has gained greater acceptance than the traditional police baton by park
agencies around the state, largely because of the unobtrusive appearance of the collapsed
baton on the belt.
The collapsible baton will provide staff with a method to fend off physicall attacks in
conditions unfavorable or ineffective for pepper spray, and will not significantly change the
ranger's uniform appearance. The baton also will allow rangers to keep combative subjects
and vicious animals at a greater distance. However, the Board should recognize that the use
of the baton is an escalation of force over the equipment currently assigned to the ranger
staff. A use of force policy, field procedures, and a required training program will need to
be developed to insure safe and proper use. As is currently the case with the existing
equipment, a written report will be required any time the baton is removed from the carrying
case. The policy will also include a formal review process for every incident of deployment
or use of the baton. Twelve hours of initial training will be required before a ranger is
issued a baton. A commitment of additional annual training is necessary to maintain
proficiency. Staff recommends that rangers be given an option to select either the 21- or 26-
inch length baton. Collapsible
sible batons cost between $45 and $55. The cost for carrying
g P
case is about $20.
i
R-95-95 Page 5
I
I
Soft body armor or bullet-proof vests, made primarily of Kevlar, are worn under the
uniform shirt to prevent or reduce injuries caused by bullets, knives, and blunt trauma. The
vest provides some degree of protection in the event of a vehicle accident or similar
occurrence. Vests are available in several different styles and levels of protection.
Manufacturers recommend replacement every four to five years, as the materials reportedly
break down and lose their effectiveness. Soft body armor is widely used in law enforcement
for safety purposes. Staff is unaware of any department that actually prohibits the wearing
of body armor. District rangers are currently permitted to wear soft body armor; however,
purchase and maintenance have been at their own expense. Varying levels of personal
discomfort are associated with wearing body armor, particularly on warm days and when
performing physically demanding duties.
i
Soft body armor provides protection from projectiles, yet is purely defensive. A survey of
local law enforcement agencies suggests that it is common for the agency to pay for a base
model with a Threat Level II rating. Staff recommends that the District provide rangers with
a Threat Level II, which is also designed to resist sharp pointed instruments and costs about
$430 per vest. Employees wanting to upgrade to a higher-priced vest could use the cost of
the District-provided vest toward the cost of the upgrade. Guidelines regarding use and care
of the vests will be developed.
Shoulder microphones consist of a speaker/microphone that clips to the shoulder epaulet or
collar of the uniform shirt. The attached coiled cord connects to the portable radio worn on
the belt. The shoulder microphone extends the transmit and receive functions of the portable
radio to the shoulder for a more hands-free operation. .Shoulder microphones are widely
used in law enforcement and park agencies.
Staff recommends the addition of shoulder microphones. The primary advantage of the
shoulder microphone is that they allow for hands free-operation of the radio during
enforcement contacts. This microphone will allow a ranger to keep the radio volume down
during contacts, yet still be able to monitor critical radio communications. Guidelines will
also need to be developed to insure proper care and use of the microphone. However, the
issues related to proper use should not delay making this equipment available to staff. The
current list price for this item is $71 each.
cost
The total cost of outfitting the entire ranger staff with collapsible batons, soft body armor,
and shoulder microphones is $11,016. Rangers will be required to attend an additional 12
hours of defensive tactics training on how to use the collapsible baton. Two instructors are
necessary for a group the size of our staff, requiring an additional $1,200, bringing the total
cost to $12,216. The costs associated with this recommendation are not provided for in the
current operating budget. However, staff is not recommending a budget increase at this
time. Staff anticipates conducting a mid-year review of the budget, at which time
adjustments can be made that consider unexpected cost savings to help offset the purchase of
this additional safety equipment.
R-95-95 Page 6
Conclusion
The en r general manage is recommending that the Board authorize the addition of these three
items to the list of items provided to each ranger to respond to their concerns regarding
personal safety. The bargaining unit members correctly pointed out that the District provides
industry standard safety equipment for other aspects of the operations program, such as fire
fighting and light and heavy equipment use. The addition of these items place the safety
concerns of the rangers ahead of what the job duties and previous experience might dictate;
however, it is important that District employees feel that their concerns are being adequately
addressed and fairly considered. At the staff meeting where the rangers outlined their safety
equipment requests and reasoning, there was near unanimity in their request. While cost is
also an important consideration, addressing the field staffs concern requires a balanced
approach, with employee safety being of utmost consideration. Soft-body armor is purely for
safety purposes. Although it is an expensive item, it does not change the outward
appearance of the uniform. The shoulder microphones, which are predominant in many
agencies, serve a variety of purposes, especially providing for hands-free operation during
public contact. The batons, which may project the least desirable public image of the three
items contained in the recommendation, will rarely be removed from their case or used. If
batons are approved by the Board as recommended, strict guidelines for use will be
developed. A use of force policy and all necessary field procedures and training must be in
place before the collapsible batons are issued to the ranger staff. Staff anticipates
implementation by October 1, 1995.
Prepared by:
L. Craig Britton, General Manager
J. Escobar, Operations Manager
Contact person:
J. Escobar, Operations Manager
EXHIBIT A
Excerpted from : Park Rangers Association Survey Dated October 1994, 36 Agencies Managing Regional Parks& Open Space
Number of Rangers Law Enf Primary T e of Appt. Law Enf Ranger SafetyItem Checklist:
AGENCY fulltime partime Performed Duties peace public no Tmg Req baton mace handcuffs firearms
officer officer appt.
City of Anaheim 1 50 yes in,le X 40 X
City of Burbank 2 5 yes in, le X 60 X X X X
Casitas Municipal WD 4 10 yes fc,in,le,ma X 40 X X X
City of Huntington Beach 1 2 yes in,le,ma X 40 X X
Kern Co. Pks&Rec Dept 13 4 yes ff,in,le,ma,rm X X X X X
Lake Hemet Municipal WD 2 0 yes in,le,rm X X X X X
Livermore Rec&Prk Dist 2 5 yes ff,in,le,ma,rm X X
City of L.A. Dept of P&R 27 40 yes in,ff,le,ma 1 X 500 X X X
Los Angeles Co. P&R 84 54 yes fc,le X X X X X
Marin Co. Dept of P&OS 18 13 no fc,in,ff,ma,rm X X
Marin Muni Water Dist 9 0 yes fc,in,le,ma,rm X 280 X X X X
Monterey Co Parks Dept 15 12 yes le,ma X 40 X X X
Monterey Pen Reg Prk Dist 3 0 yes in,le,ma,rm X 40
Mountains Rec&Cons Auth 14 8 yes fc,ff,le,ma,rm X X X X X
City of Oakland 9 10 yes le X 895 X X X X
Orange County 49 1 yes fc,in,le,ma,rm X 60
Padre Dam MWD 4 0 es in,le,ma X 88 X X X
City of Palo Alto 7 7Ono
es fc,ff,in,le,ma,rm X 60
C' of Riverside 3 0es in,le,rm X 30 X X
Riverside Co Parks Dept 12 0 fc,in,ma,rm X
C' of Roseville 2 0es in,le,rm X 80 X X X X
San Bernardino Co. 34 0 no fc,ma,rm X
City of San Diego 12 0 yes in,le,ma,rm X 40
San Diego Co Dept P&R 25 0 yes fcjn,le,ma,rm X 110
San Joaquin Co P&R Dep 1 0 yes fc,le X 40 X X X X
City of San Jose 17 40 yes in,le,rm X X
San Mateo Co 47 80 yes le,ma,rm X 40
Santa Barbara Co 43 21 yes le,ma,rm X 64
Santa Cruz P&R Dept 3 9 yes ff,in,le,ma,rm X 64 X X X
Santa Cruz Water Dept 3 1 yes fc,in,le,ma,rm X X X X
Solano Co Parks Dept 7 1 yes le,ma,rm X 40 X X X
Sanoma Co Reg Parks 17 0 yes fc,in,le,ma,rm X X
Ventura Co Parks Dept 5 3 yes fc,le,rm X 27
Vista Parks Dept 0 9 yes le,ma,rm X X X
Walnut Creek Open Space 2 0 no ff,in,ma,rm X
MROSD 19 0 yes ff,le,ma,rm X 280 X X
Totals 22 11 3 18 20 21 11
Key to Abbreviations: le=Law Enforcement ma=Maintenance rm=Resource Mgt
ff=Fire Fighting in=interpretation fc=Fee Collection
EXHIBIT B
MROSD 1995 Page 1
ENFORCEMENT SURVEY
#of Rangers Law Enf Primary T e of A ointment Rangers Enforce: PD or Sheriff Enforce Request for Assistance
AGENCY fulltime partime Performed Duties peace public no park resource other state vehicle park state& vehicle all Response Time
officer officer a t. rules protection &local law code rules local laws code range averse code 3
City of Escondido 6 7 yes In,ma, ps X X X X X X X 30 to 60 40 5
Conejo Open Space 5 1 yes ma,In,rm X X X X X X 10 to 30 15
Conservation Agency
SC County Parks 40 52 yes In,me,rm X X X X X X X 5 to 30 15 10
East Bay Regional 55 20 yes Is only X X X X X X X X 10 to 30 15
Park Police
Hesperia Recreation& 2 10 yes patrol X X X X X X 5 to 20 10 5
Park District
City of Chico Parks 2 0 yes In,me X X X X X 3 to 30 5 2
City of Buena Vista 1 12 yes le,me,ps X X X X X 5 to 50 10 3
City of Lompoc 1 0 yes campgmd mgr X X X X X 3 to 15 5 5
State of Calif. Dept.of 638 73 yes in,rm,ps X X X X X X X X 1 to 30 15 5
Parks&Recreation
Merin Co.Open 13 4 no In,me,rm X X X X 1 to 30 10 5
Space District
Long Beach Parks 6 10 yes security X X X X X X X X X 3 to 5
Glendale Park Rangers 3 0 yes in,rm,pa X X X X X X X not available
City of Santa Cruz 4 6 yes In,me X X X X X X X X 5 to 60 10
Sacramento County 20 12 yes in,rm,ps X X X X X X X 10 to 15 15
Parks&Recreation
Merin Muni Water Dist 12 0 yes ff,ps X X X X X X X 10 to 60 30 20
LA County Park Police 83 0 yea se only X X X X X X X 5 to 15 10 5
MROSD 19 0 yes ff,le,ma,rm x x x x x x 5 to 60 30 5 to 30
17 Agencies Surveyed TOTALS 12 4 1 16 12 12 10 7 16 16 6
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS: Is : Law Enforcement ma - Maintenance ps =Public Safety fe Fee Co®sation
ff- Fire Fighting In -Interpretation mt a Resource Mgt
1
MROSD 1995 EXHIBIT B
ENFORCEMENT SURVEY Page 2
Most Frequent Common Criminal LE Training Annual Def Ranger Safety Item Checklist: Use Use of
AGENCY Park Violations Activity Requirement Tac Training baton mace pepper handcuffs body firearms shoulder Option Force
coil other spray armor microphone Def E ui policy
City of Escondido fishing w/o permit auto&campsite 44 0 X yeE
no parking burglaries
Conejo Open Space dog off leash vandalism/graffitti 40 2 X no
Conservation Agency orv, parking
SC County Parks boating rags, vandalism/graffitti 40 0 X sm n/f
dog off leash I
East Bay Regional leash law, auto burg,vandlsm POST 10 to 30 X X X X X X s
Park Police alcohol,curfew narc violations
Hesperia Recreation curfew,speeding none 3 semesters 12 X X X X soon X yes
&Park District
City of Chico Parks dog off leash, gangs,drugs 40 8 X X X m,sm,he no
alcohol,vehicles
City of Buena Vista after hours,alcohol vandalism/graffitti 96 8 X X X hc,baton no
vandalism
City of Lompoc leash law,graffitti alcohol violations 40 10 X X X no
defrauding Inkee er
State of Calif.Dept.of cutting vegetation vandalism,theft, POST 24 X X X X X X X X yes
Parks&Recreation Illegal camping disturb the peace
Merin Co.Open closures,ory none 0 0 X no
Space District
Long Beach Parks alcohol/DUI, alcohol/drugs 40 X X X X X X X yet
vehicular violations Pettv theft
Glendale Park Rangers alcohol,parking, vandalism,gangs, POST 16 X X X X X X yes
traffic violations drugs
City of Santa Cruz alcohol/drugs,dogs alcohol/drugs 220 8 l26 in X X X X X sm,baton yes
after hours
Sacramento County hunting/firearms, alcohol/drugs, 260 10 X X X X X X be
Parks&Recreation trespass,dos auto burg,vandl
Merin Muni Water Dist bicycle violations, same 280 20 (26 in) X X X X X am,ba yes
dogs,after hours
LA County Park Police alcohol/drugs, gangs,drugs POST 8 X X X X X X X yes
dogs,after hours vandalism
MROSD helmet violations, auto burg,firearms 280 12 X X yes
dogs,after hours drugs,false info
17 Agenda Surveyed TOTALS 3 10 6 12 14 9 8 11
I
• i
EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY F VIOLATIONS PER YEAR
SU Q OL ONS R
(Written warnings and citations)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1 . Bicycles 136 82 120 172 197 400
a. no helmet 203
b. speed 43
c. closed area 154
2. Camping 9 3 10 19 22 19
P 9
3. Campfires 7 5 18 18 7 12
4. Dumping/littering 1 7 13 11 11 18
5. Dogs - closed area 10 10 21 31 58 58
Dogs - off leash 45 33 82 1 92 76 52
6. Off road vehicle 21 22 41 39 26 20
7. Parking 106 136 119 180 173 114
8. Prohibited area/after hours 148 130 176 252 286 262
9. Swimming 2 0 9 10 1 0 0
10. Vandalism 32 13 14 13 27 19
11 . Weapons 14 19 12 26 10 16
12. Miscellaneous 79 40 118 44 59 121
13. Fishing 0 2 6
14. Parking after hours 9 48 105
TOTAL 610 500 753 942 1002 1222
Ranking by b total number of violations:
1 . Bicycles
2. Prohibited area
3. Parking
4. Dogs
i
EXHIBIT D
Page 1
1994 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activities
KEY
OS off District lands F&G CA Fish & Game
SO sheriff's office deputy CHP CA Highway Patrol
CP county park LGPD Los Gatos Police
SP state park
Date Nature of Incident Outcome Rangers Law Enf.
