Bergen County Law Enforcement

Document Sample
Bergen County Law Enforcement Powered By Docstoc
					 BERGEN COUNTY LAW
    ENFORCEMENT
CONSOLIDATION STUDY




  Prepared for the Bergen County
      Office of the Prosecutor
             May 2011



     Guidepost Solutions LLC
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

                      BERGEN COUNTY CONSOLIDATION STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                   IX-XXV

  I. BACKGROUND………………………………………………………………………….1
       A. ENGAGEMENT……………………………………………………………………...1
       B. BERGEN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT……………………………………….1
  II. STUDY TEAM………………………………………………………………………...….3
  III. APPROACH………………………………………………………………………………4
       A. OVERALL APPROACH……………………………………………………………..4
       B. STUDY DESIGN……………………………………………………………………..5
  IV. SCOPE…………………………………………………………………………………....5
       A. CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS ANALYSIS………………………………..6
       B. STAFFING & OVERTIME ANALYSIS……………………………………………..6
       C. BUDGET – FUNCTIONAL, PURCHASING & REVENUE ANALYSES……… ...6
       D. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY…………………………………………………...6
       E. FACILITIES…………………………………………………………………………..7
  V. STUDY FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………7
       A. CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS ANALYSIS………………………………..7
          1. Scope…...…………………………………………………………………………7
          2. Methodology……………………………………………………………………...7
              2.1 Document Review………………………………………………………….…7
              2.2 Interviews……………………………………………………………………..8
          3. Mission/Authority and Core & Specialized Functions…………………………….9
              3.1 Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office……………………………………...…...9
              3.1.1 Mission/Authority……………………………………………………..……9
              3.1.2 Agency Profile…………………………………………………………….10
              3.1.3 Current Collective Bargaining Agreements/Contracts…………….……...10
              3.1.4 Core & Specialized Functions……………………………………..……...11
              3.2 Bergen County Sheriff’s Office……………………………………..………12
              3.2.1 Mission/Authority…………………………………………………………12
              3.2.2 Agency Profile……………………………………………….……………13
              3.2.3 Current Collective Bargaining Agreements………………………………13
              3.2.4 Core & Specialized Functions……………………………………..……...14
              3.3 Bergen County Police……….………………………………………………15
              3.3.1 Mission/Authority…………………………………………………….…...15
              3.3.2 Agency Profile……………………………………………………..……...15
              3.3.3 Current Collective Bargaining Agreements……………………….……...16
              3.3.4 Core & Specialized Functions……………………………………..……...16
   4. COMPARISON OF AGENCY FUNCTIONS………………………………….............17
              4.1 Core Functions as outlined in the 2010 County Law Services Plan………..18
              4.2 Specialized Functions as outlined in the 2010 County Law Services Plan…19
           5. CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS – FINDINGS…………………….…..20
              5.1 Patrol Functions…………………………………………………………….21

                                             ii
        5.1.1 Patrol Functions – Calls for Service……………………………………… 21
        5.1.2 Patrol Functions – County Police Patrol Coverage………………….…… 26
        5.2 County Building Security……………………………………………...…… 28
        5.2.1 County Building Security – Development of Security Guards……...…… 28
        5.2.2 County Building Security – Cost of Security Guard Service……..……… 29
        5.3 Traffic Enforcement……………………………………………………….. .30
        5.3.1 Traffic Enforcement – Responsibility…………………………………… .30
        5.3.2 Traffic Enforcement – Revenue……………………………………...…... 32
        5.3.3 Traffic Enforcement – Conclusion……………………………………….. 33
        5.4 SWAT, SOG and SERT Teams………………………………………...….. .33
        5.5 Criminal Investigations…………………………………………………… ..35
        5.5.1 Criminal Investigations – Prosecutor’s Office……………………..…….. 35
        5.5.2 Criminal Investigations – Sheriff’s Office……………………………….. 36
        5.5.3 Criminal Investigations – County Police……………………………..……36
        5.5.4 Criminal Investigations – Conclusions………………………………….…37
        5.6 Water Search and Recovery Unit……………………………………………38
        5.7 Medical Examiner’s Investigations………………………………………….39
        5.8 K-9 Units…………………………………………………………………….40
        5.9 Crime Prevention Education………………………………………………...42
        5.10 Mounted and Motorcycle Units……………………………………………44
B. STAFFING & OVERTIME ANALYSIS………………………………………...….45
   1. SCOPE………………………………………………………………………….…45
   2. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………..45
        2.1 Document Review………………………………………………………......45
        2.2 Interviews…………………………………………………………………...46
   3. STAFFING – FINDINGS……………………………………………………… ...46
        3.1 Staffing Levels………………………………………………………… ……46
        3.1.1 Staffing – Collective Bargaining Agreements Comparison……………… .47
        3.2 Staffing – Prosecutor’s Office…………………………………………… ….52
        3.3 Staffing – Sheriff’s Office………………………………………………….. .55
        3.3.1 Court Security Unit………………………………………………………. .55
        3.3.2 Special Services/Civil Process Unit………………………………………. 59
        3.3.3 Homeland Security Unit………………………………………………….. 60
        3.4 Staffing – Span of Control………………………………………………….. 60
        3.5 Staffing – Double Duty and Task Forces…………………………………… 62
        3.6 Staffing – Security Guards and Potential Privatization…………………...… 62
        3.6.1 Staffing – Security Guards – Costs………………………………………...64
        3.6.2 Staffing – Security Guards – Privatized Program……………………….…65
        3.6.3 Staffing – Security Guards – Lost Revenue Concern……………….……..66
        3.6.4 Staffing – Security Guards and County Police at BCC……………………66
     4. OVERTIME – FINDINGS……………………………………………………….67
        4.1 Overtime – General Observations………………………………………...….67
        4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity……………………………………...……..71
        4.2.1 Overtime – Sheriff’s Office – BCI Unit……………………………..…… 74
C. BUDGETS – FUNCTIONAL, PURCHASING & REVENUES ANALYSIS……. 74
    1. SCOPE……………………………………………………………………………74

                                     iii
    2. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………… 75
         2.1 Document Review…………………………………………………………. .75
         2.2 Interviews………………………………………………………………....... 76
    3. BUDGETS – FINDINGS…………………………………………….………… . 76
         3.1 Budget Comparison………………………………………………….…….. 76
         3.2 Expenditure Analysis……………………………………………………...... 77
         3.2.1 Expenditure Analysis – Vehicles………………………………………… 78
         3.3 Revenue Analysis……………………………………………………..……...79
         3.4 Purchasing………………………………………………………..…………..80
         3.5 Financial Management Technology………………………………………….81
D. FACILITIES ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………82
     1. SCOPE…………………………………………………………………………....82
     2. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………..……...82
         2.1 Document Review……………………………………………….…………...82
         2.2 Interviews………………………………………………………..…………...82
         2.3 Onsite Visits………………………………………………………………….82
     3. FACILITIES - FINDINGS…………………………………………….…………83
         3.1 Tenancy – Stakeholder Law Enforcement Agencies………………………...83
         3.3.1 Facilities Overview……………………………………………………...…83
         3.2 Zabriskie Street Facility……………………………………………………...86
         3.3 Sheriff’s Office – BCI Facility………………………………………………87
         3.4 Prosecutor’s Office – Vehicle/Evidence/Records Facility…………………..87
E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ANALYSIS……………………………… 88
      1. SCOPE………………………………………………………………………… ..88
      2. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………….. .88
         2.1 Document Review…………………………………………………………. .88
         2.2 Interviews………………………………………………………………….. .89
      3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - FINDINGS………………………………89
         3.1 Prosecutor’s Office………………………………………………………… .89
         3.1.1 Prosecutor’s Office – Equipment………………………………………….89
         3.1.2 Prosecutor’s Office – Staffing……………………………………………..91
         3.1.3 Prosecutor’s Office – Organization & Management………………………91
         3.1.4 Prosecutor’s Office – Costs………………………………………………..92
         3.1.5 Prosecutor’s Office – IT Initiatives………………………………………..92
         3.2 Sheriff’s Office……………………………………………………………....93
         3.2.1 Sheriff’s Office – Equipment……………………………………………...93
         3.2.2 Sheriff’s Office – Staffing…………………………………………………94
         3.2.3 Sheriff’s Office – Organization & Management…………………………..95
         3.2.4 Sheriff’s Office – Costs……………………………………………………95
         3.3 County Police………………………………………………………………..95
         3.3.1 County Police – Equipment………………………………………………..95
         3.3.2 County Police – Staffing…………………………………………………..96
         3.3.3 County Police – Organization & Management……………………………96
         3.3.4 County Police – Costs……………………………………………………..97
         3.4 Overall Findings……………………………………………………………..97
         3.4.1 Software Application and Maintenance…………………………………...97

                                    iv
       3.4.2 Hardware…………………………………………………………………98
       3.4.3 CODY System and C.O.B.R.A. …………………………………………98
       3.4.4 Motorola Radio System…………………………………………………..99
       3.4.5 Strategic Projects – Mahwah Data Center………………………………..99
       4.6.3 Purchasing………………………………………………………………...99
F. CONSILDATION STUDY – OVERALL FINDINGS…………………………….101
    1. Establish better overtime controls……………………………………………..101
    2. Privatize the provision of security guards across all agencies………………...101
    3. Narrow the span of control in all agencies…………………………………….101
    4. Civilianize the Medical Examiner’s Investigative Unit of the County Police...101
    5. Eliminate the Water Search and Recovery Unit of the County Police……..…102
    6. Eliminate the Mounted and Motorcycle Units……………………………...…102
    7. Examination of Staffing Levels and Salary Structure by the Prosecutor’s
    Office……………………………………………………………………………..102
    8. Sheriff’s Office Crime Scene Unit overtime…………………………….…….102
    9. SOG/SWAT……………………………………………………………..……..103
    10. Traffic Enforcement Activities by the Sheriff’s Office…………………....... 103
    11. Vehicle Reduction………………………………………………………….....103
    12. Information Sharing……………………………………………………..…....104
    13. Financial Management System…………………………………….…………104
    14. IT Purchasing and Governance………………………………………….……104
    15. Unified E-mail Platforms……………………………………………….…….104
G. STUDY FINGINGS – OPTIONS…………………………………………..……....105
    1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..……...105
       1.1 Maintaining the Status Quo: The Cost of Doing Nothing………………....106
       1.2 Information Technology under the Status Quo……………………………106
    2. Option 1 – Reduction in Force of the County Police…………………….….....107
       2.1 Rationale for Option 1………………………………………………..……107
       2.2 Option 1 – Proposed Reduction in Force of County Police……………….108
       2.3 Option 1 – Legal and Collective Bargaining Analysis………………..…...109
       2.4 Option 1 – Timeline for Implementation………………………………….110
    3. Recommendations Common to Options 1, 2 and 3………………….………..110
    4. Information Technology under Consolidation Options……………………….111
    5. Option 2 – An initial reduction in force, followed by an additional RIF and transfer of
    the      remaining personnel and functions powers duties and responsibilities to the
    Bergen County Sheriff’s Office…………………….……………………………112
       5.1 Rationale for Option 2………………………………………………….…112
       5.2 Option 2, Phase 1 – The Proposed Bergen County Consolidation – Phased
       Reduction in force……………………………………………………………..114
       5.3 Option 2, Phase 2 – The Proposed Bergen County Consolidation – Steps
       following the Initial Reduction in Force………………………………………115
       5.4 Option 2 – Salary and Fringe Savings through Reduction in Force and
       Realignment of Span of Control………………………………………….…...116
       5.5 Option 2 – Savings through Realignment of Unit within the Sheriff’s
       Office……………………………………………………………………….…117



                                          v
   5.6 Option 2 – Savings through Operating Budget Reductions – General Operating
   Expenses…………………………………………………………………….....118
   5.7 Option 2 – Timeline for Implementation…………………………………..118
6. Option 3 – Elimination of the Bergen County Police and Transfer of its Functions,
Powers, Duties and Responsibilities to the Bergen County Sheriff’s
Office………………………………………………………………………….….120
   6.1 Rationale for Option 3……………………………………………………..120
   6.2 Option 3 – Timeline for Implementation………………………………..…121




                                   vi
                                                          APPENDICES

Law Plan .....................................................................................................................     A

Maps............................................................................................................................   B

Patrol Posts………………………………………………………………………………….                                                                                       C

Report of the County Prosecutor Study Commission..................................................                                 D

Budgets........................................................................................................................    E

ADA Procedures………………………………………………………………………………                                                                                       F

Legal Analysis.............................................................................................................        G

Essex County Sheriff’s Office......................................................................................                H

IT Best Practices Technology Capability Analysis………………………………………. I




                                                                      vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSOLIDATION STUDY

In November 2010, the Bergen County Prosecutor, at the behest of the County Executive, issued an
RFP (request for proposal) seeking the services of a consultant to conduct a consolidation study of
the law enforcement activities of the Office of the Bergen County Prosecutor, the Office of the
Bergen County Sheriff, the Bergen County Police and certain activities residing in the Department of
Public Safety.

The purpose of the study was to examine “the efficacy and ability of county law enforcement
agencies to share personnel, services, equipment and facilities in an effort to reduce tax payer
expenditure on redundant services while at the same time delivering those very law enforcement
services necessary to preserve and protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Bergen
County.”


II. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Based upon the RFP issued by the Office of the Prosecutor and subsequent discussions with the
Prosecutor’s Office, it was determined that the main areas of review for this study comprised the
following for each of the three agencies, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the County
Police.

   A. Core & Specialized Functions Analysis

The functions analysis consisted of a review of those activities, both primary, i.e. core, and
specialized, deemed within the purview of each stakeholder agency and outlined in the 2010 Bergen
County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan.

Core functions are activities that are basic to the provision of law enforcement in a community, such
as criminal investigations, warrant execution and extradition, patrol and oversight of the jails.
Specialized functions may be activities like SWAT, K-9, bomb squads, arson investigation and
hostage negotiations – activities which are not daily occurrences and which require additional
training and equipment to perform. The Study Team reviewed each agency’s mandated core and
specialized functions to identify any overlap of functions among the agencies which might present
opportunities for improved efficiencies through consolidation, elimination, privatization or
civilianization. The study presents findings regarding those specific functions, some core and some
specialized, which analysis determined most likely to yield economies or opportunities for improved
policing.

  B. Staffing & Overtime Analysis

The Study Team approached its analysis of staffing and overtime in the three stakeholder agencies
from a number of different perspectives. In addition to reviewing current staffing levels and actual

                                                 viii
payroll and overtime expenditures, the team developed comparative data in order to make
observations about staffing ratios, span of control and productivity in the agencies over the past five
years. Potential redundancies in staffing due to overlapping functions among the agencies were
identified, as were opportunities for privatization or civilianization. The study looked at overtime
expenditures for certain of the specialized functions where such data was available and commented
on general operational efficiencies which could lead to a reduction in overtime in the agencies.

  C. Budget – Functional Analysis, Purchasing Analysis, Revenue Analysis

The Study Team reviewed the line item budgets for Bergen County for the years 2006 through 2010
in order to identify expenditures associated with the Prosecutor’s Office, Sheriff’s Office and the
County Police. The analysis included each agency’s Operating, Capital Bond, Grant and Forfeiture
accounts. In addition, the team reviewed purchasing procedures and identified sources of revenue
recognized by each stakeholder agency.

  D. Facilities

The purpose of the facilities and tenancy review was to identify facilities currently under the
jurisdiction of any of the three stakeholder agencies that might be underutilized and available for use
in any consolidation initiative and/or facilities that might be subject to closure under various
consolidation scenarios, with resultant cost savings.

  E. Information Technology

The IT analysis for this study consisted of a comprehensive review of the IT resources in the
Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the County Police in order to inventory and compare
capabilities, identify gaps or shortcomings and assess opportunities for consolidation or cost-sharing.


III. FINDINGS


A. OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION – THREE SCENARIOS

1. Options Outlined
The Study Team reviewed all of the information gathered during the course of the study project,
developed findings relative to each area studied and incorporated these findings into the formulation
of a set of three options designed to produce cost savings, efficiencies and general improvement in
the provision of law enforcement in Bergen County.

The Study Team was guided in its work by the principle that sacrificing the public safety of Bergen
County residents was unacceptable. Hence, the Study Team asserts with a high degree of confidence
that each option proffered maintains public safety at the current level enjoyed, and in some cases,
enhances public safety through increased coordination and efficiency.

Options for consolidation:

                                                  ix
      Option 1
       A reduction in force (“RIF”) for the County Police.

      Option 2
       An initial reduction in force for the County Police, followed by a subsequent reduction in
       force by the County Police and a simultaneous transfer of the remaining personnel and
       functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the County Police to the Sheriff’s Office.

      Option 3
       An initial reduction in force for the County Police, followed by, at a time certain, elimination
       of the County Police and transfer of its functions, powers, duties and responsibilities to the
       Sheriff’s Office with an increase in headcount for that agency to accommodate the increased
       workload.

2. Legal Considerations
The Study Team has reviewed Options 1, 2, 3 with labor counsel. The Study Team is advised that
there is no legal impediment to any of the proposed options from either a municipal or employment
law standpoint. However, each option involves different procedural, political and timing factors
based upon applicable laws. The legal analysis of these options is contained in Appendix G.

3. Actions Common to Options 1, 2 and 3
In addition to the specific actions outlined in Options 1, 2 and 3, and irrespective of the adoption of
any of these options, there are several actions which are common to all scenarios and should be
considered by the county. These actions are:

      The elimination of the Water Search and Recovery and Mounted Units currently deployed by
       the County Police.

Because the Water Search and Recovery unit does not perform rescue operations and because its
evidence recovery function could be performed by a local Fire Department under the supervision of
the investigating agency or by the State Police, the Study Team is of the opinion that this function
should be eliminated.

      The civilianization of the Medical Examiner Unit of the County Police.

In the Study Team’s experience, this function is not traditionally a police function. In virtually all
other municipalities known to the Study Team, this function is performed by non-sworn medico-
legal investigators. The Study Team believes that this function presents an opportunity for
civilianization and offers the possibility of significant savings.

       .
      The reclassification of the position of Coordinator of the Division of Emergency
       Management held by a sworn member of the County Police at the Department of Public
       Safety so that the individual in this position has a civilian title and is no longer on the County
       Police payroll. 

                                                   x
  
The Study Team found that the Coordinator of the Division of Emergency Management in the
Department of Public Safety is a sworn member of the County Police. Since this position does not
involve traditional “law enforcement” functions, it should not be under the command and control of
the County Police. 

      The privatization of the security guard function currently utilized by the County Police,
       Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor’s Office at various locations in the county.

The Study Team recommends that the County Police, the Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor’s
Office outsource their security guard functions to a private company in order to achieve cost savings
and to provide staffing flexibility. This would result in an annual savings of approximately
$365,000 - $440,000.

4. Information Technology Considerations
  4.1 IT Under the Status Quo
The Study Team recommends that if the County determines not to pursue any of the consolidation
options under consideration, the County Police should hire personnel necessary to support the sole
IT employee now on staff. The current staffing level of the County Police IT department is
inadequate and should be addressed without delay.

   4.2 IT Under Consolidation Options
The Study Team finds that in the two consolidation options under consideration, both of which
involve ultimate elimination of the Bergen County Police, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Sheriff’s
Office should continue to maintain their own, separate IT departments to serve the particular needs
and demands of the respective offices. The Study Team notes in this connection that, from an
operational standpoint, the Prosecutor and the Sheriff preside over offices involved in a range of
disparate activities that place differing demands on their IT departments. For example, the IT
department in the Sheriff’s Office is required to support the unique and challenging activities that
attend the operation of a correctional facility. In addition, and more importantly, the Study Team
believes that the leaders of those two offices must be able to direct, oversee and rely upon the
support services of an IT staff dedicated solely to the work of their offices. In law enforcement in
particular, the Study Team believes it is important that those responsible for public safety be
permitted to directly control the support services necessary for the discharge of their duties. While
in the interest of efficiency the Study Team can support consolidation of a single aspect of IT
services (e-mail support services) in the Prosecutor’s office, the Study Team cannot support a total
consolidation that would strip either the Prosecutor or the Sheriff of the support of a dedicated IT
staff. Therefore, despite the fact that financial considerations alone might militate in favor of
consolidation of all IT services under one agency, the Study Team does not believe that would serve
the County’s best interests from a public safety standpoint.

 5. Option 1 – Reduction in Force in the County Police
The Study Team’s analysis suggests that the County Police could reduce its force by 23 officers and
two civilian clerk typists without sacrificing public safety or seriously undermining its ability to
provide the specialized functions currently provided.


                                                 xi
In 2011, the 23 most junior County Police officers and two most junior civilian clerk typists will
earn a total of approximately $2,650,000 in salary and fringe benefits. If the reduction in force is
implemented, a savings equivalent to that amount would accrue to the county annually. If these
police officers were to reach top pay, under current contractual provisions, such officers would
eventually earn $4,550,000 in salary and fringe benefits.

In examining the patrol function, the Study Team reviewed response data for the County Police and
local police agencies and has determined that if the County Police response to calls for service
function were to cease to be available, the increased number of calls for service which would be
imposed on local municipal agencies would be minimal. Specifically, the analysis found:

      Of the 69 police agencies reviewed, the County Police ranked near the bottom with 176.23
       calls for service per sworn officer annually, indicating that calls for service is not a primary
       function of the County Police.

      Municipalities do not depend upon the County Police for routine call response.

      The overwhelming majority of calls for service responded to by the County Police were
       centered in five municipalities and in these locations the County Police handled only a small
       percentage of calls received.

      The County Police does not consistently cover all of its patrol posts.

      While continuation of County Police specialized functions is essential, continuation of its
       patrol and investigatory functions at current levels, given the lack of demand for such
       service, is not essential. To this end, the Study Team recommends that local municipal
       police agencies assume responsibility for patrol calls for service within county parks, schools
       and all other county facilities with additional responsibility for any follow-up investigations
       emanating from these locations.

Of the 92 sworn officers currently within the County Police, 17 sworn officers are not cross-trained
to provide services in any of the specialized units. While the patrol function is a core function of the
County Police, the County Police also provide a number of specialized services such as SWAT, K-9,
Bomb Squad, etc. which are valued by the law enforcement community and contribute to public
safety in the county.

In regards to its specialized functions, the Study Team determined that neither the Water Search and
Recovery Unit (“WSAR”) nor the Mounted Unit contribute meaningfully to the level of public
safety in the county and, therefore, may be discontinued. Within the County Police, four officers are
cross-trained to provide WSAR services and two are cross-trained in mounted patrol. These six
positions are recommended for a reduction in force. Elimination of those positions would permit a
total reduction in force of 23 without sacrificing public safety.

The reduction in force of the 23 most junior County Police officers would result in a slight decrease
in the overall membership of various specialized units, as follows:

           Specialized Units           Number Decreasing        Number Remaining

                                                  xii
          Medical Examiner’s Unit                6                       14
          S.W.A.T.                               5                       21
          K-9                                    2                       11
          Traffic Safety                         2                        7
          Bomb Squad                             0                       8


The Study Team found that supervisory span of control was too narrow across all of the agencies.
Therefore, the county would realize further savings by adjusting the supervisory span of control
through demotion and attrition following the reduction of 23 County Police officers. This would
result in an amended table of organization, as follows:

County Police
Rank                                Pre-RIF Headcount                  Post-RIF Headcount
Chief                                         1                                  1
Captains                                      3                                  2
Lieutenants                                   9                                  6
Sergeants                                    15                                 10
Police Officers                              64                                 50

Following a RIF and span of control adjustment, the county would realize a total annual savings of
approximately $2,900,000.

   5.1 Option 1 – Timeline for Implementation
The Study Team believes that Option 1 could be accomplished within 60 days. The Study Team
envisions that at the beginning of the 60 day time period, the 23 county police officers and two
civilians subject to the reduction in force would be identified, and during the 60 day time period, but
not less than 30 days prior to conclusion of the time period, such County Police officers and civilians
would receive notice that their positions were being eliminated for reasons of economy on the date
upon which the 60 day time period concludes. Additionally, the other supervisory officers subject to
demotion for purposes of span of control adjustment as set forth in Option 1 would receive similar
notices of a reduction in rank to take place at the conclusion of the period.

The County Police would be afforded the opportunity to make plans during the 60 day time period to
focus on its core function of providing primary patrol on the state highways and U.S. roads described
in Appendix C. Such plans would include, but not be limited to: redeployment of sworn officers as
necessary; reconfiguration of patrol posts to best address public safety needs; and conferral with
local municipal police agencies to coordinate calls for service.

The 60 day time period would also be the time period within which the county could adopt an
ordinance amending the Bergen County Administrative Code to eliminate County Police
responsibility for providing police service in county institutions and county parks. The ordinance
would become effective at the conclusion of the 60 day period. The Study Team notes that the
adoption of ordinances is subject to the provisions of Bergen County Administrative Code § 2.11
and the time period necessary to adopt the ordinance may vary in accordance with the dictates of
such law.

                                                 xiii
6. Option 2 – An initial reduction in force for the County Police (Option 1), followed by a
subsequent reduction in force by the County Police and a simultaneous transfer of the
remaining personnel and functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the County Police to
the Sheriff’s Office.
Should the county adopt Option 2, the Study Team recommends that the reduction in force of the
County Police and transfer of the remaining personnel, functions, powers and duties of the County
Police to the Sheriff’s Office proceed as outlined below.

The Study Team has concluded that, as detailed in the findings section of this report and summarized
above in Option 1, the County Police does not currently provide patrol and investigatory services to
the county in a manner that substantially contributes to the level of public safety. However, the
specialized functions of the County Police are essential to the maintenance of the county’s level of
public safety and in most cases are not duplicated in other agencies.

The Sheriff’s Office is a county-wide agency which provides certain specialized functions. It does
so at less cost than the County Police. The Sheriff’s Office has a well-developed management
process and is judged to be capable of incorporating additional specialized functions and providing
them within Bergen County in a manner which would not compromise public safety.

The Study Team believes that there would be several advantages to transferring the County Police
members remaining after the reduction in force described in Option 1 to the Sheriff’s Office:

      The Sheriff’s Office currently has a lower overall operating cost than the County Police,
       including a lower overtime cost.

      The Sheriff’s Office provides services which in some respects are analogous to those
       provided by the County Police including K-9, Special Operations Group (SWAT-like),
       traffic enforcement and bomb sweep activities. Therefore, there is management familiarity
       with the provision of these functions, permitting rapid integration of these functions
       transferred with the County Police members.

      Economies of scale and other efficiencies will accrue if the remaining members of the
       County Police are integrated into the Sheriff’s Office, most notably from better coordination
       in the delivery of the specialized services and from reduction in the likelihood of future
       redundancies, as discussed in Option 1.

      A larger reduction in force may also be undertaken, permitting greater initial cost savings and
       greater long term cost savings, owing to the transfer of the remaining members and functions
       into an agency with an existing management structure. This would reduce the need for
       administrative support for the remaining County Police members and provide the opportunity
       for Sheriff’s officers to supplement former County Police officers when needed in the
       remaining patrol and specialized functions.

The Study Team has identified an additional 12 positions that could be eliminated when the County
Police is consolidated with the Sheriff’s Office. Specifically, seven positions occupied by personnel

                                                 xiv
assigned to the ME Unit, and five positions currently held by officers who possess multiple
specialties (e.g., an officer who is both ME and Mounted qualified) could be eliminated. This brings
the total reduction in force under Option 2 to 35 police positions and two clerical workers.

In 2011, the 35 most junior police officers and two most junior civilian clerk typists will earn a total
of approximately $5,100,000 in salary and fringe benefits at the current salary rates. If these 35
police officers were to reach top pay, under current contractual provisions, such officers would earn
approximately $7,500,000 in salary and fringe benefits.

The Study Team recommends that this reduction be accomplished in two phases.

   6.1 Option 2, Phase 1 – Reduction in Force following initial reduction in force as outlined in
Option 1
As outlined in Option 1, a reduction in force of the previously identified 23 positions would be
possible immediately without reduction in public safety within Bergen County. At the same time the
county should begin the civilianization process for the Medical Examiners Unit. When the
consolidation is to take place, the additional reduction of 12 positions (least senior members) should
also occur. The impact to the specialized functions is outlined below.

           Specialized Units          Number Decreasing         Number Remaining
          Medical Examiner’s Unit                8                        12
          S.W.A.T.                               7                        19
          K-9                                    4                        9
          Traffic Safety                         2                         7
          Bomb Squad                             1                        7

The Study Team believes that the remaining number of specialty unit members would be sufficient
to provide an acceptable level of public safety within Bergen County. This is particularly true since
the SWAT, K-9 and Traffic Safety functions may be supplemented by appropriately trained Sheriff’s
Office personnel (which the Sheriff will be able to begin to train and certify during the pendency of
required legislative action) or, as in the case of the Bomb Squad, sufficient resources would remain
to meet county needs.




                                                  xv
6.2 Option 2, Phase 2 – Transfer of Personnel, Integration, Further Reduction in Force
After the initial reduction in force, the Study Team anticipates that the following actions would
occur:
       1) The Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders would pass an ordinance eliminating the
       Division of the County Police as a division in the Department of Public Safety 1, transferring
       the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Division of the County Police to the
       Office of the Bergen County Sheriff.

         2) Following the second reduction in force, former County Police officers would then be
         laterally transferred to the Sheriff’s Office and assume the titles of Sheriff’s officers,
         Sheriff’s sergeants, Sheriff’s lieutenants and Sheriff’s captains.

         3) Former County Police officers would eventually be subject to the salary levels as well as
         other terms and conditions of employment set forth in the various collective bargaining
         agreements or contracts of the sworn officers in the Sheriff’s Office.

         4) The former County Police officers would initially be assigned to a newly established
         Division of Patrol within the Sheriff’s Office.

         5) The Sheriff would immediately begin to integrate former County Police officers into
         Sheriff’s officers’ functions and vice versa.

Assuming the same headcount as currently exists for the County Police, 92 sworn officers, the full
reduction in force of 35 police positions would result in a transferred headcount of 57 positions. It
should be noted that the Study Team does not recommend that the Sheriff’s Office be increased on a
permanent basis by these 57 positions. Rather, it is recommended that a transition period be
established at the time of the transfer and the Sheriff be permitted to review operations and staffing
levels to determine what will be needed to effectively support the essential public safety functions
assumed from the consolidation. The Study Team anticipates a time when the patrol function
formerly performed by the County Police may be eliminated by the Sheriff’s Office, since the Study
Team’s analysis revealed that it is essentially a duplication of existing municipal services. This
elimination would permit further cost savings through reduction in force.

1
  Freeholder authority to authorize the restructuring and transfer of governmental functions between county offices,
divisions, and agencies is provided in Section 2.1.a of the Bergen County Administrative Code (“BCAC”) which
provides that the Freeholders may organize the administration of the county government, including setting the duties and
responsibilities and powers of all county officials and agencies, and the manner of performance needed. Additionally,
Sections 8.0.b and 8.5.3 of the BCAC provide, in relevant part, that the County Executive has the authority to propose to
the Freeholders a plan of re-organization within any county department, which includes the Department of Public Safety
in which the County Police currently resides as a Division.

These provisions authorize the Freeholders to reorganize the County Police out of the Department of Public Safety and
into the Sheriff’s Office as proposed. This may be done by a county ordinance passed by the Freeholders transferring the
functions of the County Police to the authority and jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s Office. The Essex County Freeholders
achieved a restructuring by such an ordinance. See , Matter of County Police Officers, Essex County Sheriff’s Office,
DOP Docket No. 2007-1525 (April 11, 2007); and County of Essex, 18 NJPER 289 (¶23124 1992) (Hearing Officer’s
decision on motion for partial summary judgment). No public referendum was utilized and no need for one is referred to
in the BCAC.


                                                          xvi
It is recommended that cross training of Sheriff’s officers and former County Police personnel
commence immediately under Option 2. This would promote integration and efficiency. Upon
appropriate recognition by the State Department of Personnel, the Sheriff could negotiate salary
issues with Local Nos. 134 and 134A of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (which represents
Sheriff’s officers) because the Sheriff’s officers’ collective bargaining agreement would become
binding on former County Police members. This would create an opportunity for further cost savings
since Sheriff’s officer salaries are lower compared to County Police officers.

The county would realize further savings by adjusting its supervisory span of control by demotion
and attrition following the reduction of 35 police officers. This would result in an amended table of
organization, as follows:

Sheriff’s Office
Rank                               Pre-RIF Headcount                  Post-RIF Headcount
Chief                                         1                                 0
Captains                                      3                                 1
Lieutenants                                  9                                  4
Sergeants                                    15                                 8
Police Officers                              64                                44

Following a RIF and span of control adjustment, the county would realize total annual savings of
approximately $5,400,000.

Reduction in force may be accomplished through retirement and/or early retirement as well as
layoffs. The Study Team found that a total of 22 officers, a quarter of the current County Police, will
be eligible to retire by May 1, 2014. The Study Team notes that six of the 28 supervisory members
are immediately eligible to retire and a total of 14 supervisory members will be eligible to retire by
May 1, 2014.

Under Option 2 further cost savings and efficiencies could be realized. Most notably:

      Consolidation of payroll and record keeping functions.
      Merger of the SWAT/SOG Teams and the K-9 Units.
      Continued maintenance of the traffic safety function and attendant revenues.
      Reduction in the demand for vehicles and a corresponding reduction in fuel and maintenance
       costs.
      Reduction in operating expenses for equipment, consumables and training related to certain
       functions such as K-9 and SWAT.




                                                 xvii
6.3 Option 2 – Timeline for Implementation
The Study Team believes that Option 2 could be accomplished within 150 days. The Study Team
envisions that Phase 1 of Option 2, the initial reduction in force of 23 County police officers and 2
civilians, would take place within an initial 60 day time period. The procedural steps to be
undertaken within this phase would mirror the procedural steps described in Executive Summary,
Section 4.1 Option 1 – Timeline for Implementation.

The Study Team envisions further that Phase 2 of Option 2 would take place over a final 90 day time
period. At the beginning of the 90 day time period, the 12 additional County Police officers subject
to the reduction in force would be identified and, during the 90 day time period but not less than 30
days prior to conclusion of the time period, such County Police officers would receive notice that
their positions were being eliminated for reasons of economy on the date in which the 90 day time
period concludes. Additionally, the other supervisory officers subject to demotion for purposes of
span of control adjustment, as set forth in Option 2, would receive similar notices of a reduction in
rank to take place at the conclusion of the period. Phase 2 would conclude with the consolidation of
the County Police within the Sheriff’s Office, and the lateral transfer of remaining County Police
officers to corresponding ranks within the Sheriff’s Office.

The Study Team envisions that during the entire 150 day time period, the Sheriff’s Office, in
conjunction with the County Police, would make plans for the transfer of the functions, powers,
duties and responsibilities of the County Police to the Sheriff’s Office at the conclusion of the time
period. This task would involve the exchange of information necessary to accomplish an efficient
transfer of functions and the transition of County Police officers into the Sheriff’s Office. To this
end, plans would need to be developed for the establishment of a new Division of Patrol within the
Sheriff’s Office and the integration of the specialized functions of the County Police within the
Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office would formulate plans for the cross-training and
integration of former County Police officers into the functions of Sheriff’s officers and vice versa.
Further, during this period the county would civilianize the functions of the County Police Medical
Examiner’s Unit as recommended by the Study Team. After due consideration of public safety
needs following full integration of the two agencies, the Sheriff’s Office would determine whether
additional personnel reductions of former County Police officers, mechanics, fleet supervisors, radio
technicians and other civilians could be made consistent with public safety, in an effort to realize
further economies.

Finally, the Study Team envisions that the 150 day time period would also be the time within which
the county would adopt an ordinance amending the Bergen County Administrative Code to eliminate
the Division of County Police as a division within the Department of Public Safety and to
legislatively transfer its functions, powers, duties and responsibilities to the Sheriff’s Office. The
ordinance would become effective at the conclusion of the 150 day period. The Study Team again
notes that the adoption of ordinances is subject to the provisions of Bergen County Administrative
Code § 2.11 and the time period necessary to adopt the ordinance may vary in accordance with the
dictates of such law and other factors.




                                                xviii
7. Option 3 - Elimination of the Bergen County Police and transfer of its functions, powers,
duties and responsibilities to the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
The Study Team has determined that public safety within Bergen County is dependent on the
specialized functions which are uniquely provided by the County Police. As discussed in Option 2,
the Sheriff’s Office could assume these responsibilities with additional personnel from the County
Police.

The Study Team presents as Option 3 the elimination of the County Police and its patrol functions
after an appropriate period of time has allowed the Sheriff’s Office to develop the expertise needed
to replace critical specialized public safety functions of the County Police, specifically:

      SWAT
      K-9
      Traffic Safety
      Bomb Squad

The Study Team acknowledges, however, that staffing levels and training/certification, along with
proscriptions within the County Law Services Plan, prevent the Sheriff’s Office from being equipped
or authorized to serve the Bomb Squad, SWAT, K-9 and Traffic Safety needs of Bergen County.
Therefore, prior to elimination of the County Police, the Sheriff’s Office would need to develop
these competencies.

The Option 3 recommendation includes a phased reduction in force preceding the ultimate
elimination of the County Police. This will result in savings over the period of the agency’s phased
elimination. Specifically, the Study Team recommends that the 23 police / 2 civilian
RIF discussed under Option 1 occur immediately under Option 3, with the additional 12 police RIF
occurring when civilianization of the ME Unit function is achieved. It is expected that, shortly
thereafter, the time needed for the Sheriff’s Office to establish competency in the specialized
functions would have passed, permitting elimination of the County Police at that time.

By eliminating the County Police in the manner described under Option 3, the county would realize
a significant savings since the current annual cost for maintaining the County Police is $19,300,000
for salary alone. The Study Team emphasizes that the county cannot anticipate realizing cost
savings in the full amount of $19,300,000 because identified savings would be offset, in part, by
costs associated with the assumption of certain functions, namely Bomb Squad, Traffic Safety and
SWAT, by the Sheriff's Office and the accompanying increase in headcount that these duties would
require. This is because the Study Team anticipates that even with training and certification of
appropriate current staff in the areas of SWAT, Traffic Safety and Bomb Squad, it will be necessary
for the Sheriff's Office to retain additional staff in order to continue to provide the county with a
comparable level of public safety service. While the Study Team recognizes that the Sheriff will
determine staffing requirements as his office assumes responsibility for these functions, at a
minimum, the Study Team estimates that the Sheriff will need to hire between 17-26 officers at an
estimated annual cost of between $1,600,000 (17 hires, including 15 officers and 2 sergeants) and
$2,300,000 (26 hires including 24 officers and 2 sergeants) in order to accomplish this. These
recommended additions to the Sheriff’s staff results in anticipated annual savings in salary from
Option of 3 of $17.7 - $17.0 million.

                                                xix
   7.1 Option 3 – Timeline for Implementation
The Study Team believes that Option 3 could be accomplished within one year. An initial reduction
in force of 23 County police officers and 2 civilians (Option 1), would take place within an initial 60
day time period. The procedural steps to be undertaken within this phase would mirror the
procedural steps described in Executive Summary, Section 4.1 Option 1 – Timeline for
Implementation. An additional reduction in force of 12 County Police officers would occur when
civilianization of the County Police Medical Examiner’s Unit function is achieved.

Option 3 would conclude with the elimination of the County Police and the assumption of its
functions, powers, duties and responsibilities by the Sheriff’s Office. The Study Team believes that
one year is an appropriate period of time to allow the Sheriff’s Office to develop the competencies of
Sheriff’s officers (through training and certification) needed to replace critical public safety
functions of the County Police, specifically – SWAT, K-9, Traffic Safety and Bomb Squad. The one
year time period would also accommodate necessary planning by the Sheriff’s Office as it prepares
to undertake all the duties of the County Police.

As with Option 2, the county would need to adopt an ordinance amending the Bergen County
Administrative Code to eliminate the Division of County Police as a division within the Department
of Public Safety and to legislatively transfer its functions, powers, duties and responsibilities to the
Sheriff’s Office. The ordinance would become effective at the conclusion of the one year period.