present assistance
Jan.
1 poss. of marijuana citation 1 none
9 poss. of firearm citation 2 none
15 off-road vehicle/warrant arrest arrest SO 1 1
Feb.
5 shell casings found none 1 none
6 poss. of firearm citation F&G 2 1
8 off-road vehicle/warrant arrest arrest LGPD 2 1
22 auto burlary arrest CP arrest SO 3 2
23 stolen vehicle recovery recovery CHP 1 1
24 propositioning for sex no cmpint filed 2 none
26 report of armed subject CP never found 3 4
March
6 indecent exposure CP unknown 2 none
15 spray paint graffiti police advised 1 none
15 drug abuse/first aid CP paramedic 2 1
19 marijuana cultivation plants removed 3 1
22 false info to peace officer citation 1 none
26 reported petty theft report taken 1 none
29 false info to peace officer citation 1 none
April
11 firearm/failure to yield info to SO 2 1
22 possible gang grifitti tag LE notified 1 none
24 poss. of firearm suspct contacted 1 1
27 trail closure/subject flees never contacted 1 none
30 human skull found OS SO investigates 2 several
May
27 poss. of marijuana citation 2 none
27 felt pen graffitti report taken 1 none
29 report of suspicious person CP never found 1 1
June
15 poss. of marijuana citation 2 none
16 intimidation suspct contacted 2 none
18 spotlighting/shot heard never found 3 3
EXHIBIT D
Page 2
June continued
26 intimidation suspect gone 2 none
July
4 poss. of marijuana CP verbal warning 2 1
10 assist Co. ranger/marijuana CP verbal released 2 none
23 occult ritual/after hours citation 3 none
23 report of suspicious vehicle suspect gone 1 1
24 poss. of pellet guns CP parking citation 2 6
Aug.
6 fire/poss. of marijuana citation 3 none
12 assault/attempted rape arrest 11 4
14 firearm/failure to yield suspect known I
14 poss. of firearm citation 2 none
21 search, family violence suspect CP never found 3 1
22 homocide off-site arrest none several
22 stolen vehicle/fire PA policelfire none unknown
24 pellet gun/warrant CP arrest SO 3 2
24 marijuana cultivation/warrant arrest SO 1 1
25 false info to peace officer citation 1 none
26 asst. SP ranger/firearms unknown 1 2
Sept.
2 poss. narcotics arrest SO 2 1
3 found marijuana cigarette report 1 none
5 false info to peace officer citation I none
17 asst. CP & SO w/crowd control unknown 5 several
26 known exhibitionist seen no contact 2 1
Oct.
3 false info to peace officer citation 1 none
5 poss. of marijuana/resisting arrest arrest SO 3 1
9 poss. of stolent vehicle OS arrest SO 3 2
Nov.
4 asst. SO arrest burglary suspct. OS arrest SO 1 1
4 camping/paroled felon citation 2 1
Dec.
I assist SO felony car stop OS wrong car I I
6 assist SO domestic disturbance CP never found 3 2
10 domestic violence victim OS report SO 1 1
11 assist CP after hours/pellet gun citation 2
11 found cultivation materials report taken 1 none
15 firearms discharge/warrant arrest 2 1.
19 suicidelfirearm coroner 3 3
19 attemped suicide/firearm OS rescue 3 2
Staff received reports of 32 auto burglaries in 1994.
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
s
PROGRAM STUDY AND
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING
SPECIALIZED PEACE OFFICER
i DESIGNATION FOR
CITY PARK RANGERS
pursuant to PC § 830.31
MARCH - 1997
elf di s r'% I w-
ov
�rya � o+-� �''� •
C. Stoney Brook
Consultant
P.O. Box 7408
Santa Cruz,CA 95061-7408
408.429.6573
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
PARK RANGER PROGRAM STUDY
March - 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction Page 1
II. Situation Analysis Page 4
III. Options Page 6
IV. Recommendations Page 8
APPENDIX .
A . Legal References
B . Hypothetical Operational Situations
C. Current Program Comments, Deficiencies and
Recommendations
D. Case Law summary
E . Sample City Ordinance - POST Program
F . Program Organizational Analysis
About the consultant
i
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Cruz has employed park rangers since
approximately 1988, initially in the primary role of preventative
security patrol and facility maintenance. With the later acquisition of
additional properties and the increases in public use, the role of the
rangers evolved toward a greater law enforcement focus. As the role
of the park rangers changed so did the nature and extent of their
duties, which assumed a more proactive profile in dealing with code
violations. The legal or official status of the city park rangers did not
keep pace with the changing expectations of service and increased
responsibility.
In the current city park ranger job description (dated 1/96) the
duties include "patrolling the (defined) area to prevent illegal entry,
... ensure public safety and compliance with federal state and local
rules, regulations and codes". The ranger is expected to "... issue ,
written warnings or citations; or make arrests (emphasis added) for
violations ...". Further, the ranger "... may be required to carry a
baton, pepper spray and/or firearm while on patrol" and be willing
to "wear a uniform". It can be surmised from these job descriptions
that there is an expectation the employee will perform proactive
policy enforcement, including the authority to overcome resistance,
which is by definition "law enforcement".
The city has inadvertently created some ambiguity by not clearly
defining the role and legal status of employees who are expected to
perform law enforcement-related duties. This ambiguity could cause
potential criminal and civil liability concerns as the city park rangers
are performing their current duties in a role considerably expanded
from that originally conceived without benefit of appropriate legal
authority.
i
Much of the confusion may arise from a common misunderstanding
of the terms "public officer and Peace officer and how these
titles/designations apply to municipal service personnel.
_ 1 _
O,
I -
i
I
I
i The terms "public officer" and "peace officer" are often used
interchangeably but do not carry the same meaning from a law
enforcement perspective. Simply stated, the public officer
designation generally assumes the enforcement of municipal codes
within a very narrow scope, such as parking, building, and health
code enforcement - those duties which they have a "duty to enforce".
A "public officer", as defined by the California Penal Code, is not
automatically synonymous with a "peace officer" although the
reverse is true - peace officers are always public officers.
This study examines the feasibility of officially designating city park
rangers as "specialized peace officers" as authorized by California
Penal Code 830.31. Briefly stated, this� y penal code section indicates
"a person designated by a local agency as a park ranger and
regularly employed and paid in that capacity, if the primary duty of
the officer is the protection of the park and other property of the
I agency and the preservation of the peace therein" is a "peace officer".
I While by state code definition the city park rangers are, in fact,
"peace officers", the appropriate action is for the city to take steps to
officially recognize and ratify this designation by ordinance.
I The legal authority for city park rangers to be considered only as
"public officers" is within the Penal Code, if the city wishes to very
narrowly define their role and authority (refer PC S§ 830.7-830.9,
831, 831.6, 836.5). Appendix A outlines relevant statutes in greater
detail.
It was noted during this study that the City of Santa Cruz has several
separate agencies performing similar duties, albeit in different roles,
and/or using the "ranger" title. Examples are the Water Department
(Loch Lomond) park rangers, the Beach rangers, and Community
Service Officers (CSOs) assigned to the Municipal Wharf. The study
does not address these agencies beyond to comment that their law
enforcement status, selection process, operational policies, and
trainingstandards should b considered
e co sidered in the same light as the
g
Parks and Recreation rangers described in this report.
- 2 -
i
I
Appendix B incorporates two hypothetical operational scenarios to
provide-a practical insight into the role of the city park ranger in
typical field situations. In the scenarios, the role of the ranger is
compared as a peace officer, a public officer, and as an interpretive-
maintenance employee.
The primary focus of this study is on the legal and operational
aspects of a "peace officer" designation rather than issues of benefits
such as wage scale and retirement. A review of the current program,
its deficiencies and suggested remedies to bring a "peace officer"
park ranger program into compliance with POST standards for
selection and training is incorporated in Appendix C.
The findings of this study are summarized in three options for
consideration and a recommendation. Regardless of any option
selected by the city, it is strongly recommended the city create a
comprehensive job description for park rangers which accurately
defines the employee's tasks and responsibilities, especially
limitations of authority. This cannot be over-emphasized in the
relevant areas of authority to arrest and use of force policy.
Several serious drawbacks attach to the lack of "peace officer"
designation for persons attempting to perform a primarily law
enforcement role. One concern is the inability of rangers to enforce
court orders, an authority clearly restricted by statute to peace
officers. Another concern is very limited legal access to criminal
history records when conducting an in-field contact. There is also the
strong possibility that park rangers conducting law enforcement
duties will be subject to' many physical hazards associated with
making arrests. Case law summaries related to selection g
trainin and
policy are provided in Appendix D.
_ 3 _
I
I
II. SITUATION ANALYSIS
Discussions were held with senior POST consultants regarding the
designation of "peace officer" for city park rangers. According to
POST's interpretation of current statutes, the city may designate park
rangers as "(specialized) peace officers" pursuant to Penal Code §
830.31 by ordinance. The city may elect, also by ordinance, to adopt
and participate in the POST program to certify and professionalize
the park ranger program. Appendix E provides a sample of this
ordinance.
i
Participation in the POST program provides certain benefits in terms
of access to training materials, litigation support and management
counseling. However, the city park rangers would be classified under
the non-reimbursable category of specialized peace officers. This
means the city Parks and Recreation Department rangers would not
be eligible for reimbursement with state POST funds for basic
academy or in-service training programs (refer PC § 13526). The
rangers currently attend POST-certified courses and would not be
precluded from continuing this practice.
The adherence to the selection and training standards is =optional
for designated peace officers (refer Government Code § 1029 et seq.).
In other words, any employee designated to perform peace officer
duties must comply with all applicable regulations. It may be
inferred that the regulations regarding minimal training will also
apply to employees designated as "public officers" if they expected to
issue citations or make arrests in the course of their duties.
Accordingto POST senior consultants compliance with the training
P g
set forth in PC § 832 (40 hours) is sufficient to meet the n2inimum
statutory requirements (emphasis added) for city park rangers to
exercise peace officer powers of arrest. There is currently no
statutory requirement city park rangers attend a full (880 hour)
Basic Course police academy. Refer to IV. Recommendations for
additional comments.
- 4 _
i
f -
As designated specialized peace officers, park rangers would be
required to complete continuing professional training of a minimum
of 24 hours every two years. It is noted in this study that the park
ranger program currently meets or exceeds this requirement.
Part-time and/or seasonal workers employed and designated as city
park rangers would be required to meet the same standards for
selection and training as full-time city park rangers.
Legal issues arise when a (non-peace officer/public officer) park
ranger physically restrains a person suspected of a crime, if in fact
} no crime has occurred or the person has not actually committed a
crime. Non-peace officers (private persons) have a very limited right
to detain or arrest for felonies on the basis of reasonable cause. The
penal code provides some liability protection for "public officers and
(government) employees" in effecting an arrest for crimes committed
in their "presence". The (non-peace officer) park ranger would be
exceeding legal authority by conducting any search of the person or a
vehicle, except to seize "offensive weapons" (PC § 846).
Appropriate legal action under these circumstances will generally be
to detain the suspect without use of force or restraint and to summon
the city police, not unlike a (non-sworn/private) security officer.
Of particular note is the practice of issuing non-peace officer
employees safety equipment such as handcuffs, batons, and aerosol
chemical agents. The issuing of such equipment may imply the
employer expects the employee to use these items to arrest, subdue, _
and restrain "suspects". Should the employee exceed their legal
authority, it may be inferred that this was encouraged by the
employer
er and the employee ma suffer in'iones in c out what
P YY l carrying
was implied or stated b p , y the employer as a job expectation.
The penal code provides the employee, whether peace officer or
public officer, has no obligation
ob ation to retreat maintains
right to self-
defense,
defense, and may use reasonable force to overcome resistance.
- g -
I
The peace officer who graduates from a basic academy and
undergoes regular recertification through in-service training is
generally less likely to use excessive force than one who has received
minimal instruction and little followup training. One of the first areas
examined in an excessive force litigation is the standard of training
and whether there was a failure to adequately train an employee.
The Santa Cruz County district attorney has operated under the
impression the city park rangers were considered "peace officers" for
the purposes of making arrests and conducting searches, unaware
that this classification has not been officially enacted by the city. This
creates some potential legal and liability issues which should be
• examined in greater detail by the city attorney and the district
attorney.
I _
The district attorney's office has quite stringent criminal case filing
standards demanding thorough investigations and concise report
writing, with an emphasis on meeting legal search and seizure
requirements. This is particularly true for issues involving resisting
arrest or assaulting an officer, which statutes apply only to peace
officers. These standards will not be waived or lowered for agencies
which perform law enforcement duties as a secondary function of
responsibilities. Again, the park ranger program currently meets or
' exceeds the district attorney reporting and legal compliance
standards.
During the study it was noted that the current program organization
structure allows little effective staffing flexibility. A program
organizational analysis and recommendation is incorporated in
Appendix F.
I 11. OPTIONS
Option A Maintain the status quo and consider the park rangers as
"public officers", which provides the authority to cite and release for
infractions and misdemeanors committed in the officer's presence.
(Refer PC § 836.5). In this status rangers should summon the city
police for physical arrests, searches of vehicles and persons, and the
service of court orders.
- 6 -
r
low
`
Arrests for suspected criminal acts not related to a municipal code
violation-which the employee has a "duty to enforce" will be subject
to close scrutiny by the district attorney and, undoubtedly, by
defense counsel. The city may be liable for false arrest and/or
excessive force suits if the park ranger exceeds their legal authority
(Refer PC §§ 836, 836.5, and 837).
The authorization for a "public officer" to enforce statutes and
ordinances and to make arrests should be made by an ordinance of
the governing body. [Refer PC § 836.5(a)(d)]
Option B Designate the city park rangers as "specialized peace
officers", as defined in PC § 830.311, by action of the city council and
implement the required POST standards for selection and training.
There is no statutory requirement that city park rangers be
designated "full-time peace officers" (24-hours per day) as with
municipal police officers or deputy sheriffs. Personnel policy may be
to designate the city park ranger as a "limited-duty peace officer"
and to carefully define the extent of authority. Even in "limited-duty"
status, city park rangers would have full statutory authority to
detain, arrest, cite, and conduct relevant field searches for
contraband but only while actually on duty.
As a peace officer, the employee retains certain immunities from
false arrest issues and persons being arrested are precluded from
using force against the park rangers in performance of their duties.
Option C Designate the city park rangers as exclusively functioning
in an interpretive and maintenance role. In this status the job
expectations are strictly and narrowly defined, and the employee
exceeds this limited role at personal peril of lawsuit. The park ranger
could not make arrests except as a private person, commonly called a
r PC 837 and then detain the suspect fora
"citizen's arrest",, (refer § ) p
citypolice officer. It should be emphasized that the use of PC 837
p P §
would be solely at the discretion of the employee, not as a job
requirement.
- 7 -
If the city specifically directs, or implies, the employee must utilize
the "private person" arrest process, the city assumes liability in false
arrest suits, false imprisonment criminal charges, labor/union
concerns and worker's compensation issues. This scenario creates the
most potential liability to all concerned.
It is very questionable that an employer could (or should) require an
employee to exercise powers granted a "private person" in
performing duties as a public servant. This is particularly true where
the employee is directed to go in harm's way, such as making an
arrest or working in isolated areas with limited response for
assistance, which could lead to physical danger or injury.
If the desired response level for the employee is only to issue
citations and make very limited arrests, they should be designated as
"public officers" and the enactment of an ordinance under authority
of PC § 836.5 (cited in Option A above) is appropriate.
I V. RECOMMENDATIONS: .
A. Based upon the foregoing analysis of the current City of Santa
Cruz Parks and Recreation Department Ranger program, it is
recommended that the City of Santa Cruz adopt by ordinance the
designated park rangers as "specialized (limited-duty) peace
officers"; and
B. The City of Santa Cruz adopt by ordinance the POST standards and
training requirements for all employees designated as city park
rangers (peace officers).
C . As "specialized peace officers" the requirements of PC § 832 et
seq., (Reserve Level III - 40 hour Laws of Arrest Course) combined
with comprehensive in-service training such as first aid/CPR and use
of force techniques, may be legally adequate.
However, the PC 832 training should be considered rudimentary at
best. This level of training simply does not provide the employee
with more than a very basic understanding of minimal legal concepts
and arrest control techniques. Little emphasis is placed.on practical
application of the principles, given the time constraints of the
curriculum.
- 8 -
r
Realistically, the employee and the public is placed at serious risk if
this is the full extent of training received prior to performing law
enforcement duties. It is prudent to seriously consider the additional
requirement of Reserve Peace Officer Level H training (102 hours) to
ensure further protection against litigation issues by increasing the-
knowledge and skill level of the employee.
There are numerous court cases which address the issues of
negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. Negligent
performance is commonly associated with a failure to train and/or
supervise. (Refer to Appendix D).
It is important the employer recognize, and accept, that providing
only minimal training or hiring standards will not provide a defense
against the inevitable civil torts and criminal complaints.
Every reasonable effort should be made to provide the highest level
of training and certification to protect the city, the employee, the
supervisor and the public against such legal actions. This is '
particularly true in areas involving vehicle operation, use of force,
and arrest/search issues.
Based on the draft Enforcement Policy reviewed and commented on
elsewhere in this study, the expected level of felony-related activity
for park rangers will be considerably less than that of city police
officers.
However, as the program is later evaluated for future enforcement
needs it will be appropriate to assess the possibility of increased
training standards. If the decision is made in the future to increase
the ranger enforcement profile from that assessed in this report,
such as including felony investigations, preparation and service of
warrants, or similar matters, the level of training expand and to
P
meet these needs. (Refer to Appendix C - #19).
- 9 -
a
If the job requirements expand beyond the current recommended
levels, it would then be strongly recommended that all full-time park
rangers be required to complete a Basic Course police academy,
either as a pre-employment qualification or completed within one
year of employment. Although not currently required, this level of
training would address the increased responsibilities and minimize
liability issues.
Another factor is the park rangers would then more closely interact
with peace officers of other agencies (e.g., police, sheriff,, highway
patrol, and state arks and the professional image of the rangers
P parks),
g g
should be considered. To limit the training e a nv to the absolute mi
nimal
basics places the park rangers in a less than ideal status with peers,
something of a "second-class" peace officer: 9 -
In this scenario, part-time and seasonal park rangers could continue
to perform their duties with the PC 832 and Reserve Level II
training described above, assuming they are under direct
supervision, unarmed and limited in f scope o their duties,
pe
D. Park rangers may be equipped with chemical agent aerosol
irritant projectors (e.g., MaceTm/OC-based Pepper spray) and batons, if
certified as required by applicable statutes and authorized by city
polic ...All uniformed ark rangers, regardless of shift or location
assignment, should be required to wear soft body armor while on
duty as a safe factor.
n'
E. The issuing of firearms is also a city policy decision, as it is not
mandated by state law that city Park rangers as specialized peac
e
officers be authorized to carry firearms. The law (PC § 830.31)
specifies the officers "may carry firearms only if authorized, and
under the terms and conditions specified by their employing agency".
However, the nature of park ranger duties that requires working
nights and in remote wooded areas, often inaccessible except by
horse or foot and precluding prompt assistance, may lend to careful
consideration to arming park rangers with firearms under specific
circumstances. Again, the need for comprehensive training,
qualification and records-keeping cannot be over-emphasized if
firearms or other weapons are issued.
- 10 -
r
F. The current park ranger policy manual draft is modeled after the
city police department manual, especially in reporting procedures,
use of force policies, arrest processing, and evidence handling
procedures. The manual is very comprehensive and in many ways
far better than those found in some larger municipal agencies. With
only minor editing, the manual will meet or exceed state (industry)
standards. (Refer to Appendix C - #16).
G. The recruit field training (FTO) program currently in use by the
park ranger unit is modeled on the San Jose Police format, which is
the accepted standard in California. While the ranger program meets
L many of the standards established by POST, it is recommended that
certain minor additions to the program be implemented to minimize
future personnel issues. Should the park rangers be designated as
specialized peace officers, the recruit training program should be j
submitted to POST for approval. (Refer to Appendix C - #14).
I
Currently, city park rangers receive additional training and
certification through the state Security Officer Course. While all
training tends to be beneficial, even if only to bolster the city's
position in possible litigation, the security officer training is
somewhat redundant to the PC 832 course.
H. Should the city chose to designate the park rangers as "specialized
peace officers", the current park rangers would be required to meet
all POST criteria for selection and training established for peace
officers.
The selection criteria includes a complete physical and psychological
examination aPe personal his
tory investigation,
a writ
ten on
and interview, and continued professional training as specified by
POST regulations.
The physical qualification criteria could be met by utilizing the same
examination imposed on city police officers and firefighters, with the
possible exception of color vision and visual acuity standards. The job
description and physical tasks of city park ranger should be carefully
analyzed to preclude the inclusion of physical standards that exceed
the job requirements.
- 11 -
I
r
It is the consultant's opinion that the current city ranger program
requires very little additional administrative effort and cost to bring
the selection process and employee records into full compliance with
the POST standards (refer POST Administrative Manual; Commission
Procedures C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 and Code of Regulations 1002).
- 12 -
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
PARK RANGER
Reports to: Chief Park Ranger or Supervising Park Rang
er
Supervises: Non-supervisory (May be assigned to supervise seasonal aides or act
as lead worker to temporary employees and volunteers)
Bargaining Unit: Service
BASIC FUNCTI O Y
Under supervision, this position assists with the protection, general maintenance and ,
enhancement of the recreation areas and facilities managed by the Water Department and
Parks and Recreation Department by patrolling the area, performing general maintenance
and improvement work, assisting with the enforcement of rules and regulations and
performing related work as required.