                                                  xx
B. OVERALL FINDINGS

During the course of this study - in its review of the core and specialized functions, its analysis of
staffing and overtime practices and expenditures, its examination of budgets, facilities and IT
infrastructure in the three agencies - the Study Team had several findings and observations with
respect to efficiencies and economies that the county may wish to consider implementing. Some of
these findings involve the elimination of a function deemed no longer necessary, the privatization or
civilianization of services currently provided by law enforcement or the consolidation of a service
provided by more than one agency. These findings, which are summarized below, could be adopted
independently of any of the three options outlined in the previous section of this report.

1. Establish better overtime controls
None of the three agencies was able to show the Study Team a report detailing specifically how each
employee earned his/her overtime. The Study Team recommends that each of the three agencies
develop comprehensive overtime policies with real time monitoring of individual employees. Any
system implemented must be able to identify the current high overtime earners and display the
activities associated with that overtime. In addition, to prevent abuse, a reporting system must be
able to clearly indicate the reason all overtime is being accrued. The county government should
insist on a detailed breakdown of overtime from all three agencies. (See Staffing & Overtime
Analysis, Section 4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity)

2. Privatize the provision of security guards across all agencies
The Study Team found that if all three agencies outsourced the provision of security guard services
collectively to a private vendor, the county could anticipate significant cost savings and the agencies
would avoid duplicative efforts, reduce overtime costs and gain staffing flexibility.
(See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Sections 3.6-3.6.4 in Staffing – Security Guards)

3. Narrow the span of control in all agencies
The Study Team noted that the span of control (ratio of officers to sergeants) is narrower than the
levels deemed efficient and reasonable by the team. At the sergeant level, the ratios were 1:3 for the
Prosecutor’s Office, 1:6 for the Sheriff’s Office, and 1:4 for the County Police. This represents an
unnecessary cost to the county. Reducing the staffing levels of sergeants in these agencies would
reduce salary expenditures of each agency. (See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 3.4 Staffing –
Span of Control)

4. Civilianize the Medical Examiner’s Investigative Unit of the County Police
In the Study Team’s experience, the medical examiner’s investigative function is not traditionally a
police function. In virtually all other municipalities known to the Study Team this function is not
performed by sworn officers. Due to the nature of the work, overtime is often involved.
Civilianization would eliminate this overtime and also offers the possibility of other savings. (See
Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.7 Medical Examiner’s Investigations and Staffing
& Overtime Analysis, Section 4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity)




                                                 xxi
5. Eliminate the Water Search and Recovery Unit of the County Police
The Study Team found that the County Police’s Water Search and Recovery Unit is redundant in
light of the fact that a number of county fire agencies maintain underwater rescue units and because
the State Police also performs underwater search and recovery operations. The evidence collection
function could be transferred to local fire departments following training and performed under the
general supervision of an investigator or handled by the State Police. This would save on equipment
and training costs as well as on overtime expenditures. (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis,
Section 5.6 Water Search and Recovery Unit)

6. Eliminate the Mounted and Motorcycle Units
The Study Team found that the Mounted and Motorcycle Units are largely ceremonial and make no
meaningful contribution to public safety. Given the county’s determination to reduce costs, these
units may be “luxuries” that the county can no longer afford. (See Core & Specialized Functions
Analysis, Section 5.10 Mounted and Motorcycle Units)

7. Examination of staffing levels and salary structure by the Prosecutor’s Office
An examination of data revealed that for its population, Bergen County enjoys an extremely low
violent crime rate; it investigates the lowest number of violent crimes among the counties compared
by the Study Team, while having the second highest staffing level. Similarly, the overall crime rate
for the county was the lowest in the counties compared by the Study Team. This and other
comparative data suggests that it would be appropriate to review current staffing levels in the
Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether staffing might be reduced further. It was noted that the
Prosecutor’s Office has been reducing staffing levels from a high of 118 in 2006 to the current level
of 111 in 2010.

Additionally, the salary structure for investigators in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office is the
highest of the counties studied. In fact, it is the highest in the state and exceeds by $16,532 the mean
salary for investigators in Middlesex County, a county whose cost of living exceeds that of Bergen
County. While the salary structure may reflect a well-intentioned effort on the part of the Prosecutor
to attract and retain highly qualified law enforcement professionals, this may warrant review in light
of current efforts to reduce costs. (See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 3.2 Staffing –
Prosecutor’s Office)

8. Sheriff’s Office Crime Scene Unit overtime
The Crime Scene Unit responds to calls for investigation and processing of physical evidence at the
scene of a crime and serious events. The unit operates seven days per week and covers each day with
a working squad of three detectives and one sergeant. The hours of coverage are from
6am to 2am of the following day. The period between 2am until 6am is covered by “on call”
personnel who, if requested to respond, incur overtime. The Study Team believes that this
unit’s overtime costs may be mitigated by the introduction of a steady midnight tour of two
detectives. (See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 4.4.2 Overtime – Sheriff’s Office – BCI Unit)

9. SOG/SWAT
Independent of any possible consolidation of agencies, the Study Team believes that the county
should reconsider the necessity of maintaining both a Special Operations Group (SOG) in the
Sheriff’s Office and a SWAT Team in the County Police. The Study Team recommends either
elimination of the SOG and transfer of its functions to the County Police, or SWAT-certification of
                                                 xxii
SOG members and subsequent elimination of the SWAT function in the County Police. The latter
approach would permit consolidation of the teams after appropriate training and would result in
realization of cost savings through a reduction in total number of SWAT/SOG officers required; the
former approach would permit SOG members to be redeployed to other duties within the Sheriff’s
Office and cost savings would be realized by the reduction in training costs and equipment
expenditures. In addition, annual deployments by the County Police SWAT Team would increase,
resulting in a better cost benefit for the commitment to training and equipping these officers. (See
Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.4 SWAT, SOG and SERT Teams)

10. Traffic enforcement activities by the Sheriff’s Office
The Study Team analyzed the number of tickets issued by both the County Police and the Sheriff’s
Office over the past five years and the revenues generated by this activity. That analysis shows that
traffic enforcement is being actively pursued by the Sheriff’s Office. The issuance of tickets by
Sheriff’s officers, and the subsequent court appearances they require, consume “on duty” time and
may generate overtime costs; this time might be better spent on the core and specialized functions of
the Sheriff’s Office as outlined in the County Law Services Plan. (See Core & Specialized
Functions Analysis, Section 5.1-5.3.3 Traffic Enforcement)

11. Vehicle Reduction
The Study Team has determined that the county should condemn a majority of the older vehicles in
its fleet and reduce the vehicle count of the County Police and the Prosecutor’s Office. Through a
process of vehicle reduction and elimination of older models, the county will realize immediate cost
savings on reduced fuel and maintenance costs associated with a smaller fleet.
Furthermore, a policy of programmatic replacement should be implemented whereby newer, more
fuel efficient vehicles are purchased each year to replace the aging fleet. The county should ensure
that as replacement vehicles are procured and enter service, comparable older vehicles are
condemned and removed from the fleet. (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 3.2.1
Expenditure Analysis – Vehicles)

12. Information Sharing
The Study Team recommends that a prosecutorial directive be issued requiring a protocol whereby
copies of incident reports prepared by the County Police be forwarded to the municipal police
agency with jurisdiction over that geographical location and, conversely, that incident reports
generated by municipal police departments be forwarded to the County Police. Active information
sharing is critical to effective law enforcement. (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section
5.5.4 Criminal Investigations – Conclusions)

13. Financial Management System
During the information gathering stage of this engagement, the Study Team learned that the Bergen
County Financial Management System is difficult to navigate and unsuitable as a real time
management tool. The Study Team believes that the county should acquire a new, user friendly
Financial Management System based on modern financial computer technology.
(See Budgets, Section 3.5 Financial Management Technology)

14. IT Purchasing and Governance



                                                xxiii
The Study Team found that the county could benefit from further countywide IT purchasing review
and coordination. All three agencies followed their own purchasing protocol to obtain their
configurations and feature set implementations for the CODY information management system. As
a result, all agencies did not purchase the same configurations and feature set implementations. If IT
purchases were formally coordinated throughout the county and formally reviewed centrally with a
view towards enhancing the functioning of the countywide law enforcement information network,
cost efficiencies and maximization of return on investment through improved contracting and
licensing agreements would be realized and intra-agency data-sharing and communications would be
enhanced. To this end, the Study Team recommends that a “formal” IT Steering Committee be
established that includes technical and management representatives from each stakeholder agency.
Consideration should be given to designating
 a lead agency and chair for this committee to maximize its effectiveness. (See IT Analysis, Section
3.4.6 Purchasing)

15. Unified E-Mail Platforms
Currently, each agency manages and maintains a separate e-mail platform. The Study Team
recommends that the email exchange servers be consolidated into a single e-mail platform and that
e-mail services for the three stakeholder agencies be supported by the Prosecutor’s IT Help Desk
Operations. There will be initial cost associated with the consolidation and relocation of hardware as
well as changes of the application software but, in the long run, savings will be realized due to
reduced support and licensing fees. The Study Team also recommends relocating and maintaining
servers at the newly completed Mahwah Data Center. (See IT Analysis, Section 3.4 Overall
Findings)




                                                 xxiv
BERGEN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSOLIDATION STUDY

I.   BACKGROUND

 A. ENGAGEMENT

In the past decade there has been significant interest in the development of shared services and/or
the consolidation of services provided by state and local governments nationwide. For many
years, at all levels of government, New Jersey has actively reviewed opportunities for
regionalization. The current challenging economic climate and its sustained impact on
government revenues and resources have intensified the need to provide services as efficiently
and cost effectively as possible. This includes the provision of law enforcement and public
health and safety services.

In keeping with this trend, in November 2010, the Bergen County Prosecutor, at the behest of the
County Executive, issued a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) seeking the services of a consultant to
conduct a consolidation study of certain law enforcement agencies in Bergen County. The
purpose of the study was described as follows:

          “Specifically said consolidation study shall examine the efficacy and
          ability of county law enforcement agencies to share personnel,
          services, equipment and facilities in an effort to reduce tax payer
          expenditure on redundant services while at the same time delivering
          those very law enforcement services necessary to preserve and
          protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Bergen
          County.”

The proposal encompassed a review of the law enforcement activities of the Office of the Bergen
County Prosecutor, the Office of the Bergen County Sheriff, the Bergen County Police and
certain activities residing in the Department of Public Safety. The engagement was awarded to
Guidepost Solutions LLC in January 2011. The study was to be completed by May 2011 and
presented to the Office of the Bergen County Prosecutor. The Prosecutor, in turn, will deliver
the study to the County Executive and the Board of the Chosen Freeholders no later than May
2011.

 B. BERGEN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT

Bergen County, which occupies 247 square miles in the northeastern corner of the state of New
Jersey, is the state’s most populous county. According to the United States 2010 Census, its
population was 905,116. In 2009 Bergen County ranked 16th in county per capita income in the
United States.

There are 68 municipal police departments in Bergen County representing two villages, three
cities, nine townships, and 54 boroughs. At the county level, the Bergen County Police, the
Bergen County Sheriff’s Office and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office provide law

                                                1
enforcement services. The New Jersey State Police, Palisades Interstate Parkway Police
Department and the Port Authority Police of New York/New Jersey also provide police service
in the county. The 68 municipal police agencies have primary patrol authority within their
jurisdictions including, but not limited to, response to all calls for law enforcement service within
their communities. In 2009 there were approximately 2,402 sworn officers in the county.

In 2009, Bergen County had the fifth lowest crime rate out of New Jersey’s 21 counties, with a
crime rate of 14.3 crimes per 1,000 inhabitants, according to the 2009 New Jersey State Police
Uniform Crime Report.




Bergen County had the 12th highest number of total violent crimes among New Jersey counties,
with 957 such crimes reported in 2009, according to the 2009 New Jersey State Police Uniform
Crime Report.




                                                 2
The table below summarizes the 2009 sworn officer headcount for the various municipal and
county police agencies.

Allendale              14           Harrington               11                Ramsey               42
                                    Hasbrouck
Alpine                 13                                    29                Ridgefield           27
                                    Heights
Bergenfield            55           Haworth                  13                Ridgefield Park      30
Bogota                 15           Hillsdale                25                Ridgewood            43
Carlstadt              31           Ho-Ho-Kus                16                River Edge           22
Cliffside Park         44           Leonia                   17                River Vale           21
Closter                20           Little Ferry             27                Rochelle Park        20
County P.D.            92           Lodi                     42                Rutherford           41
Cresskill              21           Lyndhurst                50                Saddle Brook         35
Demarest               14           Mahwah                   50                Saddle River         18
Dumont                 30           Maywood                  24                Sheriff’s Office †   147
East Rutherford        41           Midland Park             14                So. Hackensack       19
Edgewater              36           Montvale                 22                Teaneck              101
Elmwood Park           33           Moonachie                17                Tenafly              37
                                                                               Upper Saddle
Emerson                18           New Milford              31                                     18
                                                                               River
Englewood              83           Northvale                15                Waldwick             19
Englewood
                       26           North Arlington          28                Wallington           21
Cliffs
Fair Lawn              47           Norwood                  14                Washington           22
Fairview               31           Oakland                  25                Westwood             28
Fort Lee               109          Old Tappan               13                Woodcliff Lake       18
Franklin Lakes         22           Oradell                  21                Wood-Ridge           21
Garfield               64           Palisades Park           31                Wyckoff              23
Glen Rock              21           Paramus                  92
Hackensack             104          Park Ridge               18
Headcounts as per 2009 internal survey conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office.
† Sheriff’s Officers only.

Analysis found that the median number of sworn officers for all of the jurisdictions appearing in
the table above is 25. There are five police agencies with sworn headcounts above 80 and 20
agencies with fewer than 20 sworn members. In 2009 there were 92 sworn Bergen County
Police officers and 147 Bergen County Sheriff’s officers.


II.    STUDY TEAM

Guidepost Solutions LLC, headquartered in New York City, is a professional services firm
specializing in public safety consulting, security consulting, crisis management, business
intelligence and investigations. The firm’s Bergen County Study Team is comprised of
individuals with extensive experience in law enforcement management and operations, labor

                                                        3
law, including collective bargaining and grievance arbitration, accounting, information systems
design and evaluation, prosecutorial expertise and familiarity with the conduct of operational
audits. In particular, the team’s law enforcement members had extensive experience with the
merger of three major police departments in New York City - the NYPD, the Transit and
Housing Police Departments.


III.      APPROACH

    A.   OVERALL APPROACH

Having been engaged to conduct a study, the purpose of which was to identify, analyze and
quantify, opportunities for consolidation or shared services in the provision of law enforcement
in Bergen County, the Study Team determined that its initial task was to gain a complete
understanding of the core functions of each of the three key law enforcement agencies in the
County: the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (“Prosecutor’s Office”), the Bergen County
Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) and the Bergen County Police (“County Police”).
Accordingly, the engagement began with a series of interviews with the key leadership in each of
the stakeholder agencies. These interviews allowed the Study Team to learn directly from
leadership about the current functioning of their respective agencies and to gain an historic
perspective regarding their evolution. Leadership was given the opportunity to convey their
passion and the pride that they have in the work performed by their officers. These individuals
were also asked to discuss the respective importance of their agencies to the overall effectiveness
of law enforcement in the county and to provide their views as to the current state of integration
of those offices. These conversations set the stage for an objective review of operations.

The Study Team followed-up these initial interviews with detailed and targeted requests for
documentation and data from each of the agencies. This information was sought to assist the
team in developing an empirical view of the structure, functions and activities of the agencies.

Once received, the data was reviewed generally by the team and then a detailed analysis was
performed by the team member with the relevant expertise, e.g. accounting expertise for the
budget review, law enforcement experience for the core function analysis, etc. Additionally, the
Study Team consulted several documents external to the stakeholder agencies. 2 These
documents were useful in providing an historical context and validation of methodology from
relevant organizations such as the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police.



2
 “Police Department Regionalization, Consolidation, Merger & Shared Services--Important Considerations for
Policy Makers,” New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, March 2007.
“A Function and Staffing Analysis of the Bergen County Sheriff’s Department and the Bergen County Police
Department,” Carroll Buracker & Associates, 1999.
“In the Matter of County Police Officers, Essex County Sheriff’s Office” (DOP Docket No. 2007-1525, Merit
System Board, decided April 11, 2007) (See Appendix H).


                                                       4
In conjunction with the analysis, the Study Team conducted a series of interviews with each
stakeholder agency head, as well as with upper and mid-level management and supervisory
personnel in the ranks of captain, lieutenant and sergeant, who command various units and
divisions within the stakeholder agencies. Those interviews provided insights from additional
perspectives in the agencies and gave the team the opportunity to ask questions about the data
and information received in order to clarify or confirm its analysis. Interviews and much of the
analytical work were done on site. Time spent in the various facilities helped to ground
observations in the day-to-day reality of agency business.

In addition to interviews with members of the stakeholder agencies, the Study Team also spoke
with Police Department Chiefs from numerous municipalities throughout the county. The
purpose of these conversations was to give the team a sense of the stakeholder agencies’
interactions with the rest of the county’s law enforcement community and the Chiefs’
assessments of those interactions. Moreover, the Study Team spoke with the County Executive
and several members of county government.

Having gained an understanding of each individual entity, the Study Team then proceeded to
conduct a comparative analysis, focusing on duplications of effort and inefficiencies. It should be
noted that, while in the process of performing the study, it became clear to the team that limiting
consideration to the stakeholder agencies as defined in the RFP, would not be sufficient to
correctly assess the impact of any recommendations made. As such, certain aspects of the
interaction between these stakeholder agencies and municipal agencies operating within Bergen
County were also considered. The overall theme of the study was to identify ways in which law
enforcement in the county might be improved, while simultaneously surfacing cost savings and
other economies and identifying viable opportunities for more effective law enforcement.

B. STUDY DESIGN

The study is divided into a series of sections which are comprised of issues or items that the
Prosecutor’s Office identified in its RFP as areas requiring analysis. These items include a
comparative analysis of core functions among the three stakeholder agencies, a review of staffing
levels, configurations and expenses, a consideration of overtime practices and budget analyses.
Each section of the report contains a brief description of the scope and methodology employed
and details the Study Team’s findings. The study concludes with a separate section containing
overall observations and recommendations.


IV.    SCOPE


Based upon the RFP issued by the Office of the Prosecutor and subsequent discussions with the
Prosecutor’s Office it was determined that the main areas of review for this study comprised the
following for each of the three agencies, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the
County Police.




                                                5
A.   CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS ANALYSIS

The functions analysis consisted of a review of those activities, both primary, i.e. core, and
specialized, deemed within the purview of each stakeholder agency and outlined in the “Bergen
County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan,” 01/01/10-12/31/10
(“County Law Services Plan”). (Appendix A) The County Law Services Plan is mandated by
New Jersey State Attorney General Directive No. 92-1, dated May 11, 1992, which requires:
establishment of a Law Enforcement Services Review Board in each county of the state to be
chaired by the prosecutor as the county’s chief law enforcement officer; annual development of a
County Law Services Plan by the review board allocating core functions and specialized
functions among the various law enforcement agencies within the county; and submission of the
County Law Services Plan to the Attorney General for review, possible modification and
approval on an annual basis.

Core functions are activities which are basic to the provision of law enforcement in a community
such as criminal investigations, warrant execution and extradition, patrol, oversight of the jails,
etc. Specialized functions may be activities like SWAT, K-9, bomb squads, arson investigations,
hostage negotiations, etc. The Study Team reviewed each agency’s mandated core and
specialized functions to identify overlap of functions among the agencies which might present
opportunities for improved efficiencies through consolidation, elimination, privatization or
civilianization. The study presents findings for those specific functions, some core and some
specialized, which analysis revealed as most likely to yield economies.

B.   STAFFING & OVERTIME ANALYSIS

The Study Team approached its analysis of staffing and overtime in the three stakeholder
agencies from a number of different perspectives. In addition to reviewing current staffing levels
and actual payroll and overtime expenditures, the team developed comparative data in order to
make observations about staffing ratios, span of control and productivity in and among the
agencies over the past five years. Potential redundancies in staffing due to overlapping functions
among the agencies were identified, as were opportunities for privatization or civilianization.
The study looked at overtime expenditures for certain of the specialized functions where such
data was available and commented on general operational efficiencies which could lead to a
reduction in overtime in the agencies.

C. BUDGET – FUNCTIONAL, PURCHASING & REVENUE ANALYSES

The Study Team reviewed the line item budgets for Bergen County for the years 2006 through
2010 in order to identify expenditures associated with the Prosecutor’s Office, Sheriff’s Office
and the County Police. The analysis included each agency’s Operating, Capital Bond, Grant and
Forfeiture accounts. In addition, the team reviewed purchasing procedures and identified sources
of revenue recognized by each stakeholder agency.

D. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The IT analysis for this study consisted of a comprehensive review of the IT resources in the
Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the County Police in order to inventory and

                                                6
compare capabilities, identify gaps or shortcomings and assess opportunities for consolidation or
cost-sharing.

E. FACILITIES

The purpose of the facilities and tenancy review was to identify facilities currently under the
jurisdiction of any of the three stakeholder agencies that might be underutilized and available for
use in any consolidation initiative and/or facilities that might be subject to closure under various
consolidation scenarios, with resultant cost savings.


V.       STUDY FINDINGS


A.       CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS ANALYSIS


1. SCOPE

This analysis identified and compared the law enforcement services, referred to as core and
specialized functions, provided by the Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the County
Police to determine areas of overlap or redundancy, as well as efficiencies which might be
developed by combining, eliminating or reallocating functions.

2. METHODOLOGY

          2.1 Document Review
The Study Team’s methodology included a review of the following documents provided by the
stakeholder agencies in response to specific requests for information made by the team.

         Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
             o Bergen County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan
                2010
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Organizational Chart and Table of
                Organization
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Mission Statement
             o Prosecutor’s Annual Reports—2006 through 2009
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Response Letter to Study Team Request for
                Documents
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office 2008 Active Shooter Response Directive
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Law Enforcement Directive 2010-1 re:
                SWAT
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Law Enforcement Directive 2010-2 and 3 re:
                C.O.B.R.A.
             o Internet Information on Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (http://bcpo.net/)
             o Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Employee Manual

                                                 7
           o Report of the County Prosecutor Study Commission, February 4, 2011

      Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
          o Internet Information on Bergen County Sheriff’s Office (http://www.bcsd.us)
          o Bergen County Sheriff’s Office Response Letter to Study Team Request for
             Documents
          o Sheriff’s Annual Reports—2006 through 2010
          o Bergen County Sheriff’s Department SOP Manual
          o Bergen County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan
             2010

      Bergen County Police
          o Bergen County Police Calls for Service Printout
          o Bergen County Police Letters of Recognition
          o Internet Information on Bergen County Police (http://www.bcpd.org/)
          o Bergen County Police Response Letter to Study Team Request for Documents
          o Bergen County Police Patrol Guide
          o Bergen County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan
             2010

      Bergen County Department of Public Safety
          o Bergen County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan
             2010
          o Internet information on the Bergen County Department of Public Safety
             (http://www.co. bergen.nj.us/bcresources/publicsafety.html)

      Bergen County Municipal Agencies
          o Municipal Agency Rosters
          o Municipal Agency Calls for Service
          o Bergen County Law Enforcement Services Review Board Law Services Plan
             2010

       2.2 Interviews
The Study Team conducted numerous interviews with stakeholder and other agency
representatives. These included interviews with the County Executive and County Administrator
as well as extensive and, in many instances, multiple interviews with the following individuals:

    Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
The Study Team spoke with twelve individuals who hold a variety of positions within the office.
These included the prosecutor and executive assistant prosecutor, two captains, two sergeants,
one detective and office management and Human Resources supervisory personnel.

     Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
Interviews were conducted with eleven individuals including current and former sheriffs, an
inspector, two captains, five lieutenants and one sergeant.


                                               8
    Bergen County Police
Fourteen individuals were interviewed by the Study Team. Interviewees included current and
former chiefs, three captains, seven lieutenants, a director of security and a sergeant.

    Bergen County Municipal Police Agencies
In order to assess the potential impact on municipal policing of any changes made in the
provision of law enforcement services by the county and to gain perspective on the quality and
usefulness of those services from the municipal viewpoint, the Study Team interviewed
seventeen active chiefs from municipalities throughout the County.

    Bergen County Department of Public Safety
An interview was conducted with the director of the agency.

    Bergen County Medical Examiner’s Office
The study Team interviewed the Medical Examiner.

3. MISSION/AUTHORITY AND CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS
        3.1 Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
           3.1.1 Mission/Authority
The Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office is a constitutional office under the New Jersey State
Constitution. (See N.J. Const., Art. VII, Sec. II, Para. 1) The Prosecutor’s mission, as chief law
enforcement officer for the county is “to use all reasonable and lawful diligence for the detection,
arrest, indictment and conviction of offenders against the laws…” 3 As such, the Prosecutor has
wide-ranging authority over the law enforcement community in the county. In addition to the
responsibility of the office to prosecute criminal cases in the courts, the role of chief law
enforcement officer carries with it the responsibility to oversee the operations of all county and
municipal police departments to ensure that each is meeting the law enforcement needs of its
community. The Prosecutor’s Office is the lead investigative agency for all Major Crimes within
the county. The Prosecutor’s Major Crimes Division is comprised of the Homicide Squad, Cold
Case Homicide Squad, Arson Squad and Fatal Accidents Squad.

The Prosecutor is permitted to employ investigators to assist in his/her mission (See N.J.S.A. §
2A:157-2). While the Prosecutor’s Office conducts its own proactive investigations, it also
maintains specialized squads that are responsible for leading investigations conducted jointly
with municipal departments and assisting municipal departments in the investigation of crimes
calling for increased personnel, specialized equipment, technical know-how or highly specialized
training. Such crimes include arson, homicide, sex crimes, drug trafficking, traditional organized
crime, domestic violence, insurance fraud and most recently, computer crimes.

The Prosecutor is nominated and appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the
Senate to serve for a term of 5 years. (See N.J. Const., Art. VII, Sec. II, Para. 1 and N.J.S.A. §
2A:158-1) Pursuant to law, “the Attorney General shall consult with and advise the several
county prosecutors in matters relating to the duties of their office and shall maintain a general

3
    State v. Winne, 12 N.J. 152, 166, 96 A.2d 63 (1953).

                                                           9
supervision over said county prosecutors with a view to obtaining effective and uniform
enforcement of the criminal laws throughout the State. He may conduct periodic evaluations of
each county prosecutor's office including audits of funds received and disbursed in the office of
each county prosecutor.” (See N.J. S.A. § 52:17B-103)

The Prosecutor’s duties are mandated by the New Jersey State Constitution. The office is an
“appointing authority” under New Jersey civil service law and is a separate department within
the structure of Bergen County government. Investigators in the Prosecutor’s Office are required
to successfully complete a course of instruction in the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice
Training Academy.
         
       3.1.2 Agency Profile
In 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office had 254 employees, with a sworn headcount of 111 individuals,
77 of whom had the title “officer” and 34 who held the rank of sergeant or higher. In addition to
the Prosecutor and Executive Officer there are also attorneys and civilians on staff. The median
length of service for sworn employees was 13 years and the median base salary with fringe
benefits for investigators was $203,801. The 2010 agency total expenditures were $49.2 million
and the agency generated $3.2 million in revenues for the year. In 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office
opened 3,073 investigations. The Prosecutor’s Office made a total of 524 arrests in 2010. The
following table depicts the arrests broken down by category in 2010.

PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ARRESTS, 2010, BY CATEGORY:




        
       3.1.3 Current Collective Bargaining Agreements/Contracts
The Prosecutor’s Office has entered into three collective bargaining agreements or contracts with
sworn personnel. These agreements are briefly summarized below. A more extensive analysis

                                               10
of major terms and conditions of the agreements covering the ranks investigators to captains, as
they relate to the other stakeholder agencies, is provided in tables contained in Staffing &
Overtime Analysis, Section 3.2 Staffing – Collective Bargaining Agreements.

       a) Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 221 (Investigators and Sergeants)
The Prosecutor’s Office entered into a collective bargaining agreement, dated July 16, 2010, with
members of the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 221 in the ranks of investigator
and sergeant. The agreement covers the term January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013, and
provides for top base salaries in the amounts of $124,192 for investigators, and $131,016 for
sergeants in 2011.

      b) Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 221 Superior Officers (Lieutenants and
Captains)
The Prosecutor’s Office entered into a collective bargaining agreement with members of the
Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 221 Superior Officers in the ranks of lieutenant
and captain. The agreement covers the term January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012, and
provides for base salaries in the amounts of $148,960 for lieutenants and $156,503 for captains
in 2011.

      c) Chief of County Investigators
The Prosecutor’s Office entered into a contract, dated October 16, 2009, with the Chief of
County Investigators. The Chief of County Investigators is entitled to benefits set forth in the
collective bargaining agreement with members of the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local
No. 221 Superior Officers. The Chief’s agreement provides for a base salary of $166,098 in
2011.

       3.1.4. Core & Specialized Functions
The Prosecutor's Office is comprised of Criminal Investigation Squads which are charged with
investigating specific types of crimes. Each one of the Criminal Investigations Squads is staffed
with detectives who investigate the crimes and Assistant Prosecutors who are charged with
prosecuting the criminals. For the purpose of the Study Team’s analysis, the investigative squads
were reviewed and analyzed; the analysis focused on investigative personnel, not prosecutorial
staff. An overview of these squads is contained below, and was gleaned from published
information concerning the Prosecutor’s Office, supplemented with interviews with personnel
from the Prosecutor’s Office. The Prosecutor’s Office also has 21 detectives assigned to the
courthouse to assist prosecutors at trial.

Listed below are the divisions within the Prosecutor’s Office.
     Major Crimes Division – All Major Crimes investigators are crossed-trained. This
       division, formed in 2003, encompasses the following investigative squads:
           o Homicide
           o Cold Case Homicide
           o Arson
           o Fatal Accident
     Juvenile Unit


                                               11
         Special Investigations Squad – This unit focuses on organized crime activities such as
          illegal gambling and extortion as well as crimes such as armed robbery, home invasion,
          kidnapping, etc.
         Counter-Terrorism/Intelligence Unit
         Domestic Violence Unit
         Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Unit
         White Collar Crimes Unit
         Animal Cruelty Task Force
         Gang Unit Task Force
         Narcotics Task Force
         Computer/Forensic Crimes Squad
       
      3.2 Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
          3.2.1 Mission/Authority
The Bergen County Sheriff’s Office is a constitutional office under the New Jersey State
Constitution. Sheriffs are elected officials and serve for three-year terms. (See N.J. Const., Art.
VII, Sec. II, Para. 2) The mission of the Sheriff’s Office is to enforce the rule of law throughout
the county, provide for the care and custody of detainees housed in the Bergen County Jail, 4
provide for the security of the Bergen County Justice Center, enforce orders issued by those
courts, offer local police agencies forensic and investigative support services and provide public
safety education. Additionally, under state law, the Sheriff is “responsible for service, or
execution and return of process, orders, warrants and judgments directed to the sheriff . . . .”
(See N.J. S.A. § 2B:6-3(a))

The Sheriff’s Office is an “appointing authority” under New Jersey civil service law and is a
separate department within the structure of Bergen County government. The Sheriff may
appoint sworn Sheriff’s officers “to perform the duties involved in attending the courts . . . or in
serving court processes, or in the investigation and apprehension of violators of the law, or in
criminal identification, or in ballistics, or in any related work which the sheriff shall, from time
to time prescribe and as shall be determined to be appropriate by the Civil Service Commission.”
(See N.J.S.A. § 40A:9-117.6)

Sworn Sheriff’s officers are selected by a process governed by the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission. Successful candidates must then complete a certified Police Training Commission
course of instruction at a Police Academy. In addition, the Sheriff “may appoint a number of
persons, not to exceed 15% of the total number of sheriff's officers employed by the sheriff and
set forth in the sheriff's table of organization in the county budget, to the position of sheriff's
investigator.” These Sheriff’s appointees are required to complete Police Academy training and
to fulfill all other non-appointee requirements. All Sheriff's investigators serve at the pleasure of
the Sheriff and are included in the unclassified service of the civil service. (See N.J.S.A. §
40A:9-117a)

4
    This report focuses on the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff’s Office other than care and custody of
    detainees in the Bergen County Jail.


                                                        12
       3.2.2 Agency Profile
In 2010 the Sheriff’s Office had 194 employees, with a sworn headcount of 152 individuals, 91
of whom had the title “officer,” 26 detectives or investigators and 35 who held the rank of
sergeant or higher. The agency also had 42 civilian employees. The median length of service for
sworn employees was almost 16 years and the median base salary with fringe benefits for
Sheriff’s officers was $179,025. The 2010 agency total expenditures were $34.7 million and the
agency generated $2.5 million in revenues for the year.

In its 2010 Annual Report, the Sheriff’s Office reported a wide variety of activity for the year,
reflecting a diversity of duties and responsibilities. For example, the Crime Scene Unit of the
Bureau of Criminal Investigation investigated and processed crime scene evidence in more than
2,000 cases and the Firearms Identification/Ballistics Unit received 354 requests for examination
of firearms and ballistics evidence. In 2010, 2,937 warrants were received by the Warrant Unit
and 2,911 warrants were cleared. Additionally, the Court Process Unit of the Sheriff’s Office
reported the service of over 10,000 court processes, including 4,299 summonses and complaints
and 2,828 writs of execution at banks. The Court Security Unit reported a total of 1,386
incidents/activities, including the collection of 788 DNA databank specimen submissions from
probationers and 318 probation arrests. The Special Services Unit performed 8,756 adult
prisoner transports and 352 juvenile transports.

The Sheriff’s Office made a total of 175 new arrests as an agency in 2010. The Investigation
Unit initiated 292 investigations and made a total of 19 arrests in 2010. The Sheriff’s Office also
reported the coordination of 249 extraditions last year, 138 of which were performed directly by
Sheriff’s officers.

       3.2.3 Current Collective Bargaining Agreements
The Sheriff’s Office has entered into three collective bargaining agreements with sworn
personnel. These agreements are summarized briefly below. A more extensive analysis of major
terms and conditions of the agreements covering the ranks of sheriff’s officers to sheriff’s
captains, as they relate to the other stakeholder agencies, is provided in tables in Staffing &
Overtime Analysis Section 3.2 Staffing – Collective Bargaining Agreements.

       a) Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 134 (Sheriff’s Officers, Sheriff’s
Sergeants and Sheriff’s Lieutenants)
The Sheriff’s Office entered into a collective bargaining agreement, dated August 18, 2006, with
members of the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 134 in the ranks of sheriff’s
officer, sheriff’s sergeant and sheriff’s lieutenant. The agreement covers the term January 1,
2006 through December 31, 2010, and provides for top base salaries in the amounts of $106,385
for sheriff’s officers, $115,960 for sheriff’s sergeants, and $126,397 for sheriff’s lieutenants in
2010. A successor agreement has not yet been executed.

       b) Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 134 A (Sheriff’s Captains)
The Sheriff’s Office entered into a collective bargaining agreement with members of the
Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 134 A in the rank of sheriff’s captain. The


                                                13
agreement covers the term January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011, and provides for a base
salary in the amount of $145,350 in 2011.

      c) Sheriff’s Office Inspector
The Sheriff’s Office entered into a contract with the Inspector, designated as part of the
“command staff.” The agreement covers the term April 11, 2011 through April 11, 2012. The
Inspector is a member of Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 134 A and is entitled to
the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement with that unit. The Inspector’s agreement
provides that salary and benefits over and above those provided in Local 134 A’s collective
bargaining agreement are to be set by the Sheriff at his discretion.

       3.2.4 Core & Specialized Functions
The Sheriff’s Office has responsibility for the orderly operation of the Bergen County Justice
Center including security for court personnel and visitors. Although the Sheriff’s Office does not
answer routine 911 calls for service in the county, it will provide back-up to county or municipal
police if present in the area. In addition, although the Sheriff’s officers do not specifically patrol
the roads and perform vehicle stops, having police powers, they can require a vehicle to stop and
issue a traffic ticket if a violation is observed.

Listed below are the divisions within the Sheriff’s Office.
     Court Security Unit
     Accreditation Unit
     Patrol Unit
     K9 Unit
     Operations Unit
     Homeland Security Unit
     Prisoner Transportation
     Civil Process Unit
     Special Operations Group
     Community Outreach
     Mounted Deputies
     Motorcycle Unit
     Information Technology
     Bureau of Criminal Investigation
           o Crime Scene Unit – Responds 24/7 to the scenes of burglaries, robberies, assaults,
              arsons, and homicides throughout the county. It works directly with local law
              enforcement, collecting forensic evidence at crime scenes and often testifying in
              court as experts during criminal prosecutions.
           o Firearms Identification/Ballistics Unit
           o Detective Unit
     Investigation Squad




                                                 14
      3.3 Bergen County Police
          3.3.1 Mission/Authority
The Bergen County Police is a division of the Department of Public Safety of Bergen County.
The agency’s mission is to preserve public peace, prevent crime, and detect and arrest offenders
against the penal and criminal laws of the state and county. The department is “responsible for
providing police services to County institutions, County roads and County parks, and to such
other areas as the [County] Executive may direct.” (See Bergen County Administrative Code §
8.5.3)

The Chief of County Police is not an “appointing authority” under New Jersey civil service law.
Sworn personnel in the department are selected by a process governed by the New Jersey Civil
Service Commission. Successful candidates must then complete both a certified Police Training
Commission course of instruction at a Police Academy and an extensive departmental Field
Training Program prior to serving the public.

          3.3.2 Agency Profile
In 2010 the County Police had 142 employees, with a sworn headcount of 92 individuals, 52 of
whom had the title “officer,” 12 of whom were detectives and 28 of whom held the rank of
sergeant or higher. The agency also had 50 civilian employees, the majority of whom were
security guards. The median length of service for sworn employees was nine years and the
median base salary with fringe benefits for police officers was $197, 596. 5 The 2010 agency
total expenditures were $21.9 million and the agency generated $5.2 million in revenues for the
year.

In 2010 the County Police made 512 arrests, broken down as follows:




5
    The County Police officer salary was computed from 2010 salary payroll figures plus the 9.96% raise, effective
    with the most recent contract.

                                                        15
           3.3.3 Current Collective Bargaining Agreements
Bergen County has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with sworn members of the
County Police. The agreement is summarized briefly below. A more extensive analysis of
major terms and conditions of the agreement covering police officers to captains, as they relate to
the other stakeholder agencies, is provided in tables within the Staffing & Overtime Analysis,
Section 3.2 Staffing – Collective Bargaining Agreements of this report.

      a) Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 221 (Investigators and Sergeants)
Bergen County entered into a collective bargaining agreement, dated March 11, 2011, with
members of the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 49 in the County Police ranks of
police officer, sergeant, lieutenant and captain. The agreement covers the term January 1, 2010
through December 31, 2014. The agreement provides for top base salaries, retroactive to
December 29, 2010, in the amounts of $126,294.50 for police officers, $137,661.01 for
sergeants, $150,050.50 for lieutenants and $163,555.05 for captains.

The amounts provided for in this agreement represent a 9.96% increase in the salary earned by
County Police sworn personnel up to December 29, 2010. 6 The increases are based upon a
formula involving the maximum base annual salary of 30 other named Bergen County law
enforcement agencies for each contract year. Specifically, the formula provides that “[n]ot less
than ninety-five (95%) percent of those agencies shall have a maximum base annual salary for
Patrolmen for said year which is below the maximum base annual salary of the Bergen County
Police Officer.” Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 49 is permitted to delete and
replace one Bergen County law enforcement agency each year. The current collective
bargaining agreement provides that there will be a 0% wage increase in fiscal years 2011, 2012
and 2013. However, the agreement also provides that salary increases in fiscal year 2014 shall
be determined by the above contract formula. Moreover, the agreement additionally provides
that “[s]hould there be a reduction in workforce and/or demotions in rank in fiscal years 2011
and/or 2012 as necessitated by reasons of economy and/or efficiency (other than for cause), the
parties agree to re-open negotiations on the issue of salary alone for the fiscal year in which the
event occurs.”

           3.3.4 Core & Specialized Functions
The County Law Services Plan, in its description of the core functions for the County Police, lists
Primary Patrol as “Response to all calls for law enforcement service within the Bergen County
parks system, County schools, and all County facilities and patrol of all County roads – not
responding with locals departments and State highways (if necessary.)” Maps which identify the
location of County roads, parks and buildings are annexed as Appendix B. The Study Team was
advised that the County Police regularly patrol the highways described in Appendix C.