TYPICAL. DUTIES (Duties are applicable to a position based on the specific area of
assignment and may include but are not limited to the following:)
-Patrol the reservoir and/or recreation area by foot, boat, horse, or vehicle to prevent
illegal entry, provide fire watch protection, ensure public safety and compliance with
federal, state and local rules, regulations and codes.
-Interact with public; complete field interviews;issue verbal reprimands, written warnings,
or issue citations; or, make arrests for violations of the above.
-Assist with resource management by observing and reporting environmental hazards;such
as, slides and erosion, and disease and insect activity in trees. Recommend removal of
hazardous trees and eradication of undesirable flora.
-Promote goodwill among recreation area users including providing general information
about the recreation area and its facilities.
- Perform maintenance and repair work on facilities and structures such as minor
carpentry, plumbing and cement work, pruning and chain saw work. This may include,
but is not limited to:
-repair picnic areas such as benches, tables and barbecue pits,
-build, letter and paint road and related signs,
-build fences and railings,
-paint buildings and related structures,
-perform routine repair and maintenance of park store operations.
-Assist with the completion of improvement programs for the recreation area such as
building hiking trails and new recreation sites, picnic benches, seats, docks, fire pits.
-Operate light building equipment and related small and power tools as necessary for the
completion of various work projects.
-Prepare, develop and lead interpretive talks and hikes for park users, local schools and
the public. Lead junior ranger program.
-Open and close the recreation area and park store as required.
-Collect recreational area user fees, make deposits and maintain financial records.
-Supervise seasonal aides or act as lead worker to temporary employees and volunteers.
j - Act on behalf of the chief park ranger or supervising park ranger in his/her absence or
as delegated.
-May be required to carry a baton, pepper spray, and/or a firearm while on patrol, when
authorized by the department head.
-Perform related work as required.
Water Department:
-Assist with lake and fisheries management by monitoring the lake for temperature,
oxygen, algae-blooms or other plankton that could affect fish and water quality; develop
and improve spawning area for fish; and monitor fish for diseases.
-Train, supervise and assist park store staff in the preparation and sale of food items,
rental of boats .and equipment and maintenance of the various areas.
-Maintain inventory of supplies in the park store.
,May be assigned to perform certain work with the reservoir such as taking water samples,
measuring depth and rainfall and making visual inspections of the dam.
MINIMUM_ OUAL•IFICATIONS
Knowledge. Skills and Abilities
Working knowledge of:
-California State Fish and Game codes and ordinances and/or Federal, State, and local
codes and ordinances, as applicable.
-use of various band and power tools associated with groundskeeping, basic carpentry,
plumbing and general maintenance.
-proper safety procedures in handling toxic materials, power equipment and hand tools.
General knowledge of:
Water Department: Resource management and lakes and fisheries management.
Parks & Recreation: Parks and Recreation Facility programming and development.
Demonstrated ability to:
• -interact courteously and effectively with a wide range of different individuals and groups
from the community.
-interpret, apply and explain regulations, standards, policies and procedures.
-communicate clearly and concisely and make oral presentations.
-prepare detailed and concise written reports.
• perform heavy manual labor.
-work effectively independently or as a me
mber ate
P Y of am.
-coordinate,
0o dinate assign, direct and review w the
work of others.
-take accurate measurements and perform math calculati
ons ons and perform minor _
recordkeeping.
-apply sound judgment in potentially hazardous and crisis situations.
-follow written and verbal instructions.
-pass pre-employment physical and psychological exams.
Parks and Recreation:
-Ride and care for horses and maintain equestrian equipment.
2
Willingness to:
-wear a uniform.
-carry a baton and pepper spray.
- carry a firearm, as authorized by the department head.
-perform call-back, weekend, holiday and evening work as required, and work an irregular
work schedule.
Licenses/Certificates
-Possession at time of hire and continued maintenance of a valid California Class C
driver's license and a safe driving record.
-Completion of an approved Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) Level III reserve officer training course in firearms and laws of arrest (in
accordance with Penal Code Section 832).
• Possession of certification for emergency response first aid and CPR by end of
probationary period.
-Completion of approved baton and pepper spray certification by the end of the
probationary period.
Education and E=er rienee
Any combination of education and experience that provides the required knowledge, skills
and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain these qualifications would be:
-High school graduation.or GED, and six (6) months of experience as a park ranger or
general parks or facilities maintenance worker.
DESIRARL.E QUALIFICATIONS
-Degree or college level units in park maintenance, natural resources, forestry or
environmental science.
-Training or certification in wildland fire management.
-Completion of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Level H reserve officer
training.
Water Department:
-Water Treatment Plant Operator certificate.
Classification No: 248
Date of Issue: 1/96
Supersedes: 3/90
AA241
3
f
APPENDIX A
LEGAL REFERENCES
California Government Code § 1029 et seq. - Laws relating to
selection and standards for peace officer.
California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 1001. et seq. -
Establishes and defines minimum standards for peace officer
employment and training.
CCR § 1001.
(bb) "Specialized law Enforcement Agency" is:
(1) A segment of an agency which has policing or law
enforcement authority imposed by law and whose
employees are peace officers as defined by law; or
(2) An agency engaged in the enforcement of regulations or
was limited in scope or nature; or
(3) An agency that engages in investigative or other limited
law enforcement activities in the enforcement of criminal
law; and
(4) Authorized by the Commission to participate in the
Specialized Law Enforcement Certificate Program.
(cc) "Specialized Peace Officer" is .... a peace officer employee of a
specialized law enforcement agency authorized by the Commission to
participate in the Specialized Law Enforcement Certificate Program,
CCR § 1002.(a) Minimum Standards for Employment (summarized)
(1) Limits employment of convicted felons
(2) Fingerprint and Record Check
(3) Citizenship
(4) Age (minimum age 18 years)
(S) Moral character (determined by thorough background
investigation)
(6) Education (high school/GED or college degree)
(7) Physical and Psychological suitability
(8) Interview (oral interview to determine suitability for police
service)
(9) Reading and Writing Ability
CCR C 1004. (a) Every peace officer shall be required to serve in
probationary status for not less than 12 months.
California Penal Code § 830. 31 ... Park rangers ... - The following
persons are (emphasis added) peace officers whose authority extends
to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their primary
duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to any
public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to
person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that
offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government
Code. These peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized, and
under the terms and conditions specified, by their employing agency.
(b) A person designated by a local agency as a park ranger and
regularly employed and paid in that capacity, if the primary duty of
the officer is the protection of park and other property of the agency I
and the preservation of the peace therein.
California Penal Code §S 830.7-830.9, 831, 831.6 - Designates
certain persons as "public officers", not peace officers. (Note: Park
rangers are not included in these sections).
California Penal Code § 832 - Course of training prescribed by
(POST)
(a)`Every person described in this chapter as a peace officer shall
complete an introductory course of training prescribed by (POST). ...
Training in the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required of
any peace officer whose employing agency prohibits the use of
firearms.
(b) (1) Every peace officer described ... prior to the exercise of the
powers of a peace officer, shall have satisfactorily completed the
f trainin a
course o ... in ... .
(g )
Appendix A - Page 2
i
I
California Penal Code § 836 - Peace Officers; arrest under warrant;
i grounds for arrest without warrant
(a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant,
or ... without a warrant, ... whenever any of the following ... occur:
(1) The officer has reasonable cause to believe the person ...
committed a public offense in the officer's presence.
(2) The person committed a felony, although not in the officer's
presence.
(3) The officer has reasonable cause to believe the person ...
committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been
committed.
Additional subsections instruct the officer in the procedures for
enforcing court protective orders in domestic violence issues.
California Penal Code § 836.5 - Public officers and employees; .
arrest without warrant
(a) A public officer or employee, when authorized by ordinance,
i may arrest a person without a warrant whenever he has reasonable
cause to believe that the person ... has committed a misdemeanor in
hiepresence which is a violation of a statute or ordinance which the
officer or employee has the duty to enforce.
(b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, ... , any public
officer or employee acting ... within the scope of his authority for
false arrest ... of any arrest ... which ... the employee had reasonable
cause to believe was lawful. No ... officer or employee shall be
deemed an aggressor or lose his right of self-defense by the use of
reasonable force to effect the arrest, prevent escape, or overcome
resistance.
(d) The governing body of a local agency, by ordinance, may
authorize its officers and employees who have the duty to enforce a
statute or ordinance to arrest persons for violations ... as provided in
subdivision (a).
Appendix A - Page 3
California Penal Code § 837 - Private persons; authority to arrest
A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in
his presence.
3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
Note. One principle difference between peace officer and private
person arrest is found in section #3 of both statutes- the officer can
arrest whether or not a felony has been committed, the private
person arrest requires a felony in fact be committed. The second
difference is the warrant arrest, which may be done only by a peace
officer.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "Public Officer" - An officer of a
public corporation; that is, one holding office under the government
of a municipality .... One occupying a public office created by law. One
of the necessary characteristics of "public officer" is that he (she)
perform a public function for public benefit and in so doing he (she)
be vested with exercise of some sovereign power of state. Leymel v.
Johnson, 103 Cal. App. 694, 288 P. 858, 860.
Appendix A - Page 4
1A
APPENDIX B
HYPOTHETICAL OPERATIONAL SITUATIONS
The following hypothetical situations are presented to provide
practical insight into the role of the city park ranger in common field
incidents, with comparison of the three options offered in the
analysis.
STIUATION: The ranger observes twoo men seated in a automobile
within the park property. The driver is seen to throw an empty beer
can into the grass next to the vehicle.
1. "Public Officer" - The ranger can contact the driver and cite for
littering, a municipal code violation. If the ranger can plainly observe
an open container of beer in the vehicle, a cite for possession of
alcohol in a park may also be issued. The ranger cannot legally
physically search the vehicle interior for additional contraband or
check the occupants for weapons. The occupants can be detained only
long enough to reasonably complete the citation process. `
The ranger has no means to determine if the vehicle or its occupants
are wanted by other authorities or if the occupants have a history of
P I`Y
violence, due to lack of criminal history access. The best course of
action is usually to call the local police for assistance.
Only if the driver refuses to sign the citation and/or physically
assaults the ranger can an arrest be made. An assault or battery on
the ranger would be a misdemeanor.
2. "Peace Officer" - The ranger may check the vehicle license for
being stolen or wanted. Based on the beer can being observed
thrown from the driver's window and smelling of beer, the ranger
can examine the vehicle interior for more contraband. The occupants
can be compelled to provide identification and checked for criminal
wants or history. If total circumstances warrant, the ranger may
search the occupants to verify they are not armed.
Should the occupants refuse to cooperate, the ranger may arrest for
misdemeanors. If the ranger is assaulted, the punishment is double
that of the usual charge. Battery (actually striking the ranger) is a
felony.
f
3. "Interpretive and Maintenance"
- The ranger should request a city
Police officer respond if a violatio
n is suspected. The ranger sho
uld
note a complete description of the vehicle and occupants, serving as a
witness for the police.
An alternative is the ranger assume a role of informing the occupants
of the park policies, requesting they pick up their litter and possibly
requesting they leave the area. Again, the contact with the occupants
does not provide a margin of safety for the ranger.
SITUATION: The ranger contacts a person camping in a small tent
in a restricted area.
1. "_Public Officer" - The ranger may opt to have the person move the
tent from the area and/or issue a citation for the appropriate
municipal code violation. The ranger cannot search the person or the
tent, nor detain the person longer than necessary to complete a
reasonable contact. The person cannot be compelled to identify
themselves and the ranger cannot check for weapons, when knives
and similar devices are common items among campers.
If the person has an arrest warrant, a city police officer must be
summoned.
1
2. "Peace Officer" - As above, the ranger may cite and/or request
the tent be removed. The ranger can also search the person for
weapons and obtain identification. In some instances, the interior of
the tent may be checked for weapons or contraband. A wanted
person and criminal history check may be conducted. If the person
has warrants an arrest may be made.