The County Police are immediately available to support federal, state, county and municipal law
enforcement agencies in Bergen and contiguous jurisdictions. Further, its members provide
additional service by staffing the many special operations units of the department.


6
    Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 49 waived base salary increases for the period: January 1, 2010 up
     to December 29, 2010.

                                                         16
Also, the Mutual Aid protocol of the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association provides an
additional mechanism for support among the local municipal police agencies when needed or
requested.

Listed below are the various units or activities identified by the County Police.
     Operations Section – This is the Patrol Unit.
     Traffic Safety – In conjunction with the Office of Highway Safety 7, the unit coordinates
       safety programs and grants throughout the county and, to that end, maintains statistical
       data regarding motor vehicle accidents and the injuries and fatalities occurring therein.
       This unit also provides truck enforcement (including enforcement of weight and
       dimension limits), commercial vehicle inspections and vehicle speedometer calibrations
       of municipal and county police vehicles.
     Driver Training Programs
     County Roads – Speeding Surveys, monitoring of construction zones, radar enforcement
     Special Events – road closures and alternative routing
     Escorts for dignitaries, etc.
     Traffic incident management
     Vehicle impounds
     SWAT
           o Hostage situations
           o Barricaded suspects
           o High risk warrant executions
           o Crowd and riot control
           o Terrorism events
           o Active shooter events
     Scuba/Water Search & Recovery Unit
     K9 Unit
     Bomb Squad
     Criminal Investigations Section
     Medical Examiners Unit
     Mounted
     Communication

4. Comparison of Agency Functions

In order to identify any possible areas for consolidation, elimination, privatization or
civilianization in the stakeholder agencies, the Study Team, utilizing the descriptions of core and
specialized functions set forth in the County Law Services Plan for 1/1/10-12/31/10, created the
matrix table below. In addition to the three stakeholder agencies that are the focus of this study,
the table also includes the municipal police and the Department of Public Safety in order to
present the most complete picture of the current provision of law enforcement in the county.

Core and specialized functions tables appear on the following pages.

7
    The Office of Highway Safety is a division of the Department of Public Safety.

                                                          17
            
           4.1 Core Functions as outlined in the 2010 County Law Services Plan

                                                                   COUNTY   MUNICIPAL
      CORE FUNCTION                PROSECUTOR          SHERIFF     POLICE    POLICE     DPS
Major Criminal Investigations          X
  Criminal Investigations              X                      X      X         X
 Police Training Academy               X
        Extraditions                   X                      X
      Court Functions                  X
         County Jail                                          X
    Courthouse Security                                       X
  Fugitive Bench Warrant
                                                              X
         Extradition
     Prisoner Transport                                       X
     BCI and Ballistics                                       X
       Legal Process                                          X
                                                                      Ω
       Primary Patrol                                               X          Xπ
    Traffic Enforcement                                             X          X
  Arrest, Fingerprint and
                                                                     X±        X¥
         Processing
     Crime Suppression                                               Xβ        Xµ
 Dispatch Service including
                                                                                        X
       County Police
            OEM                                                                         X
    Trunk Radio Service                                                                 X
    County Rangemaster
                                                                                        X
        Designation
      Initial Response                                                         X
Ω
     For Parks, County schools, facilities, & certain roads
π
    For law enforcement services within their community
±
    for BCPD arrests
¥
    For offenders within their jurisdiction
β
    in County Parks and Schools
µ   within their communities




                                                              18
      4.2 Specialized Functions as outlined in the 2010 County Law Services Plan

                                                               COUNTY   MUNICIPAL
         SPECIALIZED FUNCTION           PROSECUTOR   SHERIFF   POLICE    POLICE     DPS
                    Arson                   X
                   Aviation                 X
                 Bias Crime                 X
                    Fraud                   X
           Fraudulent Documents                        X
              Intelligence Unit             X
      Organized Crime & Gambling            X
                 Sex Crimes                 X
                Fatal Accident              X
                    Gangs                   X
       Crime Prevention Education           X          X                   X
       Alcoholic Beverage Control           X                              X
    County Wide Computer Network            X
                   ASPCA                    X
         Rapid Deployment Team
                                            X
          (Outside County Team)
    Child Abduction Response Team           X
            Domestic Violence               X          X
           Environmental Crime              X
                  Homicide                  X
                  Auto theft                X
             Federal Assistance             X
                  Polygraph                 X
               Victim Witness               X
               Anti-Terrorism               X
           County wide Hotlines             X
                TIPS/Hotline                                               X
 Driving While Intoxicated Task Force       X
            Narcotic Task Force             X
             Computer Crimes                X
 Oversee all Law Enforcement Training       X
            In-Service Training             X          X         X
  Day to Day Oversight and Op. Resp.
for Law Enforcement Training Academy                             X
     for Recruit/In-Service Training1
         Basic Training Academy             *           *        X
    Range Master at Police Academy*                              X
       Labor Assistance Programs                       X
               Internal Affairs                        X                   X
              Missing Persons                          X
            Composite Artistry                         X
                     K-92                              X         X         X


                                                19
                                                                                                  COUNTY           MUNICIPAL
            SPECIALIZED FUNCTION                          PROSECUTOR            SHERIFF           POLICE            POLICE               DPS
    Involuntary Civil Commitment Transport                                        X
                     SWAT3                                                        X                   X                   X
         Prisoner Security in Hospitals                                           X
          Crime Scene Investigations                                              X
             Alcohol Treatment and
                                                                                     X
          Rehabilitation Act Services
          Child Fingerprinting for ID                                                X                                    X
      Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team
                                                                                     X
                   (Jail Only)
       Senior Citizen Education Programs                                             X                                    X
            Citizen/Student Training                                                                                      X
               Hostage Negotiation                                                                    X
          Emergency Response Teams                                                                    X                   X
                  Bomb Squad                                                                          X
              Communications/911                                                     X                X                   X
           Parade and Traffic Control                                                                 Xπ                  X
       Medical Examiner’s Investigations4                                                             X
                 SCUBA Team                                                                           X
         Weapons of Mass Destruction                                                                  X
                   Radar Unit                                                                         X
       Drug Abuse Resistance Education                                                                X€                  X
                   Marine Unit                                                                        X
                  Traffic Safety                                                                      X                   X
                 Elections Duty                                                                       X
              Oversight of Juvenile
                                                                                                      X
           Detention Facility Security
           Rapid Deployment Force/
                                                                                                                          X
     Rapid Deployment Team (Task Force)
           Megan’s Law Registration                                                                                       X
*  County Rangemaster Designation is listed as a core function for DPS.
π
   if requested
€
   County Schools
1. Listed as core function of Dept. of Public Safety
2. Includes Bomb, K9 (Jail or Courthouse, County Police to be notified) and Jail only or Municipal Chief callout for Sheriff, and general K9 for
County Police
3. In Jail, where Sheriff is Incident Commander, or if req. by Prosec. RDT, Sheriff SWAT; in other cases County Police SWAT is primary
SWAT for all cases where county chief is Incident Commander, or if local department does not have approved SWAT
4. Also listed as State Police Core Function


5.     CORE & SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS - FINDINGS

In several core or specialized functions the Study Team found overlaps among the stakeholder
agencies which present opportunities, from both fiscal and public safety perspectives, for
consolidation, elimination, civilianization, privatization or improved coordination. These areas
include Patrol (Section 5.1), County Building Security (Section 5.2), Traffic Enforcement
(Section 5.3), SWAT (Section 5.4), Criminal Investigations (Section 5.5), Water Search and
Recovery (Section 5.6), Medical Examiner’s Investigations (Section 5.7), K-9 (Section 5.8),

                                                                      20
Crime Prevention Education (Section 5.9) and Mounted Deputies and Motorcycle Units (Section
5.10). Findings relative to these activities are discussed in detail below. Each section begins with
a listing of the key findings followed by a discussion of the function analysis. (Additional
analysis relative to opportunities for privatization, civilianization, etc. is found in Section B
Staffing & Overtime Analysis)

          5.1 Patrol Functions
The Study Team’s review of the Patrol Core Function found the following:

         Of the 69 police agencies reviewed in the county, the County Police ranked near the
          bottom with respect to calls for service 176.23 per sworn officer annually, indicating that
          calls for service is not a primary function of the County Police.
         Municipalities do not generally rely upon the County Police for routine call response.
         The overwhelming majority of calls for service responded to by the County Police were
          centered in five municipalities and, in these locations, the County Police handled only a
          small percentage of calls received.
         The County Police does not consistently cover all of its patrol posts.
         If the County Police response to calls for service function were to cease to be available,
          the increased number of calls for service which would be imposed on local municipal
          agencies would be minimal.

          5.1.1 Patrol Functions - Calls for Service
As outlined in the County Law Services Plan, responsibility for the primary patrol functions in
Bergen County is divided between a) the County Police, whose jurisdiction is patrol of the state
highways and U.S. roads described in Appendix C and response to county parks and facilities,
and b) the municipalities, which respond within their respective jurisdictions.

Data was provided to the Study Team and a variety of analyses were conducted. Results for the
last full year, 2010, are discussed in this section. The County Police had 4,000 fewer calls for
service in 2009 than in 2010, but similar response patterns by category. 8 The Study Team
obtained response data for local Bergen County municipalities for 2010 for use in the
comparative analysis.

In order to determine the relative importance of the County Police patrol function to patrolling
activity in the county overall and to develop an understanding of the productivity of the County
Police in performing the patrol function, the Study Team analyzed the following data: a) the
number of sworn officers in each of the 68 municipal police agencies identified by the team plus
the County Police, b) the population of the jurisdictions served by those agencies and c) the
number of calls for service in each of the jurisdictions. Utilizing this data, a per capita call for
service ratio was calculated and overlaid with the agency sworn police officer headcount to
produce an agency per capita call for service ratio for each jurisdiction. The Study Team found



8
    Calls for service data for 2006, 2007 and 2008 were provided to the Study Team, but it was not broken down in
    comparable categories, thereby precluding comparative analysis for the entire five-year period.

                                                        21
that, of the 69 police agencies reviewed in this manner, the County Police ranked near the bottom
with 176.23 calls for service per sworn officer annually.

The table below displays this analysis for all agencies with 50 or more sworn officers. 9

                                                                 Agency              Calls for     Calls for
                                                                 Headcount           Service       Service
                          Total Calls        Population          (Sworn              per           per
    Agency                for Service        Jurisdiction        PO’s)               Capita        Officer
    Teaneck               95,589             38,662              101                 2.47          946.42
    Hackensack            80,000             42,804              104                 1.86          769.23
    Paramus               61,380             26,128              92                  2.34          667.17
    Mahwah                29,656             24,172              50                  1.22          593.12
    Bergenfield           31,049             25,611              55                  1.21          564.52
    Fort Lee              55,857             36,275              109                 1.53          512.44
    Garfield              32,672             28,971              64                  1.12          510.50
    Englewood             25,062             29,112              83                  0.86          301.95
    Lyndhurst             14,754             19,295              50                  0.76          295.08
    County Police         16,214             894,840             92                  0.02          176.23

Its low rate of calls for service per sworn officer indicates that, while the County Police provide
many valuable specialized services for Bergen County, response to calls for service is not a
primary function. With this overall rate of response in mind, the Study Team analyzed the
distribution of calls for service responded to by the County Police in each jurisdiction within the
county.

A review of that data showed that most Bergen County towns and boroughs receive little in the
way of calls for service responses from the County Police. Allowing for the fact that the County
Police perform certain patrolling functions and acknowledging that the municipalities depend on
the County Police for specialized functions, it is clear that municipalities do not depend upon the
County Police for routine call response.

Further analysis revealed that in 2010, the County Police responded to a total of 16, 214 calls for
service. Of that total, approximately 24% of the calls were patrol service requests and 51% of
calls were generated by three types of service categories: patrol service requests, motor vehicle
crashes and motor vehicle assists and disabled vehicles. The chart below displays these total calls
for service by category.




9
    It should be noted that the police agencies of the municipalities listed in this table provided their respective calls
     for service totals. The Study Team did not have an opportunity to verify the accuracy of these numbers.


                                                            22
* Patrol Service Requests are requests for the response of a patrol unit for a police related purpose. County Police
requests include, for example: medical calls/requests for EMS, activated alarms, road hazards, etc.
** Administrative Actions are actions taken for a managerial or organizational purpose. County Police
administrative actions include, for example: motor vehicle repair/maintenance, employee injury, radio repair, etc.

The Study Team reviewed comparable response data for local police agencies and has
determined that if the County Police call for service assists function were eliminated, the
increased number of calls for service which would be imposed on local municipal agencies
would be minimal. The team also found that any impact, however minimal, would likely be
limited to no more than five municipalities: Hackensack, Paramus, Teaneck, Mahwah and
Englewood. This analysis assisted the Study Team in identifying location and assignment
patterning within calls for service data, assisting the team in determining how this data describes
the work of the County Police and its distribution within Bergen County.

Details on calls by principal categories by jurisdiction appear in the following charts.




                                                        23
                                                        2010 BCPD Patrol 
                         650
                                                        Service Requests 
                                                                               Hackensack
             104                                                               Paramus
                                                            1,631
           167                                                                 Mahwah
                                                                               Fort Lee
           233
                                                                               Teaneck
                                                                               Rockleigh
               307                                                             All Others



                                     808

Seventy percent (70%) of the 3,900 County Police patrol service requests occurred in
Hackensack, Paramus and Mahwah. This appears to correlate with the presence of county
facilities and property in such municipalities.


                               218                         2010 BCPD MV Crashes
                    83                         432
                                                                           Hackensack
               90
                                                                           Teaneck

          216                                                              Paramus
                                                                           Lodi
                                                                           Hasbrouck Hts.
         138                                              497
                                                                           Englewood
                                                                           E.Rutherford
           181
                                                                           Rutherford
                                                                           All Others

                                      746

Sixty-four percent (64%) of the 2,601 County Police responses to motor vehicle crashes occurred
in Hackensack, Paramus and Teaneck.




                                              24
                                  2010 BCPD MV Assists & Disabled Veh.
                     279                       256
                                                                            Hackensack
                                                                            Paramus
                                                                            Teaneck
          146
                                                           258              Lodi
                                                                            Hasbrouck Hts.
          78
                                                                            E.Rutherford
                                                                            Rutherford
              171                                                           Englewood
                                                                            All Others
                     79                             364
                            97

More than fifty percent (50%) of the 1,728 County Police responses for motor vehicle assists and
disabled vehicles occurred in Hackensack, Paramus and Teaneck.

                                         2010 BCPD Investigations ‐ By  Location
                     291
                                                     395
                                                                              Hackensack
          37                                                                  Paramus
         44                                                                   Mahwah
        47                                                                    Teaneck
        52                                                                    Fort Lee
         47                                                                   Rockleigh
                                                                              Rochelle Park
                                                                              All Others

                                         794

Nearly seventy percent (70%) of the County Police investigations took place in Paramus and
Hackensack. Again, this appears to correlate with the presence of county facilities and property
in such municipalities.

As a further exemplar, the following chart depicts the total calls for service (excluding
administrative and training calls) reported by the County Police for 2010 within the five
municipalities with the highest number of calls for service by the County Police. The chart
compares this total to the total number of calls for service reported by each of these
municipalities.
                                               25
County Police 2010 Calls for Service (CFS) Comparison




Calls for service (excluding administrative actions) by the County Police as a percentage of all
calls within these five municipalities in 2010, ranged from a high of 4.4% in Hackensack to 1.1%
for Teaneck. Although these five jurisdictions represented 50% of the total calls for service
activity by the County Police in 2010, this activity represented an average of fewer than 3% of
the calls for service in these municipalities. In 2010, the ratio of County Police activity to local
police response to calls for service for the remaining 64 police agencies in the County (excluding
the Prosecutor’s and Sheriff’s Offices) averaged less than one half of one percent (.5%).

       5.1.2 Patrol Functions - County Police Patrol Coverage
In performing this analysis, the Study Team was cognizant of the fact that the scope of the patrol
function for the County Police is more limited than for the local municipal police agencies. The
Study Team also looked at how the County Police handles the patrolling of its jurisdiction.

For administrative purposes, the County Police divides its patrol coverage into ten separate patrol
posts. The patrol posts consist mainly of specific stretches of state highways and U.S. roads. (A
description of those patrol posts is attached as Appendix C.) A review of daily tour reports for
one week in each quarter of both 2009 and 2010 on all tours of duty (i.e., 168 separate tour
reports) found that the County Police assign a police officer to patrol many of its patrol posts on
an infrequent basis. The review found that the County Police covered only 50% of its patrol
posts more than half of the time on daytime tours of duty (7:00am to 3:00pm). On evening tours
of duty (3:00pm to 11:00pm) and overnight tours of duty (11:00pm to 7:00am), coverage was
only slightly improved, with 60% of its patrol posts covered more than half of the time.




                                                26
The following tables illustrate coverage:

On daytime tours, Patrol Posts 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are covered less than 50% of the time.




On evening tours, Patrol Posts 2, 6, 8 and 9 are covered less than 50% of the time.

                                                                      2009 ‐2010 BCPD
                 100%                                                 Patrol Post Coverage
                  90%                                                 Percentage ‐ 1500 x 2300 
                  80%
                  70%
                  60%
                  50%
                  40%
                  30%
                  20%
                  10%
                   0%
                                                          n)
                                                             )
                                                             )




                                                           l)
                                                           l)




                                                          6)
                                                            )




                                                          a)
                                                            )



                                                            )
                                                         er
                                                       op




                                                       t  4




                                                       08
                                                       op
                                                     tra




                                                     tra




                                                     ge


                                                    laz
                                                    t  4
                                                    w
                                                  Lo




                                                 t  2
                                                 Lo
                                                  (R


                                                en




                                                 er
                                               en




                                               Lo




                                                 P
                                               (R


                                              7 
                                              4




                                             (R


                                           t B
                                           17




                                           en
                                            C
                                             7 
                                           (C




                                           6


                                         28
                                         st


                                       th
                                       /1




                                         8
                                       6/




                                       as



                                       rg
                                       st
                                       1




                                     Po




                                     8/



                                     st
                                     or
                                    20
                                    /4




                                    Po




                                    /E


                                   Be
                                    st




                                  Po
                                  20
                                 (N
                                t  4
                                Po




                                 W
                                 /1




                                1 
                              7/
                            t 3




                            t 9



                             0 (
                              5
                             (R




                            1
                          st




                          1
                         (R




                         (R
                          2




                       Rt
                      Po




                      st
                      st


                      3




                      9
                    7 (




                   Po
                  Po



                   st




                   st
                 st 
                Po




                Po
               Po




                                                27
On overnight tours, Patrol Posts 7, 8, 9 and 10 are covered less than 50% of the time.

                                                                                  2009 ‐2010 BCPD
                      100%                                                        Patrol Post Coverage
                                                                                  Percentage ‐ 2300 x 0700 
                        80%

                        60%

                        40%

                        20%

                         0%




                                                     )




                                                                                               n)
                                                     )




                                                                                               l)




                                                                                                )




                                                                                              a)
                                                    )




                                                                                              6)
                                                  er




                                                                                               )




                                                                                               )
                                                 op




                                                                                             op
                                                                                            t 4
                                                  al




                                                                                            08
                                                                                           tra




                                                                                            ge



                                                                                           az
                                                                                          t 4
                                               w
                                               tr




                                                                                         Lo
                                              Lo




                                                                                        t 2
                                                                                         (R




                                                                                         er
                                                                                        en




                                                                                         Pl
                                            Lo
                                           en




                                                                                       (R



                                                                                       7 




                                                                                   t B



                                                                                      n 
                                          17




                                                                                    (R
                                                                                      4
                                          7 




                                                                                     C
                                         (C




                                                                                 28
                                                                                   6




                                                                                 ge
                                                                                 st
                                       /1




                                                                                th




                                                                                as
                                       6/




                                                                                 8
                                                                               st
                                       1




                                                                              8/
                                                                              Po




                                                                              er
                                    20




                                                                             or




                                                                              st
                                    /4




                                                                             /E
                                                                            Po
                                    st




                                                                           20




                                                                            B
                                                                          Po
                                                                          (N
                                 t 4




                                                                          W
                                 /1
                                Po




                                                                        (1
                                                                       7/




                                                                      t 9
                              t 3
                              (R




                                                                       5




                                                                      0 
                                                                    t 1
                                                                    st




                                                                   (R
                           (R




                                                                    1
                            2




                                                                Po




                                                                 (R




                                                                 st
                         st




                                                                9
                         3




                                                            Po
                      Po




                                                              7




                                                             st
                      st




                                                           st




                                                          Po
                    Po




                                                         Po



In conclusion, the Study Team reviewed response data for the County Police and local police
agencies and has determined that if the County Police response to calls for service function were
to cease to be available, the increased number of calls for service which would be imposed on
local municipal agencies would be minimal. The team also found that any impact, however
minimal, would likely be limited to no more than five municipalities: Hackensack, Paramus,
Teaneck, Mahwah and Englewood. The patrol post coverage data showed that even within its
own primary jurisdiction (county roads as described in Appendix C, parks and facilities) there
were sizeable lapses in patrol coverage, meaning that at present some police response to roads,
parks and facilities is already being handled by local municipalities.

       5.2 County Building Security 10

The Study Team’s review of the County Building Security Core Function found the following:

          Inefficiencies exist in the staffing of security guards by the County Police and the
           Sheriff’s Office in the areas within and contiguous to the County Courthouse.
          Sheriff’s Office security guards had a median base salary almost $11,000 higher than
           security guards employed by the County Police.
          The security guard function represents an opportunity for privatization.

           5.2.1 County Building Security - Deployment of Security Guards
An analysis of county building security assignments reveals an overlap between the County
Police, which provides police personnel and private unarmed security guards, and the Sheriff’s
Office’s personnel who provide court security through the use of unarmed security guards and

10
     A listing of county building appears in the Tenancy Matrix found in Facilities Analysis, Section 3.1.1 Facilities
      Overview.

                                                                 28
armed Sheriff’s officers. Currently, these security guard programs are staffed with Bergen
County employees who have full civil service benefits, including pension. These guards provide
security for county buildings and parks under the authority of the County Police and security of
the courthouse under the authority of the Sheriff’s Office. The County Police program is
managed by a retired police chief who has the title of Assistant Director of Security. The
Sheriff’s guards are not part of the Bergen County guard program and are managed by the
Sheriff’s officers. These guards are not armed.

The Study Team found efficiency issues in the use and deployment of security guards by both
the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office. The assignment of County Police officers to the One
Bergen County Plaza building is superfluous in light of the fact that there are also ten County
Police security guards assigned to the same location and eight Sheriff’s Office security guards
and numerous armed Sheriff’s officers assigned to the courthouse, which is just across the street.
The Study Team understands the concern regarding the removal of an armed officer from this
function, whether County Police or Sheriff’s officer; however, this concern could be addressed
by employing an armed security guard. It should be noted that many of the federal courts
privatized their court security officers years ago. Furthermore, the area contiguous to the County
Courthouse is patrolled by armed Sheriff’s officers as part of their core function. As a matter of
efficiency, they could also be responsible for the perimeter of One Bergen County Plaza.

           5.2.2 County Building Security - Cost of Security Guard Service
The costs associated with building security staffing are increasingly high. In 2010 the median
base salary cost, including fringe benefits, for one County Police officer assigned to One Bergen
County Plaza was $197,596. 11 The median base cost of one Bergen County security guard,
including fringe benefits but excluding overtime, was $46,225. Given this differential, it is
apparent that the county could hire four additional security guards for less than it costs for one
police officer.

The Sheriff’s Office has its own security guard program, with approximately eight security
guards stationed at the County Courthouse. These guards perform similar functions to those
provided by the County Police security guards and are often accompanied by an armed Sheriff’s
officer. The median base salary, including fringe benefits, for one Sheriff’s officer amounted to
$179,025; the median base salary, including fringe benefits but excluding overtime, for one
Sheriff’s Office security guard was $57,027. Again, security guards could replace officers at a
ratio of 3:1.

The Study Team notes the significant difference in median salaries between County Police and
Sheriff’s Office security guards. This disparity may be due to contractual and length of service
differences between these two titles. The Study Team examined the base salaries of two guards
in each title hired in 1993 and 1994 respectively. The County Police security guard hired in
1993 had a base salary of $22,922, while the Sheriff’s security guard hired in 1994 had a base
salary of $40,490. This substantial disparity in base salary suggested that combining these titles

11
     The County Police officer salary was computed from 2010 salary payroll figures plus the 9.96% raise effective
     with the most recent contract.


                                                        29
and utilizing the lower paid County Police security guards to perform these duties might be a
cost-effective alternative. However, the Study Team concluded that the greatest cost savings
would be derived from privatization of this function. Further discussion of security guards and
potential savings from privatization are found in Sections Staffing & Overtime Analysis 3.5 –
3.5.3 Staffing – Security Guards.

          5.3 Traffic Enforcement
Traffic enforcement is an important function of police agencies. It provides for life safety by
offering a deterrent and educational service to the motoring public, facilitates the expeditious
movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and enforces laws, including those which regulate
the operation of commercial vehicles. It also generates revenue.

The Study Team examined traffic enforcement practices in Bergen County and found two areas
of focus - responsibility and revenue generation.

The review of the Traffic Enforcement Core Function found the following:
    Through the issuance of traffic tickets and the enforcement of overweight and
       dimensional vehicle violations the County Police generated revenues of $23,000,000 in
       the past five years.
    Traffic enforcement is being actively pursued by the Sheriff’s Office. Despite the fact
       that this activity is not specifically listed among the core or specialized functions of the
       office, these activities consume “on duty” time which might be better spent on designated
       functions.
    In a consolidated agency, there appears to be no legal reason why properly trained
       Sheriff’s officers cannot perform the commercial vehicle enforcement activities currently
       performed by the County Police Traffic Safety Unit.

          5.3.1 Traffic Enforcement - Responsibility
The County Police perform several different activities that fall under its traffic enforcement
responsibilities, including: traffic safety, radar enforcement, motor vehicles fatalities
investigations and truck enforcement, among others. According to the County Police, truck
enforcement by the Traffic Safety Unit, which includes the authority to enforce overweight and
dimensional vehicle violations, is staffed by officers who have been certified by the New Jersey
Office of Weights and Measures as Weighmasters.

While traffic enforcement is clearly a responsibility of the County Police under the County Law
Services Plan, the role of the Sheriff’s Office in traffic enforcement is less explicit. The overlap
of traffic enforcement functions has been an issue for several years in the county. As long ago as
1999, the Buracker Study noted that “Two practices within the Sheriff’s Department have
evoked criticism during recent years. These are providing K-9 assistance to local authorities and
the writing of traffic summonses for vehicle code violations.” 12



12
     “A Function and Staffing Analysis of the Bergen County Sheriff’s Department and the Bergen County Police
      Department,” Carroll Buracker & Associates,1999.

                                                      30
Although not listed as a core or specialized function, the Sheriff’s Office’s website displays the
following information concerning Sheriff’s Office practice in this area:

       “During routine operations, the officers of the Sheriff’s Patrol Unit are
       required and empowered to enforce motor vehicle laws and secure
       compliance with state and local traffic regulations.”

In addition, the Sheriff’s Office SOP manual contains a procedure entitled “Traffic Enforcement
and Control,” which in relevant part details the Office’s policy in this regard:

       “It is the policy of the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office to enforce motor
       vehicle laws when necessary. The Sheriff acknowledges that, as a law
       enforcement agency, the Sheriff’s Office has certain inherent
       obligations.”

Later in that same procedure, under Section IX, “Traffic Enforcement Methods,” the policy
indicates:

       “While this office does not engage in active, ongoing traffic
       enforcement activities, a request to assist another law enforcement
       agency with their traffic enforcement efforts may be approved by the
       Sheriff or his designee.”

The Study Team reviewed the number of tickets issued by both the County Police and the
Sheriff’s Office over the past five years and the revenues generated by this activity and found
that traffic enforcement is being actively pursued by the Sheriff’s Office. This is true despite the
fact that this activity is not specifically listed among the core or specialized functions of the
office.

The chart below depicts the number of traffic tickets issued by both agencies over the past five
years:

        Agency               2006         2007         2008         2009        2010
        County Police        64,008       60,914       49,140       48,973      44,496
        Sheriff’s Office     452          819          473          523         1,222

While the County Police had a 9.1% decrease in the number of tickets issued from 2009 to 2010,
the Sheriff’s Office actually realized a 134% increase in tickets issued in this period. A further
analysis of tickets issued by the Sheriff’s Office revealed that approximately 42 Sheriff’s officers
issued one or more tickets in 2010. Furthermore, eight Sheriff’s officers were responsible for
issuing more than 50 tickets each. These eight officers issued 912 tickets, which amounted to
75% of all tickets issued by the Sheriff’s Office in 2010.

When the Study Team interviewed the current Sheriff regarding the practice of issuing tickets by
his officers, he maintained that he would not instruct officers to ignore violations of the law. The
Study Team concurs that this is an appropriate position, in that Sheriff’s Officers are law

                                                31
enforcement officers who should not ignore blatant violations of the law in their presence.
However, given the general increasing trend over the last three years, it appears that traffic
enforcement may be becoming an operational part of the activities of Sheriff’s officers.

As a practical matter, the issuance of tickets by Sheriff’s officers, and the resulting court
appearances which they generate, consume “on duty” time and may generate overtime; this time
might be better spent on the core and specialized functions of the Sheriff’s Office as outlined in
the County Law Services Plan. For example, the Study Team learned that there is currently a
substantial backlog in service of legal papers at the Sheriff’s Office. This is a core function for
the office. Furthermore, local municipale chiefs interviewed by the team throughout the course
of this study reported having had difficulty in obtaining transportation services from the Sheriff’s
Office for prisoners which is one of the agency’s core functions. 13

The Study Team believes that decreasing traffic enforcement activity by Sheriff’s officers, and
having them focus on the Sheriff’s Office core and specialized responsibilities as outlined in the
County Law Services Plan, would increase efficiency and reduce duplication in the area of traffic
enforcement within Bergen County. The Study Team also finds that the core function
responsibility of the County Police for traffic enforcement on county roads as described in
Appendix C and, in particular, the duties performed by the Traffic Safety Unit, is important to
the maintenance of public safety within the county, and would need to be maintained under any
consolidation (i.e., this responsibility would need to continue to be addressed by a law
enforcement entity.)

           5.3.2 Traffic Enforcement - Revenue
The chart below depicts the revenue generated by ticket issuance by the County Police and the
Sheriff’s Office over the past five years:

            Agency                  2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
            County Police          $5,194,054 $5,168,732 $4,478,978 $4,417,847 $3,764,035
            Sheriff’s Office           $36,678        $69,495        $43,113        $47,180       $103,372

As shown, in the past five years the County Police has contributed almost $23,000,000 in
revenue in this activity. The Sheriff’s Office has also contributed some revenue to the county,
but as noted above, this revenue generation arises from a duplication of the enforcement efforts
by municipal police agencies and the County Police.

The overwhelming majority of tickets issued by the County Police were issued by Traffic Safety
Unit personnel, rather than by personnel assigned to patrol functions. The following table
illustrates the breakdown in ticket issuance for 2009 and 2010.




13
     At a meeting of the Law Services Review Board attended by the Study Team in March 2011, a discussion of the
     issue of prisoner transport indicated that that this issue has been addressed by the current Sheriff.


                                                        32
                                 Percentage of                      Percentage of
                                 Total County                       Total County
                No. of Tickets   Police Tickets    No. of Tickets   Police Tickets
                  Issued By       for Year By       Issued By        for Year By     Total Tickets
                County Police    County Police     County Police    County Police      Issued by
                Traffic Safety   Traffic Safety        Patrol           Patrol       County Police
    Year             Unit             Unit          Personnel         Personnel         for Year
    2009             37,177              76%           11,796              24%           48,973
    2010             32,482              73%           12,014              27%           44,496


Should there be a consolidation of agencies in the county, the Study Team has researched and
can confirm that revenues currently generated in this activity will not be lost to the county.

       5.3.3 Traffic Enforcement - Conclusion
As noted above, the traffic enforcement activities of the County Police contribute to public safety
in the county, and clearly generate revenue. Should there be a consolidation of agencies in the
county, the Study Team recommends that the traffic enforcement activities of the Traffic Safety
Unit, which is responsible for about three-quarters of this revenue, be maintained.

Should the county consider consolidating the County Police into the Sheriff’s Office, it has been
suggested to the Study Team that Sheriff’s officers will have no authority to issue tickets for
motor vehicle weight and dimension offenses (See, e.g. N.J.S.A. § 39:3-84) which account for
many of the tickets issued by Traffic Safety Unit personnel. However, the Study Team found no
legal reason why properly trained Sheriff’s officers, including former County Police officers who
become members of the Sheriff’s Office under a consolidation and who were formerly trained
members of the Traffic Safety Unit of the County Police, could not issue such tickets. In fact,
N.J.S.A. § 39:5-25 authorizes “any law enforcement officer [emphasis added]” to arrest or
summons violators of these offenses. Additionally, Sheriff’s officers have authority to conduct
vehicle weight and dimension enforcement by virtue of their police powers within the State (See
N.J.S.A. § 2A:154-3 and N.J.S.A. § 39:3-84.3(2)).

       5.4 SWAT, SOG and SERT Teams
The Study Team’s review of the SWAT (County Police), SOG and SERT Teams (Sheriff’s
Office) Specialized Functions found the following:

      As the two agencies are currently configured, these three teams provide different services
       which are specific to the needs of their agencies and the provision of law enforcement
       services to the county.
      Should a consolidation of the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office occur, an
       opportunity exists for reducing the combined SWAT/SOG headcount through additional
       training / certification and/or redundancy.



                                                  33
Bergen County has a robust Special Weapons and Tactics (“SWAT”) Team presence. The
County Police maintain a SWAT Team, as do the municipalities of Fort Lee, Lyndhurst, Tenafly,
and Englewood Cliffs. The Sheriff’s Office maintains a Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team
(“SERT”) which is a specially trained team of Corrections Officers who respond to extraordinary
institutional incidents within the Bergen County Jail and a Special Operations Group (“SOG”),
which is a highly trained team of Sheriff’s officers who are responsible for all high risk
operations that require tactical expertise. These include high risk warrant execution, prisoner
transport and high risk trial operations, as well as heavy weapons and threat assessments.
Currently, the SOG is not certified as a SWAT Team under the Prosecutor’s Office Directive, 14
and, in fact, is only activated in support of Sheriff’s Office operations. In 2010 the SOG team
was activated 14 times and the SWAT Team had 17 activations.

The Prosecutor’s Directive provides guidelines for employment of SWAT services by all law
enforcement agencies within the county. This directive establishes practices, including training
and team approval for operation. It identifies forth the County Police SWAT Team as the
primary tactical unit for SWAT services in the county. If a local jurisdiction has a SWAT Team,
the incident commander may employ that team. If the local jurisdiction does not have a SWAT
Team, the County Police SWAT Team must be notified to respond. If additional teams are
thought to be necessary, the incident commander may activate a second team after conferral with
the County Police. However, the Prosecutor’s Directive dictates that the County Police SWAT
Team be notified any time there is a “SWAT-related” incident in the County. 15

The Study Team believes that emergency responses within jail facilities require different skills,
than warrant executions and trial security therefore the continued operation of both the Sheriff’s
Office SERT Team and its SOG is supportable. These teams provide different services which are
specific to the needs of their agencies. 16

Since the SOG is not currently certified as a SWAT Team under BCPO Directive 2010-1 and
because of the differences in tactical equipment and the levels of experience in the two entities,
the Study Team cannot recommend consolidation as the SWAT and SOG teams are currently
configured.

Assuming the certification issue were addressed, i.e. the Sheriff’s SOG Team was to become
SWAT-certified, this would permit consolidation of the teams after appropriate training. That
would result in realization of cost savings through a reduction in total number of SWAT/SOG


14
   Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Law Enforcement Directive 2010-1 re: SWAT
15
   The Sheriff’s Office SOP Manual (Standard Operating Procedures) contains a procedure for mutual aid (SOP-
   SOD-06-30.0-01) which indicates that the Sheriff’s SOG can be requested to provide services by any chief of any
   law enforcement agency within Bergen County. However, this provision is subject to the provisions of the
   Prosecutor’s Directive detailed above.
16
   One consequence of the terms of the Prosecutor’s Directive is that SWAT-type assignments in the immediate
   vicinity of the court or jail complex cannot be responded to by the Sheriff’s SOG. When and if the SOG becomes
   a certified SWAT Team, consideration should be given to reviewing this directive to determine whether further
   revision is necessary to permit broader use of the Sheriff’s SOG as, under New Jersey state law, the Sheriff’s
   Office has responsibility for providing security in the courts.



                                                       34
officers required to staff both functions (support for Sheriff high risk warrant executions and
other needs, and support for local municipalities in need of SWAT services).

In the absence of any consolidation, the SOG could be eliminated and its functions transferred to
the County Police SWAT Team. The SOG is currently staffed at four sergeants, seven officers, a
tactical EMT sergeant and a tactical EMT officer. These members could be redeployed to other
duties within the Sheriff’s Office. Cost savings would be realized by the reduction in training
costs and equipment expenditures. In addition, the deployments accumulated annually by the
County Police SWAT Team would increase, resulting in a better cost benefit for the commitment
to training and equipping these officers.

       5.5 Criminal Investigations
All three of the stakeholder agencies are engaged in criminal investigations. The Study Team’s
review of the Criminal Investigations functions of the three agencies found the following:

      The transfer of investigatory functions of the Prosecutor’s Office outside of mandated
       responsibilities to another stakeholder agency would not be in the best interests of the
       county.
      Should a consolidation among/between agencies occur, investigations formerly handled
       by the County Police could be assumed by the municipal police agencies.
      The mandated statutory functions of the Sheriff’s Office may limit the ability to transfer
       responsibility of some of its investigatory functions.
      There is a disconnect between municipal agencies and the County Police regarding
       information sharing concerning crimes occurring in County Police jurisdictions.
      The Sheriff’s Office should not be involved in tip line investigations.

       5.5.1 Criminal Investigations - Prosecutor’s Office
The County Prosecutor’s Office is comprised of 14 criminal investigations squads which are
charged with investigating specific types of crimes. The Prosecutor’s Office is the lead
investigative agency for major criminal investigations. The Major Crimes Division is comprised
of the Homicide Squad, Cold Case Homicide Squad, Arson Squad and Fatal Accidents Squad.
The Homicide Squad is responsible for investigating all homicides and suspicious deaths that
occur within the County. Deaths of persons while in police custody and police-involved
shootings are investigated by the Homicide Squad. The Cold Case Homicide Squad is
responsible for the investigation of homicide cases when a year has passed since the homicide
has occurred and no arrest has been made.

The Arson Squad is responsible for investigating and determining the origin and cause of arson
and arson related crimes within the County of Bergen. These investigations include fires
involving fatalities or seriously injured individuals and other serious arson incidents.

The Fatal Accident Unit is responsible for investigating fatal and serious bodily injury motor
vehicle crashes, which involve criminal recklessness within the county. These investigations
include collisions where death or serious bodily injury occurs or alcohol is involved (known or
possible), or other criteria with aggravating factors is met.

                                               35
In 2010, the Prosecutor’s Office opened 3,073 investigations and a total of 524 arrests were
made by criminal investigation squads within the Prosecutor’s Office.

           5.5.2 Criminal Investigations – Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff’s Office BCI Investigation Unit conducts next of kin investigations for the Bergen
County Surrogate, investigates reports of criminal activity in the courthouse, handles internal
affairs matters, performs confidential vehicle identification number checks for municipal police,
investigates fraudulent documents presented at NJDMV offices 17 and runs employment
background checks. In 2010, the Investigation Unit conducted 169 investigations. The top five
types of investigations conducted were as follows: internal affairs (57 cases); next of kin/missing
persons (27 cases); background investigations – civilian (27 cases); vehicle identification (21
cases); and background investigations – sworn officers (15 cases).

Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office BCI Investigation Unit generates cases from a “tip line” which
was created last year. Tipsters can call the tip line to provide information on suspected criminal
activity. Tips are either referred to the local police agency concerned, worked jointly with the
agency, or handled solely by the Investigation Unit. From March to December of 2010, the tip
line generated 123 tips, including 86 drug-related tips and 19 prostitution tips. The Investigation
Unit made a total of 19 arrests in 2010. The Sheriff’s Office made a total of 175 new arrests as
an agency in 2010.

The Sheriff’s Office BCI also maintains a Warrant Unit. The Warrant Unit investigates and
executes all warrants issued out of the Superior Court and Central Municipal Court. In 2010,
2,937 warrants were received and 2,911 were cleared. Warrants forwarded for investigation and
execution include: violations of probation; Superior Court bench warrants; child support
warrants; Family Court warrants; Drug Court warrants; juvenile bench warrants; SLAP
(community service) warrants; and complaint warrants (escape warrants and fugitive from justice
warrants). In addition to warrant execution in the field, the Warrant Unit makes ample use of
walk-in surrenders (most common in child support cases).

           5.5.3 Criminal Investigations – County Police
The County Police Criminal Investigation Division investigates matters generated by County
Police patrol personnel, performs employment background checks, conducts internal affairs
investigations, investigates crimes occurring within county-owned or operated facilities and
parks, processes arrest and court-related documents for presentation to the Prosecutor’s Office,
and conducts on-site security analysis for the Vocational and Special Services School Districts,
Juvenile Detention Center Complex and the CAP program Family Shelter.

The County Police reported that the Criminal Investigation Division conducted a total of 672
investigations in 2010. Of this total, 215 were employment background investigations. The
Study Team was further advised that in 2010, Criminal Investigation Division personnel arrested
126 offenders following investigations.


17
     The Sheriff’s Office has assigned a full-time officer to the Lodi office of the NJDMV.

                                                           36
        

       5.5.4 Criminal Investigations – Conclusions
The Study Team considered whether consolidation or merger of the criminal investigation
functions of the stakeholder agencies would be permissible and would otherwise lead to the
realization of efficiencies or economies. The Study Team believes that the transfer of
investigatory functions of the Prosecutor’s Office to another stakeholder agency would not be in
the best interests of Bergen County. Pursuant to law, prosecutors are required to “use all
reasonable and lawful diligence for the detection, arrest, indictment and conviction of offenders
against the laws.” (See N.J.S.A. § 2A:158-5.) The employment of investigators by the
Prosecutor’s Office comports fully with the Prosecutor’s mission. Moreover, there is nothing to
suggest that transfer of the investigatory functions of the Prosecutor’s Office would result in the
realization of efficiencies over and above the current structure. However, current staffing levels,
hours of operation, and/or compensation of investigators assigned to the Prosecutor’s Office may
profitably be adjusted to improve efficiency and economy.

The Study Team similarly believes that the mandated statutory functions of the Sheriff’s Office
may restrict the transfer of some of its investigatory functions. N.J.S.A. § 2B:6-1(d) provides
that “[t]he sheriff of each county shall provide for security for the Law and Chancery Divisions
of the Superior Court sitting in that county . . . .” Accordingly, transfer of the duty to investigate
criminal conduct within court facilities may be restricted.

However, the Study Team believes that the Sheriff’s Office BCI Investigation Unit tip line
investigations have the potential to intrude upon the prerogatives of local municipal police
departments. In many cases, the tips generated could relate solely to matters of local concern.
Furthermore, these investigations overlap with the core function of municipal police to
investigate crimes within their respective jurisdictions. Decisions regarding the investigation of
such tips should rest with local municipal police departments. The Sheriff’s Office should not be
involved in these investigations.

Likewise, statutory mandates prevent transfer of the warrant execution function of the Sheriff’s
Office to another agency. N.J.S.A. § 2B:6-3(a) provides that “[t]he sheriff shall be responsible
for service, or execution and return of process, orders, warrants and judgments directed to the
sheriff . . . .” Accordingly, investigation and execution of warrants should appropriately remain
a core function of the Sheriff’s Office.

Unlike the Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor’s Office, the County Police are not compelled as a
matter of state law to investigate crimes occurring on county-owned or operated property,
although Bergen County Administrative Code § 8.5.3 would require performance of this service
by the County Police. Assuming an appropriate amendment is made to the local law by the
Board of Freeholders, the Study Team finds no reason why such investigations could not be
conducted by municipal police agencies. As discussed earlier in the report, in 2010 nearly
seventy percent (70%) of County Police investigations took place in Hackensack and Paramus.
However, relative to the total calls for service in these jurisdictions, it is believed that the
addition of investigations formerly handled by the County Police to the workload of the
municipal police agencies in these jurisdictions would not impose significant burdens and that

                                                 37
such additional investigatory work could be absorbed effectively by the agencies. The Study
Team recognizes that shifting these investigative duties to local municipalities would come at the
expense of some of the county’s control over and knowledge of criminal activity at its property
and facilities. If that is unacceptable, the investigative unit of the County Police could be shifted
to the Sheriff’s Office and given responsibility for investigating crimes not investigated by the
Prosecutor’s Office. However, this option would result in less cost savings to the county than the
elimination of the function by the County Police.

Additionally, the Study Team observed a disconnect between municipal agencies and the County
Police regarding information sharing concerning crimes occurring in County Police jurisdictions.
The Study Team recommends that a prosecutorial directive be issued requiring that copies of
incident reports prepared by the County Police be forwarded to the municipal agency with
responsibility for that geographical location and, conversely, that incident reports generated by
municipalities be forwarded to the County Police. This active, real time information sharing is
critical to effective law enforcement. The Study Team recognizes the advancements introduced
by the Prosecutor’s Office in the procurement and implementation of the C.O.B.R.A. viewer
system for interested municipalities, but it is a passive, informal system that does not mandate
active notification of crime in real time. The benefits of the C.O.B.R.A. could be augmented by
the recommended notification directive.

       5.6 Water Search and Recovery Unit
The Study Team’s review of the Water Search and Recovery Unit specialized function of the
County Police found the following:

      The unit’s activities are limited to evidence recovery which could be performed by either
       State Police or several local fire departments under the supervision of the investigating
       agency.
      Required training for the unit equates to 117 days annually at a cost of approximately
       $90,000.
      This unit is a candidate for elimination.

The Study Team examined whether the services provided by the County Police Water Search
and Recovery Unit are redundant in light of the fact that a number of county fire agencies
maintain underwater rescue units and the State Police also performs underwater search and
recovery operations.

As is the case with most County Police specialty functions, this unit is activated only when
needed. There are training and equipment costs associated with this unit. An analysis revealed
that over the last five years these costs totaled $143,365. The unit undergoes nine days of
training a year. The unit currently has thirteen members (one lieutenant, four sergeants and eight
police officers.) These nine training days equate to 117 days lost to training each year for the
unit, equating to approximately $90,000 in cost to the county.

Because the unit does not perform rescue operations, and because the evidence recovery function
could be performed by a local fire department under the supervision of the investigating agency
or by the State Police, the Study Team is of the opinion that this function could be eliminated.

                                                 38
To ensure the proper handling of evidence recovered, the Prosecutor’s Office could provide
limited training to firefighters engaged in this function.

           5.7 Medical Examiner’s Investigations
The Study Team’s review of the Medical Examiner’s Investigations specialized function of the
County Police found the following:

          The use of police personnel as medico-legal death investigators is not common practice.
          This function presents an opportunity for civilianization and offers the possibility of
           significant savings through both a reduction in overtime and a more efficient use of
           police personnel.

The Study Team looked at the use of County Police personnel trained as medico-legal death
investigators. The purpose of the Medical Examiner Investigative Unit is to assist the Medical
Examiner (ME) by acquiring vital information and evidence in cases where a definitive cause of
death could not be determined or where circumstances require a ME investigation.

Currently, twenty County Police officers are trained to perform this function as a collateral duty
in the County Police’s ME Unit. Collectively, these officers conducted 1,027 investigations in
2010. The Study Team was advised that typically 500 to 700 of the investigations handled by
this unit in any given year result in a response to the scene for further investigation, as opposed
to resolution following a telephone interview.

Interviews with staff from the Bergen County Medical Examiner’s Office, including the Bergen
County Medical Examiner, support the need for these investigators. Additionally, several
municipal chiefs indicated they did not feel their personnel had the training or experience to
make these death determinations, particularly in cases where there might be subtle clues at the
death scene.

In the Study Team’s experience, this function is not traditionally a police function. In virtually
all other municipalities known to the Study Team, this function is performed by non-sworn
medico-legal investigators. The Study Team believes that this function presents an opportunity
for civilianization and offers the possibility of significant savings. As noted later in this report,
the current procedure results in overtime expenses that civilianization would eliminate. (See
Staffing and Overtime Analysis, Section 4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity) Moreover, transfer
of this function out of the County Police would result in a decreased training burden, leaving
more officers available for patrol responses. 18




18
     The New Jersey Civil Service Commission lists a local civil service title of “Investigator, County Medical
     Examiner’s Office” which may be a vehicle for civilianization of the County Police’s ME Unit.

                                                       39
       5.8 K-9 Units
The Study Team’s review of the K-9 Units of the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office found
the following:

      In the absence of a consolidation, K-9 activities by the Sheriff’s Office could be restricted
       to the jails and the courts and all other requests could be handled by the County Police,
       thereby reducing the number of canines needed by the Sheriff.
      In the event of a consolidation a reduction in the total number of canines and K-9 officers
       might be possible.

There are a total of eleven canines assigned to the County Police, servicing the agency and local
municipalities’ needs. The County Police canines are trained for patrol functions and are crossed-
trained in either explosives or narcotics detection. One of the canines is cross-trained for
accelerant detection and is used in arson investigations.

Ten canines are assigned to the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office canines are primarily used
to patrol and handle security assignments around the courts and jail. Sheriff’s Office canines
have the following capabilities: patrol/narcotics (6); cadaver (2); explosives (1); and tobacco/cell
phone detection (1 – currently injured).

Interviews with local police chiefs indicate that in the past, Sheriff’s Office K-9 officers would
respond, unrequested, to local municipalities, although at present this practice seems to have
stopped. According to the County Law Services Plan, a local chief or incident commander has
the option of requesting the Sheriff’s Office K-9 Unit, but the K-9 Unit may not self-dispatch.

The following tables depict workload indicators for the K-9 Units reported to the Study Team by
the stakeholder agencies.




                                                40
*The County Police advised the Study Team that there were 899 K-9 calls for service in 2010.
 The table above excludes some responses, such as, training and public relations responses.


                                        198

                                                      BCSO K‐9 UNIT 2010 RESPONSES IN 
       200                                            ADDITION TO DAILY JAIL PRESENCE AND 
       180                                            DAILY COURTHOUSE SWEEPS
       160
       140
       120
       100
        80                                                                 20
        60
        40
        20
         0
               Explosive sniffs‐high profile trials          Cadaver requests


In 2010 the Sheriff’s Office used canines in 218 calls for service; 91% of the time these were for
court-related duties, despite the fact that many of the canines were trained for other uses as well.
This is in addition to daily sweeps of the courthouse and a jail presence. The County Police used
canines in approximately 773 calls for service; 56% of those calls were patrol. While having K-9
Units with comparable numbers of canines, the County Police utilized those canines in

                                                      41
approximately three times more calls for service than the Sheriff’s Office. Independent of any
potential consolidation of services between the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office, the
county may wish to consider restricting the operations of Sheriff’s Office K-9 Unit to activities
in the jail and courts only and let the County Police handle all other K-9 requests. This should
result in a decrease in the number of canines necessary for service in the Sheriff’s Office and
produce savings commensurate with such a decrease.

The training time needed to support the current number of K-9 teams is a factor and detracts
from the total available hours for policing duties. In addition, there are mandates under the Fair
Labor Standards Act which compensate the handlers for time spent off-duty caring for their
animals. These mandates have been addressed in different ways by each agency.

As currently configured, canine staffing levels are certainly adequate for the needs of each
agency. Many local police chiefs interviewed by the Study Team indicated that the K-9 services
of the County Police were adequate for their needs. However, if consolidation of the County
Police and Sheriff’s Office were to occur, either through transfer of the function to one or the
other agency or through actual merger of the units under one agency, there could be a realization
of cost savings through a reduction in the total number of K-9 officers and canines. Furthermore,
since each handler is assigned a take-home vehicle, cost savings could also accrue through a
reduction in the total number of vehicles required to be used in this fashion.

The Study Team attempted to quantify K-9 Unit costs in both the Sheriff’s Office and the County
Police using budget, staffing, overtime and anecdotal information obtained through interviews.
However, the information provided lacked sufficient detail to allow the Study Team to quantify
with accuracy the specific cost savings that might be realized through these consolidation
options.

       5.9 Crime Prevention Education
The Study Team’s review of the Sheriff’s Office provision of Crime Prevention Education found
the following:

      The nature and depth of the programs provided by the Sheriff’s Office are consistent with
       the generally accepted practice of law enforcement agencies.
      Any duplication of effort with the activities of local municipalities can be eliminated with
       better communication between parties.

Crime Prevention Education is a service provided by both the Sheriff’s Office and municipal
agencies within the County.

The chart below depicts the number of “Crime Prevention Education Events” attended by the
Sheriff’s Office from 2006 through 2010. It is apparent that Sheriff’s Office personnel are
attending an increasing number of events, which includes parades, memorials, street fairs, etc.




                                               42
                             Sheriff’s Office Crime Prevention Events

                                  Year                No. of Events
                                  2006                21
                                  2007                30
                                  2008                51
                                  2009                73
                                  2010                74

In addition, information supplied to the Study Team by the Sheriff’s Office indicates that the
office maintains a variety of adult and youth oriented programs, including:
     Sheriff’s Safety Presentation
     Sheriff’s Alcohol Impaired Driving Program (S.A.I.D.)
     High Intensity Talks (H.I.T.)
     Set ‘Em Straight Program
     Sheriff’s Training and Redirection Team (S.T.A.R.T.)
     K-9 Unit Demonstrations
     Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) Tours
     Bergen County Jail tours
     Youth Law Enforcement Leadership Academy
     Bergen County Youth Academy
     Citizen’s Police Academy for High School Students

While attendance at events is on the increase, the Study Team reviewed the nature and depth of
Crime Prevention Education programs engaged in by the Sheriff’s Office and found them to be
consistent with the generally accepted practice of law enforcement agencies to both educate the
community and to provide an awareness of its services to the community. However, many local
municipal chiefs interviewed for this study questioned the need for the Sheriff’s Office to
provide this function. They reported that this often results in duplication of local efforts and cited
the compelling rationale that suggests that local agencies and communities have a greater stake
in developing close relationships and mutual understanding.

Despite the appearance of overlap with the activities of local police, the programs and events
attended appear appropriate. Moreover, the practice of performing Crime Prevention Education
is a listed specialized function of the Sheriff’s Office under the current County Law Services
Plan. The Study Team determined that any cost savings from the elimination of such programs
would be minimal. Better coordination in this area may be achieved by informing local chiefs of
the presence of Sheriff’s officers in their communities.




                                                 43
       5.10 Mounted and Motorcycle Units
The Study Team’s review of the Mounted and Motorcycle Units in the Sheriff’s Office and the
Mounted Unit in the County Police found the following:

      Cost savings would accrue through the elimination of both units as they are largely
       ceremonial and do not contribute to public safety.

There are several specialized functions in both the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office which
have been added over time and appear, in the current economic climate, to be “luxuries.” In
addition to having costs associated with them, these functions, which for the most part are
ceremonial, make no meaningful contribution to public safety. Examples of these functions
would be the Mounted Deputies and the Motorcycle Unit in the Sheriff’s Office and the Mounted
Unit in the County Police.

The Study Team recognizes the importance of a mounted presence (both on horses and
motorcycles) in the history and evolution of the County Police from its origin in parks patrol, and
from a ceremonial perspective for all police agencies, but finds that since this is no longer the
method for patrolling those areas, elimination of this function is recommended. The elimination
of both units would reduce operating costs.




                                                44
B. STAFFING & OVERTIME ANALYSIS


1. SCOPE

This analysis consisted of a review of current staffing levels and overtime expenditures in the
three stakeholder agencies. The Study Team also considered; staffing ratios, the types of
positions being staffed, opportunities for the elimination of excess staff, the consolidation of staff
performing similar functions and the possibility of privatizing certain functions.

2. METHODOLOGY

       2.1 Document Review
The Study Team’s methodology included a review of the following documents provided by the
stakeholder agencies in response to specific requests for information by the team. It must be
noted that, in many instances, the level of detail in the data provided was deficient, thus
precluding certain comparative analyses that the Study Team had intended to conduct.

      Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
          o Payroll registers detailing overtime
          o Annual overtime reports
          o Table of Organization
          o Staffing schedules
          o Overtime reports

      Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
          o Payroll registers detailing overtime
          o Annual overtime reports
          o Table of organization
          o Staffing schedules
          o Daily roll call records
          o Overtime reports

      Bergen County Police
          o Payroll registers detailing overtime
          o Rosters of personnel
          o Overtime reports
          o Specialty unit overtime breakdowns

      Bergen County Department of Public Safety
          o Payroll registers detailing overtime

      Bergen Community College
          o Bergen Community College 2010 Annual Security Report



                                                 45
           2.2 Interviews
For this analysis the Study Team interviewed individuals with relevant staffing and planning
responsibilities including the County Treasurer, various executives from the Prosecutor’s Office,
the County Police Chief, the County Sheriff, the Director of Public Safety and officers with
oversight of activities requiring specialized staffing in each agency.

3. STAFFING – FINDINGS

The Study Team’s review of staffing at the three agencies found the following:

          The top salary rates for the County Police exceed that of the other stakeholder agencies.
          The new memorandum of agreement entered into between the county and the labor union
           representing the County Police sworn officers stipulates that in 2014 salary increases will
           again be determined by the 95th percentile/30 agency formula, effectively assuring that
           the County Police will be among the highest paid police in the county.
          Comparative data suggests that it would be appropriate to review current staffing levels
           in the Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether staffing might be further reduced.
          The salary structure for investigators in the Prosecutor’s Office is the highest in the state.
          The span of control for all three agencies is narrower than levels deemed reasonable and
           efficient by the Study Team.
          Over the past five years the county, through the three agencies, has spent more than $12
           million on security guards.
          The security guard function in all three agencies presents an opportunity for privatization.
          There is a current overlap of duties between the County Police and the Department of
           Public Safety at the Bergen County Community College.
          The Study Team evaluated whether economies could be realized if the Sheriff’s Office
           appointed civilians to perform civil process tasks, but it appears that pursuant to law, the
           Sheriff’s Office may only appoint Sheriff’s officers to perform these tasks.

       3.1 Staffing Levels
A review of staffing of sworn employees in the three stakeholder agencies in the last five years
shows a total increase in headcount of thirteen positions. Although the Sheriff’s Office
experienced more fluctuation in terms of sworn headcount during this period, overall changes in
the numbers across the board are not particularly significant. Given the fact that Bergen County
is the most populous county in the state and the per capita ratio of population to total law
enforcement officers in the county is approximately 1:1,672, the headcount in these three
agencies does not appear excessive. 19 However, the staffing levels of the Prosecutor's Office
may merit further review based upon analysis of the staffing levels of prosecutors’ offices in
other counties within the state and the crime rates in such counties compared with Bergen
County, as discussed more fully in Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 3.3 Staffing –
Prosecutor’s Office.

19
     Ratio is based on data from the US Census and Crime in the United States, 2009 published by the Federal Bureau
     of Investigation.


                                                         46
The table below represents the total number of sworn employees listed on payroll registers for
the years 2006 through 2010.

 SWORN PERSONNEL AS LISTED ON PAYROLL REGISTERS – 2006-2010*
 AGENCY                 2006      2007       2008        2009                                                2010
 County Police                                  96                    92                 92        94          95
 Sheriff’s Office                             144                 136                   168       156         152
 Prosecutor’s Office                          117                 122                   117       118         123
 *This number illustrates the total number of employees paid during the year and does not relate to an established
 headcount set by the county or agency.

           3.1.1 Staffing - Collective Bargaining Agreements Comparison
The Study Team conducted a comparison of the current collective bargaining agreements and
contracts of the stakeholder agencies to determine differences in wages and benefits. The Study
Team found that County Police base salaries are running ahead of those of the other two
stakeholder agencies. Set forth below are tables comparing the 2011 base salaries provided for
in the applicable collective bargaining agreements/contracts of each agency for non-supervisory
and supervisory sworn personnel.

2011 Base Salaries
Sheriff’s Officer*                               Prosecutor’s Office Investigator               County Police Officer
Step                Salary                       Step               Salary                    Step              Salary
Academy            $32,000                       A                  $43,672                   Starting          $17,000
Step 1             $41,777                       B                  $47,094                   Step 1            $38,858.90
Step 2             $47,469                       Step 1             $54,590                   Step 2            $60,717.80
Step 3             $55,886                       Step 2             $64,143                   Step 3            $82,576.70
Step 4             $64,302                       Step 3             $73,697                   Step 4           $104,435.60
Step 5             $72,719                       Step 4             $84,615                   Step 5           $126,294.50
Step 6             $81,135                       Step 5             $96,214                   -                        -
Step 7             $89,552                       Step 6           $107,133                    -                        -
Step 8            $106,385                       Step 7           $124,192                    -                        -
* Sheriff’s Office officers’ contract expired on December 31, 2010.




2011 Base Salaries
Rank                               Sheriff’s Office                        Prosecutor’s Office          County Police
Sergeant*                                $115,960                               $131,016                 $137,661
Lieutenant*                              $126,397                               $148,960                 $150,050
Captain                                  $145,350                               $156,503                 $163,555
* Sheriff’s Office sergeants’ and lieutenants’ contract expired on December 31, 2010.




                                                                       47
As illustrated, the starting salaries of County Police sworn officers are lower than those of either
of the other two stakeholder agencies. However, County Police sworn officers’ salaries increase
in fewer incremental steps than do the salaries of the officers of the other two agencies; the top
pay rates for the County Police exceed those of the other stakeholder agencies. The top pay for
County Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains exceeds that of other similarly ranked officers
in the other stakeholder agencies, as illustrated in the table below.




The base salary of County Police sworn officers exceeds that of the other two agencies. This is
attributable to their collective bargaining agreement. This collective bargaining agreement
provides that “[t]he maximum Bergen County Police Officers’ base annual salary (top step) for
each year shall be at the ninety-fifth (95%) percentile of the maximum base annual salaries for
Patrolmen or Prosecutor’s Senior Investigators” amongst a list of 30 named police agencies in
Bergen County, including the Prosecutor’s Office. This can be referred to as the “95th percentile /
30 agency” formula. The county has recently attempted to address the issue of the high rate of
pay for the County Police.

On March 11, 2011, Bergen County entered into a new memorandum of agreement with the
labor union representing County Police sworn officers. The memorandum of agreement
specifies a 9.96% increase in salary in 2010 for sworn County Police. Additionally, the
memorandum provides that officers will receive 0% wage increases for the fiscal years 2011,
2012 and 2013. However, the memorandum stipulates that in 2014 salary increases will again be
determined by the “95th percentile/30 agency” formula, effectively assuring that the County
Police will be among the highest paid in the county. Furthermore, the county has a duty under
the memorandum of agreement to re-open salary negotiations should there be a reduction in
workforce and/or demotions in rank in fiscal years 2011 and/or 2012.



                                                48
For informational and comparative purposes the tables below present additional key employment
terms provided for in the applicable collective bargaining agreements/contracts of each agency
for non-supervisory sworn personnel.

WORK SCHEDULE
                                   Prosecutor’s
Sheriff’s Officer                  Office Investigator              County Police Officer
“Continuous         operations”:   Monday      through    Friday:   “Continuous       operations”:
4 days of work, followed by        (1) 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.;      5 days of work followed by 2
two days off; 4 days of work,      (2) 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; or   days off; 5 days of work,
followed by two days off; 4        (3) “second shift” beginning     followed by 3 days off
days of work, followed by two      after 2:00 p.m., but before      (“5-2, 5-3”) (exceptions for
days off; 5 days of work,          4:00 p.m. and ending no later    specified personnel).
followed by two days off (“4-      than 12:00 a.m.
2, 4-2, 4-2, 5-2”).


CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
                                   Prosecutor’s
Sheriff’s Officer                  Office Investigator              County Police Officer

$1,200                             None                             $850



SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
                                   Prosecutor’s
Sheriff’s Officer                  Office Investigator              County Police Officer

$3,000                             None                             $2,608


SPECIAL DUTY PAY
                                   Prosecutor’s
Sheriff’s Officer                  Office Investigator              County Police Officer

None                               None                             $1,500




                                                 49
SENIOR EMPLOYEE STATUS
                                              Prosecutor’s
       Sheriff’s Officer                   Office Investigator                 County Police Officer
      (≥ 17 yrs. Service)                  (≥ 17 yrs. Service)                  (≥ 16 yrs. Service)
One-half differential between                                             One-half differential between
                                                  $3,000
 Sheriff’s Sergeant salary.                                                    Sergeant salary.


OVERTIME (“CALL BACK” ON REGULAR DAYS OFF)
                                 Prosecutor’s
Sheriff’s Officer                Office Investigator                      County Police Officer
Paid a minimum of 4 hours at Paid a minimum of 2 hours at                 Paid a minimum of 4 hours at
time and one-half (1½); paid time and one-half (1½)                       time and one-half (1½)*; paid
for full day at 1½, if more than (applies only to 1st call back           for full day at 1½, if more than
4 hours worked.                  of work week).                           4 hours worked.
*Reduced to a minimum of two hours, effective July 11, 2011, by memorandum of agreement, dated March 11,
2011.


OVERTIME (CHANGE OF SCHEDULE)
                                     Prosecutor’s
Sheriff’s Officer                    Office Investigator                  County Police Officer
Paid at time and one-half (1½)       Paid at time and one-half (1½)       Paid at time and one-half (1½)
if changed within 72 hours           if 48 hours advance notice is        if changed within 72 hours
prior to start of scheduled          not given.                           prior to start of scheduled
work day.                                                                 work day.

EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE
                                                      Prosecutor’s
Degree Attained           Sheriff’s Officer           Office Investigator         County Police Officer
Associate’s Degree                $600                        None                       $325
Bachelor’s Degree               $1,200                        None                       $425
Master’ Degree                  $1,800                        None                       $525
Doctorate                       $2,400                        None                       $625




                                                     50
LONGEVITY
                                     Prosecutor’s Office
       Sheriff’s Officer                 Investigator              County Police Officer
   Years of       Longevity        Years of       Longevity       Years of      Longevity
   Service         Payment         Service         Payment        Service        Payment
   6-9 yrs.            $300        6-9 yrs.           $200        6-9 yrs.          $200
  9-12 yrs.            $500       9-14 yrs.           $400       9-14 yrs.          $400
  12-15 yrs.           $700       14-19 yrs.          $800       14-19 yrs.         $800
  15-20 yrs.         $1,500        19+ yrs.         $1,000        19+ yrs.        $1,000
   20+ yrs.          $1,750           -                  -           -                   -


VACATION

                                      Prosecutor’s Office
       Sheriff’s Officer                  Investigator            County Police Officer
                     Rate                              Rate                        Rate
  Service         per month        Service         per month      Service       per month
   Period          worked           Period           worked       Period         worked
1st year      1 day per         ≤ 5 years        10 hours per1st year        1 day per
              month/1st 11                       mo.                         month/1st 11
              mos. & 4 days                                                  mos. &
              in 12th mo.                                                    4 days in 12th
                                                                             mo.
2nd – 5th     1¼ days per mo. ≥ 5 years        13.33 hours   2nd – 5th       1¼ days per
years                                          per mo.       years           mo.
6th year +    1⅔ days per mo.                                6th year +      1⅔ days per
                                             -             -
                                                                             mo.


SICK LEAVE

                                     Prosecutor’s Office
       Sheriff’s Officer                 Investigator                County Police Officer
                                                      Rate                          Rate
 Service            Rate           Service        per month       Service        per month
  Period     per month worked      Period           worked        Period          worked
1st year     1 day per month                                    1st year     1 day per month
                                      10 hours per mo.
2+ years     1¼ days per mo.                                    2+ years     1¼ days per mo.




                                              51
PERSONAL LEAVE/BEREAVEMENT LEAVE

                                                      Prosecutor’s                               County Police
       Sheriff’s Officer                           Office Investigator                             Officer
2 personal leave days per                   3 personal leave days per                      2 personal leave days per
year.                                       year.                                          year.

4 working days leave to                     4 workdays leave with pay                      4 working days leave to
attend or make                              to arrange and attend the                      attend or make
arrangements for the                        funeral and to take care of                    arrangements for the
funeral of an immediate                     personal matters related to                    funeral of an immediate
family member.                              the death of an immediate                      family member.
                                            family member.



          3.2 Staffing – Prosecutor’s Office
On February 4, 2011, the New Jersey Attorney General submitted the Report of the County
Prosecutor Study Commission to the Governor. The Study Team was given a copy of this report
and reviewed its recommendations. Using data contained within the County Prosecutor’s Study
Commission report and Uniform Crime Reports (“UCR”) data, the team was able to conduct a
comparative analysis of salary and staffing levels for county prosecutor’s offices statewide. This
comparative analysis provided useful insights into the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office.

 CRIME RATES AND HISTORICAL STAFFING LEVELS, BERGEN
       COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
                           Crime                    Violent Crime                  Non-Violent
                          Rate per                       Rate                       Crime Rate              Staffing
   Year                  thousand1                  per thousand1                  per thousand1             Level2
   2006                    15.2                           1.1                           14.1                118
   2007                    14.6                           1.1                           13.5                116
   2008                    15.6                           1.1                           14.5                114
   2009                    14.3                           1.1                           13.2                113
   2010                     N/A                          N/A                            N/A                  111
 1 This data was extracted from UCR reports, http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/stats.html
 2 This data supplied by the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office to the Study Team


The table above depicts the staffing levels of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office portrayed
against crime rate data from the UCR for 2006 through 2010. When viewed against the general
trend of crime rates over the last five years, there has been a reduction in staffing levels for
investigators in the face of generally declining overall crime rates (15.2 to 14.3 per thousand
population) and a stable violent crime rate.

Appendix D displays a comparison of New Jersey counties by population, crime rates per
thousand, violent and non-violent crime numbers and rates (all from UCR reports), along with

                                                                      52
staffing levels, mean salaries and average length of service for investigative personnel obtained
from data appearing in the Report of the County Prosecutor Study Commission. The Study Team
examined county prosecutor staffing and salary structure for counties which compare in size of
population and rates of crime to Bergen County. The examination focused on population and
crime rate as well as the size of the population serviced, and the number of crimes investigated.
The Study Team selected Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth and Union Counties as reasonable
comparators.

The table below displays the data relevant to this analysis from Appendix D.

                                                                    NON-
                                        CRIME        VIOLENT        VIOLENT              INV.      2010                 AVG.
COUNTY              POPULATION1         RATE2        CRIME3         CRIME4               STAFFING5 SALARY6              LOS7
Bergen                895,250            14.3         957/1.1        11,819/13.2            111     $119,849            12.6
Essex                 769,644            33.0        5,138/6.7       20,263/26.3            147      $90,897            11.3
Middlesex             790,738            20.6        1,535/1.9       14,715/18.6              77    $103,317            12.8
Union                 526,426            28.5        2,392/4.6       12,521/23.9              73    $102,780            11.1
1.   2009 UCR Population data
2.   2009 UCR Crime Rate per thousand population
3.   2009 UCR Violent Crime Raw Number (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault)/Crime Rate per thousand population
4.   2009 UCR Non-Violent Crime Raw Number (Burglary, Larceny-Theft, MV Theft)/Crime Rate per thousand population
5.   2010 Staffing Level for Investigators from County Prosecutor Study Commission Report
6.   2010 Average Salary Level for Investigators from County Prosecutor Study Commission Report
7.   2010 Average Length of Service for investigators from County Prosecutor Study Commission Report


An examination of this data reveals that for its population, Bergen County enjoys an extremely
low violent crime rate and number of violent crimes to investigate; the lowest number and rate of
the counties compared, while having the second highest staffing level. Similarly, the overall
crime rate for the county is the lowest in the counties compared. Moreover, as noted in the table
above, data shows that violent crime rates have been stable over the study period (2006 to 2010),
while overall crime rates have trended downward. The Prosecutor’s Office decreased its
investigative staffing levels during this period.

However, this comparative data suggests that it would be appropriate to review current staffing
levels in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether staffing might be further
reduced. 20 For example, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office has 147 investigators to service a
population of 769,644 persons with 5,138 violent crimes reported in 2009. With a population
14% smaller than Bergen County, Essex had 4,181 more violent crimes. Essex had only 36 more
investigators than Bergen (147 vs. 111), yet it handled a 437% higher volume of violent crime
cases. Similarly, Union County reported 1,435 more violent crimes than Bergen. These were
handled by 38 fewer investigators than Bergen (73 vs. 111), which means that a 150% higher
volume of violent crime in Union was handled by an investigative staff 34% smaller than in
Bergen. The data for non-violent crimes in these counties follows similar patterns when
compared to non-violent crimes in Bergen County.


20
     In several conversations with the Prosecutor’s Office it was asserted that the Prosecutor’s Office was actually
     below headcount for investigators.

                                                                 53
The Study Team was advised that while Essex, Middlesex and Union Counties have populations
that are comparable to Bergen County, there may be one distinction between those counties and
Bergen County which could possibly skew the findings observed above. Essex, Middlesex and
Union Counties all have a greater number of municipal police departments with sworn officer
headcounts in excess of 100 than Bergen County. 21 Moreover, each of the other counties has at
least one municipal police department with more than 200 sworn officers while Bergen County
has no such departments. 22 Larger police departments typically have more investigative resources
to draw upon than smaller police departments. Thus, it has been suggested that it is possible that
relatively lower investigator staffing levels in the Prosecutors’ Offices of Essex, Middlesex and
Union Counties, when viewed in conjunction with crime rates, may be reflective of greater
reliance on the investigative resources of large municipal police departments in those
jurisdictions.

While the Study Team was unable to validate any correlation between the investigative staffing
levels of the Essex, Middlesex and Union Counties Prosecutors’ Offices and the existence of
large municipal police departments in those counties, the Study Team nonetheless identified
additional counties for comparison that have the same number or fewer municipal police
departments with sworn officer headcounts in excess of 100 than Bergen County. The additional
counties include: Atlantic, Morris, Monmouth and Ocean Counties. 23 The table below displays
the data relevant to this analysis.

                                                                    NON-
                                        CRIME        VIOLENT        VIOLENT              INV.      2010       AVG.
COUNTY              POPULATION1         RATE2        CRIME3         CRIME4               STAFFING5 SALARY6    LOS7
Bergen                895,250            14.3         957/1.1        11,819/13.2            111     $119,849 12.6
Atlantic              271,712            39.9        1,466/5.4        9,335/34.5              75     $87,281 11.6
Morris                488,518            12.3         387/0.8         5,593/11.5              63      $91.359 11.1
Monmouth              644,105            23.0        1,335/2.1       13,438/20.9              79    $118,273   9.7
Ocean                 573,678            20.0         706/1.2        10,648/18.7              78     $93,182   9.9
1.   2009 UCR Population data
2.   2009 UCR Crime Rate per thousand population
3.   2009 UCR Violent Crime Raw Number (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault)/Crime Rate per thousand population
4.   2009 UCR Non-Violent Crime Raw Number (Burglary, Larceny-Theft, MV Theft)/Crime Rate per thousand population
5.   2010 Staffing Level for Investigators from County Prosecutor Study Commission Report
6.   2010 Average Salary Level for Investigators from County Prosecutor Study Commission Report
7.   2010 Average Length of Service for investigators from County Prosecutor Study Commission Report




21
   The number of municipal police departments with sworn officer headcounts in excess of 100 in each jurisdiction
    is as follows: Essex County – eight; Middlesex County – five; Union County – four; and Bergen County – three.
    See 2009 UCR and 2009 Bergen County Prosecutor’s survey.
22
   The municipal police departments with sworn officer headcounts in excess of 200 are as follows: Essex County –
    East Orange (277) and Newark (1,297); Middlesex County – Woodbridge (204); and Union County – Elizabeth
    (335). The headcounts of Bergen County’s three largest municipal police departments barely exceed 100 sworn
    officers. See 2009 UCR and 2009 Bergen County Prosecutor’s survey.
23
    The number of municipal police departments with sworn officer headcounts in excess of 100 in each jurisdiction
    is as follows: Atlantic County – one (Atlantic City has 375 sworn officers); Monmouth County – one; Morris
    County – one; and Ocean County – three.

                                                                 54
In part, the comparative data with these counties also suggests that it would be appropriate to
review current staffing levels in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether
staffing might be further reduced. For example, Monmouth County had 39% more violent
crimes and 14% more non-violent crimes than Bergen County, but the Monmouth County
Prosecutor’s Office maintains a staff with 32 fewer investigators than the Bergen County
Prosecutor’s Office. Similarly, Atlantic County had 53% more violent crimes than Bergen
County, but the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office maintains a staff with 36 fewer investigators
than the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office. Further, while Atlantic County had 21% fewer
non-violent crimes than Bergen County, the investigative staff of the Atlantic County
Prosecutor’s Office is 32% smaller in size than the investigative staff of the Bergen County
Prosecutor’s Office. Likewise, the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office employs 30% fewer
investigators than the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, but Ocean County had only 10%
fewer non-violent crimes.

The salary structure for investigators in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office is the highest of
the counties studied. In fact, it is the highest in the state, and exceeds by $16,532, the salary for
Middlesex County investigators, county whose cost of living exceeds that of Bergen County. 24
While the salary structure may reflect a good faith effort on the part of the Prosecutor to attract
and retain highly qualified law enforcement professionals, this practice may warrant review in
light of current efforts to reduce costs.

        3.3 Staffing – Sheriff’s Office
The Study Team compared the staffing levels of the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office with those
of other sheriffs’ offices throughout the state using available data from the 2009 New Jersey
State Police Uniform Crime Report. 25 Eight sheriffs’ offices within the state, including the
Bergen County Sheriff’s Office, provide correctional services as part of their duties. The
remaining 13 sheriffs’ offices within the state do not provide correctional services as part of their
duties. The 2009 Bergen County Sheriff’s Office sworn Sheriff’s officer headcount of 147
ranked sixth highest when compared with the sworn Sheriff’s officer headcounts of those 13
sheriffs’ offices. 26

The Study Team also reviewed the deployment of Sheriff’s officers assigned to duties in units
outside the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to determine if any efficiencies or economies could
be realized.

        3.3.1 Court Security Unit
The Court Security Unit is the unit that fulfills the statutory duty of the Sheriff’s Office to
provide security for the courts. The unit is responsible for the safety and security of the entire
Bergen County Justice Center Complex, including Superior Court judges, their staff, all other
judicial employees, as well as everyone visiting the Justice Center for any reason. In addition, the

24
   www.cityrating.com
25
   Available at http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/ucr2009/pdf/2009_sect_9.pdf
26
   The total 2009 Bergen County Sheriff’s Office sworn officer headcount of 452 (i.e., including both Corrections
    officers and Sheriff’s officers) ranked second highest among the sheriff’s offices in the state that provide
    correctional services.

                                                       55
Court Security Unit is responsible for the custody of all prisoners as they move throughout the
Justice Center and for the safety and security of the Bergen County Probation Department,
located at 133 River Street, Hackensack.

The unit is currently staffed with sworn personnel as follows: one lieutenant, three sergeants and
44 Sheriff’s officers/investigators. In addition to assignment of personnel to conduct screening
at courthouse entrances, the unit provides security in 33 separate courtrooms, including: six
criminal courts; 11 family courts; two municipal courts; and 14 civil courts. Criminal
courtrooms are typically staffed with three Sheriff’s officers; two armed and one unarmed. The
unarmed officer is responsible for escorting prisoners from the Justice Center holding area to the
courtroom. Manpower assessments are made based on several factors, such as: the type of
proceeding, an evaluation of available intelligence, the nature of the offense with which a
defendant is charged and the level of threat perceived. Staffing may also depend on whether or
not the defendant is in custody or out on bail. The unit also routinely increases staffing to reflect
a specific need, such as whenever a case involves a “high risk” or “high profile” defendant, gang
related proceedings, or when a case is deemed emotionally volatile (e.g.: involving crimes
against children or of a sexual nature).