3. "Interpretive and Maintenance" - The ranger can either
summon a city police officer to cite for the violation or elect to ask
the camper to vacate the area. The ranger has no authority to cite,
detain or search the person.
If physically attacked, the ranger has the right to self defense and to
arrest as a private person.
1n
APPENDIX C
CURRENT PROGRAM COMMENTS, DEFICIENCIES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Probationary period Code of Regulations § 1004 (a) requires a
12 month probationary period for all peace officers. The current
probationary period in the park ranger position is six months. It is
recommended that the city notify the employees the change of status
to specialized peace officer imposes a 12 month probationary period
beginning with the effective date of the city ordinance creating the
new position designation. This period will allow the city to evaluate
the individual employee performing new, or expanded, duties and
authorities. Employees who decline to participate in the program
may be given the option to transfer to other assignments within the
city which do not have peace officer status, if this is an option
permitted by city policy and/or labor agreements.
2. Background investigation file A review of the current park .
ranger personnel files shows that three senior and four
temporary/seasonal employees do not have background packets.
POST will not allow a "grandfather" clause for newly appointed peace
officers. Therefore, each employee will require a comprehensive
background investigation as described in the POST Administrative
Manual, Section C-1. POST will generally allow a reasonable "grace
period" for newly designated agencies to achieve compliance.
As many of the park ranger employees have recently undergone
backgrounds through other law enforcement agencies, the current
background investigations, vendor can update the employee's file
with minimal expense and time.
There is a tendency for some agencies to minimize the extent of
background investigations, usually based on the premise the
employee will be performing a "lower level" of law enforcement-
related duties. This is common in agencies utilizing community
service officers, evidence technicians, or similar public officer
personnel.
Appendix C - Page 1
r
The principal flaw in this concept is these personnel generally have
access to confidential materials, such as criminal histories or physical
evidence, and frequently transition to become regular officers. To
ensure the integrity and professionalism of the program, all law
enforcement-related personnel should be examined to the same
exacting standards.
It is recommended the agency prepare a personnel and training file
to be retained in a secure environment within the agency. This file
should contain all pertinent information relative to the employee's
peace officer status for review during POST audits. Minimally, this
information should include the background packet, fingerprints,
certification documents, and recruit field training results. Duplicate
information may be transferred to the employee's city personnel file.
3. Summary Report Each background investigation must have a
written-summary report, indicating the findings of the investigator.
This report should include a written recommendation by the
department head. The newer park employees who have been
backgrounded currently have these summary reports in their files.
4. Fingerprint cards Each employee is required to be
fingerprinted and a records check completed through state and
federal files [Government Code §§ 1030 & 1031(c)]. It is
recommended that minimally a photocopy of these cards be retained
in the agency personnel and training file. It is further recommended
that the agency pay the "expedite processing" fee to the state which
minimizes the turn-around time for peace officer fingerprint cards.
I
The current park ranger employees have fingerprints on file but
there is no verification of their clearances.
S. Photograph in file While not a statutory requirement, it is
t
recommended that the agency maintain a current color photograph
of each employee within the personnel and training file. Photos are
useful in providing press re
leases,
ses
� commen
dation
s, and in the
complaint process.
Appendix C - Page 2
■
r
low
r ,
6. Written Exam The current process of written examination to
determine writing and reading ability meets the POST standards,
although it is recommended the city formally adopt the POST Entry-
level Law Enforcement Test Battery by Cooperative Personnel
Services for the purposes of standardization during future
recruitment. This standard must be applied to full and part-time
employees.
7. Oral Interview The current oral interview panel process meets
the POST standards. Although not a POST procedural requirement, it
is recommended the department head personally interview all
prospective candidate finalists prior to making an offer of
employment. This step in the hiring process is currently handled at
the first-line supervisor level.
8. - Medical Evaluation It is recommended the city carefully
evaluate the medical standards for park ranger, using the police
officer and firefighter requirements as a base line [Government Code
§ 1031(f)]. Currently, park rangers are given the same physical
assessment as other non-law enforcement city employees. The
nature of the park ranger assignment should require a higher
standard of physical condition than many other municipal job
descriptions. As noted elsewhere in this report, the requirements for
color vision and uncorrected visual acuity are standards which may
be determined by the hiring authority.
In this instance, the medical evaluator must certify the employee
being reclassified is suitable for law enforcement duties.
9. Psychological Evaluartton Government Code § 1031(f) requires _
psychological suitability tests be conducted within one year before
hire. Park rangers who are already on staff at the point of transition
to peace officer status would still be required to undergo a
psychological assessment..It does not appear that any of the current
park ranger staff have undergone a psychological assessment prior to
employment. It may be presumed there are a number of other city
employees in the various parks who are performing "peace officer"
tasks without this evaluation.
Appendix C - Page 3
FF g
i
f �
Personnel who have been ass 'thin the preceding 12 months
assessed within p ec g
would be exempt, upon receipt of a copy of the evaluation showing
an emotional and mental suitability for the position.
A concern for many employers is the possibility that the reclassified
employee may not "pass" this evaluation and subsequently create
labor issues. It must be emphasized that the retention of a
potentially unsuitable employee will ultimately create more concerns
than the re-assignment of the employee.
While the requirement for the psychological evaluation is not
negotiable, it should be noted the employer has some latitude in
determining what is an acceptable criteria for retention, since the
evaluation results give areas of concern rather than a diagnosis. For
example, an employee evaluated as "immature" may be considered
adequate for retention, if the employer desires to focus training and
mentoring-to compensate for this characteristic.
An employee who is evaluated as having emotional instability, a
tendency to abuse others or authority, or towards substance abuse
may be considered a much higher risk. The best philosophy is to
evaluate each employee on a case-by-case basis, using the results of
the comprehensive background investigation as an objective
resource.
Legally and practically, an employer should desire to recognize those
psychological indicators that may identify an-,employee who may be
unsuited to exercising the use of force, exhibits anti-social behavior,
or may have difficulty in high-stress situations. Should the employer
Y tY g
desire these characteristics not be identified, and appropriately
addressed, then there should be consideration to re-defining the
entire program and its functional limits.
10. Physical Agility. Test The nature of park ranger work,
especially in the areas of maintenance, fire suppression, patrol
duties, and arrest control, requires a high level of physical ability
and endurance. It is recommended that the park ranger selection
process be modified to include testing to ensure the candidates
possess the minimal physical ability to safely perform the required
tasks. Currently, a physical agility test is not part of the selection
process.
Appendix C - Page 4
r
11. Oath of Office Should the city elect to formally adopt the status
of peace officer for park rangers, it is recommended the oath of office
be initially performed by the mayor or city clerk during a regular
council session. This formality lends a sense of professional pride and
is a clear statement of commitment to the new program. Future
appointments may be performed by the city clerk.
12. Notice of Appointment All peace officer appointments and
terminations require the agency notify POST within 30 days of such
action. POST provides Form 2-114 in the Administrative Manual
(PAM) for this purpose. This procedure is not currently a
requirement for the park ranger program.
13. Job Description The current job description (dated 1t96) was
reviewed. It was noted this description is generic for the Parks and
Recreation and for the Water Department. While many of the tasks
may be similar, the roles and philosophies of the two agencies may
be quite different. It is recommended that the city prepare two
distinct job descriptions for these agencies, carefully delineating the
peace officer (versus non-peace officer) status and duties.
The current job description does not address what may be key job
requirements such as the ability to traverse rough terrain, to sit and
stand for long periods, to perform fire suppression and animal
• control, to participate in the city emergency response program, and
to perform duties in inclimate weather for extended periods.
14. Recruit Field Training Program The current training
program is based on the San Jose Police/POST model, which is widely
accepted as an industry standard and has prevailed in numerous
litigations. Recruit training programs based on this model are used
by virtually all law enforcement agencies in Santa Cruz County.
The park ranger program presently meets many of the following
recommendations, which are included in this report to re-emphasize
their collective importance to meeting the high standards expected of
in-service training. Other city agencies which provide services
similar to the park ranger program would be well advised to model
their field training after the curriculum
Appendix C - Page 5
Tra=g Program Recommendations:
• Ensure that all personnel involved in the training process,
including supervisors, be certified in the POST Field Training Officer
Course (40 hours). Supervisory and management-level staff should
complete the Training Management Course. This is currently in
progress and is expected to be completed by June, 1997.
• Provide that the recruit be exposed to several trainers during
the process. This allows for a variety of learning methods and
minimizes overly subjective or biased evaluations of performance.
This is currently the practice in the local ranger program
• Implement a recruit summary progress report for every 80
hours of training (often called a "phase board"), reviewed by a
supervisor and an staff employee other than the trainer. This report
should incorporate an action plan to correct any training deficiencies.
A very similar procedure is used in the ranger program but does not
currently include the formal reporting process that should be ,
implemented.
• Prepare a written summary and recommendation at the
completion of training, reviewed and signed off by the trainer,
supervisor, and department head. The present program lacks the
review and signature of the department head
• Establish a process for the recruit to provide a written
evaluation of the program and the trainer(s) for review by the
department head. As with any evaluation, the recruit must be
assured of confidentiality and freedom from reprisal. This is not
present•,y a formal portion of the training process.
i
• Submit the program to POST for evaluation and certification.
This cannot be done until the agency has applied for POST
certification, following
catio 0 owin adoption of a "specialized ace officer
g P Pe peace city
ordinance.
1 S. Age and Citizenship Th
8 tiz�shi� a minimum age standard of It years
and the citizenship requirement is currently'met by city policy.
Appendix C - Page 6
i
I i
I
i
16. Policy and Procedures Manual The draft document lubmitted
to the consultant for review is compatible with the current manual
utilized by the Santa Cruz Police Department, although carefully
edited to address the unique duties and needs of the park rangers.
Several incorporated sections of the manual are job-specific to
�A specialized ranger duties, such as mounted (equestrian) patrols.
The draft policy manual as reviewed requires very little additional
editing and minimal expansion on certain topics to meet industry
standards. It is the consultant's opinion the draft product reviewed
represents an exceptional example and a model of a small agency
operational and procedures manual.
17. Organizational Structure
The present organizational structure is not compatible with effective
supervision nor does it represent the best use of existing human
resources. The ranger program, like many 7-day/24-hour programs,
creates some unique situations.
There is a tendency to assess staffing based on the classic "8-hour, 9-
to-5, Monday through Friday" duty model. In this case, there is one
supervisor to three full-time employees, plus the two 10-month and
six temporary/on-call staff. On paper, this represents an acceptable
"span of control" picture. The difficulty arises when one considers the
hours, services and geography that is involved.
The current program has the supervising ranger functioning as a
first-line supervisor, a trainer, a facilities and logistics manager, an
administrative and program development person, and as an after-
hours resource to park patrol staff. At some point, the supervisor
ceases to be fully effective in any of these myriad tasks. In this
program review, it became apparent the park ranger supervisor has
been tasked with duties beyond the normal for this level of
supervision.
Recognizing the limited financial resources, the immediate resolution
might be to create a defined mid-management (command) position
from the present supervising ranger job, focusing on the operational
function of the program. These duties might include policy and
procedure development, training program management, personnel
evaluation, procurement, liaison, etc.
Appendix C - Page 7
it
APPENDIX E
SAMPL
E ORDINANCE
Ordinance Number
An ordinance accepting the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training selection and training requirements for peace
officers employed by the City of Santa Cruz as City Park Rangers
pursuant to Government Code Title 1, Division 4, Chapter 1, Article 2,
Section 1029 et seq.
Section 1. The City of Santa Cruz declares that it desires the
peace
officers employed by the Department of Parks and Recreation as City
Park Rangers participate in the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training Specialized Non-reimbursable Program.
Section 2. The City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department
will adhere to the standards for selection and training established by
the Commission.
Section 3. The Commission and its representatives may make such
inquiries as deemed appropriate by the Commission to ascertain that
the City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department peace officer
personnel adhere to the standards for selection and training
established by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training.