Family courtrooms are routinely manned by one Sheriff’s officer. At times, Sheriff’s officers
must coordinate the transportation of a prisoner at the Jail for an appearance at the Family Court.

One Sheriff’s officer is routinely assigned to each of the two courtrooms of the Central
Municipal Court, in Courtroom 113 of the Administration building and in the Bergen County
Jail. A Sheriff’s officer is assigned to transport a Judge and staff to the Bergen County Jail about
twice a week for initial arraignment of prisoners and other proceedings. Staffing at the Central
Municipal Court is supplemented with additional Sheriff’s officers on days when the Court hears
a higher volume of cases. In 2010, a total of 11,734 people reported to the Central Municipal
Court.

Security is also provided in courtrooms hearing landlord/tenant and Special Civil cases.
According to the 2010 Annual Report of the Sheriff’s Office, security is provided in these
courtrooms at the request of the Presiding Judge and the Trial Court Administrator due primarily
to the highly emotional and volatile nature of many of these cases, and the potential for
disturbances by parties whom judges have ruled against.

Although security is provided on an almost daily basis for the Presiding Civil Court Judge,
security is not provided for other judges hearing civil cases. However, when deemed necessary,
for either a specific reason or a specific case, security will be provided for civil cases as needed.
This typically occurs whenever a judge feels the level of threat or the possibility of a disturbance
merits an armed Sheriff’s officer’s presence.

Finally, on an “as needed” basis, Sheriff’s officers are also assigned to the Appellate Division,
Sheriff’s foreclosure sales, parent education classes, child support hearings, special events as
requested by the Command Staff or the Court Administration, or whenever a specific need is
determined.



                                                 56
The Criminal Probation Office at 133 River Street is routinely staffed with Sheriff’s officers and
civilian security guards. The 2010 Annual Report of the Sheriff’s Office cites “the high volume
of criminal defendants and the potential for security breaches, altercations, and arrests that occur
with regularity” as a basis for staffing the Criminal Probation Office. Assigned personnel are
routinely required to arrest people for violations of probation and outstanding warrants. Court
Security Unit personnel are also required, as part of their duties and responsibilities at the
Criminal Probation Office, to take fingerprints and DNA samples from probationers when
ordered by Judges of the Superior Court. In 2010, assigned personnel completed 788 court
ordered DNA collections. The Chancery Probation Office is also located at 133 River Street,
having moved there in July 2010. Last year, 107 arrests were made for outstanding child support
warrants at that location.

According to the New Jersey Courts 2009-2010 Annual Report, Bergen County had the third
largest volume of trial court filings of all counties in the state from July 2009 to June 2010
(92,442 filings in the Criminal Division, General Equity Division, Civil Division and Family
Court Division). The filings over this period represented a 7% increase in case filings over the
previous one year period, the largest such increase of all counties within the state. As a whole,
the state experienced a 1% decrease in trial court filings from July 2009 to June 2010. The
following table illustrates the level of judicial activity of Bergen County courts vis-à-vis other
counties in the state.




                                                57
JUDICIAL ACTIVITY

       County             No. of Trial Court     No. of Trial Court           Percent Change
                         Filings – July 2008 to Filings – July 2009 to
                               June 2009              June 2010
       Atlantic                  51,470                 52,659                        2%
       Bergen                    86,373                 92,442                        7%
     Burlington                  52,710                 51,614                       -2%
       Camden                    81,583                 77,892                       -5%
      Cape May                   15,683                 14,735                       -6%
     Cumberland                  31,724                 29,230                       -8%
        Essex                   151,204                150,371                       -1%
     Gloucester                  34,832                 34,466                       -1%
       Hudson                    99,276                 95,880                       -3%
     Hunterdon                    8,686                  8,831                        2%
       Mercer                    49,317                 48,457                       -2%
      Middlesex                  92,588                 89,042                       -4%
     Monmouth                    69,745                 71,493                        3%
       Morris                    37,495                 38,407                        2%
        Ocean                    62,900                 64,444                        2%
       Passaic                   70,296                 70,099                       -0%
        Salem                    12,228                 11,573                       -5%
      Somerset                   27,830                 26,889                       -3%
       Sussex                    15,620                 15,759                        1%
        Union                    70,875                 71,255                        1%
       Warren                    12,508                 12,225                       -2%
       Totals                  1,134,943              1,127,763                      -1%

In reviewing the large volume of judicial activity in Bergen County, as well as the basis offered
for the assignment of Sheriff’s officers to the Justice Center and the various criminal and civil
courtrooms within the judicial system, the Study Team concludes that the staffing levels
provided by the Sheriff’s Office to fulfill its statutory mandates are reasonable or necessary.
Similarly, given what appears to be fairly substantial amounts of arrest activity at the Department
of Probation, the Study Team concludes that assignment of Sheriff’s officers to the Department
of Probation building at 133 River Street in Hackensack is necessary to support the functions
carried out at that location.

Regarding that location, the Study Team explored whether probation officers, who are
employees of the judiciary, could assume the duty to arrest probation violators as an alternative
to this task being performed by Sheriff’s officers. However, the New Jersey State Supreme
Court has ruled that allowing probation officers to carry firearms and to arrest those they
supervise would “impair the essential integrity of the Judicial branch.” See In re P.L. 2001,
Chapter 362, 186 N.J. 368, 389, 895 A.2d 1128 (2006). Consequently, utilization of probation
officers cannot be deemed as an alternative to staffing by Sheriff’s officers. If there are
economies to be realized, the Study Team recommends that the Sheriff’s Office explore whether

                                                58
the assignment of additional civilian security guards in lieu of Sheriff’s officers, particularly to
those areas of the Justice Center handling strictly civil matters with less risk of volatility, could
be accomplished consistent with public safety.

       3.3.2 Special Services/Civil Process Unit
A total of four sergeants, three Sheriff’s investigators, 16 Sheriff’s officers and three corrections
officers make up the Special Services/Civil Process Unit. Special services and civil process are
separate functions within the unit that assigned officers perform as directed by the Command
Staff. Additionally, Sheriff’s officers assigned to the unit may engage in enforcement of motor
vehicle laws during the course of the performance of their duties.

Special services duties generally involve the transportation of prisoners between the Bergen
County Jail and the Bergen County Justice Center. Officers also transport prisoners to and from
state, county, and municipal courts and other jails. They are also responsible for the
transportation of prisoners to and from hospitals, medical treatment centers, drug programs, and
various other agencies throughout the state. In addition, officers transport juvenile offenders to
and from the Bergen County Juvenile Detention Center and various medical facilities. In 2010,
the personnel assigned to this unit made 8,756 adult prisoner transports, and 352 juvenile
transports.

Additional special services performed include coordination with the Detective Unit and Court
Security Unit with regard to arrests, warrant pick-ups, prisoner transportation, civil process
service, and providing assistance with traffic posts during emergency situations or evacuations at
the County Jail or Justice Center. Upon request, personnel will also provide mutual aid/support
to municipal police agencies with traffic posts, crowd control, strike details and during other
types of emergencies (e.g.: floods, fires, power outages, etc.).

The Sheriff is responsible for the service or execution of process, orders, warrants and judgments
directed to the Sheriff’s Office. Civil process duties include, but are not limited to, the execution
or service of the following types of civil process: civil summonses and complaints; orders to
show cause; state grand jury summonses; writs of replevin; Family Court documents; domestic
violence orders; child support documents; Sheriff’s sale notices; Sheriff’s sales; appraisals;
miscellaneous Court orders as required; writs of execution; and writs of possession. Last year,
the unit served or executed 10,056 civil processes. The unit categorized an additional 7,402 civil
processes as either “unable to serve” or “no contact made” in 2010. Notably, service or
execution of civil process has increased by 30% in the Sheriff’s Office since 2006. According to
the New Jersey Courts 2009-2010 Annual Report, there were significant statewide increases in
trial court filings in both the General Equity and Civil Divisions of the New Jersey Courts over
the previous year which may account for the rise in service of civil process in the Sheriff’s
Office.

The Study Team evaluated whether economies could be realized if the Sheriff’s Office were to
appoint civilians to perform civil process tasks, but it appears that pursuant to law, the Sheriff’s




                                                 59
Office may only appoint Sheriff’s officers to perform these tasks. See N.J.S.A. § 40A:9-117.6 27
Consequently, while certain civilians and peace officers for example private process servers and
constables are authorized to serve process pursuant to state law, the Sheriff may not employ such
individuals for this purpose.

As the Study Team noted earlier in this report, greater efficiency in the operation of the Special
Services/Civil Process Unit could be achieved if traffic enforcement were not actively pursued
by members of the unit and more “on duty” time were spent on its civil process and prisoner
transportation functions.

         3.3.3 Homeland Security Unit
A total of five sergeants and nine Sheriff’s officers are currently assigned to the Homeland
Security Unit. 28 These sworn officers work with six Sheriff’s K-9 officers to provide security at
the Bergen County Justice Center Complex, the Bergen County Jail perimeter, the Bergen
County Probation building and other areas. Officers assigned to the Homeland Security Unit
also work in conjunction with the Special Services/Civil Process Unit by providing
transportation of prisoners throughout the state and outside agency warrant arrest transports for
the Detective Bureau. Homeland Security officers also assist other municipalities throughout
Bergen County with new criminal arrest transports to the Jail, and prisoner transports to various
municipal courts when requested. In addition, officers assigned to the Homeland Security Unit
are often called upon to provide mutual aid/support to other agencies during emergency
situations or upon the request of such agencies. Homeland Security officers are assigned to
rotating shifts, which provides for the availability of several officers 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. Assigned officers are also responsible for funeral escorts, parades, special events, traffic
details, emergency prisoner transports from the Jail and various other law enforcement related
tasks, as directed by the Command Staff.

The Study Team concludes that the Homeland Security Unit performs essential perimeter
security functions at the County Jail and the Justice Center. Moreover, the officers assigned to
this unit provide necessary security coverage around the clock. Additionally, the unit is available
to supplement services provided by the Special Services/Civil Process Unit and Court Security
Unit when necessary. Accordingly, the Study Team determines that the staffing levels of this
unit are appropriate.

         3.4 Staffing - Span of Control
To effectively manage law enforcement agencies, a reasonable number of employees must be
supervised by each first line supervisor. This is referred to as the supervisory span of control.
The Study Team found that supervisory span of control appeared to be narrower than the levels

27
   That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “[t]he sheriff of each county shall, subject to the budget of the
    county, appoint such persons as may be necessary, to the position of sheriff's officer, pursuant to the provisions
    of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes, where applicable, to perform the duties involved in . . . serving court
    processes . . . .” Emphasis supplied.
28
   Three of the sergeants in this total are assigned to the Sheriff’s Operations overhead command which supervises
    and coordinates the activities of the Homeland Security Unit. Other units supervised by the overhead command
    include the Sheriff’s Operations Unit and the Sheriff’s Operations Record Unit.

                                                           60
deemed reasonable and efficient by the team. The Prosecutor’s Office is following a span of
control for the sergeants of 1 to 3. In other words, there is one sergeant for every three
investigators. The Study Team believes that a more reasonable and efficient span of control for
these agencies should fall between 1:5 to 1:9. Only the Sheriff’s Office falls within these ratios.

The table below depicts sworn law enforcement staffing levels broken out by rank and span of
supervisory control in the Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and County Police:

 2010 PROSECUTOR SWORN PERSONNEL STAFFING CHART
 RANK / TITLE           EMPLOYEE’S           AGENCY SPAN OF CONTROL       RATIO     EQUIVALENT
 Prosecutor                     1
 Executive Officer*             1            Captain to Lieutenant          3:07    1 to 2
 Chief                          1
 Captain                        3
 Lieutenant                     7            Lieutenant to Sergeant         7:24    1 to 3
 Sergeant                      24
 Investigator                  77            Sergeant to Investigator      24:77    1 to 3
* Executive Officer is a civilian position

 2010 SHERIFF SWORN PERSONNEL STAFFING CHART
 RANK / TITLE                  EMPLOYEE’S     AGENCY SPAN OF CONTROL      RATIO     EQUIVALENT
 Sheriff                             1
 Inspector / Warrant Officer         1        Captain to Lieutenant         3:07    1 to 2
 Under Sheriff                       3
 Captain                             3
 Lieutenant                          7        Lieutenant to Sergeant        7:20    1 to 3
 Sergeant                           20
 Investigator                       11
                                              Sergeant to Investigator/
 Detective                          15                                     20:116   1 to 6
                                               Detective / Officer
 Officer                            91




                                                61
2010 COUNTY POLICE SWORN PERSONNEL STAFFING CHART
RANK / TITLE                              EMPLOYEE'S               AGENCY SPAN OF CONTROL                  RATIO      EQUIVALENT
Chief                                             1
                                                                   Captain to Lieutenant                       3:09   1 to 3
Captain                                          3
Lieutenant                                       9
                                                                   Lieutenant to Sergeant                      9:15   1 to 1.66
Sergeant                                        15
Detective                                       12
                                                                   Sergeant to Officer                       15:64    1 to 4
Officer                                         52
Note: Chart prepared from various sources including payroll records, seniority lists and confirmatory interviews.



As the chart above shows, at the sergeant level, the equivalent ratios were 1:3 for the
Prosecutor’s Office, 1:6 for the Sheriff’s Office, and 1:4 for the County Police. This represents
an unnecessary cost to the county. Reducing the staffing levels of sergeants in these agencies
would reduce the salary expenditures of each agency.

         3.5 Staffing – Double Duty and Task Forces
The three agencies make efficient overall use of their personnel, especially relating to the double
duty functions. The majority of the specialty functions performed by the County Police and the
Sheriff’s Office rely on the fact that certain officers who are certified and/or specially trained
usually perform routine functions such as patrol, but are also available in the event of an
emergency call. For instance, in such cases when an emergency occurs under the jurisdiction of
the County Police, the officer will change assignments from patrol to SWAT, K-9, Water Search
and Recovery and/or Bomb Squad. When the emergency is mitigated, the officer returns to
his/her regular assignment. Similarly, the Sheriff’s officers perform double duty functions in the
operation of their K-9 and Special Operations Group.

In addition to employing a double duty approach to certain special functions, the three
stakeholder agencies use personnel from other law enforcement agencies to form Task Forces to
work on specific crimes such as Arson and Fatal Accidents, Narcotics, Computer Crimes, Rapid
Deployment Team and Rapid Deployment Force, etc. This is an efficient method of stretching
limited resources and providing valuable training to the other agencies. This process also builds
rapport between agencies and allows for a timely exchange of information and intelligence.

         3.6 Staffing – Security Guards and Potential Privatization
Earlier in this report in the Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.2 County Building
Security, the discussion centered on the potential duplication of effort between the County Police
and the Sheriff’s Office in fulfilling each agencies’ responsibility relative to the security of
county buildings. The ratio of officer to security guard and the attendant costs were also
discussed. In this section the Study Team considered the staffing of this function in both
agencies with a view towards the potential privatization of the function by both agencies.

The Study Team recommends that the County Police, the Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor’s
Office consider outsourcing their security guards to a private company in order to achieve cost

                                                                     62
savings and to provide staffing flexibility. Currently, these security guard programs are staffed
with Bergen County employees who have full civil service benefits, including pension. These
guards provide security for county buildings and parks under the authority of the County Police
and the security of the courthouse under the authority of the Sheriff’s Office. The County Police
program is managed by a retired police chief who has the title of Assistant Director of Security.
The Sheriff’s guards are not part of the Bergen County guard program and are managed by the
Sheriff’s Officers. These guards are not armed.

In addition to these security guards, the Prosecutor’s Office has two guards who work at the front
entrance of its Paramus office. These two guards are retired municipal Police Chiefs, each of
whom works part time, splitting the week between them.




                                               63
                3.6.1 Staffing – Security Guards – Costs
       The table below illustrates the cost of the County Police security guard program, the Sheriff’s
       Office security guard program and the Prosecutor’s Office guards for the years 2006 to 2010,
       including overtime and fringe benefits. These figures were taken from the payroll registers for
       those years.
                        BERGEN COUNTY SCHEDULE OF SECURITY GUARDS PAYROLL
                                               2006 THROUGH 2010

                                                                                                              MEDIAN
                                                              GROSS           FRINGE                          WITH
YEAR POSITION                   SALARY        OVERTIME        SALARY          BENEFITS        TOTAL COST      FRINGE*


2006   County Police Guards     $ 1,062,444   $     87,565    $ 1,150,009     $    502,560    $   1,652,569   $ 40,973
       Asst. Dir. Of Security
       - County Police               65,082              –           65,082         27,653           92,735
       Sheriff’s Guards             258,463          1,382          259,845        115,464          375,309   $ 45,980
       Prosecutor’s Office           35,769          4,760           40,529         26,052           66,581   $ 33,290
2006 TOTAL                      $ 1,421,758   $     93,707    $ 1,515,465     $    671,729    $ 2,187,194


2007   County Police Guards     $ 1,127,582   $    156,427    $ 1,284,009     $    576,405    $   1,860,414   $ 43,513
       Asst. Dir. Of Security
       - County Police               67,572              –         67,572           29,942           97,513
       Sheriff’s Guards             239,602          1,415        241,017          159,213          400,230   $ 38,666
       Prosecutor’s Office           68,742          3,371         72,113           29,661          101,774   $ 50,887
2007 TOTAL                      $ 1,503,498   $    161,214    $ 1,664,712     $    795,220    $   2,459,932


2008   County Police Guards     $ 1,052,369   $     99,315    $ 1,151,684     $    637,239    $   1,788,923   $ 44,588
       Asst. Dir. Of Security
       - County Police               70,167              –         70,167           33,555          103,722
       Sheriff’s Guards             238,283            761        239,044          144,189          383,233   $ 52,470
       Prosecutor’s Office           69,437          3,920         73,357           33,584          106,941   $ 53,470
2008 TOTAL                      $ 1,430,257   $    103,995    $ 1,534,253     $    848,566    $   2,382,819


2009   County Police Guards     $ 1,047,414   $     97,366    $ 1,144,780     $    597,620    $   1,742,400   $ 50,569
       Asst. Dir. Of Security
       - County Police               75,682              –         75,682           35,016          110,698
       Sheriff’s Guards             248,973          1,602        250,575          135,728          386,303   $ 51,792
       Prosecutor’s Office           73,988          4,350         78,338           35,542          113,880   $ 56,940
2009 TOTAL                      $ 1,446,057   $    103,318    $ 1,549,375     $    803,906    $   2,353,281


2010   County Police Guards     $ 1,228,539   $    126,945    $ 1,355,484     $    711,576    $   2,067,060   $ 50,739
       Asst. Dir. Of Security
       - County Police               76,049              -         76,049           36,206          112,255
       Sheriff’s Guards             301,202          3,379        304,581          167,131          471,712   $ 58,160
       Prosecutor’s Office           74,309          3,600         77,909           37,044          114,953   $ 57,476
2010 TOTAL                      $ 1,680,099   $    133,923    $ 1,814,022     $    951,957    $   2,765,980

GRAND TOTAL                     $ 7,481,669   $    596,157    $ 8,077,826     $ 4,071,379     $ 12,149,205


       *Median with Fringe is gross salary with the fringe added. Information taken from payroll registers, 2006-2010.

                                                               64
During interviews the team learned that in 2010, a total of 36 full-time, two seasonal and one per
diem security guard were employed by the County Police; eight guards were employed by the
Sheriff’s Office and two guards were employed by the Prosecutor’s Office.

The 2010 median salary including fringe benefits and overtime for the County Police security
guards was $50,739, although many start at much lower wages. In addition, the Assistant
Director of Security receives a salary of $112,225 including benefits. The Sheriff’s Office
median guard salary including benefits and overtime was $58,160. The median salary including
fringe benefits for Prosecutor’s guards was $57,476. For the year 2010 the total guard cost
including all salary and fringe benefits (not including vehicles and supplies) was $2,179,315 for
County Police, $471,712 for the Sheriff’s Office, and $114,953 for the Prosecutor’s Office for a
yearly total cost to the county of $2,765,980. For the five year period under review, 2006 through
2010, the total cost to the county for these guard services was $12,149,205.

       3.6.2 Staffing – Security Guards – Privatized Program
If the county were to award a security contract which combined the current activities of the three
stakeholder agencies to a private security firm through a competitive bidding process the savings
for the county could be considerable.

As a basis for a comparative analysis the Study Team referenced the State of New Jersey
Department of Labor and Workforce Development Prevailing Wage rate for guards assigned to
state buildings. This agency mandates an hourly rate of $17.98 with a fringe benefit provision of
an additional $3.50, for a total hourly wage of $21.48. In addition, the private security company
would be expected to add its portion of overhead and gross profit to the contract.

The Study Team reviewed several weeks of scheduling reports from the County Police and also
interviewed the Assistant Director of Security to compute an approximate amount of security
guard hours required to cover current tours. In addition, the team reviewed records from the
Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office to determine the total weekly amounts of security
guard hours required to cover current tours.

The Study Team estimates that, by outsourcing the security guard function to a private security
firm and eliminating all existing Bergen County security guards, the county would save between
$365,000 and $440,000 annually, depending upon the vendor’s markup. This corresponds to a
savings of 13% to 16%. Going forward, privatization could yield a five-year savings of between
$1.8 and $2.2 million.

In addition to savings on salaries through privatization, the county would realize other
efficiencies. Currently the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office use sworn officers to supervise
and assist the guards; privatizing their function would result in a more productive use of sworn
personnel. Civilian personnel process the guard’s time, pay, benefits, etc. Additionally, the
lengthy and time consuming background investigation, interviewing and recruitment processes
would be eliminated. The training function would also become the responsibility of the private
vendor. The county’s portion of Social Security, disability, unemployment and health insurance,
as well as all future retirement pension costs would be removed from the county’s books and
become the responsibility of the private vendor. Furthermore, the scheduling functions and the

                                               65
cost to replace vacationing, sick or injured workers become the responsibility of the private
vendor. Lastly, the costs associated with uniforms, vehicles and vehicle maintenance would
become the responsibility of the private vendor.

       3.6.3 Staffing – Security Guards – Lost Revenue Concern
It must be noted that some of the County Police security guards have the ability and authority to
issue parking tickets. They perform this function while patrolling the county parks and parking
facilities. The ticket revenue lost is believed to be negligible; in interviews the team was
informed that the total number of tickets issued by the security guards was not captured and was
stated to be insignificant. However, should privatization occur, the county must ensure that
violations in the parks and parking facilities continue to be addressed.

       3.6.4 Staffing – Security Guards and County Police at Bergen Community 
       College
The main campus of Bergen Community College is located in Paramus and spans 167 acres.
Approximately 17,000 students are currently enrolled in the college. The safety of students and
college faculty and employees is the responsibility of the college’s Department of Public Safety.
The Department of Public Safety employs 40 security guards serving under the title of public
safety officer. The Department of Public Safety is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year. Public safety officers maintain orderly conditions and take measures required to
assure observance of the law. They utilize foot and vehicle patrols to observe, report, and
respond to situations or activities with potential to pose a danger to persons or property.
However, public safety officers are unarmed and do not have police powers.

The 2010 public crime log, published as part of the Bergen Community College 2010 Annual
Security Report, lists 176 incidents of criminal conduct reported last year. The incidents include
reports of theft, harassment, malicious mischief, verbal disputes, fighting, disruptive students and
other misconduct. The Paramus Police Department has historically responded to these types of
incidents.

Since August 2007, the County Police has maintained a substation on the Bergen Community
College campus in Paramus. According to the County Police, the substation was established in
the wake of the tragic Virginia Tech shootings which occurred earlier that year. One sergeant
and two police officers are assigned to the substation to work in tandem with the Department of
Public Safety. The County Police do not supervise the public safety officers. One of the police
officers works from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., while the other police officer works from 2:30 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m. The police officers assigned to the college patrol the grounds in marked vehicles.
However, the Study Team was advised that none of the County Police members currently
assigned to Bergen Community College is a member of the SWAT team.

The Study Team recognizes the legitimate concern generated by recent high school and college
shootings in the United States. However, the Study Team believes that some consideration
should be given to whether this concern merits the assignment of two full-time County police
officers and a supervisor to the college. This assignment clearly overlaps with the duties of the
Bergen Community College Department of Public Safety, and the Study Team believes that the


                                                66
college’s public safety officers are capable of providing the necessary security functions on
campus.

While the Study Team understands the concern regarding the removal of armed county police
officers from this function, this concern could be addressed by employing a small number of
armed public safety officers. Additionally, the County Police could be called for service on
campus on an “as-needed” basis.

In making this recommendation, the Study Team does not wish to minimize safety concerns at
Bergen Community College, but believes that reasonable alternatives to permanent assignment
of County Police officers should be considered.

4. Overtime - Findings

The Study Team in its analysis of overtime expenditures and activities in the three agencies
found the following:

      None of the three agencies was able to show the Study Team a report detailing
       specifically how each employee earned his/her overtime.
      For the years 2006-2010, the County Police consistently earned more overtime than the
       Prosecutor’s Office or the Sheriff’s Office.
      For the years 2006-2010, the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office reduced their sworn
       personnel overtime expenditures by 23% and 41% respectively while the Prosecutor’s
       Office increased sworn personnel overtime expenditures by 12.5%.
      Of the $709,000 in overtime payments to sworn personnel in 2010 the County Police was
       able to document only $156,600 in overtime, attributed to certain specialized functions
       such as ME examiners, K-9, SWAT, Bomb Squad and Water Search and Recovery.
      The high rate of overtime paid in the County Police is incompatible with calls for service
       data and other performance indicators.
      As a percentage of total overtime expense for 2010, the top twenty members in each
       agency were responsible for a significant portion of that agency’s overtime.
      The Sheriff’s Office could reduce its overtime costs in its BCI – Crime Scene Unit by
       adding a steady midnight tour of two detectives.

    4.1 Overtime – General Observations

An analysis of overtime in the three stakeholder agencies in the five year period from 2006
through 2010 found that sworn personnel overtime in both the County Police and the Sheriff’s
Office had declined 23% (-$21,097) and 41% (-$194,493) respectively. During that period the
Prosecutor’s Office had increased its expenditures on sworn personnel overtime by 12.5%
($51,730). The sworn personnel overtime data reveals that, for the year 2010, the Sheriff’s Office
was able to manage its sworn personnel overtime the most effectively of the three stakeholder
agencies, with only a slight increase of 1% ($2,779) over 2009. This was in marked contrast to
the Prosecutor’s Office which had an increase of 9% ($38,770) and the County Police with a
27% increase ($149,157) in sworn personnel overtime.


                                               67
The following table depicts the annual overtime for sworn personnel in all three stakeholder
agencies for the period 2006-2010.

SWORN PERSONNEL OVERTIME EXPENDITURES BY AGENCY 2006-2010

                          PROSECUTOR’S                 SHERIFF’S
       YEAR                                                                 COUNTY POLICE
                             OFFICE                     OFFICE
        2006                $408,129.12                $469,698.43               $919,298.11
        2007                $377,335.15                $250,169.06               $926,119.21
        2008                $460,313.41                $473,286.35               $683,605.61
        2009                $421,088.81                $272,426.48               $560,044.45
        2010                $459,859.14                $275,205.33               $709,201.11

Despite a generally declining trend in overtime payments for two of the three agencies over the
five year period, in 2010 the three stakeholders still cummulatively incurred $1.444 million in
sworn personnel overtime expenses.

For the years 2006-2010, the County Police consistently earned more overtime than the
Prosecutor’s Office or the Sheriff’s Office. In fact, in 2007 the County Police had more overtime
than the Prosecutor’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office combined. Until 2010 that disparity had
been decreasing, although the County Police continue to outspend the other two stakeholder
agencies by at least 25% in sworn personnel overtime annually. However, in 2010 the County
Police outspent the Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office by 61% and 35% respectively. In
addition, overtime expenditures in the County Police have varied considerably in the past five
years; from 2007 to 2008 there was a 26% decrease in overtime, while from 2009 to 2010
overtime increased 27%. The Study Team was unable to obtain sufficient information or
documentation to determine the exact reasons for these variances, nor was it able to determine
the exact categorization of the total overtime for each agency.

In its analysis process the Study Team discovered that there are limited overtime controls. None
of the three agencies was able to show the Study Team a report detailing specifically how each
employee earned his/her overtime. Through interviews with the County Police, the Study Team
learned that the control and monitoring of overtime at that agency is limited to a quarterly review
of an employees’ overtime list which is prepared by the administrative staff and reviewed by the
command staff. The County Police also reported that it did not have any overtime limits or
quotas in place. The Prosecutor’s Office maintains a computerized overtime submission system;
however, at the time this data was requested the system could not produce reports detailing the
reasons for the overtime. The Prosecutor’s Office is currently working on a system that
reportedly will be able to provide the needed detailed data. Both the County Police and the
Sheriff’s Office submit and approve overtime via a paper-based system.

The Study Team recommends that each of the three agencies develops comprehensive overtime
policies with real time monitoring of individual employees. Any system implemented must be
able to identify the current high overtime earners and display the activities associated with the
overtime. In addition, a reporting system must be able to clearly indicate the reason all overtime
is being accrued.

                                                68
The following tables detail overtime expenses incurred by sworn personnel in each agency
annually from 2006 through 2010 and provides total overtime expended, total headcount as
indicated on the respective payroll registers and average overtime expenditures per sworn
employee.

         BERGEN COUNTY OVERTIME ANALYSIS FOR SWORN PERSONNEL
                              2006 - 2010
2006

                                           Total        Overtime        Average Total
    Agency         Overtime Amount
                                         Employees      Employees         Overtime

       Police          $919,298.11              96          86             $9,576.02

       Sheriff         $469,698.43           144            118            $3,261.79

  Prosecutor           $408,129.12           117            84             $3,488.28

  2006 Totals        $1,797,125.66           357            288              N/A




2007

                                           Total        Overtime        Average Total
    Agency         Overtime Amount
                                         Employees      Employees         Overtime

       Police         $926,119.21               92          86            $10,066.51

       Sheriff         $250,169.06           136            92             $1,839.48

  Prosecutor           $377,335.15           122            87             $3,092.91

  2007 Totals        $1,553,623.42           350            288              N/A




                                           69
2008

                                     Total     Overtime    Average Total
   Agency        Overtime Amount
                                   Employees   Employees     Overtime

       Police       $683,605.61          92       88         $7,430.50

       Sheriff      $473,286.35       168         131        $2,817.18

  Prosecutor        $460,313.41       117         81         $3,934.30

  2008 Totals     $1,617,205.37       377         300          N/A



2009

                                     Total     Overtime    Average Total
   Agency        Overtime Amount
                                   Employees   Employees     Overtime

       Police       $560,044.45          94       85         $5,957.92

       Sheriff      $272,426.48       156         118        $1,746.32

  Prosecutor        $421,088.81       118         86         $3,568.55

  2009 Totals     $1,253,559.74       368         289          N/A



2010

                                     Total     Overtime    Average Total
   Agency        Overtime Amount
                                   Employees   Employees     Overtime

       Police       $709,201.11          95       85         $7,465.27

       Sheriff      $275,205.33       152         122        $1,810.56

  Prosecutor        $459,859.14       123         75         $3,738.69

  2010 Totals     $1,444,265.58       370         282          N/A




                                    70
The Study Team was told by the County Police that it performs traffic coverage for utility
companies in the county on overtime, whereby reimbursement is made to the county to offset the
cost of the officer’s overtime. The Study Team learned that in 2010 the county was reimbursed
$244,804 for utility traffic coverage. In addition, the Study Team was told that the County Police
also received $36,000 in grant funding which was utilized to offset overtime. When these
reimbursements are subtracted from the actual paid sworn personnel overtime cost of $709,201
in the year 2010, the net cost to the county for overtime related to the County Police was
$428,397.

The Study Team was informed that the Prosecutor’s Office made a $200,000 reimbursement
with forfeiture funds to pay for overtime costs associated with certain investigations conducted
by the Prosecutor’s Office in the year 2010; this resulted in a net cost to the county of $259,859.

    4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity
In order to analyze overtime expenditures, both to understand the reasons why overtime was
necessary and to identify possible ways of reducing these expenditures, the Study Team asked
each agency to provide overtime data by activity. Neither the Prosecutor’s Office nor the
Sheriff’s Office was able to provide detailed breakdowns of specific overtime activity by
individuals.

The County Police provided the following breakdown of its specialty units’ overtime for the
years 2008 to 2010.

UNIT                                    2008                   2009                   2010
Medical Examiners                      $50,200                $29,900                $26,000
K9                                     $71,000                $56,700                $61,000
Water Search & Recovery                 $1,700                $13,400                $19,000
SWAT                                   $29,300                $34,000                $37,000
Bomb Squad                             $19,000                 $9,300                $13,600

The total amount of County Police special unit overtime as computed from the chart above for
the year 2010 was $156,600. This raises the question as to how and in what activities the
remaining $552,601 in sworn personnel overtime for that year was earned.

Although data was limited, the Study Team determined that it was necessary to make an attempt
to correlate overtime to specialized functions where appropriate. To that end, the team
performed an analysis utilizing individual employee overtime records from payroll registers and
linked that data to the core and/or specialized functions attributed to that employee.

The following chart illustrates the breakdown of the top 20 overtime earners, sworn personnel
and civilian, in the County Police, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office in 2010 by the
core and/or specialized functions attributed to the employee.




                                                 71
       2010 TOP 20 OVERTIME EARNERS ALL EMPLOYEES – SWORN & CIVILIAN

                     COUNTY POLICE                     PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE                         SHERIFF’S OFFICE

RANK       OT              ASSIGNMENT   SPECIALTY      OT               ASSIGNMENT         OT                  ASSIGNMENT
   1      $22,961    PO    Patrol       K9           $29,785    Inv     FBI on loan      $16,640     SO    US Marshalls on loan
                                                                        DEA on
   2      $20,450    PO    Patrol       K9           $27,453    Inv     loan             $15,464     SO    Community Outreach
   3      $18,638    Sgt   Academy      K9           $18,476    Inv     MC-H             $10,957     RD    Operations
   4      $18,406    PO    Patrol       K9           $17,689    Inv     MC -A             $9,419     Sgt   Operations
   5      $18,368    PO    CID          ME, W        $16,088    Inv     MC-H              $7,799     Sgt   Crime Scene
   6      $16,539    PO    TS           TS           $14,313    Inv     MC-H              $7,432     SO    Crime Scene
                                                                                                           Court
   7      $16,402    PO    TS           TS, S        $13,845    Inv     MC- FA            $7,372     Sgt   Security/Operations
   8      $16,316    PO    Patrol       ME, M        $13,679    Inv     SI                $6,534     RD    Operations
   9      $16,196    Sgt   Patrol       S            $13,258    Inv     MC-H              $6,378     SO    Crime Scene
                                        ME, W,
  10      $16,052    PO    BCC          M            $11,884    TMIS    Data Center       $6,316     NA    Information Tech
  11      $15,494    PO    Patrol       ME           $11,784    Inv     Narcotics         $6,085     Sgt   Crime Scene
  12      $15,472    PO    Patrol       K9           $10,718    Inv     Sex Crimes        $5,721     Inv   Crime Scene
  13      $15,189    PO    Patrol       ME, K9       $10,588    Sgt     SI                $5,561     RD    Operations
  14      $14,933    PO    TS           TS, B        $10,588    Inv     SI                $5,486     SO    Crime Scene
  15      $14,185    PO    CID          S            $10,524    SCO     SI                $5,120     SO    Investigation/TIPS
                                                                                                           Special Service/Civil
  16      $13,680    PO    Patrol       B            $10,064    Inv     SI                $5,090     Sgt   Process
  17      $13,319    PO    Patrol       None          $9,952    Inv     Narcotics         $4,899     Inv   Crime Scene
                                                                                                           Special Service/Civil
  18      $13,044    SG    Sec Guard    None          $9,586    Inv     MC-H              $4,536     Sgt   Process
  19      $12,919    PO    Patrol       K9            $9,527    Inv     Sex Crimes        $4,517     SO    Crime Scene
  20      $12,890    PO    Patrol       None          $9,447    Sgt.    MC-H              $4,440     RD    Operations
        $321,454                                    $279,248                            $145,766
           *TOTAL OT: $845,925                        *TOTAL OT: $561,785                *TOTAL OT: $317,529

       % of top 20         38%                                          50%                                46%
       *Note: These overtime totals represent both sworn personnel and civilian overtime expenditures in each agency.
       Legend:
       ME – Medical Examiner             MC – H – Major Crimes Homicide             Sgt - Sergeant
       S – SWAT                          MC – FA- Major Crimes Fatal Accidents      SG – Security Guard
       TS – Traffic Safety               MC – A – Major Crimes Arson                Inv - Investigator
       W – Water Search & Recovery      TMIS – Tech Mgt Info Systems                SO – Sheriff’s officer
       B – Bomb Squad                   BCC –Bergen Community College               RD – Radio Dispatcher
       M – Mounted Unit                 CID – Criminal Investigations Division      NA – Network Administrator
       SI – Special Investigation       PO – Police Officer




                                                               72
Data for top 20 overtime earners for each of the three agencies appears in the chart above and
includes the corresponding overtime costs, service rank, assignment and, in the case of the
County Police, the specialty. As previously noted, the information for this analysis was taken
from the payroll registers and does not indicate the reason the overtime was incurred.

The total cost of the top 20 overtime earners (sworn and civilian) for each agency mirrors the
observation that the County Police had the highest overtime cost for its top 20 members
($321,454), followed by the Prosecutors Office ($279,248) and the Sheriff’s Office ($145,766).
As a percentage of total overtime expense for 2010, the top twenty members in each agency were
responsible for a significant portion of that agency’s total overtime (sworn and civilian
personnel): 38% (County Police), 50% (Prosecutor’s Office) and 46% (Sheriff’s Office).

The Sheriff’s Office has seven supervisors including a lieutenant (who is the second highest
overtime earner) and four civilian radio dispatchers on their top 20 overtime earner list. The
County Police has two sergeants and a civilian security guard on its top 20 overtime earners list.
Seven employees on the County Police overtime earners list are K-9 handlers and five are
medical examiners investigators. The Prosecutors Office has the two highest overtime earners,
both of whom are on loan to federal authorities. The federal government reimburses the county
$14,600 for the investigator assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and $16,000 for the
investigator assigned to the Drug Enforcement Agency. The Prosecutor’s Office has two
sergeants and one civilian computer systems worker on its top 20 overtime earner list. In
addition, six of the top 20 overtime earners are assigned to the Homicide squad.

As a result of this overtime analysis the Study Team had several findings. The high rate of
sworn personnel overtime paid in the County Police is inconsistent with calls for service data and
other performance indicators. The team also notes that limited controls and high volume of
overtime create opportunities for abuse. The county government should insist on a detailed
breakdown of overtime from all three agencies.




                                               73
       4.2.1 Overtime – Sheriff’s Office - BCI Unit

Members assigned to the Sheriff’s Office BCI unit, which includes the Crime Scene Unit,
accrued $ 125,279 29 in overtime payments in 2010, representing approximately 46% of total
sworn personnel overtime attributed to the Sheriff’s Office (not including the jails). The Crime
Scene Unit of BCI was responsible for $ 78,342 in overtime payments 30, which is 28% of the
total Sheriff’s Office sworn personnel overtime (not including the jails) and 63% of the total
overtime of BCI. The Study Team found that the Crime Scene Unit’s average overtime was
$3,917 per member. The average amount of overtime for all sworn Sheriff’s Officers was
$1,811. 31

The Crime Scene Unit responds to calls for investigation and processing of physical evidence at
the crime scenes and serious events. The unit operates seven days per week and covers each day
with a working squad of three detectives and one sergeant. The hours of coverage are from 6am
to 2am of the following day. The period between 2am until 6am is covered by “on call”
personnel who, if requested to respond, incur overtime. The unit has some overtime constraints,
such as delaying the processing of certain property crimes to mitigate the overtime expense.
However, the Study Team finds that overtime costs may be mitigated further from a steady
midnight tour of two detectives to reduce overtime.

Although the $2,106 difference between the average overtime of the Crime Scene Unit members
and that of the average Sheriff’s officer is significant, the team anticipates that, given the nature
of crime scene investigation, overtime will always be incurred.


 C. BUDGETS – FUNCTIONAL, PURCHASING & REVENUES ANALYSIS


1. SCOPE

The Study Team reviewed the line item budgets for Bergen County for the years 2006 through
2010 in order to identify expenditures associated with the Prosecutor’s Office, Sheriff’s Office
and the County Police. The analysis included each agency’s Operating, Capital Bond, Grant and
Forfeiture accounts. In addition, the team reviewed purchasing procedures and identified sources
of revenue recognized by each stakeholder agency.




29
   The total shown was obtained from the 2010 payroll register under the caption Identification Bureau. There were a
   total of 48 employees paid under this account. It is understood that this does not represent the static headcount of
   the unit but does represent all who were paid under this account at some period during 2010.
30
   This amount was computed by comparing the names of members assigned to the Crime Scene Unit taken from
   actual assignment sheets and totaling their individual overtime earnings.
31
   This amount was computed by averaging all individual overtime earnings of Sheriff Officers taken from the 2010
   payroll register.


                                                         74
2. METHODOLOGY

       2.1 Document Review
To conduct its review, the Study Team relied on several sources of documentation which were
provided by the Bergen County Treasurer’s Office, the Bergen County Department of Data
Processing, the Bergen County Purchasing Department and the County Municipal Court. These
documents included the following:

      Bergen County Treasurer
          o Purchasing and Treasury Procedure Manual
          o Capital Bond Budget Summary Reports
          o Grant Budget Activity Reports
          o Operating Budget Activity Reports
          o Forfeiture Budget Activity Reports
          o Access to the AS400 Accounting System
          o Electronic Disbursement Database
          o Revenue Account Detail Report

      Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
          o Schedule of BCPO Forfeiture Fund Account Numbers
          o Forfeiture Account Guidelines
          o Independent Audit Reports (Trust Fund Accounts) for the years 2004 through
             2009.
          o Memoranda identifying sworn officer reimbursements

      Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
          o Schedule of Funds Remitted to Bergen County

      Bergen County Police
          o Memorandum identifying deposits received from photographic and accident
             reports
          o Memorandum identifying the number of summonses issued and funds transferred
             to the County Treasurer for the assessment and collection of fines and penalties

      Bergen County Department of Data Processing
          o Electronic Payroll Registers
          o Electronic Overtime Registers

      Bergen County Purchasing Department
          o Law enforcement audit bid logs
          o Commodity participation logs
          o Schedule of state and non-state purchases

      Bergen County Central Municipal Court
          o Schedule of tickets issued for the period 2006 - 2010


                                             75
       2.2 Interviews
The Study Team conducted over fifteen interviews with individuals in managerial roles in
accounting, purchasing, audit, data processing and administration in each of the stakeholder
agencies and in Bergen County administration, including the County Treasurer and an
independent information technology consultant who had provided consulting services to the
office of the County Treasurer.

3. BUDGETS – FINDINGS

The Study Team reviewed the operating budgets for the three agencies for the past five years and
found the following:

      Each agency has come in significantly under budget for the last five years.
      Payroll costs represent the majority of each agency’s total expenditures.
      Significant revenues are generated each year by each of the agencies; the Prosecutor’s
       Office through forfeitures, the County Police through ticket issuance and the Sheriff’s
       Office through foreclosures.
      The number of vehicles assigned to the County Police and the Prosecutor’s Office may be
       excessive and adds to the yearly maintenance cost to the county.
      Each agency utilizes the Bergen County Purchasing Department for all commodities and
       services procured; the majority of purchases are procured from either a State of New
       Jersey or County Contract used by all agencies within the county.
      Purchasing procedures require appropriate documentation and include appropriate
       controls.
      The current Bergen County Financial Management System is difficult to navigate and not
       suitable as a real time management tool and should be upgraded.

   3.1 Budget Comparison
The Study Team analyzed the Operating Budget Activity reports and compared the adjusted
budget amounts for each agency account to the corresponding year-to-date expenditures.

County Police

Year            Adjusted Budget       Expenditures       Variance
2006            $12,416,110           $12,379,600        $36,510
2007            $13,205,111           $13,175,957        $29,154
2008            $12,972,305           $12,948,259        $24,046
2009            $13,644,417           $13,556,491        $77,926
2010            $13,622,468           $13,400,017        $222,451
TOTALS          $65,860,411           $65,470,324        $390,087




                                              76
Prosecutor’s Office

Year                  Adjusted Budget            Expenditures           Variance
2006                  $24,674,288                $24,519,447             $154,841
2007                  $25,775,545                $25,523,661             $251,884
2008                  $26,148,563                $25,780,402             $368,161
2009                  $28,026,543                $27,634,778             $391,765
2010                  $27,612,886                $26,861,280             $751,606
TOTALS                $132,237,825               $130,319,568           $1,918,257


Sheriff’s Office

Year                  Adjusted Budget            Expenditures           Variance
2006                  $15,646,416                $15,526,259            $120,157
2007                  $16,995,520                $16,734,324            $261,196
2008                  $17,136,328                $16,971,976            $164,352
2009                  $20,621,294                $20,465,337            $155,957
2010                  $20,489,889                $20,108,357            $381,532
TOTALS                $90,889,447                $89,806,253            $1,083,194

As the data shows, each agency has come in significantly under budget in the last five years. 32

           3.2 Expenditure Analysis
The team identified, and listed in a spreadsheet analysis, the general ledger account description
and number utilized by each stakeholder agency for all Operating, Capital, Forfeiture and Grant
account disbursements. Each account was compared to an electronic database of all county
disbursements and segregated to ensure analysis was limited to only those disbursements
identified and associated with each agency. Furthermore, various spreadsheets were prepared
comparing each agency’s expenditures from the disbursement spreadsheet analysis. Purchasing
procedures were reviewed to identify any deficiencies or irregularities in the purchasing process.
In addition, payroll registers for each agency were reviewed to quantify the costs of gross salary,
overtime salary and fringe benefits.

The table below depicts actual payroll and disbursements for the year 2010 and provides an
accounting of the total costs to operate the County Police, the Sheriff’s Office (not including
jails) and the Prosecutor’s Office. A schedule reporting total payroll costs and expenditures for
each agency for the period 2006 through 2010 is attached as Appendix E.



32
     The appropriation reserve expenditures, which represent disbursements paid in 2011, have not been applied to the
     2010 budget. Therefore, the 2010 variance appears much greater then it will ultimately be. It is anticipated that
     the appropriation reserves from the following year will be applied against the 2010 budget during the first quarter
     of 2011.


                                                           77
                                         BERGEN COUNTY
                       2010 PAYROLL COST AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
                                             SHERIFF            POLICE             PROSECUTOR
Payroll
   YTD Gross                             $   20,068,890    $   13,421,509      $    26,892,251
   Fringe Benefits                           12,574,099         7,324,103           16,582,612
   Less Overtime Reimbursement                         –         (244,804)            (200,000)
   Less Grant Reimbursement                    (108,234)           (14,011)           (372,992)
                        Total Payroll:   $   32,534,756    $   20,486,797      $    42,901,871



Expenditures
   Operating                             $     845,193     $      579,690      $     1,593,494
   Capital                                     745,708            595,692            2,179,266
   Forfeiture                                  292,672            235,732            2,301,539
   Grant                                       257,400             79,749              222,655
                   Total Expenditures:   $    2,140,972    $    1,490,862      $     6,296,954


                  TOTAL EXPENDED:        $   34,675,728    $   21,977,659      $    49,198,825



The Study Team found that, as expected, payroll costs represent the majority of each agency’s
total expenditures. In fact, for the year 2010, the Sheriff’s Office payroll costs represented 94%
of its total expenditures; County Police payroll costs represented 93% of its total expenditures;
and the Prosecutor’s Office payroll costs represented 87% of its total expenditures.

          3.2.1 Expenditure Analysis - Vehicles
The Study Team reviewed the vehicles assigned to each of the stakeholder agencies.
A substantial cost to any law enforcement organization is the cost associated with the
procurement and upkeep of its vehicle fleet.

The following table illustrates the number of vehicles assigned to each agency by type and total.




                                                  78
       Vehicle Count for County Police, Prosecutor and Sheriff's Office
           Vehicle Type          Police        Prosecutor       Sheriff
       SUV                         41              31              21
       Van                          4               5               4
       Sedan                       46              78              50
       Other                       16               6              13
              Total Vehicles      107             120              88
              Sworn members        92             111             152
              Vehicles per        1.16            1.08           0.58

The County Police has 107 vehicles but only 92 sworn members, which amounts to 1.16 vehicles
per person. The Prosecutor’s Office has 120 vehicles and 111 sworn members and the Sheriff’s
Office has 88 vehicles with 152 sworn members assigned. It appears that the number of vehicles
assigned to the County Police and the Prosecutor’s Office is excessive and adds to the yearly
maintenance cost to the county. The County Police has 69 vehicles in its fleet which are older
than five years, including 42 that are more than seven years old. The Prosecutor’s Office has 46
vehicles older than five years, but only 12 older than seven years. The Sheriff’s Office has 36
vehicles older than five years and 24 older than seven years. Vehicles of this age will require
more costly maintenance than newer vehicles under manufacturers’ warranties.

The county should condemn a majority of the older vehicles that require costly maintenance and
reduce the vehicle count of the County Police and the Prosecutor’s Office. Through a process of
vehicle reduction and elimination of older models the county will realize immediate cost savings,
such as the reduced fuel and maintenance costs associated with a smaller fleet. Not only do the
older vehicles require more maintenance but they are also less fuel efficient. Furthermore, a
policy of programmatic replacement should be implemented whereby newer, more fuel efficient
vehicles are purchased each year to replace the aging fleet. The county should ensure that as
replacement vehicles are procured and enter service, comparable older vehicles are condemned
and removed from the fleet.

       3.3 Revenue Analysis
The Study Team performed an analysis of sources of revenue for the three stakeholder agencies.
Utilizing data obtained from each agency, the team prepared a spreadsheet analysis quantifying
the revenue recognized.




                                               79
The following spreadsheet identifies sources of revenue generated by each agency and compares
the total revenue generated by each source:

                                  2006          2007          2008          2009          2010
POLICE
 Motor Vehicle Tickets       $ 5,194,054     $ 5,168,732   $ 4,478,978   $ 4,417,847   $ 3,764,035
 Photographic and Accident        20,513          22,476        17,956        27,359        16,836
 Forfeiture                      313,641          62,310        36,391       262,273     1,406,745
                Police Total: $ 5,528,207    $ 5,253,518   $ 4,533,325   $ 4,707,480   $ 5,187,615


SHERIFF
  Foreclosures               $ 1,541,556     $ 1,573,753   $ 1,234,497   $ 1,534,397   $ 2,056,244
  Garnishments                   146,551          92,271       143,874        92,225       107,154
  Motor Vehicle Tickets           36,678          69,495        43,113        47,180       103,372
  Summons                         83,118         169,378       142,630        82,747        75,000
  WRITS                          112,528         143,771       188,697       127,797       152,232
  Forfeiture                      28,237         407,074       161,930        47,850        37,446
                Sheriff Total: $ 1,948,669   $ 2,455,742   $ 1,914,741   $ 1,932,195   $ 2,531,449


PROSECUTOR
  Forfeiture                 $ 1,934,090     $ 6,162,093   $ 3,863,032   $ 4,759,314   $ 3,152,657

            Prosecutor Total: $ 1,934,090    $ 6,162,093   $ 3,863,032   $ 4,759,314   $ 3,152,657


Our analysis showed that the issuance of motor vehicle tickets was a major contributor to
revenues generated by the County Police, although revenues from this source have declined 28%
in the five year period studied. This reduction was somewhat offset by a dramatic increase in
forfeiture funds in 2010.

Foreclosures represent the major source of revenues for the Sheriff’s Office. Given the current
economic climate it was not surprising to learn that revenues for the Sheriff were up 33% in
2010.

Forfeitures are the sole source of revenue for the Prosecutor’s Office. Trend data confirms that
this activity, as a revenue source, is variable and unpredictable. Of greater import, however, is
the fact that in the five years studied, the Prosecutor’s Office has demonstrated a sustained and
concerted effort to aggressively pursue the proceeds of crime.

       3.4 Purchasing
The Study Team reviewed the expenditures and purchasing procedures for each stakeholder
agency. Each agency utilizes the Bergen County Purchasing Department for all commodities
and services procured. The team found that the majority of purchases are procured through
either a state of New Jersey contract or a Bergen County contract used by all agencies within the

                                                  80
county. There are existing contracts for all stationery supplies, gas and oil, janitorial supplies
and maintenance on printers and fax machines. In addition, there is a blanket resolution each
year for police supplies, including ammunition. Furthermore, the Study Team found that a
majority of computer hardware and cell phone purchases are currently being procured off of the
state contract; thus, no significant economies of scale by combining purchases with other
agencies were identified.

No notable duplication of resources for the purchasing of law enforcement services and
equipment were identified. In fact, the team found that each agency relies on the centralized
County Purchasing Department to obtain the best pricing for each item requested. The
purchasing process begins with the submission of a purchase requisition from the user agency.
The Purchasing Department sends it to the Treasurer to verify that proper funding is in place and
then the requisition is returned to the Purchasing Department to procure the items requested. The
team also learned that purchasing procedures require appropriate documentation and include
appropriate controls.

       3.5 Financial Management Technology
During the information gathering stage of this engagement, the Study Team learned that the
Bergen County Financial Management System was difficult to navigate and not suitable as a real
time management tool. With the cooperation of the County Treasurer’s Office, the Study Team
was able to receive data in an electronic spreadsheet which permitted some manipulation for
analysis. However, the detail captured in the county system and the system’s limited ability to
produce reports was problematic. For example, detail on purchases by vendor was not readily
available.

While the system appears to meet the needs of the County Treasurer and other technical users, in
an environment of fiscal constraints and budgetary reductions, it is imperative that managers
have the ability to run reports in real time. The team discovered that the Prosecutor’s Office and
the Sheriff’s Office maintain separate accounting of budgets and purchasing in a Microsoft
Access database which each agency created for the purpose of tracking its budget expenses. This
is a complete duplication of a system which should be provided by the county to the end users.
The Study Team believes that the county should acquire a new, user friendly Financial
Management System based on modern financial computer technology.




                                               81
D. FACILITIES ANALYSIS


1. SCOPE

In this analysis, the Study Team obtained a listing of all facilities under the jurisdiction of each
stakeholder agency. For each facility, key tenancy data was supplied, including property owner,
square footage, the number of employees occupying the location and the maintenance/cleaning
arrangements for the facility. The purpose of the facilities and tenancy review was to identify
facilities that might be underutilized and available for use in any consolidation initiative and/or
facilities that might be subject to closure under various consolidation scenarios, with resultant
cost savings.

2. METHODOLOGY

       2.1 Document Review
The Study Team’s methodology included a review of the following documents provided by the
stakeholder agencies in response to requests for information by the team.

      Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
          o Tenancy Document

      Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
          o Tenancy Document
          o Blueprints—3rd Floor BCI Building

      Bergen County Police
          o Tenancy Document
          o BCPD Patrol Guide 9-11, dated 2/25/1998, “Assisting Persons in Headquarters
             with Disabilities, ADA Compliance”

       2.2 Interviews
The Study Team conducted a number of interviews with senior management at the three
stakeholder agencies, including the Prosecutor, the Sheriff, the Chief of the County Police and
the Director of Public Safety, as well as operational personnel.

       2.3 Onsite Visits
The Study Team also conducted site visits to the following facilities:

      Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
       10 Main Street, Bergen County Court House
       Galda Building, 100 Eisenhower Drive




                                                 82
      Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
       BCI/Bergen County Jail Annex, 160 South River Street
       Bergen County Justice Center, 10 Main Street

      Bergen County Police
       Headquarters and Garage, 66 Zabriskie Street
       Traffic Safety, 66 Zabriskie Street
       1 Bergen County Plaza

      Bergen County Department of Public Safety
       Bergen County Law and Public Safety Institute, 281 Campgaw Road
       Public Safety Operations Center, 281 Campgaw Road

3. FACILITIES – FINDINGS

The Study Team, in its analysis of facilities utilization in the three agencies, found the following:

      The County Police headquarters building on Zabriskie Street in Hackensack is no longer
       suitable to house a modern law enforcement agency and is not ADA compliant.
      The 2011 assessed value of the property occupied by the Zabriskie building and the
       building itself was $3,521,700.
      There is unused space on the 3rd floor of the Sheriff’s Office BCI facility. This presents
       an opportunity as a possible location for additional personnel, should the need arise as the
       result of any consolidation.
      No significant cost savings or efficiencies would accrue to the county by significantly
       altering the current evidence collection and storage process.

   3.1 Tenancy – Stakeholder Law Enforcement Agencies
       3.1.1 Facilities Overview

All properties in Bergen County used by the stakeholder agencies are owned by Bergen County.
With the exception of 100 East Broadway, no agencies indicated any funding issues at their
level. The 100 East Broadway facility is owned by the county. Currently the Prosecutor’s
Office is in discussion with the county to provide lease payments to the county for the use of the
facility.

The County Police maintains a large number of facilities, including its headquarters, garage and
traffic safety “complex” at 66/70 Zabriskie Street and a number of small office spaces in various
facilities spread throughout the county. These individual facilities are in some cases staffed and
in other cases used only briefly during the day. Two facilities, the Law and Public Safety
Institute and the Public Safety Operations Center at 281 Campgaw Road, are Department of
Public Safety facilities to which County Police officers are assigned to provide training or
dispatch services.




                                                 83
          The Study Team reviewed the tenancy documents submitted by each of the stakeholder agencies
          and created the following matrix which depicts the facilities occupied, in whole or in part, for the
          delivery of law enforcement services by the agencies under review in this study.

                                                       TENANCY MATRIX

                                                    SQ.                                                                     MAINTENANCE/
  AGENCY                  LOCATION                FOOTAGE             UNITS                 PERSONNEL     LANDLORD             CLEANING
Prosecutor’s   Bergen County Court House         N/A           9 Offices Occupied      99                Bergen County      County provides
  Office       10 Main Street                                  by BCPO personnel                                            basic services,
               Hackensack, NJ 07601                                                                                         maintenance
                                                                                                                            provided by
                                                                                                                            General
                                                                                                                            Services
Prosecutor’s   100 East Broadway                 N/A           Currently used as       No full or part   Bergen County      Bergen County
  Office       Hackensack, NJ 07601                            vehicle storage; will   time staff        owns property;     provides utilities
                                                               be used for evidence    assigned          BCPO               and snow
                                                               and records storage                       obtaining          removal
                                                                                                         MOU to
                                                                                                         include lease
                                                                                                         payments;
                                                                                                         upgrades to be
                                                                                                         paid with
                                                                                                         forfeiture funds
Prosecutor’s   Galda Building                    55,000        Outside Squads,         106               Bergen County      County provides
  Office       100 Eisenhower Drive                            evidence and                                                 basic services,
               Paramus, NJ 07652                               records storage,                                             maintenance
                                                               computer division                                            provided by
                                                               and admin                                                    General
                                                                                                                            Services;
                                                                                                                            cleaning by
                                                                                                                            outside vendor
                                                                                                                            under contract
                                                                                                                            to Bergen
                                                                                                                            County
Sheriff’s      BCI                               27,524        BCI                     48 Officers       Bergen County      N/A
 Office        160 South River Street                                                  5 Civilians
               Hackensack, NJ 07601
Sheriff’s      Superior Court Probation Office   22,205        Superior Court          2 Officers        Bergen County      N/A
 Office        133 River Street                                Probation*              1 Civilian
               Hackensack, NJ 07601


Sheriff’s      Bergen County Justice Center      424,692€      Jail and Court          114 Officers      Bergen County      N/A
 Office        10 Main Street                                  Houseβ                  32 Civilians
               Hackensack, NJ 07601
Sheriff’s      Bergen County Jail Annex          319,623π      Jail                    286 Officers      Bergen County      N/A
 Office        160 South River Street                                                  54 Civilians
               Hackensack, NJ 07601
County         Headquarters and Garage           11,500        BCPD                    70 Officers       Bergen County      Bergen County
 Police        66 Zabriskie Street                                                     6 F/T
               Hackensack, NJ 07601                                                    Civilians
                                                                                       2 Per Diem
                                                                                       Civilians
County         70 Zabriskie Street               1,450         Traffic Safety and      9 Officers        Bergen County      Bergen County
 Police        Hackensack, NJ 07601              (Constructi   Office of Highway       1 F/T Civilian
                                                 on Trailer)   Safety
County         400 Paramus Road                  200           Substation              3 Officers        Bergen County      Bergen County
 Police        Paramus, NJ 07652                               (Office at Bergen

                                                                      84
                                                      SQ.                                                                   MAINTENANCE/
  AGENCY                  LOCATION                  FOOTAGE             UNITS               PERSONNEL        LANDLORD        CLEANING
                                                                 County Community
                                                                 College)
County         1280 Wall Street                    200           Substation             1 Officer           Bergen County   Bergen County
Police         West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071                          (Office at BCC)
County         Vansaun County Park and Zoo         100           Public Safety Office   1 County Police     Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        216 Forrest Avenue                                                       Security Guard
               Paramus, NJ 07652
County         Challenger and Overpeck Park        3 offices     N/A                    N/A                 Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        199 Challenger Road                 totaling
               Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660           552 square
                                                   feet
County         Bergen County Law and Public        Institute     Public Safety          3 Officers          Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        Safety Institute1                   Complex       Office/ Training
               281 Campgaw Road                    49,9001       Advisors Office
               Mahwah, NJ 07430                    Public
                                                   Safety
                                                   Office 140
                                                   Training
                                                   Advisors
                                                   Office 150¥
County         PSOC                                29,810        OEM /                  5 Officers          Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        281 Campgaw Road                                  Communications         30 (PSTs)
               Mahwah, NJ 07430                                                         8 Per Diem
               (Since 10/10)                                                            PSTs
                                                                                        4 Civilians
County         OEM                                 2976          OEM Office±            3 Officers          Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        327 East Ridgewood Avenue                                                2 Civilians
               Paramus, NJ 07652
               (Prior to 10/10)                            N O T       C U R R E N T L Y             I N   U S E

County         1 Bergen County Plaza               180           Public Safety          1 Officer           Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        Hackensack, NJ 07601                              Office≠                6 County Police
                                                                                        Security Guards
County         Bergen County Special               100           Public Safety          1 Officer           Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police         Police Services School                           Officeƛ
               35 Piermont Road
               Rockleigh, NJ 07647
County         Bergen County Shelter               80            Public Safety Office   1 County Police     Tenant of       Bergen County
 Police        120 South River Road                                                     Security Guard      Bergen County
               Hackensack, NJ 07601
County         Bergen Regional Medical Center      N/A           N/A                    N/A                 Tenant of       Bergen County
 Police        230 Ridgewood Avenue                                                                         Bergen County
               Paramus, NJ 07652
County         Bergen County Law and               Institute     Public Safety          3 Officers          Bergen County   Bergen County
 Police        Public Safety Institute2            Complex       Office/ Training
               281 Campgaw Road                    49,900        Advisors Office
               Mahwah, NJ 07430                    PSO
                                                   140
                                                   Training
                                                   Advisors
                                                   Office 150§

*shared space—B.C. Vicinage
€
  consists of 4 parts; Old Jail, Annex, Old Admin, Old Court House
β
  shared space—BCPO, Surrogate’s Office, Superior Court, various state and county offices
π
   consists of 3 parts; New Addition, Jail Alterations, Existing Building
¥
  shared space with BCPO/BCSO
±
  shared space with Bergen County Health Dept.
≠
  shared building

                                                                       85
ƛ
  shared with Education Professionals
§
 shared space with BCPO/BCSO
1. Our research indicates 1 police officer and 10 security guards are assigned to this facility.
2 The Law and Public Safety Institute and Public Safety Operations Center are functional components of the Department of Public Safety.


        The Study Team’s primary findings regarding facilities are related to the Zabriskie Street
        “complex,” potential use of space at the Sheriff’s Office BCI facility and the vehicle/future
        records storage facility at 100 East Broadway.

                   3.2 Zabriskie Street Facility
        The County Police occupies, as its headquarters, a building located at 66 Zabriskie Street in
        Hackensack. According to the Bergen County Police Patrol Guide, Section 9-11 dated February
        25, 1998, and acknowledged by all relevant personnel interviewed by the Study Team, the
        Zabriskie headquarters building is a non-ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant
        facility.

        In relevant part, the Patrol Guide states:

                   “SCOPE OF PROCEDURE”
                   “Periodically, people come to Headquarters for reports or police services, and
                   some of these people have disabilities which make their entry into the building
                   difficult. The Bergen County Police Headquarters Building is quite old and
                   currently does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
                   County government, General Services Division, has been made aware of the
                   current condition of BCPD Headquarters. Until there is a work project to update
                   the Headquarters building to comply with ADA standard, this organization must
                   provide assistance to persons in need when they come to the building for service.”
                   (See Appendix F)

        It is obvious to the Study Team that the Zabriskie building is no longer suitable to house a
        modern law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the facility’s age and design does not appear to
        lend itself to the renovation necessary to accomplish modernization. Irrespective of any possible
        agency consolidation, the county is strongly advised to consider the relocation of the County
        Police headquarters.

        The Study Team attempted to develop estimates for the market value of the Zabriskie facility in
        order to quantify potential revenues from the sale or disposition of that property. However, the
        building is located on a parcel of land owned by the county and there is at least one other county
        agency that occupies another building on the parcel, making it very difficult to determine
        possible sale scenarios. The team is able to report that the 2011 assessed value of the property
        occupied by the Zabriskie building and the building itself was $3,521,700. 33




        33
             Bergen County Board of Taxation


                                                                     86
       3.3 Sheriff’s Office – BCI Facility
There is unused space on the 3rd floor of the Sheriff’s Office BCI facility. This presents a
possible location for additional personnel, should the need arise as the result of any
consolidation. The space would have to be built out for any other use. A possible issue at this
facility confronting its use for additional staff would be available space for vehicle parking.

       3.4 Prosecutor’s Office – Vehicle/Evidence/Records Facility
The Study Team reviewed evidence collection and storage practices in Bergen County.
Currently, evidence may be collected and stored by a variety of agencies, including municipal
agencies, the County Police, the Medical Examiner Unit, the Sheriff’s BCI and investigations
from the Prosecutor’s Office and the New Jersey State Police. For example, in a serious crime,
Prosecutor’s investigators and Sheriff’s BCI personnel, pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum
of Understanding, jointly collect evidence. Ballistics and fingerprint evidence is retained and
analyzed by the Sheriff’s BCI and other evidence is retained by the Prosecutor’s Office.

In some respects, the storage and retention of evidence by different entities may seem inefficient,
however, given the varying types of forensic examinations which may be required and the
different entities which perform these examinations, practicality currently overwhelms other
considerations. Interviews with county investigative personnel from various agencies have failed
to reveal significant structural problems (inability to obtain evidence, challenged chain of
custody issues) which would necessitate a different approach to evidence examination or storage.
The Prosecutor’s Office is in discussion with the county to arrange a Memorandum of
Understanding concerning a new facility for evidence and records storage located at 100 East
Broadway, Hackensack, NJ. In line with the recommendations of the County Prosecutor’s Study
Commission, the Study Team concurs that a centralized storage facility for evidence might prove
to be cost-effective for Bergen County and, from a regional perspective, for long term storage,
particularly in closed criminal cases. However, at this time the Study Team cannot find any
significant cost savings or efficiencies which would accrue to the county by significantly altering
the current evidence collection and storage process.

Additionally, the Study Team noted that space at this facility could be adapted for use as office
space and made available for unit relocation should it be necessary. A large parking lot is present
at this facility.




                                                87
E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ANALYSIS


1. SCOPE

The IT analysis for this study consisted of a comprehensive review of the IT resources in the
Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the County Police in order to inventory and
compare capabilities, identify gaps or shortcomings, assess scenarios for consolidation or cost-
sharing and surface opportunities for increased efficiencies and functionality.

2. METHODOLOGY

Utilizing a best practice information technology model (See Appendix I), infrastructure/service
capabilities analysis and widely accepted business integration principles, the Study Team
reviewed the IT departments and capabilities at each agency.

The Study Team utilized a generally accepted technology capability model that focused on the
following four components of IT structure:
     Governance Structure/Capabilities
     Solutions Management
     Infrastructure Management
     Service Assurance

The Study Team considered the key aspects of each of these four components with each of the
stakeholder agencies in determining the comparative level of IT functioning and capability at
each agency. Details of this best practices analysis are provided in a series of tables which
appear in Appendix I. The details of those findings provide the basis for the Study Team’s
analysis.

       2.1 Document Review
The Study Team’s methodology included a review of the following documents provided by the
stakeholder agencies in response to specific requests for information made by the team.

      Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
          o Technology Plan PowerPoint Presentation, January 2010
          o 2008 – 2010 Year End Summaries
          o Directive 2010-2
          o Directive 2010-3
          o Software Manuals
          o Application Manuals
          o Hardware Manuals
          o Operational Procedures for Applications
          o Procedures for Datacenter Backup
          o Procedures for Remote Access
          o Server Support Procedures


                                              88
      Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
          o Description of Firewalls
          o Network design (Jail Security Network, Jail Inmate Network, Sheriff Network)
          o Operational Procedures for Applications
          o Procedures for Datacenter Backup
          o Incident Response Plan
          o Server Support Procedures
          o IT Annual Report for 2010


     Bergen County Police
In response to the Study Team’s documentation request (manuals, procedures, system or network
specifications, etc.), the team was informed by the Network Administrator/ IT Director for the
County Police that no documentation was available regarding its IT environment.

       2.2.Interviews
The Study Team conducted interviews with IT personnel and management from each of the
stakeholder agencies.

      Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
The Chief Information Officer for the Prosecutor’s Office provided the Study Team with an
initial explanation of the department’s information network and systems. Subsequent meetings
were held with the department’s Associate Director. Systems documentation and network
capabilities were clarified. Additional information was provided regarding software licensing,
disaster recovery and network configuration.

     Bergen County Sheriff’s Office
The Study Team initially interviewed the IT Director and an inspector from the Sheriff’s Office
who explained the agency’s IT network and systems. At a subsequent meeting, network and
system details were clarified and the documents provided to the Study Team were reviewed with
the IT Director.

     Bergen County Police
The Study Team conducted a lengthy interview with the network administrator, the Bergen
County 911 Coordinator and the police captain. They described the agency’s IT systems in
sufficient detail to provide the Study Team with a picture of local capabilities. At a follow-up
meeting with the network administrator and the captain, the Study Team obtained additional
information on software licensing, disaster recovery and communications.

3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – FINDINGS

       3.1 Prosecutor’s Office
       3.1.1 Prosecutor’s Office – Equipment
In addition to being a service provider for 69 police agencies in Bergen County, the Prosecutor’s
Office operates and maintains the following IT equipment and software:

                                               89
      IT currently manages and maintains approximately 54 server class systems (inclusive of
       VMware configurations), supporting a large number of desktop/laptop and remote users.
    The Prosecutor’s Office currently manages, maintains and administers its Exchange e-
       mail server.
    IT manages many infrastructure components in the agency. The breadth and scope of
       components is typical of a small business IT environment.
The following equipment is currently supported by the IT department:




                                             90
      While IT has developed and published application management procedures for internal
       use in responding to anomalies associated with individual application issues, the Study
       Team did not find any flow mappings or data dictionaries which are typically part of
       standard systems documentation.

       3.1.2 Prosecutor’s Office – Staffing
The Study Team observed the following regarding the size and deployment of the IT staff in the
Prosecutor’s Office:
    IT department currently operates and manages all aspects of the Prosecutor’s Office IT
       and NW infrastructure, telecommunications management, voice communications, WAN
       and messaging with roughly 24 full-time equivalents (“FTE”), inclusive of two
       management level individuals.
    Database administration, data center operations and data warehousing efforts are
       performed by five FTEs.
    IT security and administration is performed by one FTE.
    The IT Help Desk has the capacity to address and close out approximately 300 service
       tickets per month with five FTEs assigned to this function. This represents good
       productivity since a typical FTE averages between 40 to 50 service tickets per month. In
       addition, the Prosecutor’s IT Help Desk is the front line for servicing every county law
       enforcement agency’s communications to county, state and federal law enforcement
       systems. The Help Desk also provides front line IT support to over 69 municipalities and
       agencies throughout Bergen County, including desktop support, field service
       coordination, infrastructure support, facilities and hardware support.
    Internet/intranet development is provided by one FTE. Existing applications, defined and
       operational, suggest that this level of effort is adequate.
    One FTE performs project management duties in a full-time capacity. The facilities
       manager is capable of performing limited project manager duties.
    To supplement staff, the Prosecutor’s Office relies heavily on outside contractor services
       (ARB Consulting) in addition to project management and integration expertise resident at
       the companies that manufacture the applications they are using. Given the variety of
       applications installed and supported, it is apparent that the use of subcontractors to
       perform project management services is warranted.

       3.1.3 Prosecutor’s Office - Organization & Management
The Prosecutor’s Office has a mature and functional IT office and leadership structure. In
keeping with best practices, the IT office is tasked with establishing goals, objectives and
strategic/tactical planning for the organization.

Taking its customary lead among the county’s law enforcement agencies, in January 2009 the
Prosecutor’s Office presented the stakeholders with a technology consolidation framework that
identified existing redundancies in the county owned systems. It set forth recommended actions
and proposed a unified approach to purchasing, maintaining and supporting IT equipment.




                                              91
       3.1.4 Prosecutor’s Office – Costs
Internal budgeting and forecasting are done at regular and periodic intervals to assist IT
management in monitoring and controlling costs and to allow the office to plan and prioritize
projects accordingly. In the Prosecutor’s Office, procurement activities are performed in a
separate department. IT procurements are presented through the Executive Officer who then
approves and forwards the request to the Prosecutor’s administrative finance manager. The
finance manager finalizes the request and forwards it to the Bergen County Purchasing
administrator.

Annual IT salary-related costs for the Prosecutor’s Office are approximately $2,176,725 for the
24 employees and contracting services required. Data service expenses (network service) are
approximately $450,000 annually.

       3.1.5 Prosecutor’s Office – IT Initiatives
The Study Team noted that for many years the Prosecutor’s Office has been relied upon to
provide infrastructure services for the stakeholder agencies and for all municipalities in Bergen
County. These include network infrastructure, help desk and training services. The Prosecutor’s
Office has also supported the work of state, federal and regional law enforcement agencies. It
has also spearheaded many IT initiatives and has funded the purchase of equipment and services
for the three stakeholder agencies and some municipalities, notably, the purchase of C.O.B.R.A.,
a Record Managing System that allows the collection of information across municipalities and
provides critical information to officers in the field in real-time. C.O.B.R.A. is an acronym for
Center-point Based Regional Access System. The system allows data to be gathered and sent
upstream to the New Jersey Data Exchange (NJ_DEx). C.O.B.R.A. provides data encryption
and interoperable, real-time communication over a dedicated link between a center-point and the
records management systems at each local department. This allows a record query directly from
a patrol car through a wireless connection to the county center-point using either a laptop
computer or an MDT.

Before the C.O.B.R.A. system was deployed, Bergen County local law enforcement agencies
used a system called MARs; that system provided for the central storage of data. However, it did
not provide data sharing capabilities. Local municipalities then held monthly meetings at which
law enforcement subjects were discussed and information was shared. C.O.B.R.A. provided the
capability for information sharing.

Implementing C.O.B.R.A. was revolutionary in the sense that before its introduction there was
no facility for sharing information other than by word of mouth or through the monthly county
crime meetings. C.O.B.R.A. provided, for the first time, access to county-wide law enforcement
information. It is an important investigative tool in that, to be effective, law enforcement
agencies need to be informed of current criminal activities, including incidents occurring in
neighboring jurisdictions. Additionally, the system also provides a quick link to vital statewide
warrants, NCIC, JNET and other information.

The Prosecutor’s Office was instrumental in spearheading the C.O.B.R.A. implementation
project. Funds were allocated and each Bergen County municipality was offered both the
C.O.B.R.A. system and a three year service contract at no cost. Costs varied from town to town
                                               92
with allocations ranging from $60,000 to $120,000. Thirty municipalities took advantage of this
program and purchased the system.

   3.2 Sheriff’s Office
       3.2.1 Sheriff’s Office – Equipment
The following IT equipment and software is operated and maintained by the Sheriff’s Office:

      The Sheriff’s Office WAN is essentially made up of three distinct and logically separated
       networks comprising:
           o The Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement Network (SOLEN)
           o The Jail Security Network (JSN)
           o The Jail Inmate Network (JIN)
      The SOLEN is the predominant network for day-to-day use. This network has over 250
       computers and is broken down into 44 different Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANS)
       to ensure enhanced security for each application.
      The JSN is the network dedicated to the operation of the jail system (e.g. access control,
       CCTV, intercom, etc…).
      The JIN is dedicated to inmate use and is comprised of nearly 60 computers. This
       network is partially funded from the Inmate Welfare Fund.
      A Cisco VOIP system is being expanded into the Jail and the BCI building; this will
       eliminate telecom costs in this area.
      IT maintains an informal yet structured methodology in regard to keeping its systems
       patched, updated and protected.
      Server operating system software is updated manually, yet patched automatically. Anti-
       Virus / Anti-Spam / Malware is updated hourly to a central machine with which all
       clients communicate.
      IT utilizes a tool (“System Center Configuration Manager” or SCCM) to manage,
       schedule, and perform many of these efforts automatically.
      Server backups are performed remotely with disaster recovery in mind. For example, the
       servers at the Courthouse are backed up at the BCI building and the servers at the Jail are
       backed up at the Courthouse. The backups are initially done to hard disks and are then
       migrated to tape units.
      The offices of the Sheriff and the Prosecutor are currently working together to develop a
       shared backup approach utilizing the new Mahwah facility as the disaster recovery center
       for both agencies.
      IT Help Desk has the capacity to address and close out approximately 215 service tickets
       per month, which demonstrates good productivity relative to the limited staff devoted to
       this activity.




                                               93
The following equipment is currently supported by the IT department:




       3.2.2 Sheriff’s Office – Staffing
The IT department currently has a staff of six FTEs, inclusive of the Director. The IT department
is structured such that many of the individuals within the group have been cross-trained and can
support multiple applications if the need arises. However, the budgeting process, project
management, and resource management suffer as a result of the limited resources available to the
group. Should the county decide to maintain the status quo and not adopt either consolidation
option outlined in this report, the Study Team’s initial evaluation suggests that headcount in the
Sheriff’s IT department should be increased from the current six FTEs to nine FTEs. This
incremental addition is recommended based on:

      The comparative model of how effectively the Prosecutor’s Office IT group is managing
       its infrastructure versus its FTE count.



                                               94
       The comparative model of the quantity of help desk tickets for services versus the
        existing FTE assigned to the help desk function.

        3.2.3 Sheriff’s Office - Organization & Management
IT management is very responsive to customer needs. The department is structured to mirror the
customer base; half of the group is comprised of sworn officers and the remaining members are
civilians. This mix facilitates an understanding and appreciation of all types of customer issues.
Management also maintains a prioritized list of projects for planning purposes.

System and network documentation is good. The Study Team found that the Sheriff’s Office has
done an exemplary job of documenting all of the applications, networks, and the use thereof in
regard to enterprise architecture. As with the other agencies, data or information flow maps
relative to applications in use should be developed.

        3.2.4 Sheriff’s Office – Costs
In the Sheriff’s Office, IT procurement is handled by a separate department, albeit with support
and input from the IT Director.

Annual IT expense costs for the Sheriff’s Office are approximately $745,395, excluding
maintenance costs.

        3.3 County Police
        3.3.1 County Police – Equipment
The following IT equipment and software is operated and maintained by the Police Department:

       The County Police network administrator currently manages the various desktop users
        associated with the above applications in addition to managing 19 servers. Of note, 10 of
        these 19 servers are currently at “end-of-life.”
       Currently databases are being managed, maintained, and operated by the Network
        Administrator. This includes the database(s) directly supporting the 911 system.
       Dispatch communications is a high priority application within the County Police.
       Currently, the County Police is not able to participate in the Power DMS application
        installed and utilized by the Prosecutor’s and Sheriff’s Offices. The Study Team has been
        advised that the County Police recently purchased the additional Power DMS licensing
        and will be added to the Prosecutor’s server, thus affording the County Police full DMS
        functionality. Power DMS permits the electronic storage of policies, procedures and
        memoranda that previously had to be copied and distributed to all employees and
        includes electronic signature capability to ensure that employees sign off on document
        review.
       The network administrator is currently consolidating the Active Directory database,
        which is Microsoft’s domain management infrastructure for the County Police systems.
        This will facilitate migration efforts in conjunction with the Mahwah facility initiatives.
        The Prosecutor’s Office is leading this effort with Microsoft providing consulting
        services.