Adopted this date by the following called vote:
(certification)
Signatures
� r
o
APPENDIX F
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
The following recommendations are based on discussions with park
ranger staff and management, and reflect projected needs for the
ranger program through F/Y 2001-2. The draft organizational chart
incorporated in this analysis suggests possible staffing combinations
which provides adequate personnel for existing facilities while
allowing for the flexibility to make assignments as program needs
and priorities change.
The classic organizational structure in law enforcement agencies is
based on tasks, such as patrol, administration or investigations,
rather than other formats. In this study, it was agreed the most
effective and efficient format was focusing on the geographical and a
seasonal use criteria, with an emphasis on flexibility. Although the
traditional peak season in Santa Cruz is primarily March 1 through
November 1, the daily use of many city park areas is now year-
round.
Another consideration was providing substantial organizational
flexibility, allowing management to move personnel to areas which
have intense staffing needs for very limited times, such as holidays
or special events. Further, the various rangers can provide a relief
factor for training, vacations, illness and other absences. For example,
the (hypothetical) Ranger I:positions could be moved to other sites or
even assigned to other agencies, such as the police department,
during special events or projects.
Another unique example of this flexibility is in the (hypothetical)
Ranger III position designated for the Beach/Wharf/Ilghthouse.
During the four month "low season" this person could prepare
training plans, assist in policy development and budgeting, and
supervise major repair projects.
Appendix F - Page 1
There is also the need to provide increased field supervision,
especially in an environment with high incidents of public contact.
The failure to adequately train and/or supervise employees is the
basis of many major law suits against public agencies.
Another identified need was to reduce the amount of micro-
management duties required of the current ranger supervisor,
spreading these daily tasks over several subordinates.
Job Descriptions
To prepare a hypothetical organizational chart which projects this
flexibility it was necessary to create new job designations and
definitions for ranger positions, many of which do not presently
exist. To aid the reader, these new "job positions" are described as
follows:
Ranger IV: Mid-management level, equivalent to the rank of ,
lieutenant in a law enforcement agency. Responsible for
planning, budgeting and controlling daily field operations of the
ranger program
In addition to PC 832/Reserve Level II, minimum training for
this position should include the POST field training officer,
supervisory and management courses.
• Ranger III: Supervisory level, equivalent to the rank of
sergeant in a law enforcement agency. Responsible for first-line
supervision, training and scheduling of subordinate staff.
Prepares preliminary budgets; schedules and prioritizes
maintenance tasks for assigned area; supervises habitat
management.
Performs field duties, including patrol, and provides relief
factor for other Ranger positions. Prepares emergency response j
plans and may serve as Incident Commander for assigned sites.
Ranger III training should include the POST field training
officer and supervisory courses.
Appendix F - Page 2
I
i
• Ranger It Journey level, equivalent to the position of patrol
officer in a law enforcement agency. After field training,
capable of working with limited or minimal supervision, except
in unusual circumstances. May be responsible for the training
and/or supervision of Ranger I, docent, work release or similar
positions. This position may be full- or part-time, seasonal, or
ten-month assignments.
Ranger H training should minimally include PC 832 and
Reserve Level H courses. After successful completion of
probation, a Ranger II should attend the POST field training
officer course.
Ranger k Entry-level or basic position, working under direct
supervision of a Ranger H or HI. Persons in this class would
supplement the regular ranger services with the primary
responsibility to assist the public, provide safety services,
efiforce only city municipal code infractions (as assigned), and
to observe and refer on incidents requiring an enforcement
action.
Personnel in this position should have a minimum of Reserve
Level M (PC 832) training and first aid/CPR, although training
through the Reserve Level H is encouraged. Despite some
redundancy of PC 832 and the Security Officer Course, this
training might be ideal for personnel who have a primary role
to observe and report, rather than initiate proactive
enforcement.
• As noted above, personnel in all positions should have a
minimum of Reserve Level H training to minimize liabilty
issues based on failure to train. Following the recommendations
in the primary report on this project, all rangers would be
designated as "limited duty peace officers".
• One possible option is to designate the Ranger I as a "public
officer" (refer to PC S 836.5), the equivalent of which in a law
enforcement agency would be a community service officer. As
noted in the primary park ranger study, this would require an
separate action by the city, unless this were included in the
original proposal.
Appendix F - Page 3
' r
Geographical areas of supervision
The Regional Parks area includes the 28 separate facilities located
throughout the City of Santa Cruz.
The Open Space area includes Pogonip, Arana, Jessie Street Marsh,
the unimproved portions of DeLaveaga Park, and the San Lorenzo
River Corridor.
The third area is
the Beach/Wharf/Lighthouse Field, with the
additional supervisory responsibility of the (proposed) animal
control program.
Appendix F - Page 4
II'�
Parks Recreation Dept. �I
Director
February 3, 1997
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PARK RANGER PROGRAM Parks Division
ORGANIZATIONAL. CHART PROPOSAL Division Manager
Program Manager
Ranger IV
Regional Parks Open space Parks Beach/lighthouse/Wharf
Ranger NI L Ranger NI Ranger Ni
Ranger N Ranger N (Mounted) Docent _ Animal Control
x 4 tr► x 4 tjt Volunteers x 2.5
Ranger N Ranger N Work Release
x 2 / 10-month v) x 4 / Seasonal Program Ranger 0 Ranger N - Wharf
x2.5 x1.S
Notes
11) Swirg(nW)Shut-dix"s unit Ranger I -Beach Ranger I-Lighthouse
121 Day Shin-sincj19 unit x 10 / Seasonal tot x 2 / 10 month
131 Perkww maintenanas and patrd
141 May to assigned 10 VMtuatJLV*arse as required
About the consultant ...
C. "Stoney" Brook is a long-time resident of Santa Cruz County and
has served as a California peace officer for over 28 years.
Mr. Brook .was a deputy sheriff and sergeant for the Santa Cruz
County Sheriff-Coroner for 14 years, followed by 10 years as a senior
criminal inspector with the district attorney's office. Mr. Brook
retired from active law enforcement duty as a chief of police for the
West Valley-Mission College District Police in Santa Clara County.
During his law enforcement career, he was known for his
investigation of high-profile cases such as David Carpenter - the
"Trailside Killer", the murder of Father Karastamatis, the Golden
Dragon international drug smuggling ring and many others.
Mr. Brook is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, with
specialization in management and police training. He holds a bachelor
degree in public administration from the University of San Francisco,
with other extensive course work in criminal justice topics. He has
earned POST Advanced, Supervisory and Executive certificates.
For over 25 years Mr. Brook has been a trainer in criminal justice
subjects, at numerous community institutions, including Cabrillo,
Gavilan, and Evergreen Colleges, and law enforcement agencies. He
has lectured for police academy, university-level courses, and
community organizations. He has been a presenter for the California
Department of justice, the California Homicide Investigator's
Association and on television.
Mr. Brook has developed many law enforcement policy development
projects, including the county sheriff policy manual, report writing
procedures, recruit field training program, and firearms training
program. He assisted in writing the grant proposal for the county-
wide crime analysis unit (C-CAP) and participated in a heroin abuse
analysis for the National Office of Drug Policy.
i
Mr. Brook is currently a licensed private investigator and criminal
justice program consultant. He also serves as a director and volunteer
on local community service boards, including the Boys and Girls Club,
Triad (drug and alcohol counseling), the Skills Center and several
others.
I�
Z 9 APR 97 15 31
SANTA CLC4, COUNTY
PARKS ViC P,EAT10N
r .
i
II
i
I
w
x
i
-boc. GW
THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIZED
POLICE AGENCIES
IN CALIFORNIA
Due to the numerous requests for assistance and the lack of
understanding or education regarding specialized police, their
authority and function, the Specialized Police Association
Coalition ( SPAC) of PORAC has compiled a narrative including codes,
sections and Attorney General ' s Opinions entitled The Evolution of
Specialized Agencies in California.
This information will help police association leadership,
department management, and members of the .legislature, understand
e
the role and authority of specialized police.
The end result should be harmony between police unions,
management and the municipal agencies that specialized police
interact with. This will insure providing the best, most
Professional police services to the con-nunity and the agencies
which employ specialized police.
In 1982, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearincs
regarding AB 3764, the first school police bill, Senator Ed Davis
summed up the whole problem regarding the recognition of
specialized police:
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like
a duck, it ' s a duck ! "
THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIALIZED POLICE AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA
"During the mid-to-late 70' s, spei:ialized police agencies such as
School Security Departments, * Transit Authority, County Security
Departments and other governmental security departments began to
sets an increase in their work-loads and responsibilities.
Generally designed to be "observe and report" security departments,
the officers of these departments were beginning to get involved in
hands-on law enforcement and protective services . Local city and
county police agencies were over-worked and understaffed, causing
these "security officers" to make arrests, book prisoners, take
crime reports, just like the real police.
Prior to 1980 these officers listed in Section 830.4 of the
California Penal Code were limited peace officers. These officer' s
involvement with career criminals and gang members put them at risk
while off duty the same as any city police officer or county
sheriff. But these officers were not allowed to carry a firearm
off duty because they were limited (while engaged in the
performance of their duty) peace officers. These officers had no
peace officer authority off duty.
Listed below is Section 830.4 Penal Code from a 1978 California
Penal Code.
830.4 Security personnel, special police, guards, etc. , are peace
officers. Authority of same. ( a) The following persons are
peace officers while performance of the
duties of their respective _2�.m�pio employment.
Many specialized governmental agencies security departments
contacted the State Legislature, requesting expanded peace officer
authority to better protect that agencies property, personnel and
patrons.
In 1980, the State Legislature passed SB 1447 (Presley) , which
excanded the authority of the limited peace officer. This new
• 2
section read as follows:
830.4 Security personnel, special police�, ua�rds, etc. , are peace
officers. Authority of same. ( a) The following persons
are peace officers while engaged in the performance of their
duties in or about the properties owned, operated or admini-
stered by their employing agency, or when they are required
by their employer to perform their duties anywhere within
the political subdivision which employs them. Such officers
shall also have the authority of pe ce officers anywhere in
the state as to an offense committed, or which there is
probable cause to believe has been committed, with respect
to persons or property the protection of which is the duty
of such officer or when making an arrest pursuant to Section
836 of the Penal Code as to any public offense with which
there is an immediate danger to person or property or of the
escape of the perpetrator of the offense. Such peace
officers may carry firearms only if authorized by and under
such terms and conditions as are specified by their
employing agency;
As you can see, there is no question that the authority of the
830.4 Penal Code peace officer has been expanded.
However, like so many things related to the law, this section was
interpreted in many different ways. The worst culprits were the
agencies themselves. They were still telling their officers they
were 8 hour peace officers and that they had no peace officer
authority off-duty and that they had no CCW authorization off-duty.
As a result, specialized peace officers were arrested for carrying
a concealed weapon, impersonating a peace officer, etc. One thing
became very clear, the title ,security" was a detriment to the
peace officers of the Los Angeles School District as well as to
other governmental security agencies. This title did not
accurately reflect their peace officer authority or command the
respect needed to perform their duties. These problems and
questions are what generated some of the enclosed Attorney
General ' s opinions.
• 3
In 1982, PORAC sponsored AB 3764, the first School Police "name
change" bill . This measure convinced the State Legislature that
the title "Security" actually caused violent confrontations between
School Security Agents and suspects. Suspects, and the public in
general, equated the name "Security" to that of some no-authority
security guard standing in front of a Thrifty Drug Store.
This piece of legislation was passed and took effect on January 1,
1983, allowing school districts to either have sworn police
officers or non-sworn . security personnel under Education Ccde
Section 39670 and 39671 .
In answer to this law, the Los Angeles School District ignored it
because AB 3764 didn't change the language in Section 830.4 of the
Penal Code, which referred to School District Security Departments.
-In 1983, AB 2108 was introduced. This measure amended Section
8330.4 Penal Code, Section 39671 of the Education Code and other
related sections. This measure was passed and took effect on
January 1, 1984. (This is when the Los Angeles School District
Security Department officially became a police department) .
Section 830.4 of the Penal Code referred to school police officers.
Also amended in AB 2108 was Section 39671 of the Education Code.