                                                95
      As a result of the evolution of the department’s network over the years, coupled with the
       lack of IT resources, network device standardization does not appear to have taken place.

The following equipment is currently supported by the IT department:




       3.3.2 County Police – Staffing
The IT responsibilities are essentially the domain of a single employee. The Study Team saw no
evidence that there has been any cross-training of additional personnel.

From an IT support perspective, the Study Team believes that additional support must be
provided to the County Police. The current demands placed upon the single individual
responsible for IT support in the County Police exceed prudent levels. At present, much needed
support is being provided by the Prosecutor’s Office data center staff on an as-needed basis
without a formal agreement.

       3.3.3 County Police - Organization & Management
The Study Team observed the following regarding the governance of IT in the County Police:

      With severely limited personnel, Help Desk functions, system updates and other
       communications to end-users are limited.
      No project management function appears to exist within the agency.
      The Study Team found that there was little documentation associated with network
       configuration, operation, manageability and disaster recovery. Therefore, it was
       impossible to determine whether or not operations and maintenance functions are being
       adequately performed.


                                              96
        
       3.3.4 County Police – Costs
Annual IT costs for the County Police are approximately $130,000; this is the cost of the one
individual within the department.

No consolidated maintenance data was provided to the Study Team.

       3.4. Overall Findings
The IT Study Team reviewed all of the information gathered during site visits and meetings with
IT professionals of each agency and found the following:

      The Study Team determined that an informal IT Committee comprised of representatives
       of each of the stakeholder agencies holds meetings to address IT purchases and strategies;
       while soundly envisioned that process does not mandate and has not always resulted in
       uniform purchasing decisions.
      Stakeholder agencies currently maintain three separate e-mail platforms which could be
       consolidated and supported by the Prosecutor’s Office IT Help Desk Operations.
      Approximately half of the County Police servers are outdated and some of the presently
       supported applications are not capable of migrating into a combined VMware
       architecture.
      The County Police IT department is staffed by a single individual; a situation which is
       inadequate and potentially disruptive of essential functions.
      The Dispatch Centers are not fully agency-integrated in the areas of Computer Aided
       Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS) and the Mobile Data Terminal
       (MDT).
      A new Motorola radio system is presently being implemented but an overall evaluation is
       needed to ensure collective implementation.
      Each agency presently performs disaster recovery to a degree within its facility, but
       increased sustainability and cost savings may be realized by centralizing this function.
       The three stakeholder agencies have begun the process of centralizing this function,
       including identifying appropriate equipment for purchase.

       3.4.1 Software Application and Maintenance
Currently, each agency manages and maintains a separate e-mail platform (disjoining domains).
The Study Team recommends that the email exchange servers be consolidated into a single e-
mail platform and that e-mail services for the three stakeholder agencies be supported by the
Prosecutor’s IT Help Desk Operations. There will be initial cost associated with the
consolidation and relocation of hardware as well as changes of the application software but, in
the long run, savings will be realized due to reduced support and licensing fees. The Study Team
also recommends relocating and maintaining e-mail servers at the newly completed Mahwah
Data Center. (The Sheriff’s Office mail server is presently hosted and supported by New Jersey
Technical School located in Hackensack.)

The Study Team suggests that if the County accepts the Study Team’s recommendation that the
e-mail exchanges of the stakeholder agencies be consolidated on a single e-mail platform and co-

                                               97
located at one facility, the Prosecutor’s Office be given responsibility for supporting the e-mail
functions of all three stakeholder agencies. The Study Team believes that the Prosecutor’s office
is well-suited for this task because of its current staffing and capabilities. The Study Team notes
in this regard that the Prosecutor’s Office currently is staffed to provide 24/7 Helpdesk service,
and is therefore well positioned to provide round-the-clock e-mail support services to the three
stakeholder agencies.


Estimated cost of consolidating Exchange Servers ...................................                $   25,000.00
Estimated savings (annually).....................................................................   $   20,000.00

         3.4.2 Hardware
VMware migrations are currently underway, although at varying stages, in all three stakeholder
agencies. All three agencies have purchased, or are in the process of purchasing, similar
VMware which will permit the migration of their current servers to this new environment.

This is a progressive and efficient solution to the problem of aging servers. The County Police,
in particular, faces the challenge of aging servers because 10 of its 19 existing servers are at the
end of life stage. While the purchase of VMware hardware represents a significant cost, that cost
is far less than the cost of replacing all of the individual servers.

It is notable that the County Police is compelled to locate its new VMware equipment at the
Mahwah facility due to space limitations and power and communication shortcomings at its
headquarters location. In contrast, both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office will use
the Mahwah facility as a backup location for their VMware. The backup location for the County
Police remains to be determined but will, presumably, be either at the Sheriff’s Office or the
Prosecutor’s Office.

In the event that the county maintains the status quo regarding the stakeholder agencies, the
County Police needs to identify a backup location for its VMware equipment. In the event that
the county adopts either consolidation option outlined in this report, the Mahwah facility will
become the backup location for all county law enforcement VMware.

         3.4.3 CODY System and C.O.B.R.A.
As noted, all three agencies currently use CODY systems to create and store records regarding
arrests (County Police) prosecutions (Prosecutor’s Office) and inmate activities (Sheriff’s
Office). However, the CODY system feature designed to facilitate data sharing, C.O.B.R.A., (in
place since 2005) requires refinement. In its current configuration and due to inconsistent coding
practices among municipalities and county law enforcement, the ready analysis of data is not a
current reality. In addition, while some of the law enforcement agencies in the municipalities in
Bergen County also use CODY systems (approximately 30) to record and store electronic data
regarding arrests and prosecutions, the feature sets (e.g. RMS, CAD) in use in those municipal
agencies do not all have the same deployment architecture as the programs in use at the
stakeholder agencies. Specifically, an integration challenge exists for those municipalities that
utilize non-CODY (e.g. Enforsys) RMS in their dispatch centers; this necessitates manual entry
and call tracking. To remedy this situation the county should:
                                                               98
      establish common computer aided dispatch (CAD) architecture;
      establish a common records management system (RMS) platform;
      establish a common mobile data terminal (MDT) platform; and
      develop a migration program to allow for integration between CODY CAD and Enforsys
       RMS.

While this standardization is desirable, it is important to note that in order to accomplish this, all
departments would be required to purchase a common software, hardware and licensing package
that would include mobile, CAD, Records and Case Management. The county would have to
fund this initiative at a substantial cost.

Finally, the Study Team notes that each agency presently holds separate maintenance agreements
with CODY which could be combined to produce savings.

       3.4.4 Motorola Radio System
The Study Team recommends that the county consolidate and standardize the Motorola
Management and Console platform to the MCC 7500 system across agencies.

The Prosecutor’s Office and the County Police have established the MCC 7500 system as their
radio dispatch platform. Inherent within this platform is the ability to "transfer" operations to
one another in a backup capacity. Should the county consolidate dispatch operations at the new
Mahwah facility, all departments should be included in this integration in order to maximize
efficiency and realize cost savings.

The Study Team understands that the Sheriff’s Office will need to retain a fraction of its
dispatching capability at the courthouse and thus should choose the MCC 7500 to satisfy its
current capacity and allow for future expansion. Since much work is presently ongoing to
upgrade the dispatch equipment and the Motorola trunk radio system, an overall evaluation
should be performed regarding the number of consoles needed for the collective implementation.
It is estimated that a $100,000 reduction in cost can be achieved by reducing the number of
consoles needed.

       3.4.5 Strategic Projects – Mahwah Data Center
A multi-agency business continuity /disaster recovery initiative should be defined, in place and
documented. Such a facility is being established at the Mahwah Data Center.

The 36,000 square foot Public Safety Emergency Operations Center (“PSOC”) of Bergen
County, located on Campgaw Road in Mahwah, became operational in September 2010. This
facility houses the Bergen County Public Safety Department, Bergen County Office of
Emergency Management (OEM), and the County 911 Dispatch. The building is manned 24
hours/ seven days a week by Bergen County Public Safety officers. The 911 Command Center is
capable of responding to public safety needs, including those of the County Police, Fire
Coordinators, and County Emergency Management. The center is currently contracted by
thirteen municipalities to share services. It is anticipated that other municipalities will contract


                                                 99
for this service in the future. The Mahwah operation center has the potential to provide savings
for towns that choose to run emergency dispatch through the facility.

The PSOC also serves as the disaster recovery backup site for all county agencies. The PSOC
houses a datacenter that features redundant power and data capabilities as well as an independent
cooling system. The center is equipped with the Activu software suite which is deployed within
the Communication Center, Emergency Operation Center, dispatch facility, and executive
conference rooms. It is designed to allow County Police, EMS, and Fire Departments to monitor
and respond to emergencies for the county.

Because of its locale and the communication technology in place, the Communication Center is
well equipped to provide a home for IT related projects and equipment. Much of the
infrastructure and the communication have been completed at the Mahwah Facility, including the
high speed fiber connection (10G) to and between the Prosecutor’s Office and the Sheriff’s
Office buildings.

      3.4.6. Purchasing

The Study Team found that the county could benefit from further countywide IT purchasing
review and coordination. All three agencies followed their own purchasing protocol to obtain
their configurations and feature set implementations for the CODY information management
system. As a result, all agencies did not purchase the same configurations and feature set
implementations. If IT purchases were formally coordinated throughout the county and formally
reviewed centrally with a view towards enhancing the functioning of the countywide law
enforcement information network, cost efficiencies and maximization of return on investment
through improved contracting and licensing agreements would be realized and intra-agency data-
sharing and communications would be enhanced. To this end, the Study Team recommends that
a “formal” IT Steering Committee be formed that includes technical and management
representatives from each stakeholder agency. Consideration should be given to establishing a
lead agency and chair for this committee to maximize its effectiveness.




                                              100
F. CONSOLIDATION STUDY - OVERALL FINDINGS


During the course of this study - in its review of the core and specialized functions, its analysis
of staffing and overtime practices and expenditures, its examination of budgets, facilities and IT
infrastructure in the three agencies - the Study Team had a number of findings and observations
with respect to efficiencies and economies that the county may wish to consider implementing.
Some of these findings involve the elimination of a function deemed no longer necessary, the
privatization or civilianization of services currently provided by law enforcement or the
consolidation of a service provided by more than one agency. These findings, which are
summarized below, could be adopted independently of any of the options outlined in the
following section of this report.

1. ESTABLISH BETTER OVERTIME CONTROLS 

Through this process of analysis the Study Team discovered limited overtime controls. For
instance, none of the three agencies was able to show the Study Team a report detailing
specifically how each employee earned his/her overtime. The Study Team recommends that
each of the three agencies develop comprehensive overtime policies with real time monitoring of
individual employees. Any system implemented must be able to identify the current high
overtime earners and display the activities associated with that overtime. In addition, to prevent
abuse, a reporting system must be able to clearly indicate the reason all overtime is being
accrued. The county government should insist on a detailed breakdown of overtime from all
three agencies. (See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity)

2. PRIVATIZE THE PROVISION OF SECURITY GUARDS ACROSS ALL AGENCIES

The Study Team found that if all three agencies outsourced the provision of security guard
services collectively to a private vendor, the county could anticipate significant cost savings and
the agencies would avoid duplicative efforts, reduce overtime costs and gain staffing flexibility.
(See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Sections 3.6-3.6.4 in Staffing – Security Guards)

3. NARROW THE SPAN OF CONTROL IN ALL AGENCIES

The Study Team noted that the span of control (ratio of officers to sergeants) is narrower than
levels deemed reasonable and efficient by the team. At the sergeant level, the ratios were 1:3 for
the Prosecutor’s Office, 1:6 for the Sheriff’s Office, and 1:4 for the County Police. This
represents an unnecessary cost to the county. Reducing the staffing levels of sergeants in these
agencies would reduce salary expenditures of each agency. (See Staffing & Overtime Analysis,
Section 3.4 Staffing – Span of Control)

4. CIVILIANIZE    THE   MEDICAL EXAMINER’S INVESTIGATIVE UNIT            OF THE   COUNTY
      POLICE

In the Study Team’s experience, the medical examiner’s investigative function is not
traditionally a police function. In virtually all other municipalities known to the team this
function is not performed by sworn offices. Due to the nature of the work, overtime is often

                                               101
involved. Civilianization would eliminate this overtime and also offers the possibility of other
savings. (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.7 Medical Examiner’s
Investigations and Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 4.2 Overtime – Analysis by Activity)

5. ELIMINATE THE WATER SEARCH AND RECOVERY UNIT OF THE COUNTY POLICE

The Study Team found that the County Police’s Water Search and Recovery Unit is redundant in
light of the fact that a number of county fire agencies maintain underwater rescue units and
because the State Police also performs underwater search and recovery operations.. The
evidence collection function could be transferred to local fire departments following appropriate
evidence collection training and performed under the general supervision of an investigator or
handled by the State Police. This would save on equipment and training costs would be realized
and savings on overtime expenditures would be realized as well. (See Core & Specialized
Functions Analysis, Section 5.6 Water Search and Recovery Unit)

6. ELIMINATE THE MOUNTED AND MOTORCYCLE UNITS

The Study Team found that the Mounted and Motorcycle Units are largely ceremonial and make
no meaningful contribution to public safety. In the current economic climate, they may be
“luxuries” that the county can no longer afford. (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis,
Section 5.10 Mounted and Motorcycle Units)

7. EXAMINATION OF STAFFING LEVELS                AND    SALARY STRUCTURE          BY   THE
     PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE

An examination of data revealed that for its population, Bergen County enjoys an extremely low
violent crime rate; it investigates the lowest number of violent crimes among the counties
compared by the Study Team, while having the second highest staffing level. Similarly, the
overall crime rate for the county was the lowest in the counties compared by the Study Team.
The Study Team finds that this and other comparative data suggests that it would be appropriate
to review current staffing levels in the Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether staffing might
be reduced further. It was noted that the Prosecutor’s Office has been reducing staffing levels
from a high of 118 in 2006 to the current level of 111 in 2010.

Additionally, the salary structure for investigators in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office is
the highest of the counties studied. In fact, it is the highest in the state and exceeds by $16,532
the salary for investigators in Middlesex County, whose cost of living exceeds that of Bergen
County. While the salary structure may reflect a well-intentioned effort on the part of the
Prosecutor to attract and retain highly qualified law enforcement professionals, this practice
should be revisited in light of current efforts to reduce costs. (See Staffing & Overtime Analysis,
Section 3.2 Staffing – Prosecutor’s Office)

8. SHERIFF’S OFFICE CRIME SCENE UNIT OVERTIME 

The Crime Scene Unit responds to calls for investigation and processing of physical evidence at
the scene of a crime and serious events. The unit operates seven days per week and covers each
day with a working squad of three detectives and one sergeant. The hours of coverage are from

                                               102
6am to 2am of the following day. The period between 2am until 6am is covered by “on call”
personnel who, if requested to respond, incur overtime. The Study Team believes that this unit’s
overtime costs may be mitigated by the introduction of a steady midnight tour of two detectives.
(See Staffing & Overtime Analysis, Section 4.4.2 Overtime – Sheriff’s Office – BCI Unit)
 
9. SOG/SWAT 

Independent of any possible consolidation of agencies, the Study Team believes that the county
should reconsider the necessity of maintaining both a Special Operations Group (SOG) in the
Sheriff’s Office and a SWAT Team in the County Police. The Study Team recommends either
elimination of the SOG and transfer of its functions to the County Police, or SWAT-certification
of SOG members and subsequent elimination of the SWAT function in the County Police. The
latter approach would permit consolidation of the teams after appropriate training and would
result in realization of cost savings through a reduction in total number of SWAT/SOG officers
required, while the former approach would permit SOG members to be redeployed to other
duties within the Sheriff’s Office and savings realized by the reduction in training costs and
equipment expenditures. In addition, annual deployments by the County Police SWAT Team
would increase, resulting in a better cost benefit for the commitment to training and equipping
these officers. (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.4 SWAT, SOG and SERT
Teams)

10. TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES BY THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE

The Study Team analyzed the number of tickets issued by both the County Police and the
Sheriff’s Office over the past five years and the revenues generated by this activity. That
analysis shows that traffic enforcement is being actively pursued by the Sheriff’s Office. The
issuance of tickets by Sheriff’s officers, and the court appearances they require, consume “on
duty” time and may generate overtime costs; this time might be better spent on the core and
specialized functions of the Sheriff’s Office as outlined in the County Law Services Plan. (See
Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.1-5.3.3 Traffic Enforcement)

11. VEHICLE REDUCTION

The Study Team has determined that the county should condemn a majority of the older vehicles
in its fleet and reduce the vehicle count of the County Police and the Prosecutor’s Office.
Through a process of vehicle reduction and elimination of older models, the county will realize
immediate cost savings such as on reduced fuel and maintenance costs associated with a smaller
fleet.

Furthermore, a policy of programmatic replacement should be implemented whereby newer,
more fuel efficient vehicles are purchased each year to replace the aging fleet. The county should
ensure that as replacement vehicles are procured and enter service, comparable older vehicles are
condemned and removed from the fleet. (See Budgets, Section 3.2.1 Expenditure Analysis –
Vehicles)




                                               103
12. INFORMATION SHARING

The Study Team recommends that a prosecutorial directive be issued requiring a protocol
whereby copies of incident reports prepared by the County Police be forwarded to the municipal
police agency with jurisdiction over that geographical location and, conversely, that incident
reports generated by municipal police departments be forwarded to the County Police.
Information sharing is critical to effective of law enforcement. (See Core & Specialized
Functions Analysis, Section 5.5.4 Criminal Investigations – Conclusions)
 
13. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

During the information gathering stage of this engagement, the Study Team learned that the
Bergen County Financial Management System is difficult to navigate and unsuitable as a real
time management tool. The Study Team believes that the county should acquire a new, user
friendly Financial Management System based on modern financial computer technology. (See
Budgets, Section 3.5 Financial Management Technology)

14. IT PURCHASING AND GOVERNANCE

The Study Team found that the county could benefit from further countywide IT purchasing
review and coordination. All three agencies followed their own purchasing protocol to obtain
their configurations and feature set implementations for the CODY information management
system. As a result, all agencies did not purchase the same configurations and feature set
implementations. If IT purchases were formally coordinated throughout the county and formally
reviewed centrally with a view towards enhancing the functioning of the countywide law
enforcement information network, cost efficiencies and maximization of return on investment
through improved contracting and licensing agreements would be realized and intra-agency data-
sharing and communications would be enhanced. To this end, the Study Team recommends that
a “formal” IT Steering Committee be formed that includes technical and management
representatives from each stakeholder agency. Consideration should be given to establishing a
lead agency and chair for this committee to maximize its effectiveness. (See IT Analysis, Section
3.4.6 Purchasing)

15. UNIFIED E-MAIL PLATFORMS

Currently, each agency manages and maintains a separate e-mail platform. The Study Team
recommends that the email exchange servers be consolidated into a single e-mail platform and
that e-mail services for the three stakeholder agencies be supported by the Prosecutor’s IT Help
Desk Operations. There will be initial cost associated with the consolidation and relocation of
hardware as well as changes of the application software but, in the long run, savings will be
realized due to reduced support and licensing fees. The Study Team also recommends relocating
and maintaining servers at the newly completed Mahwah Data Center. (See IT Analysis, Section
3.4.1 Software Application and Maintenance)




                                              104
 G. STUDY FINDINGS – OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION AND COST SAVINGS


1. INTRODUCTION

The Study Team reviewed all of the information gathered during the course of the study project,
developed findings relative to each area studied and incorporated these findings into the
formulation of a set of three options designed to produce cost savings, efficiencies and general
improvement in the provision of law enforcement in Bergen County. These options are:

         Option 1 - A reduction in force (“RIF”) for the County Police.
         Option 2 – An initial RIF for the County Police followed by an additional RIF and a
          transfer of the remaining personnel and functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of
          the County Police to the Sheriff’s Office.
         Option 3 - An initial RIF for the County Police, followed by, at a time certain,
          elimination of the County Police and transfer of its functions, powers, duties and
          responsibilities to the Sheriff’s Office with an increase in headcount for that agency to
          accommodate the increased workload.

In addition, the Study Team has determined that additional functions within the county law
enforcement structure are ripe for civilianization and privatization. The Study Team recommends
that the county civilianize and privatize these functions regardless of which consolidation/cost
savings scenario is chosen. Furthermore, the Study Team recommends certain additional actions
be undertaken by the stakeholder agencies to produce cost savings for the county. These
recommendations have been outlined in Section F. Study Findings – Overall Findings.

The Study Team has reviewed Options 1, 2, 3 with labor counsel. 34 The Study Team is advised
that there is no legal impediment to any of the proposed options from either a municipal or
employment law standpoint. However, each option involves different procedural, political and
timing factors based upon applicable laws. The legal analysis of these options is contained in
Appendix G.

The Study Team evaluated IT consolidation in terms of functions, processes and technical
strengths. The Study Team also considered whether the IT structure and functioning of the three
agencies presents an impediment to any of the options considered. No significant impediments
were found. In fact, the Study Team determined that all of the options would introduce
opportunities for IT enhancement. (See Section E. Information Technology (IT) Analysis)

The Study Team was guided in its work by the principle that sacrificing the public safety of
Bergen County residents was unacceptable. Hence, the Study Team asserts with a high degree of
confidence that each option proffered maintains public safety at the current level enjoyed, and in
some cases, enhances public safety through increased coordination and efficiency.



34
     Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP (New York, NY) and Becker Meisel LLC (Livingston, NJ) served as labor
     counsel.

                                                   105
       1.1 Maintaining the Status Quo: The Cost of Doing Nothing
The Study Team was impressed with the professionalism with which personnel interviewed from
each of the stakeholder agencies approach their duties and responsibilities on a daily basis.
Indeed, each agency performs its duties with a sense of purpose and pride. However, each of the
three stakeholder agencies performs certain duties that are common to one or both of the other
stakeholder agencies. These common duties range in the degree of their redundancy. The study
team’s workload analysis has determined that maintaining Bergen County law enforcement
agencies with lower levels of staffing could provide the same degree of public safety with greatly
reduced costs.

While the Study Team believes that duplication of work has been kept at minimal levels, due in
large measure to the Law Enforcement Services Review Board’s oversight, the Study Team
believes that, over time, it is likely that duplication of work will increase, given the history of
each agency’s expansion of its functions and specializations. This means that the county will
have to fund similar but separate functions in the County Police and the Sheriff’s Office, placing
a greater strain on the county’s budget than is necessary.

Additionally, the Study Team believes that, over time, the County Police will continue to
increase its level of specialization, drifting further away from its traditional core function
responsibilities. The Study Team has noted, for example, that the County Police, through its
Medical Examiner’s Unit, has entered the medico-legal death investigation field, a field which in
most jurisdictions is occupied by civilian, non-sworn personnel. While the Study Team believes
that the Medical Examiner’s Unit performs an essential function, the Study Team believes that
police officers, even as a collateral duty, are not the best option for this assignment and that their
efforts would be more appropriately devoted to traditional law enforcement functions. The same
holds true with respect to the operations of the Department of Public Safety where the Director is
a County Police captain detailed to the Department of Public Safety and the Office of Emergency
Management and Communications where County Police officers occupy senior positions. Those
positions are not the typical province of law enforcement officers. The Study Team identified
those assignments and functions as examples of over-specialization by the County Police.

The Study Team also believes that over-specialization by the County Police has led to a
diminution of its core patrol function. Data suggests that County Police patrol functions have
become ancillary to the same functions provided by local municipal police departments and that
those local agencies are capable of absorbing the County Police patrol function without a
negative impact on public safety.

      1.2 Information Technology Under the Status Quo

The Study Team recommends that if the County determines not to pursue any of the
consolidation options under consideration, the County Police should hire personnel necessary to
support the sole IT employee now on staff. The current staffing level of the County Police is
inadequate, and should be addressed without delay.

 


                                                 106
2. OPTION 1 - REDUCTION IN FORCE OF THE COUNTY POLICE 

       2.1 Rationale for Option 1
As a first option, the Study Team believes that the county should consider a reduction in force
within the County Police in a manner designed to focus the County Police on its mission while
continuing to provide the specialized services it has developed. The Study Team believes that
support for such a reduction is provided by key findings of the study.

Although the County Police provide patrol services, the patrol function is limited and ancillary to
the patrol functions performed by Bergen County local police departments. The County Police
patrols Bergen County parks, schools and other county facilities, and its road patrols are limited
by the County Law Services Plan to patrol of the state highways and U.S. roads described in
Appendix C. The County Police’s traffic functions include DWI enforcement, accident
investigations and radar operations. The County Police do not respond to the full range of 911
calls that municipal police departments are required to handle. Their response is limited to calls
for service in county buildings or facilities located within a municipality. The Study Team found
that in 2010, the County Police had one of the lowest calls for service per sworn officer in the
County, ranking near the bottom of 69 police departments. (See Core & Specialized Functions
Analysis, Section 5.5.1 Patrol Functions – Calls for Service)

Additionally, the Study Team found that the bulk of 2010 County Police calls for service
occurred within the municipalities of Hackensack, Paramus, Teaneck, Englewood and Mahwah,
and that such calls represented only a fraction of the total calls for service responded to by such
municipalities, all of which are represented by relatively large police departments. Statistics also
show that the County Police did not respond to a large volume of calls for service in other
Bergen County municipalities in 2010.

Based on a finding that the County Police’s core patrol functions have become ancillary in the
over-all structure of law enforcement in the county, the Study Team believes that any decrease in
service capability caused by the Option 1 proposed reduction in force could be absorbed by
Bergen County municipal police agencies without compromising public safety. To this end, the
Study Team recommends that local municipal police agencies assume responsibility for patrol
calls for service within county parks, schools and all other County facilities with additional
responsibility for any follow-up investigations emanating from these locations.

Of note is the fact that the Study Team interviewed numerous chiefs of municipal police
departments in Bergen County and concluded, based on those interviews, that the County
Police’s routine patrol function was not a primary benefit offered by the agency. However, as a
general matter, the chiefs had high praise for the specialized functions performed by the County
Police and indicated that such functions enhance public safety in the county. These specialized
functions include Special Weapons and Tactics (“SWAT”), K-9 services, Bomb Squad, and the
Medical Examiner’s Unit. Indeed, the Study Team found that many of the specialized functions
performed by the County Police originated because the Bergen County law enforcement
community lacked such services. Conversely, interviewees generally indicated that they do not
rely heavily on the patrol and investigatory functions performed by the County Police and feel
that public safety would not be compromised by a decrease in such functions. Therefore, the

                                                107
Study Team believes that while continuation of County Police specialized functions is essential,
continuation of its patrol and investigatory functions at current levels, given the lack of demand
for such services, is not essential.

       2.2 Option 1 - Proposed Reduction in Force of County Police
An analysis of the call volume, post coverage and support function statistics of the County Police
reveals that the County Police could reduce its force by 23 officers and two civilian clerk typists
without sacrificing public safety or seriously undermining its ability to provide the specialized
functions currently provided. The formula for this reduction is based upon the organizational
structure of the County Police. With the exception of the Traffic Safety Unit (commercial
vehicle inspectors), County Police specialized unit members are not assigned to such units on a
daily basis. Instead, they are assigned to other units (i.e., Patrol, Criminal Investigation, Youth
Bureau, Office of Emergency Management, Communications, etc.) and are activated when calls
for service are requested.

Of the 92 sworn officers currently within the County Police, 17 sworn officers are not cross-
trained to provide services in any of the specialized units. Additionally, the Study Team has
reviewed the functions of the Water Search and Recovery Unit (“WSAR”) and the Mounted Unit
and has determined that these functions do not contribute to the level of public safety in the
county. The team recommends that they be discontinued. Within the County Police, four
officers are cross-trained to provide WSAR services and two are cross-trained in mounted
patrol. These six positions are also recommended for a reduction in force. Elimination of those
positions would permit a total reduction in force of 23 without sacrificing public safety.

The Study Team finds that the staffing levels of the various specialized units, as currently
constituted, are appropriate, based upon general satisfaction with the quality of services provided
by these units as related by local police chiefs and others. Accordingly, a reduction in force by
23 police officers would not undermine the ability of the County Police to deliver its specialized
services. Moreover, a review of tour reports and an analysis of the total calls for service leads
the Study Team to conclude that the limited patrol function performed by the County Police
would similarly not be compromised to the detriment of public safety. Furthermore, some of the
impact on the patrol force could be offset by the reassignment of detectives who were formerly
charged with the investigation of incidents occurring on county property, the elimination of the
assignment of three officers to Bergen Community College, and demotions of supervisors to
meet appropriate span of control levels. The proposal to reduce County Police support staff by
two civilian clerk typists is based upon the Study Team’s conclusion that a reduction in force of
23 sworn police officers would result in a corresponding reduction in clerical work flow,
obviating the need for such staff.

The Study Team believes that the 23 police officers and two civilian clerk typists affected by this
reduction in force would be the least senior members in their respective titles. This belief is
based upon the impact of the civil service law (See N.J.S.A. § 40A:14-115) and the “LIFO”
principal (last in, first out). This year, the 23 most junior police officers and two most junior
civilian clerk typists will earn a total of approximately $2,650,000 in salary and fringe benefits at
the current salary rates. If the reduction in force is implemented, a savings equivalent to this
salary and fringe cost would accrue to the county annually. If these police officers were to reach

                                                108
top pay, under current contractual provisions, such officers would earn approximately
$4,550,000 in salary and fringe benefits.

The county would realize further savings by adjusting its supervisory span of control by
demotion and attrition following the reduction of 23 police officers. This would result in an
amended table of organization, as follows:

             Rank               Pre-RIF Headcount            Post-RIF Headcount
         Chief                          1                            1
         Captains                       3                            2
         Lieutenants                    9                            6
         Sergeants                     15                           10
         Police Officers               64                           50

Following a RIF and span of control adjustment, the county would realize a total annual savings
of approximately $2,900,000.

The reduction in force of the 23 most junior County Police officers would result in a slight
decrease in the overall membership of various specialized units, as follows:

           Specialized Units         Number Decreasing        Number Remaining
          Medical Examiner’s Unit               6                       14
          S.W.A.T.                              5                       21
          K-9                                   2                       11
          Traffic Safety                        2                        7
          Bomb Squad                            0                       8

The Study Team believes that the net decrease in the number of sworn officers is not significant
and that the County Police has the capability to cross-train such other officers as necessary to
restore current staffing levels to the affected specialized units, if necessary.

It should be noted that some portion of this reduction may be able to be achieved through
retirement of members eligible to do so, thereby reducing the number of layoffs of less senior
personnel. This concept is discussed further in Option 2.

       2.3 Option 1 - Legal and Collective Bargaining Analysis
The Study Team has reviewed this option with labor counsel and has found that the county
would be within its legal rights to undertake a reduction in force within the County Police. Such
a reduction may be undertaken for reasons of economy (See N.J.S.A. § 40a:14-115). Further, by
eliminating positions held by the most junior County Police officers, relevant civil service laws
and contractual obligations would be observed.

It should be noted that the Bergen County Administrative Code provides that the County Police
is “responsible for providing police services to County institutions, County roads and County
parks, and to such other areas as the [County] Executive may direct.” (See Bergen County
Administrative Code § 8.5.3) The Study Team believes the Board of Freeholders would need to

                                              109
amend this section to eliminate the requirement that the County Police provide police services at
county institutions and parks.

As noted, these matters are more fully discussed in Appendix G.

       2.4 Option 1 – Timeline for Implementation
The Study Team believes that Option 1 could be accomplished within 60 days. The Study Team
envisions that at the beginning of the 60 day time period, the 23 county police officers and 2
civilians subject to the reduction in force would be identified, and during the 60 day time period,
but not less than 30 days prior to conclusion of the time period, such county police officers and
civilians would receive notice that their positions were being eliminated for reasons of economy
on the date in which the 60 day time period concludes. Additionally, the other supervisory
officers subject to demotion for purposes of span of control adjustment as set forth in this option
would receive similar notices of a reduction in rank to take place at the conclusion of the period.

The County Police would be afforded the opportunity to make plans during the 60 day time
period to focus on its core function of providing primary patrol on the state highways and U.S.
roads described in Appendix C. Such plans would include, but not be limited to: redeployment
of sworn officers as necessary; reconfiguration of patrol posts to best address public safety
needs; and conferral with local municipal police agencies to coordinate calls for service.

The 60 day time period would also be the time period within which the county could adopt an
ordinance amending the Bergen County Administrative Code to eliminate County Police
responsibility for providing police service in county institutions and county parks. The
ordinance would become effective at the conclusion of the 60 day period. The Study Team notes
that the adoption of ordinances is subject to the provisions of Bergen County Administrative
Code § 2.11 and the time period necessary to adopt the ordinance may vary in accordance with
the dictates of such law.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS COMMON TO OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3

In Option 1, there are certain recommendations which are common to Options 2 and 3.
Specifically, these recommendations are as follows:

      The elimination of the Water Search and Recovery and Mounted Units currently
       deployed by the County Police.

Because the Water Search and Recovery unit does not perform rescue operations and because its
evidence recovery function could be performed by a local Fire Department under the supervision
of the investigating agency or by the State Police, the Study Team is of the opinion that this
function should be eliminated.

      The civilianization of the Medical Examiner Unit of the County Police.

In the Study Team’s experience, this function is not traditionally a police function. In virtually
all other municipalities known to the Study Team, this function is performed by non-sworn

                                               110
medico-legal investigators. The Study Team believes that this function presents an opportunity
for civilianization and offers the possibility of significant savings.

      The reclassification of the position of Coordinator of the Division of Emergency
       Management held by a sworn member of the County Police at the Department of Public
       Safety so that the individual in this position has a civilian title and is no longer on the
       County Police payroll. 
  
The Study Team found that the Coordinator of the Division of Emergency Management in the
Department of Public Safety is a sworn member of the County Police. Since this position does
not involve traditional “law enforcement” functions, it should not be under the command and
control of the County Police.

      The privatization of the security guard function currently utilized by the County Police,
       Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor’s Office at various locations in the county.

The Study Team recommends that the County Police, the Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor’s
Office outsource their security guard functions to a private company in order to achieve cost
savings and to provide staffing flexibility. This would result in an annual savings of
approximately $365,000 - $440,000.

The Study Team reviewed the ramifications of this privatization proposal with labor counsel and
found that there were no legal obstacles to it. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)
between the County of Bergen and United Service Workers Union, Local 655 (“Workers
Union”) contains no express work preservation clause nor any other express restriction on the
outsourcing of guard services. To the contrary, the Workers Union CBA contains the following
Management Rights provision in Article 4: “… Except as otherwise provided herein, the
Employer retains the exclusive right to … discontinue, … any department with any consequent
reduction or other changes in the work force observing demotional rights established by the [NJS
DOP]; to … lay off employee in accordance with [NJS DOP] procedures; to introduce new or
improved methods or facilities regardless of whether or not the same cause a reduction in the
work force …”.

4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY UNDER CONSOLIDATION OPTIONS

The Study Team finds that in the two consolidation options under consideration, both of which
involve ultimate elimination of the Bergen County Police, the Prosecutor’s Office and the
Sheriff’s Office should continue to maintain their own, separate IT departments to serve the
particular needs and demands of the respective offices. The Study Team notes in this connection
that, from an operational standpoint, the Prosecutor and the Sheriff preside over offices involved
in a range of disparate activities that place differing demands on their IT departments. For
example, the IT department in the Sheriff’s Office is required to support the unique and
challenging activities that attend the operation of a correctional facility. In addition, and more
importantly, the Study Team believes that the leaders of those two offices must be able to direct,
oversee and rely upon the support services of an IT staff dedicated solely to the work of their
offices. In law enforcement in particular, the Study Team believes it is important that those

                                               111
responsible for public safety be permitted to directly control the support services necessary for
the discharging of their duties. While in the interest of efficiency the Study Team can support
consolidation of a single aspect of IT services (e-mail support services) in the Prosecutor’s
Office, the Study Team cannot support a total consolidation that would strip either the
Prosecutor or the Sheriff of the support of a dedicated IT staff. Therefore, despite the fact that
financial considerations alone might militate in favor of consolidation of all IT services under
one agency, the Study Team does not believe that would serve the county’s best interests from a
public safety standpoint.


5. OPTION 2 – AN INITIAL REDUCTION IN FORCE, FOLLOWED BY AN ADDITIONAL RIF
       AND TRANSFER OF THE REMAINING PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS POWERS DUTIES
       AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE



Should the county adopt Option 2, the Study Team recommends that the reduction in force of the
County Police and transfer of the remaining personnel, functions, powers and duties of the
County Police to the Sheriff’s Office proceed as outlined below.

       5.1 Rationale for Option 2
The Study Team has concluded that, as detailed in the findings section of this report and
summarized above in Option 1, the County Police does not currently provide patrol and
investigatory services to the county in a manner that substantially contributes to the level of
public safety. However, the specialized functions of the County Police are essential to the
maintenance of the county’s level of public safety and in most cases are not duplicated in other
agencies.

The Sheriff’s Office is a county-wide agency which provides certain specialized functions. It
does so at less cost than the County Police. The Sheriff’s Office has a well-developed
management process and is judged to be capable of incorporating additional specialized
functions and providing them within Bergen County in a manner which would not compromise
public safety.

The Study Team believes that there would be several advantages to transferring the County
Police members remaining after the reduction in force described in Option 1 to the Sheriff’s
Office:

      The Sheriff’s Office currently has a lower overall operating cost than the County Police,
       including a lower overtime cost.
      The Sheriff’s Office provides services which in some respects are analogous to those
       provided by the County Police including K-9, Special Operations Group (SWAT-like),
       traffic enforcement and bomb sweep activities. Therefore, there is management
       familiarity with the provision of these functions, permitting rapid integration of these
       functions transferred with the County Police members.
      Economies of scale and other efficiencies will accrue if the remaining members of the
       County Police are integrated into the Sheriff's Office, most notably from better

                                               112
          coordination in the delivery of the specialized services and from reduction in the
          likelihood of future redundancies, as discussed in Option 1.
         A larger RIF may also be undertaken, permitting greater initial cost savings and greater
          long term cost savings, owing to the transfer of the remaining members and functions
          into an agency with an existing management structure. This would reduce the need for
          administrative support for the remaining County Police members and provide the
          opportunity for Sheriff’s officers to supplement former County Police officers when
          needed in the remaining patrol and specialized functions.

It is noteworthy that Bergen County appears to be the only county within the State of New Jersey
that maintains a Prosecutor’s Office and a Sheriff’s Office along with a County Police which has
responsibility to provide safety and security beyond county parks and facilities. 35 The Study
Team learned that both Hudson County and Essex County consolidated their police departments
within their respective Sheriff’s Offices as cost-saving measures. 36 It is the belief of the Study
Team that reduction in force of the County Police and the transfer of its functions, powers, duties
and responsibilities to the Sheriff’s Office would similarly result in a realization of economies
without diminution of public safety. Moreover, such consolidation would eliminate competition
over core functions between the agencies and foster cohesion in the delivery of police services.

Under this option, the Study Team recommends transferring the single IT departmental member
within the County Police to the Sheriff’s Office IT department, along with those duties currently
being performed.