Originally, 39671 of the Education Code stated that persons
employed by the police department of a school district were peace
officers but only for the purpose of their employment. This
section was amended to state that peace officers of a school
district police department were peace officers as defined in
Section 830.4 Penal Code. This brought the Education Code and the
Penal Code in sync to reflect the expanded authority.
In 1984, Los Angeles County Safety Police Association was
successful in running a similar name change bill, changing the
reference to County Security in Section 830.4 to Los Angeles County
Safety Police.
Los Angeles County refused to change the name of these peace
officers . As a result, the Los Angeles County Safety Police
Association filed a lawsuit and won. The County chanced the name
of the security Officers to Safety Police in 1987.
over the years, there have been a number of bills passed to include
specialized police in different sections of the Penal Code such as
assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer and the 'Insurance
Code exemption from reporting on-duty accidents to their private
insurance companies.
Even with these changes, there have still been a lot of different
interpretations of the authority of specialized police officers.
At the same time, the crime rate was steadily increasing and
specialized agencies (School police, Transit, Airport, Housing, Los
Angeles County Safety police and others) were experiencing a heavy
workload and expanded responsibilities. These agencies were doing
their own investigations, filing their own cases, writing search
and arrest warrants, and conducting other related "real" police
work.
In 1989, the State Legislature and POST conducted a public hearing
regarding a revision of the 830 Section of the Penal Code relating
to peace officer authority. In 1989, PO.IRAC introduced SB 353
(Presley) which passed the legislature and took effect on January
1, 1990. SB 353 expanded the authority of peace officers
classified in Penal Code Section 830.4. These officers
were re-classified into a "primary Duty" section starting with
Section 830.31 through 830.37 of Penal Code.
Sections 830.31 through 830.37 of Penal Code reads as follows;
The following persons are peace officers whose authority
extends to any place in the state for the purpose of
performing their primary duty or when making an arrest
pursuant to Section 836 as to any public offense with respect
to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or
5
of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense, or pursuant
to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code. Those peace
officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under terms
and conditions specified by their employing agency.
The main intent of this legislation was to better define the
authority of those listed peace officers and to eliminate the
various interpretations of Penal Code Section 830.4.
"Primary Duty" indicates that the listed peace officer has other
duties. His "Primary Duty" is that of providing peace Officers
duties to his/her employing agency. The other duties of this peace
officer are the protection of life and property as defined in
Penal Code Section 836.
Penal Code Section 836 reads as follows:
Peace officers: arrest under warrant; grounds for arrest without
warrant
A peace officer may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant, or
may, pursuant to the authority granted him by the provisions of
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
1. Whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed a public offense in his
presence.
2. When a person arrested has committed a felony, although
not in his presence.
3. Whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or
not a felony has in fact been committed.
If you compare Section 830. 31, etc. and Penal Code Section 836 to
830. 1 of the Penal Code, you will note that all peace officers from
830. 1 through 830.37 have the same authority. The only difference
is their employing agency and their primary duty.
6
Section 830. 1 Penal Code reads as follows:
Sheriffs, police, marshals, constables, port wardens or officers
of L.A. harbor department, inspectors or investigators of
district attorneys; designated department of justice personnel
( a) Any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff employed in that
capacity of a county, any police officer, employed in that
capacity and appointed by the chief of police or the chief
executive of the agency, of a city, any police officer of a
district (including police officers of the San Diego Unified
W
Port District harbor Police) authorized by statute 4-
%..o maintain a
police department, anv marshal or deputy marshal of a municipal
court, any constable or deputy constable, employed in that
capacity, of a judicial district, any port warden or special
officer of the harbor Department of the City of Los anceles, or
any inspector employed in that capacity in the office of a
district attorney, is a peace officer. The authority of these
peace officers extends to any place in the state, as follows :
( 1 ) As to any public offense committed or which there is
probable cause to believe has been committed within the political
subdivision which employs the peace officer.
(2) Where the peace officer has the prior consent of the
chief of police, or person authorized by him or her to give
consent, if the place is within a city or of the sheriff, or person
authorized by him or her to give consent, if the place is within a
county.
(3 ) As to any public offense committed or which there is
probable cause to believe has been commmit-'I--ed in the peace
respect which there is immediate
officer' s presence and with resp L to L
danger to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator
of the offense.
(b) The Deputy Director, assistant directors, chiefs, assistant
chiefs, special agents, and narcotic agents of the Department%.. of
Justice, and those investigators who are designated by the Attorney
General are peace officers. The authority of these peace officers
7
extends to any place in the state as to a public offense committed
or which there is a probable cause to believe has been committed
within the state.
if you look at the last three lines of Section 830. 1, it states the
following:
"The authority of these peace officers extends to any place in the
state as follows: " This is followed by paragraph 7 ' s ( 1 ) ,
(3) .
These paragraphs encompass the same language as Penal Code Section
836. This clearly indicates that 830. 1 through 830.31 etc. officers
have the same authority. what can an 830.1 officer do that an
830.31 officer can't?
Let us draw your attention to an existing/ongoing problem. Both
Authority Expansion bills SB 1447 (which amended Penal Code Section
830.4 in 1980), and SB 353 (which amended Section 830.4 and moved
the specialized police officers to Penal Code Section 830.31
"Primary Duty", 1990) state the following:
"Such peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized by And
under such terms and conditions as are specified by their employing
agency. "
fill
To date, this section is interpreted by some agencies to mean that
they can regulate the off duty carrying of a firearm by peace
officers listed in 830.31 etc.
The Attorney General ' s Opinions enclosed in this package address
this issue. opinion T"T ' s 81-1216, 86-901, & 89-505 state that the
firearms restriction listed in 830.4 and 830.31 etc. refers to on
duty only, that the listed peace officers are duly appointed peace
officers and can carry a firearm off duty.
• 3
Many governmental agencies think that they give their officers
peace officer authority and therefore can regulate when and where
these officers can exercise these peace officer powers. When, in
fact, the State Legislature and the Penal Code allow these agencies
to hire peace officers but these peace officer' s authority is
defined and regulated by the state.
There are police agencies in this state that require their officers
wear police uniforms and drive marked police vehicles, but do
to we P i
r own protection on f • their o .. ...... .. �., and
f armed for
o be a
_ _s t F
not allow these officers
the protection of the public. If an agency does not want armed
peace officers, then they do not need peace officers. These
agencies should have a non-sworn security department. Hopefully,
future legislation will correct this problem.
In conclusion, based on the information listed above one could
i
conclude that:
( 1) Specialized police officers listed in penal Code Section
830.31, etc. , are full-time (24 hour) peace officers.
(2) That specialized police officers listed in Penal Code
Section 830.31, etc. , are duly appointed peace officers as defined
in Section 12027 of the Penal Code and are exempt from the
prohibitions against carrying a concealed weapon.
It is our belief, as stated in People v. Derby ( 1960) 177 Cal . Apo.
2d 626, 631 and other recent cases, that these specialized police
officers are under special duty at all times.
A coo' s job is tough enough these days with gang violence and crime
in general on the rise. Along with bad press and public
overreaction to current events, police agencies should work
together to eliminate fighting within the law enforcement
community.
9
Listed below are some Attorney General ' s Opinions, case law cites
and codes regarding CCW authority, primary duty, and peace officer
authority which may be helpful in understanding specialized police.
1 . Section 12027 of the Penal Code, Person Exempt, making
reference to lines two and three "other dulv appointed
officers" .
2. A. G'. Is Opinion "781-1216, 650PS Cal . Atty. Gen. 527, which
deals with h the cuestion, does the Chief of the State Police
Division have the authority to prohibit or allow security
officers of the California State Police Division (under
Penal Code Section 830.4) to carry concealed firearms while
off duty? The conclusion of this opinion states that the
governmental agency can neither allow nor prohibit an 830.4
peace officer from carrying a concealed firearm while off-
duty. The authority to carry a concealed firearm comes from
the State Legislature in the form of the California Dangerous
Weapons Control Law (Cal. Penal Code, Section 12000 et seq) ,
specifically Section 12027 Penal Code, which refers to duly
appointed police officers.
3. Oninicn, E86-0101, 70 OPS, Cal. Atty. Gen. 20, JanuaEjr 28, 1987.
Question: Does the District Attorney of a County have the
authority to prohibit or allow the carrying of a
firearm by Welfare Fraud Investigators employed by
his office?
Conclusion: The District Attorney can regulate the on-duty
carrvina of a firearm by his Welfare Fraud
Investigators but he lacks such, authority when the
Investigator is off-duty. These investigators are
exempt by Penal Code Section 12027 and can carry a
concealed weapon while off-duty.
10
4. opinion #81-714, dated 12/22/81 (primary Duty)
Question: Does the Director of the State Department of Fish
& Game have the authority to limit the law
enforcement actions of the peace officer members
of his department?
Conclusion: The Director, in making policies, can
concentrate on fish and game laws because that is
the primary _duty of these officers. However, he
may not ccnf-i--- their peace officer status to this
function, as the State Legislature conferred
Broader Law Enforcement Authority on these
officers.
The next two Opinions deal with Parole and Probation officers
Peace officer Authority off-duty and their CCW authority off-
duty. These peace officers come under Section 830. 5 Penal Code,
which states: "The following persons are peace officers whose
authority extends to any place in the state while engaged in the
performance of their duties.
This is a good comparison to "Primary Duty" officers because these
A. G. 's Opinions explain what limited peace officers are. "Primary
Duty" peace officers such as the State Police, California Highway
Patrol and the School Police are 24 hour police officers.
5. Oninion #89-203, 72 OPS Cal. Atty. Gen. 154, August 31 , 1989 .
Questions: ( 1 ) Do a probation officer's (Penal Code Section
830. 5) peace officer powers extend to violations of
any criminal law, or are they limited to conditions
of parole or probation?
(2) Do a probation officer' s peace officer powers
under Section 830. 5 Penal Code extend to off-duty
hours?
Conclusions: ( 1 ) A probation officer' s peace officer powers
extend to violations of any criminal law if the
violation is discovered in the course of and arises
in connection with the probation officer' s
employment.
(2) A probation officer' s peace officer powers
under Section 830. 5 Penal Code do not extend to off-
duty hours.
72 OpS Cal . Att . Gen. 167, Aucllqt 31 , 1989 -.
6 . Questions: ( 1) Can the chief Probation Officer of a county
prohibit an officer from carrying a concealed
.weapon?(2) Must a Deputy Probation Officer obtain a
Probal
license to carry a concealed weapon?
Conclusions: (1) The Chief Probation Officer cannot
prohibit an off-duty Deputy Probation Officer from
carrying a concealed firearm.
e(2) The Deputy Probation Officer is a duly-
appointed peace officer and does not need to obtain
a license to carry a concealed firearm.
CASE LAW
(Many thanks to Nancy Culver, silver, Goldwasser, Shaeffer & Hadden
for researching these case law cites. )
Prior to 1963, Penal Code Section 817 ge". --ace oficer authority
any place in the state (a) as , public offensfe committed or
whi-^ there is cause has been committed within the
PC -cal subdiu— (b) if he/she hasth
that emoloys him/her, or�ko)
consent of the chief law enforcement officer for the
ho
d..
political subdivision in which the autI-orit_Y_L-'is to be exercise
Based on that statute, there are some older cases, such as People...
v. Aldapa ( 1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 184, 94 Cal. Rptr. 579, which held
that an arrest made outside of the arresting officer' s
jurisdiction, without the prior consent Of the police chief or
sheriff, is not an arrest made by one with peace officer authority,
and thus must be judged by the standards for arrest by private
citizens. Since the repeal of Penal Code 817, and the enactment of
P.A. 830. 1, these cases are clearly inapplicable.
The individAual ' s peace officer authority, either on or off duty, is
inseparable from his or her employment status, since the authority
conferred by the various Penal Code Sections is predicated upon the
individual ' s employment as a peace officer.
Although the Penal Code purports to allow an officer to investigate
or make an arrest in particular instances ( "A peace officer may
make an arrest Penal Code 836) , the courts have long
interpreted that authority as a duty. See examples:
Lees v. Colgan (1898 ) 120 Cal. 262, 52 P. 502, 504 (Penal
Code Section 836 says peace officers may make- arrests in
specified situations, petitioner was a peace officer;
therefore, it was petitioner's duty to make arrests under
any of those conditions. "It cannot be contended for a
moment but that a police officer would be grossly
neglectful of his duty if the opportunity presented itself
and he failed to arrest a person, having reasonable cause
to believe such person to be a murderer. " The case also
relied on local ordinances and rules to establish the
petitioner' s duty, and then held that since the arrest was an
official duty, the officer could not collect a reward which
had been offered by the state. )
In Fobbs v. City of Los Angeles (1957 ) 154 Cal. App. 2d 464,
316 P. 2d 668, 670, the court followed Lees in holding that
officers had not only a right but a duty to make an arrest for
a misdemeanor committed or attempted in their presence, that
the arrest had been proper, and that plaintiffs were not
entitled to damages for injuries sustained in resisting the
arrest.
13
People v. Castedy ( 1961 ) 194 Cal. Apo. 2d 763, 15 Cal . Rptr.
413, 417 (Ordinarily, a police officer is under a duty to
protect the public and arrest anyone committing a felony in
his presence. )
III
People v. Peterson ( 1978 ) 85 Cal . Apo. 3d 163, 149 Cal. Rptr.
198 (Failure of officer to investigate conduct suggestive of
criminal activity based upon his expertise acquired by
training and experience would constitute breach of his cbli-
gation to properly discharge duties of officer of the law. )
People v. Higbee ( 1974) 37 Cal . Apo. 3d 944, 112 Cal. Rptr.
690 (An officer has both a right and a duty to make reasonable
investigation of all suspicious activities even though the
nature thereof may fall short of grounds sufficient to justify
an arrest or a search of the persons or the effects of the
suspects. )
The question cf whether or not off-duty peace officers are acting
as peace officers has been discussed in two separate lines of
cases: whether or not an off-duty arrest was lawful, and whether
or not assault on an off-duty peace officer constitutes the crime
of assault on an officer.
In People v. Derby ( 1960) 177 Cal. Apo. 2d 626, 2 Cal. Rptr. 401,
404, the defendants challenged the lawfulness of an arrest made by
two highway patrolmen after they had parked their patrol cars in
the lot at the end of their shift. The court found that there was
sufficient evidence to find that they were still on duty, but that
"it is clear that a breach of the peace was committed in the
officer' s presence, and they were no"%-- required to ignore this
conduct on the part of the appellant whether or not their
particular hours of duty had been completed. In addition to a
Vehicle Code Section which described the scope of employment of the
highway patrol, the court relied on Lees v. Colcan, supra, and
Hammer v. Wells Fargo & Co. , 174 Apo. Div. 724, 160 N.Y. S. 651,
653. In that case, an off-duty marshal made an arrest, and sought
14
an award. The court held " . . . 'Public officers such as policemen,
constables, etc. , are under a special duty at all times, because of
the nature of their employment, to use their best efforts to
apprehend criminals, as was said in Kick v. Merry, 23 Mo. 72 [66
P.m. Dec. 6581 . The services rendered were within the duties of
their office. All their energies had been devoted to the service
o f the city. . . ' "
In People v. Townsend ( 1971 ) 20 Ca. App. 3d 688, 98 Cal . Rptr. 25,
28-30, the court found that an off-duty police officer working at
a school dance was engaged in the performance of his duty at the
time he was assaulted. The discussion is excellent, and should
still apply to all off-duty officers except those employed as
private investigators or security guards. See below:
Especially nice is the quote from Williams v. State (1969 ) 45 Wis.
2d 44, 172 N6W6 2d 31: "It is true that Hill (police officer) was
not on duty when he first saw the fight. However, as soon as he
became aware of the situation and took action he was no longer off-
duty. Hill did what any officer of the law is supposed to do, and
attempted to preserve public peace and order. It was a fight.
There is, therefore, no merit in defendant' s assertion that Hill
was not acting in his official capacity when the offense took
place. "
Emphasis added, footnote omitted. The Townsend court too, relied
on Derby.
People v. Hooker ( 1967) 254 Cal. App. 2d 878, 62 Cal. Rptr. 675,
680, held that an off-duty police officer was acting in his
official capacity when he made an arrest, in spite of the fact that
he was in the private employ of another at the time, relying on
Derby, supra, and Hammer, v. Wells Fargo, supra. "Any rule that a
peace officer only functions while on active duty would
unnecessarily weaken the fabric of law enforcement. " The court
also noted the case of People v. Ketchel 59 Cal. 2d 503, 525 30
e Elder, an off-duty police officer n that case, o icer
Cal . Rptr. I t o
P
t 538 Y P
15
who entered a market during the commission of a robbery, was killed
in an exchange of shots while trying to capture the robbers. In
sustaining the convictions for murder the court upheld Elder' s
right to make an arrest and his right as a peace officer to carry
a concealed weapon. Implicit in that decision was a ruling that an
off-duty peace officer carries his authority with him, which he may
e::ercise in appropriate circumstances.
in people v. Corey ( 1978) 21 Cal. 3d 738, 147 Cal. Rptr. 639, 644,
the court held that an off-duty police officer who was acting
within the scope of his employment as a private security guard was
not engaged in the performance of his duties as a peace officer for
purposes of application of the enhanced punishment provisions for
battery on a peace officer. The holding was based on specific
statutes which evinced a legislative policy against according
police officer status and protection to actions of off-duty police
officers performed within the course and scope of their private
employment as security guards. The court emphasized, however, that
it did not suggest that a peace officer' s official duties
necessarily cease at the end of his normal working hours, where
there are no private contractual duties of the nature involved in
that case. They disapproved Hooker and Townsend to the extent they
were inconsistent with their opinion. (The concurring and
dissenting opinion, on page 645, has a nice argument based on these
cases about when a peace officer is engaged in the performance of
his duties. )
Again, in Cervantez v J.C. Penney Co. , Inc. , ( 1979 ) 24 Cal. 3d
579, 156 Cal. Rptr. 198, 203, the court concluded that a peace
officer who makes an arrest pursuant to his private employment as
a security guard acts as a private citizen. It is the fact of
private employment in that capacity which prevented him from acting
would other
wise
se be his official capacity.
what o in - y
peace
the did not suggest thata p
The court reiterated that y
officer' s official duties necessarily cease at the end of his
nor
mal working hours where there were no private contractual duties
to act as a private investigator or security guard.
16
Other than the cases involving off-duty officers employed as
private security personnel, the sole case that we were able to
locate in which off-duty officers were held not to be acting in
their capacities as law enforcement officers is People v. Wittic
138 Cal. App. 3d 124, 204, 378, 383. That case involved two
officers who claimed prejudicial error in the failure to instruct
a criminal jury on p'eace officer status as justification for their
actions. The court held that the requested instruction, based on
People v. Derby, was not warranted by the facts, since there was no
evidence from their conduct, words or the surrounding circumstances
the defendants were acting as "public officers' in brawling,
hazing, and shooting wildly down a public street at a young man
they had just gang-assaulted. They were not in uniform, they were
not on duty, they never displayed their badges or announced or
claimed official status before they opened fire. The court also
took note of the exception to the Derby rule which the Supremes
have recognized in the case of private security employment.
In County of Santa Clara v. Deputy Sheriffs Cal. Rptr. 2d 53
(1992) , the court ruled that a governmental agency cannot bestow
peace officer powers on its employees. Peace officer authority is
defined and regulated by the state legislature. If a person is not
listed in Chapter 4.5, Section 830 of the Penal Code, you are not
a peace officer.
In Orange County Employees Association v. County of Orange, cite 93
Daily Journal D.A.R. 3753 (March 23, 1993) , the court supports the
Attorney General ' s Opinions previously mentioned, that a dulv
appointed peace officer has CCW authority.
17
A governmental agency can only regulate the on duty carrying of a
firearm by their peace officers, they cannot make policy or
regulate the off duty carrying of a firearm by their officers.
These specialized police officer's CCW authority, as well as their
peace officer authority, comes from the state legislature.
About the author: Mr. Richard Keith is the current General Manager
of the Los Angeles School District Police officers Association. A
fifteen ( 15) year veteran of law enforcement (now retired) , Mr.
Keith has worked as both a regular and a reserve officer, patrol
and the detective bureau. The Peace officers Research Association
of California sincerely acknowleges the effort and expertise
provided by Mr. Keith in preparing this document.
AB 141 WEAPONS 07/16/93
MURRAY
LAWS: PENAL 12027
PENAL 12027.1
PENAL 12031
SUMMARY: The bill would include within the existing
exemption relating to carrying concealed
firearms and the exemption relating to carrying
loaded firearms other honorably retired peace
officers who during the course and scope of
their employment as peace officers were
authorized to, and did, carry firearms. This
bill would make further related provisions.
FISCAL STATE-MANDATED
STATUS: CHAPTERED
93-0428
AB 146 PRISON WEAPONS: MANUFACTURE 08/17/93
RICHTER
LAWS: PENAL
4502
SUMMARY: Existing law prohibits a person confined in a
state prison or under specified circumstances
while in the custody of prison personnel from
possessing or carrying upon his or her person
or having under his or her custody or control
specified instruments or weapons, a violation
of which is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years to be
served consecutively. This bill would extend
this provision to prohibit the manufacture or
attempt to manufacture of the specified
instruments or weapons mentioned above, a
violation of which would be punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months,
2 or 3 years to be served consecutively.
FISCAL STATE-MANDATED
93-0554
STATUS: CHAPTERED
9
i
FISCAL STATE-MANDATED
STATUS: CHAPTERED 93-0558
AB 529 PEACE OFFICERS
MORROW
LAWS: PENAL $30.6
SUMMARY: This bill would add reserve harbor or port
police officers of a county, city, or district,
as specified, to those provisions of existing
law that provide that certain persons who have
been deputized or appointed by the proper
authority are designated as peace officers for
the person's specific assignment.
STATUS: CHAPTERED 93-0169
AB 532 BUSINESS SOLICITATIONS 04/26/93
MORROW
LAWS: BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS 17533.6
SUMMARY: This bill would prohibit a nongovernmental
entity from engaging in solicitations, as
specified, by means of a mailing that contains
a seal, insignia, trade or brand name, or any
other term or symbol that reasonably could be
interpreted or construed as implying any state
or local government connection, approval or
endorsement, except as provided.
FISCAL STATE-MANDATED
STATUS: CHAPTERED 93-034$
9317
AB 53$ CRIMES: VIDEO RECORDINGS 08/ /
RICHTER
LAWS: PENAL 313.1
SUMMARY: This bill would provide that any person who
rents a video recording and alters the video
recording by adding harmful matter and who
29
I
f
AB 1266 FIREARMS
04/27/93
MARTINEZ
LAWS: PENAL 12020
SUMMARY: Under existing law any person who, among other
1 r
factures im , o
manu orts, keeps for sale,P
things,
wea weapons is guilty of a felony.
specified tY Y
ci 9
possesses spe P
Existing law exempts a multiburst trigger
activator, as specified. This bill would delete
this provision. This bill would also delete the
criteria for the definition of a zip gun. By
deleting this criteria, the bill would expand
the scope of a crime.
FISCAL STATE-MANDATED
i
STATUS: CHAPTERED 93-0357
AB 1268 PEACE OFFICERS 09/01/93
MARTINEZ
LAWS: GOVERNMENT 6254.4
INSURANCE 488.5
INSURANCE 557.5
INSURANCE 557.6
INSURANCE 669.5
PENAL 12028.5
PENAL 13519
PENAL 417
i
SUMMARY: This bill would amend an existing law provision,
as specified, by deleting references to specified
peace officers and, instead, would refer to all
peace officers as defined in the penal code.
to the extent these changes would increase the
responsibilities of local agencies as they relate
to the confidentiality of voter registration
information.
FISCAL STATE-MANDATED
93-1098
STATUS: CHAPTERED
51