35
     Union County, Morris County and Camden County have Park Police Departments according to the 2009 New
     Jersey State Police Uniform Crime Report.
36
     This consolidation proposal is not unlike the consolidation that took place in Essex County. In 1990, the
     Criminal Justice Committee of the Essex County Transition Team (Transition Committee) performed a study of
     the Essex County Police Department and found that the existing structure “encourages duplication of work,
     stimulates excess overtime, condones unnecessary specialization, and impedes the goals of good government.”
     The Transition Committee also reported at length on the overlap of duties between the Office of the Sheriff and
     the County Police Department. Specifically, the Committee noted that they were “duplicating much of the work
     which . . . should be done within the County Sheriff’s Department.”
     The Transition Committee concluded that there should be a consolidation of operations between the County
     Police and the Sheriff’s Department and that this consolidation should be placed under the Sheriff. Subsequently,
     under its authority to authorize the restructuring and transfer of governmental functions between county offices,
     divisions, and agencies, the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders adopted an ordinance on April 24, 1997
     transferring the Division of Essex County Police, Essex Department of Public Safety, to the jurisdiction and
     authority of the Sheriff, Essex County. This resulted in the establishment of the Division of County Police as part
     of the organizational structure of the Sheriff’s Department. Thereafter, in June 2006, the Essex County Sheriff
     (Sheriff) promulgated an order to consolidate the functions of the County Police with the Sheriff’s Office.
     In pertinent part, the Division of County Police was to be restructured as a newly established Patrol Division
     within the Sheriff’s Department that would perform similar duties as those performed by County police officers.
     Specifically, the Sheriff indicated that the underlying purpose of the consolidation was to provide the best and
     most effective service to the County at the least cost to taxpayers. The Sheriff also noted that this action was
     consistent with and in furtherance of statewide efforts with regard to consolidation of government services.
     Thereafter, the former County police officers became Sheriff’s Officers and began wearing Sheriff’s Officer’s
     uniforms and operating vehicles marked as Sheriff’s vehicles. Importantly, former County police officers began
     performing activities formerly performed only by Sheriff’s Officers and vice versa.


                                                          113
       5.2 Option 2, Phase 1 - The Proposed Bergen County Consolidation —
       Phased Reduction in Force
The Study Team recommends that Option 2 proceed in the following manner.

The first step in a consolidation would be to enact a reduction in force, as discussed in Option 1.
However, Options 2 affords the opportunity for a greater reduction in force due to the enhanced
ability of the newly consolidated agency to provide support for the remaining assets of the
former County Police.

The Study Team has identified an additional 12 positions that could be eliminated when the
County Police is consolidated with the Sheriff’s Office. Specifically, seven positions occupied by
personnel assigned to the ME Unit, and five positions currently held by officers who possess
multiple specialties (e.g., an officer who is both ME and Mounted qualified) could be
eliminated. This brings the total reduction in force to 35 police positions and two clerical
workers. This year, the 35 most junior police officers and two most junior civilian clerk typists
will earn a total of approximately $5,100,000 annually in salary and fringe benefits at the current
salary rates. If these 35 police officers were to reach top pay, under current contractual
provisions, such officers would earn approximately $7,500,000 annually in salary and fringe
benefits.

The Study Team recommends that this reduction be accomplished in two phases. As outlined in
Option 1, a reduction in force of the previously identified 23 positions would be possible
immediately without reduction in public safety within Bergen County. At the same time the
county should begin the civilianization process for the Medical Examiners Unit. When the
consolidation is to take place, the additional reduction of 12 positions (least senior members)
should also occur. The impact to the specialized functions is outlined below.

           Specialized Units          Number Decreasing         Number Remaining
          Medical Examiner’s Unit                8                        12
          S.W.A.T.                               7                        19
          K-9                                    4                        9
          Traffic Safety                         2                         7
          Bomb Squad                             1                        7

The civilianization of the ME function should commence immediately to reduce the impact on
service. As that process comes to a conclusion, the remaining officers who performed the ME
function may be devoted to other functions as determined by the Sheriff. The addition of those
officers to functions currently performed by Sheriff’s officers might provide an additional
opportunity for a headcount reduction in the future; this could be accomplished through attrition
and a reduction in authorized headcount. The Study Team believes that the remaining number of
specialty unit members would be sufficient to provide an acceptable level of public safety within
Bergen County. This is particularly true since the SWAT, K-9 and Traffic Safety functions may
be supplemented by appropriately trained Sheriff’s Office personnel (which the Sheriff will be
able to begin to train and certify during the pendency of the required legislative action) or, as in
the case of the Bomb Squad, sufficient resources would remain to meet county needs.


                                                114
           5.3 Option 2, Phase 2 - The Proposed Bergen County Consolidation—Steps
           following the Initial Reduction in Force
After the initial reduction in force, the Study Team anticipates that the following actions would
occur:

   1) The Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders would pass an ordinance eliminating the
Division of the County Police Department as a division in the Department of Public Safety, 37
transferring the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Division of the County
Police to the Office of the Bergen County Sheriff.

    2) Following the second reduction in force, former County Police officers would then be
laterally transferred to the Sheriff’s Office and assume the titles of Sheriff’s officers, Sheriff’s
sergeants, Sheriff’s lieutenants and Sheriff’s captains.

   3) Former County Police officers would eventually be subject to the salary levels as well as
other terms and conditions of employment set forth in the various collective bargaining
agreements of the sworn officers in the Sheriff’s Office.

  4) The former County Police officers would initially be assigned to a newly established
Division of Patrol within the Sheriff’s Office.

  5) The Sheriff would immediately begin to integrate former County Police officers into
Sheriff’s officers’ functions and vice versa.

Assuming the same headcount as currently exists for the County Police, 92 sworn officers, the
full reduction in force of 35 police positions would result in a transferred headcount of 57
positions. It should be noted that the Study Team does not recommend that the Sheriff’s Office
be increased on a permanent basis by these 57 positions. Rather, it is recommended that a
transition period be established at the time of the transfer and the Sheriff be permitted to review
operations and staffing levels to determine what will be needed to effectively support the
essential public safety functions assumed from the consolidation. At that time, the Sheriff should


37
     Freeholder authority to authorize the restructuring and transfer of governmental functions between county offices,
      divisions, and agencies is provided in Section 2.1.a of the Bergen County Administrative Code (“BCAC”) which
      provides that the Freeholders may organize the administration of the county government, including setting the
      duties and responsibilities and powers of all county officials and agencies, and the manner of performance
      needed. Additionally, Sections 8.0.b and 8.5.3 of the BCAC provide, in relevant part, that the County Executive
      has the authority to propose to the Freeholders a plan of re-organization within any county department, which
      includes the Department of Public Safety in which the County Police currently resides as a Division.
      These provisions authorize the Freeholders to reorganize the County Police out of the Department of Public
      Safety and into the Sheriff’s Office as proposed. This may be done by a county ordinance passed by the
      Freeholders transferring the functions of the County Police to the authority and jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s
      Office. The Essex County Freeholders achieved a restructuring by such an ordinance. See , Matter of County
      Police Officers, Essex County Sheriff’s Office, DOP Docket No. 2007-1525 (April 11, 2007); and County of
      Essex, 18 NJPER 289 (¶23124 1992) (Hearing Officer’s decision on motion for partial summary judgment). No
      public referendum was utilized and no need for one is referred to in the BCAC.


                                                          115
issue a report to the Freeholders, indicating the results of the staffing analysis and the
recommended final authorized headcount for the Sheriff’s Office.

As previously recommended under Option 2, the Division of Patrol would not be responsible for
calls for service in county parks, buildings and facilities. However, this division would continue
to provide patrol services to Bergen County on state highways and U.S. roads as described in
Appendix C. It is likely that certain municipalities would have to shoulder an increased number
of calls for service responses, as noted in the findings section. But as indicated in interviews with
municipal chiefs and confirmed by analysis of calls for service data, the increase would be
manageable. It should be noted that the Study Team’s analysis suggested that a significant
number of responses to incidents within County Police jurisdiction (as defined by the County
Law Services Plan) are already being handled by municipal agencies. In a consolidated
environment, response by former County Police officers and Sheriff’s officers undergoing cross
training, would continue to occur, but on a reduced level, leading to additional headcount
reductions.

It is recommended that cross training of Sheriff’s Office and former County Police personnel
commence immediately under Option 2. This would promote integration and efficiency. Upon
appropriate recognition by the State Department of Personnel, the Sheriff could negotiate salary
issues with Local Nos. 134 and 134A of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (which
represents Sheriff’s officers) because the Sheriff’s officers’ collective bargaining agreement
would become binding on former County Police members. This would create an opportunity for
further cost savings since Sheriff’s officer salaries are lower compared to County Police officers.

An important aspect of the consolidation is the continued maintenance of the traffic safety
function, which both contributes to public safety and generates revenue for the county. As noted
earlier in this report (See Core & Specialized Functions Analysis, Section 5.5.3 Traffic
Enforcement – Conclusion), the Study Team found no legal reason why under Option 2 properly
trained Sheriff’s officers, including former County Police officers who become members of the
Sheriff’s Office under a consolidation and who were formerly trained members of the Traffic
Safety Unit of the County Police, could not issue such tickets.

       5.4 Option 2 - Salary and Fringe Savings through Reduction in Force and
       Realignment of Span of Control
The Study Team recommends that the supervisory span of control among former County Police
officers be reduced to be consistent with the reduction of force proposed in this option.
Specifically, the Study Team recommends that supervisory control be reduced through attrition
and demotion to the following levels: 1 captain, 4 lieutenants and 8 sergeants.

The county would realize further savings by adjusting its supervisory span of control by
demotion and attrition following the reduction of 35 police officers.




                                                116
This would result in an amended table of organization, as follows:

              Rank                 Pre-RIF Headcount            Post-RIF Headcount
          Chief                            1                            0
          Captains                         3                            1
          Lieutenants                      9                            4
          Sergeants                       15                            8
          Police Officers                 64                           44

Following the RIF and a span of control adjustment, the county would realize total annual
savings of approximately $5,400,000.

It should be noted that the reduction in force may be accomplished through a variety of methods,
not just layoffs. The chart below summarizes the numbers of County Police personnel eligible to
retire over the span of time reflected in the chart. As illustrated, a large proportion of the
recommended reduction in force may be able to be accomplished if these members take
advantage of their retirement eligibility.

                  Bergen County Police Seniority and Retirement Eligibility

                   CURRENTLY
 RANK             ABLE TO RETIRE   MAY 1, 2012   MAY 1, 2013   MAY 1, 2014   MAY 1, 2015   CUMULATIVE


 Chief                  1               –              –            –             –            1
 Captain                1               1              1            –             –            3
 Lieutenant             1               1              4            –             –            6
 Sergeant               3               –              1            –             –            4
 Police Officer         2               –              2            2             –            8
                        8               4              8            2             –           22




The above table illustrates the number of County Police officers who currently have the ability to
retire and the number who are projected to be eligible within the next five years. Currently there
are nine officers who have full retirement credits and are able to retire. A total of 22 officers, a
quarter of the County Police, will be eligible to retire by May 1, 2014. The Study Team notes
that six of the 28 supervisory members are immediately eligible to retire and a total of fourteen
supervisory members will be eligible to retire by May 1, 2014.

        5.5 Option 2 - Savings Through Realignment of Units Within the Sheriff’s
        Office
Many of the functions of the County Police may be duplicated by functions presently in place at
the Sheriff’s Office, such as payroll and record keeping. Additional personnel reductions
including police officers, mechanics, fleet supervisors, radio technicians and additional civilians,
should be considered and determined by the Sheriff.

                                                 117
In Option 2 the Sheriff would have the option of continuing to staff the Office of Emergency
Management and Communications Section in the Department of Public Safety with Sheriff’s
officers since County Police officers presently occupy those assignments. However, it should be
noted that the Study Team recommends that the Office of Emergency Management function be
civilianized.

The Sheriff’s Office has a Special Operations Group (SOG) which is trained similarly to the
current County Police SWAT unit. Although SOG is not currently authorized to respond to
Bergen County calls for emergency service, it is in the process of obtaining the necessary
training. The current County Police SWAT unit is extremely well trained and equipped. It can
easily be combined with the Sheriff’s SOG. The combination of the County Police and the
Sheriff SOG unit will increase efficiencies.

As for the respective K-9 units of the Sheriff’s Office and County Police, the Sheriff would have
the option of streamlining a new unit to avoid duplication of K-9 services.

       5.6 Option 2 - Savings Through Operating Budget Reductions--General
       Operating Expenses
Although the exact magnitude of operating budget savings (and by this the Study Team means
other than personnel costs) which would be realized through a consolidation is difficult to
calculate, there would clearly be reductions in operating expenses attributable to efficiencies
gained by reduction in force and the corresponding reduced need for expenditures in a number of
areas, including:

      The demand for vehicles will be reduced, with associated reductions in fueling and
       maintenance costs. The County Police vehicle fleet consists of 107 vehicles of which
       approximately 55 are predominantly used as patrol vehicles (i.e., traffic safety, patrol, K-
       9, etc.). Clearly, with a force reduction from 92 to 57 police officers, a reduction in the
       vehicle fleet would be indicated, generating additional cost savings to the county.

      Operating expenses connected with certain units, such as K-9 and SWAT will be
       reduced. These units produce expenses related to equipment, consumables and training
       (including significant ammunition costs for qualification and annual requalification.)
       With the proposed reduction in the total number of personnel required to be fielded in
       these units after a consolidation, savings would accrue to the county by reductions in
       these operating expenses.

   5.7 Option 2 – Timeline for Implementation
The Study Team believes that Option 2 could be accomplished within 150 days. The Study
Team envisions that Phase 1 of Option 2, the initial reduction in force of 23 County police
officers and 2 civilians, would take place within an initial 60 day time period. The procedural
steps to be undertaken within this phase would mirror the procedural steps described in Section
2.4 Option 1 – Timeline for Implementation above.



                                               118
The Study Team envisions further that Phase 2 of Option 2 would take place over a final 90 day
time period. At the beginning of the 90 day time period, the 12 additional County Police officers
subject to the reduction in force would be identified and, during the 90 day time period but not
less than 30 days prior to conclusion of the time period, such County Police officers would
receive notice that their positions were being eliminated for reasons of economy on the date in
which the 90 day time period concludes. Additionally, the other supervisory officers subject to
demotion for purposes of span of control adjustment, as set forth in Option 2, would receive
similar notices of a reduction in rank to take place at the conclusion of the period. Phase 2 would
conclude with the consolidation of the County Police within the Sheriff’s Office, and the lateral
transfer of remaining County Police officers to corresponding ranks within the Sheriff’s Office.

The Study Team envisions that during the entire 150 day time period, the Sheriff’s Office, in
conjunction with the County Police, would make plans for the transfer of the functions, powers,
duties and responsibilities of the County Police to the Sheriff’s Office at the conclusion of the
time period. This task would involve the exchange of information necessary to accomplish an
efficient transfer of functions and the transition of County Police officers into the Sheriff’s
Office. To this end, plans would need to be developed for the establishment of a new Division of
Patrol within the Sheriff’s Office and the integration of the specialized functions of the County
Police within the Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office would formulate plans for
the cross-training and integration of former County Police officers into the functions of Sheriff’s
officers and vice versa. Further, during this period the county would civilianize the functions of
the County Police Medical Examiner’s Unit as recommended by the Study Team. After due
consideration of public safety needs following full integration of the two agencies, the Sheriff’s
Office would determine whether additional personnel reductions of former County Police
officers, mechanics, fleet supervisors, radio technicians and other civilians could be made
consistent with public safety, in an effort to realize further economies.

Finally, the Study Team envisions that the entire 150 day time period would also be the time
period within which the county would adopt an ordinance amending the Bergen County
Administrative Code to eliminate the Division of County Police as a division within the
Department of Public Safety and to legislatively transfer its functions, powers, duties and
responsibilities to the Sheriff’s Office. The ordinance would become effective at the conclusion
of the 150 day period. The Study Team again notes that the adoption of ordinances is subject to
the provisions of Bergen County Administrative Code § 2.11, and the time period necessary to
adopt the ordinance may vary in accordance with the dictates of such law and other factors.




                                               119
6. OPTION 3 - ELIMINATION OF THE BERGEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
     TRANSFER OF ITS FUNCTIONS, POWERS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE
     BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE


       6.1 Rationale for Option 3
The Study Team has determined that public safety within Bergen County is dependent on the
specialized functions which are uniquely provided by the County Police. As discussed in Option
2, the Sheriff’s Office could assume these responsibilities with additional personnel from the
County Police, as it currently has many similar, but not entirely duplicative, specialized functions
focused on its core mission of providing jail and court-related law enforcement services.

A critical feature of the consolidation proposed in Option 2 is that it would provide the Sheriff’s
Office with additional trained personnel at the time of the consolidation. That would permit
almost instantaneous assumption of these responsibilities. Since these transferred County Police
personnel would have to be utilized when not acting in their specialized capacities, Option 2
proposes an initial continuation of patrol functions. However, under Option 2, the Study Team
anticipates a time when that function may be determined to be no longer needed, since the Study
Team’s analysis revealed that it is essentially a duplication of existing municipal services.

The Study Team presents as Option 3 the elimination of the County Police and its patrol
functions after an appropriate period of time has allowed the Sheriff’s Office to develop the
expertise needed to replace critical specialized public safety functions of the County Police,
specifically:

      SWAT
      K-9
      Traffic Safety
      Bomb Squad

It is worthwhile to note that of these functions, only the Bomb Squad function does not currently
exist within the Sheriff’s Office in some form. The Study Team acknowledges, however, that
staffing levels and training/certification, along with proscriptions within the County Law
Services Plan, prevent the Sheriff’s Office from being equipped or authorized to serve the
SWAT, K-9 and Traffic Safety needs of Bergen County. Therefore, prior to elimination of the
County Police, the Sheriff’s Office would need to develop these competencies.

Option 3 includes a phased reduction in force preceding the ultimate elimination of the County
Police. This will result in savings over the period of the agency’s phased elimination.
Specifically, the Study Team recommends that the 23 police/2 civilian RIF discussed under
Option 1 occur immediately under Option 3, with the additional 12 police RIF occurring when
civilianization of the ME Unit function is achieved. It is expected that, shortly thereafter, the
time needed for the Sheriff’s Office to establish competency in the specialized functions would
have been completed, permitting elimination of the County Police at that time.



                                                120
By eliminating the County Police in the manner described under Option 3, the county would
realize a significant savings since the current annual cost for maintaining the County Police is
$19,300,000 for salary alone. The Study Team emphasizes that the county cannot anticipate
realizing cost savings in the full amount of $19,300,000 because identified savings would be
offset, in part, by costs associated with the assumption of certain functions, namely Bomb Squad,
Traffic Safety and Patrol, by the Sheriff's Office and the accompanying increase in headcount
that these duties would require. This is because the Study Team anticipates that even with
training and certification of appropriate current staff in the areas of SWAT, Traffic Safety and
Bomb, it will be necessary for the Sheriff's Office to retain additional staff in order to continue to
provide the county with a comparable level of public safety service.

While the Study Team recognizes that the Sheriff will determine staffing requirements as his
office assumes responsibility for these functions, at a minimum, the Study Team estimates that
the Sheriff will need to hire between 17-26 officers at an estimated annual cost of between
$1,600,000 (17 hires, including 15 officers and 2 sergeants) and $2,300,000 (26 hires including
24 officers and 2 sergeants) in order to accomplish this. These recommended additions to the
Sheriff’s staff results in anticipated annual savings in salary from Option of 3 of $17.7 - $17.0
million.

       6.2 Option 3 – Timeline for Implementation
The Study Team believes that Option 3 could be accomplished within one year. An initial
reduction in force of 23 County police officers and 2 civilians (Option 1), would take place
within an initial 60 day time period. The procedural steps to be undertaken within this phase
would mirror the procedural steps described in Section 2.4 Option 1- Timeline for
Implementation. An additional reduction in force of 12 County Police officers would occur
when civilianization of the County Police Medical Examiner’s Unit function is achieved.

Option 3 would conclude with the elimination of the County Police and the assumption of its
functions, powers, duties and responsibilities by the Sheriff’s Office. The Study Team believes
that one year is an appropriate period of time to allow the Sheriff’s Office to develop the
competencies of Sheriff’s officers (through training and certification) needed to replace critical
public safety functions of the County Police, specifically: SWAT; K-9; Traffic Safety; and Bomb
Squad. The one year time period would also accommodate necessary planning by the Sheriff’s
Office as it prepares to undertake all the duties of the County Police.

As with Option 2, the county would need to adopt an ordinance amending the Bergen County
Administrative Code to eliminate the Division of County Police as a division within the
Department of Public Safety and to legislatively transfer its functions, powers, duties and
responsibilities to the Sheriff’s Office. The ordinance would become effective at the conclusion
of the one year period.




                                               *****


                                                 121
APPENDICES
   APPENDIX A
Law Services Plan 2010
      BERGEN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

                                 LAW SERVICES PLAN

                                     01/01/10–12/31/10




In accordance with Executive Directive 92-1, a Law Enforcement Services Review Board was
established in Bergen County in May of 1992. The Review Board is currently comprised of the
following individuals:

                           Prosecutor John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
                           Chief Steven Cucciniello, Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
                           Sr. Captain Uwe Malakas, Bergen County Police Department
                           Chief Michael Saudino, Emerson Police Department,
                           President, Bergen County Police Chiefs Assn.
                           Chief Arthur O’Keefe, Englewood Police Department
                           Sheriff Leo McGuire
                           Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, NJSP Superintendent
                           Major Christopher O’Shea, NJSP




                                             1
PROSECUTOR

CORE FUNCTIONS:

       Major Criminal Investigations – consistent with established procedures for municipal,
       county and state agencies.

       Police Training Academy –The Prosecutor shall maintain oversight authority over all
       police training with Bergen County including Alternate Route.

       Extraditions – The Prosecutor’s Office represents the State in any court proceedings that
       may lead to the issuance of pre or post-sentence fugitive warrants.

       Court Functions – To handle all phases of cases received from local municipalities for
       prosecution.



SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS:

       * Arson (stand alone and task force)               * CART Coordinator
       * Aviation                                         * Domestic Violence
       * Bias Crime                                       * Environmental Crime
       * Fraud                                            * Homicide
       * Intelligence Unit                                * Auto Theft
       * Organized Crime & Gambling                       * Federal Assistance
       * Sex Crimes                                       * Polygraph
       * Fatal Accident (stand-alone & task force)        * Victim Witness
       * Gangs (stand-alone & task force w/Sheriff)       * Anti-terrorism Efforts
       * Crime Prevention Education                       * County-wide Hotlines
       * Alcohol Beverage Control Enforcement             * DWI Task Force–Supervision
       * County-wide Law Enforcement Computer             * County-wide Narcotic Task Force
           Network                                        * In-service Training
       * ASPCA (task force)                               * Computer Crimes (with task
       * OCT RDT 1                                        * Oversee All Law Enforcement
                                                               Training




1
 This is not the County RDF, which is under municipal control, but is a statewide regional RDT
under an MOU executed by the IUASI region County Prosecutors which give them primary
control over deployment.

                                               3
                                        SHERIFF

CORE FUNCTIONS:

     County Jail – consistent with established policies that provide for the maintenance,
    record keeping and security of inmates.

     Courthouse Security – Security for the Courthouse as well as the courtrooms, Judge’s
    chambers, and areas adjacent to the Courthouse. This could include the Probation
    Department on request of the Assignment Judge for Bergen County.

     Fugitive Bench Warrant Execution – Handles all pre and post-sentence fugitive warrants,
    failure to appear warrants, and juvenile warrants consistent with the policies by the
    Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office. Also handles bench/in court warrants under a
    Memorandum of Agreement with the Prosecutor’s Office.

     Extradition– Transportation of prisoners from out-of-state consistent with the policies by
    the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office.

     Prisoner Transport – Collaborate with municipal police to (1) Provide transportation of
    inmates from the Bergen County Jail and the Youth Detention Center to scheduled
    hearings within the Bergen County Court; (2) Provide transportation from the Bergen
    County Jail to and from all Bergen County municipal courts for scheduled hearings or
    appearances; (3) Provide transportation from municipal lockups to the Bergen County
    Jail for those who are arrested and do not make bail, as well as late night expedition
    bookings. This is voluntarily done by the Sheriff Department.

     Bureau of Criminal Identification and Ballistics – Responsible for the receipt from all
    county and municipal law enforcement officers, County Clerk, and Probation Office, all
    criminal offense information and maintain a record system consisting of fingerprints,
    photographs, arrest reports, indictment and other pertinent information necessary to
     complete the offense record.

    Legal Process – Serve summons and complaints, execute writs and conduct Sheriff’s
    Sales on personal and real property as directed by the Court. Maintain a record system in
    accordance with established policies.




                                             2
SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS:

       * Sheriff Office Communications                    * Internal Affairs
       * Labor Assistance Programs                        * Missing Persons
       * In-service Training                              * Composite Artistry
       * K-9 (Jail only) – As Called by Municipal Chief 2 * Fraudulent Documents
       * Involuntary Civil Commitment Transportation * Criminal Investigation
       * SWAT for Jail or where Sheriff is Incident          as provided by county/municipal
       Commander, or if requested by Prosecutor for
       police functions
           RDT
       * Bomb K-9 (Jail or Courthouse. BCPD must be notified.)
       * Prisoner Security in Hospitals
       * Crime Scene Investigations
       * Alcohol Treatment and Rehabilitation Act
          (ATRA) services
       * Child Fingerprinting for Identification Purposes
       * SERT (Sheriff Emergency Response Team) – Jail only
       * Crime Prevention Educations
       * Domestic Violence – service of process for court orders consistent with existing
       policies.
       * Senior Citizen Education & Programs designed to educate the public.




2
  A local chief or incident commander has the option of requesting the Sheriff’s Dept. K-9 Unit.
Sheriff K-9 shall not initiate dispatch.

                                               5
                                      COUNTY POLICE

CORE FUNCTIONS:

·       Primary Patrol – Response to all calls for law enforcement service within the Bergen
       County parks system, County schools, and all County facilities and patrol of all County
       roads - not responding with locals departments and State highways (if necessary.) Traffic
       enforcement to include DWI enforcement, accident investigations, and radar operations.

·       Arrest, Fingerprint, and Processing – of all offenders apprehended within Bergen County
       for arrests made by the Bergen County Police.

·       Criminal Investigations – Initial investigations of all criminal incidents and complaints
       as well as follow-up investigations consistent with existing policies of the County
       Prosecutor not specialized functions of Prosecutor’s Office.

·      Crime Suppression – To continue to be responsible for crime suppression in the Bergen
       County parks and County schools. Methods are to include but are not limited to Crime
       Prevention Programs, Drug Education Programs such as D.A.R.E.

SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS:

       *   Staffing: Academy, OEM, RDT, RDF, with other Agencies
       *   In-service Training                        * Scuba Team
       *   Hostage Negotiations                       * SWAT Team 3
       *   Emergency Response Team                    * Range Master at Police Academy
       *   Bomb Squad                                 * Weapons of Mass Destruction
       *   K-9 Unit                                   * Radar Unit
       *   Communications – 911                       * D.A.R.E.– County Schools
       *   Parade & Traffic Control -if requested     * Marine Unit
       *   Basic Training Academy Staff with others   * Traffic Safety
       *   Elections Duty                             * Medical Examiner Investigations
       *   Oversight of Juvenile Detention
              Facility Security

The County Police will be the primary contact for aquatic recovery (and not rescue) operations.
The County Police will notify all municipalities which currently operate Scuba Recovery Units
of this requirement, which shall be considered as a directive from the County Prosecutor.



3
   B.C.P. SWAT shall be the primary SWAT Unit for all jurisdictions wherein the County Chief
is the Incident Commander or where the Local Municipal Department does not have an approved
SWAT Unit, pursuant to Directive 2010-01.

                                                4
                                  MUNICIPAL POLICE

CORE FUNCTIONS:

    Primary Patrol – Including but not limited to response to all calls for law enforcement
    service within their communities, DWI enforcement, radar operation, traffic enforcement,
    domestic violence, and ATRA (Alcoholism Treatment & Rehabilitation Act.)

·   Initial Response – to all calls for assistance as well as assessment for referral consistent
    with existing policies.

·    Arrests, Fingerprint, & Processing – of all offenders apprehended within their
    jurisdictions or by members of their agency.

·    Criminal Investigations – Initial investigations of all criminal incidents and follow-up
    investigations consistent with the existing policies of the County Prosecutor.

·    Crime Suppression – The Municipal agencies have and will continue to be responsible
    for crime suppression in their municipalities. Methods of crime suppression are unique to
    each town. Some of the methods would include, Crime Prevention Programs, Drug
    Education Programs, such as D.A.R.E., Senior Citizen Education, and in some
    communities the use of a K-9 Patrol. Methods are subject to change based on emphasis
    and need. This core function is not intended to dictate programs, rather it is designed to
    provide opportunity for the municipal agency to make adjustment to existing programs as
    the need arises.

SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS:

    *   Patrol                                     *   Child Fingerprinting
    *   Traffic Safety                             *   Training for Citizens or Student Groups
    *   K-9 Unit                                   *   Internal Affairs
    *   Parade & Traffic Patrol                    *   ERT Teams
    *   D.A.R.E.                                   *   Radio Communications
    *   RDF/RDT (task force)                       *   ABC Investigations
    *   Crime Prevention Educations                *   Megan’s Law Registration
    *   SWAT (approved only), subject to           *   TIPS/Hotline
        Prosecutor Directive.




                                              6
                                       STATE POLICE

CORE FUNCTIONS:

       ME Cases

        Patrol on Highways – generally on interstate highways.

        Criminal Investigations – consistent with existing policies of the County Prosecutor.

      Fatal Accident The investigation of fatal accidents shall be in accordance with the Joint
      Crash Protocol between the State Police and the County Prosecutor’s Offices.
*     NJSEA

        Regional Intelligence Center

        Computer Crimes (Hamilton, NJ Crime Lab)

The investigation of fatal accidents shall be in accordance with a Joint Crash Protocol between
the State Police and the County Prosecutors Offices.



PORT AUTHORITY POLICE

        Criminal Investigations (PA Property)

        Patrol (PA Property)

        Fire Service




                                                7
                COUNTY OF BERGEN LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY

CORE FUNCTIONS:

    Dispatch Service–Countywide, including County Police

    Office of Emergency Management

    Trunk Radio Service

    County Range Master Designation

    Day to Day Oversight and Operational Responsibility for Law Enforcement Training
    Academy for Recruit and In-service Training.




                               APPROVED DATE: March 26, 2010



                               _________________________________________
                               JOHN L. MOLINELLI
                               BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR




                                         8
APPENDIX B
   MAPS
 APPENDIX C
PATROL POSTS
   (single page PDF)
          Appendix D
Report of the County Prosecutor
      Study Commission
              REPORT OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR STUDY COMMISSION DATA


                            CRIME             VIOLENT                                             MEAN
                            RATE    VIOLENT    CRIME     NON-VIOLENT   NON-VIOLENT   2010        SALARIES
               POPULATION    PER     CRIME     RATE        CRIME        CRIME RATE   EMPL          CTY      AVG.
COUNTY           (2009)1    0002    NUMBER2   PER000
                                                     2
                                                          NUMBER2        PER 000
                                                                                 2
                                                                                     DATA3       DET/INV3   LOS3
Atlantic        271,712      39.9    1,466      5.4         9,335          34.5        75    $     87,291   11.6
Bergen          895,250      14.3      957      1.1        11,819          13.2       111    $    119,849   12.6
Burlington      446,108      19.2      641      1.4         7,912          17.8        43    $     84,538   10.7
Camden          517,879      36.8    3,199      6.2        15,812          30.6        88    $     96,486   12.9
Cape May          96,091     46.6      261      2.7         4,207          43.9        37    $     77,300    5.6
Cumberland      157,745      39.4      898      5.7         5,285          33.7        39    $     78,352    6.5
Essex           769,644      33.0    5,138      6.7        20,263          26.3       147    $     90,897   11.3
Gloucester      289,920      27.3      636      2.2         7,217          25.1        34    $     88,401    7.8
Hudson          597,924      27.5    2,967      5.0        13,401          22.5        98    $     72,747   11.0
Hunterdon       130,034       8.7       63      0.5         1,054           8.2        24    $     74,381    8.3
Mercer          366,222      25.3    1,612      4.4         7,629          20.9        51    $     90,677   12.1
Middlesex       790,738      20.6    1,535      1.9        14,715          18.6        77    $    103,317   12.8
Monmouth        644,105      23.0    1,335      2.1        13,438          20.9        79    $    118,273    9.7
Morris          488,518      12.3      387      0.8         5,593          11.5        63    $     91,359   11.1
Ocean           573,678      20.0      706      1.2        10,648          18.7        78    $     93,182    9.9
Passaic         491,778      26.7    2,249      4.6        10,855          22.1        79    $     82,249   11.2
Salem             66,342     24.9      155      2.3         1,493          22.6        21    $     88,951    9.9
Somerset        326,869      14.2      267      0.8         4,338          13.4        52    $    107,980    9.2
Sussex          151,118      12.3       93      0.6         1,758          11.6        20    $     83,522   10.1
Union           526,426      28.5    2,392      4.6        12,521          23.9        73    $    102,780   11.1
Warren          109,638      14.5      151      1.4         1,440          13.1        21    $     89,313   10.7
State Total    8,707,739     23.9   27,108      3.1       180,733          20.8      1497    $     93,119   10.9



1-2009 UCR Population Data
2-2009 UCR Data
3-Data taken from the County Prosecutor Study Commission Report
Appendix E
 Budget
           BERGEN COUNTY DISBURSEMENT / EXPENDITURE SUMMARY

                                     2006 THROUGH 2010
2006                                 SHERIFF               POLICE           PROSECUTOR
Payroll
 YTD Gross                       $    16,266,595.77    $   12,190,644.09    $   23,004,988.86
 Fringe Benefits                       7,995,447.50         4,915,159.63        11,231,274.53
 Less Overtime Reimbursement                   –                    –             (200,000.00)
 Less Grant Reimbursement               (138,253.09)         (255,160.29)         (449,737.29)
                  Total Payroll: $    24,123,790.18    $   16,850,643.43    $   33,586,526.10
Expenditures
 Operating                               646,522.67           785,964.17    $    1,687,553.65
 Capital                                 551,451.51           575,834.36         1,512,135.42
 Forfeiture                               24,104.26            93,969.12         1,878,340.43
 Grant                                         –                    –               13,342.69
            Total Expenditures: $      1,222,078.44    $    1,455,767.65    $    5,091,372.19


            TOTAL EXPENDED: $         25,345,868.62    $   18,306,411.08    $ $38,677,898.29



2007                                 SHERIFF               POLICE           PROSECUTOR
Payroll
 YTD Gross                      $     16,840,568.24    $   12,730,925.68    $   24,866,797.37
 Fringe Benefits                       9,142,463.03         5,806,422.51        13,385,830.43
 Less Overtime Reimbursement                   –                    –             (200,000.00)
 Less Grant Reimbursement               (289,501.48)         (118,466.00)         (440,746.56)
                 Total Payroll: $     25,693,529.79    $   18,418,882.19    $   37,611,881.24


Expenditures
 Operating                      $        460,592.09    $      590,397.80    $    1,541,957.28
 Capital                               1,627,453.25           696,945.45           788,193.75
 Forfeiture                               35,207.92           126,951.81         2,354,215.14
 Grant                                   249,810.87           261,048.72            86,173.38
            Total Expenditures: $      2,373,064.13    $    1,675,343.78    $    4,770,539.55


            TOTAL EXPENDED: $         28,066,593.92    $   20,094,225.97    $   42,382,420.79




                                               1
2008                                   SHERIFF              POLICE           PROSECUTOR
Payroll
 YTD Gross                         $   19,877,217.00    $   12,757,974.52    $   24,954,860.95
 Fringe Benefits                       12,716,360.97         6,925,226.52        15,381,295.18
 Less Overtime Reimbursement                    –                    –             (200,000.00)
 Less Grant Reimbursement                (190,489.69)         (231,305.93)         (369,305.10)
                  Total Payroll:   $   32,403,088.28    $   19,451,895.11    $   39,766,851.03
Expenditures
 Operating                         $      726,974.69    $      750,676.58    $    1,452,375.39
 Capital                                1,226,705.52           836,885.25         1,300,865.89
 Forfeiture                                46,577.95           133,275.52         3,733,384.56
 Grant                                    355,322.39            58,420.13            48,720.98
            Total Expenditures:    $    2,355,580.55    $    1,779,257.48    $    6,535,346.82


             TOTAL EXPENDED: $         34,758,668.83    $   21,231,152.59    $46,302,197.85



2009                                   SHERIFF              POLICE           PROSECUTOR
Payroll
 YTD Gross                         $   20,042,311.59    $   13,204,114.69    $   26,405,775.85
 Fringe Benefits                       12,641,969.57         7,284,504.80        16,220,021.15
 Less Overtime Reimbursement                    –             (203,056.00)         (200,000.00)
 Less Grant Reimbursement                 (83,189.99)         (129,273.41)         (281,822.20)
                  Total Payroll:   $   32,601,091.17    $   20,156,290.08    $   42,143,974.80
Expenditures
 Operating                         $      613,340.74    $     417,204.61     $    1,436,244.37
 Capital                                  596,737.24          351,258.22          1,264,091.67
 Forfeiture                                82,461.98                –             1,756,042.08
 Grant                                    375,089.88           53,167.60            283,505.22
            Total Expenditures:    $    1,667,629.84    $     821,630.43     $    4,739,883.34


             TOTAL EXPENDED: $         34,268,721.01    $   20,977,920.51    $   46,883,858.14




                                                2
2010                                   SHERIFF              POLICE           PROSECUTOR
Payroll
 YTD Gross                         $   20,068,890.41    $   13,421,509.22    $   26,892,251.48
 Fringe Benefits                       12,574,099.47         7,324,103.17        16,582,611.54
 Less Overtime Reimbursement                    –             (244,804.00)         (200,000.00)
 Less Grant Reimbursement                (108,234.10)          (14,011.06)         (372,992.45)
                  Total Payroll:   $   32,534,755.78    $   20,486,797.33    $   42,901,870.57
Expenditures
 Operating                         $      845,192.62    $      579,689.98    $    1,593,493.65
 Capital                                  745,707.64           595,691.64         2,179,266.21
 Forfeiture                               292,672.11           235,731.87         2,301,539.33
 Grant                                    257,399.56            79,748.57           222,655.10
            Total Expenditures:    $    2,140,971.93    $    1,490,862.06    $    6,296,954.29


             TOTAL EXPENDED: $         34,675,727.71    $   21,977,659.39    $   49,198,824.86




                                                3
 Appendix F
ADA Procedures
   (single page PDF)
PATROL GUIDE ADA COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE
 Appendix G
Legal Analysis
                              LEGAL ANALYSES FOR OPTIONS 1, 2 & 3 1

OPTION 1

Legal Analysis

The Study Team has reviewed the proposed reduction in force with labor counsel and has found
that that the county would be within its legal rights to undertake a reduction in force within the
County Police. Such a reduction is permissible for reasons of economy (see N.J.S.A. § 40a:14-
115). Further, by eliminating positions held by the most junior County Police officers, relevant
civil service laws and contractual obligations are being observed.

It should be noted that the Bergen County Administrative Code provides that the County Police
is “responsible for providing police services to County institutions, County roads and County
parks, and to such other areas as the [County] Executive may direct.” See Bergen County
Administrative Code § 8.5.3. The Study Team believes The Board of Freeholders would need to
amend this section to eliminate the requirement that the County Police provide police services at
county institutions and parks.


OPTION 2

Legal Analysis

The Study Team has reviewed with labor counsel the legal issues that arise with respect to the
following specific steps that Bergen County would take under Option 2:
        Conducting a reduction in force in the County Police prior to the commencement of a
           merger of the operations of the County Police into the Sheriff’s Office; this is
           expected to reduce the number of all police officers by 35, down from 92 to 57.
        Initially restructuring the County Police as a division of the Sheriff’s Office, pursuant
           to the provisions of the Bergen County Administrative Code rather than retaining the
           County Police as a division of the Department of Public safety, as it is now.
        Immediately integrating the County Police into the Sheriff’s Office through
           implementation of cross-training, and cross-assignment of law enforcement and
           related duties.
        Eliminating the County Police by formally consolidating it into the Sheriff’s Office. 2



1
    Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP (New York, NY) and Becker Meisel LLC (Livingston, NJ) served as labor
    counsel.
2
    This will likely require an administrative review by the New Jersey Department of Personnel (“DOP”), working
    through issues of pay, seniority, eligibility, and the like, with the Managing Director, State and Local
    Government Operations (SLGO) of the DOP), and a formal application to the DOP to reclassify the police
    officers into Sheriff’s officers titles without requiring the employee’s permission for the “lateral title change”
    that such a move would otherwise entail. See New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) §4A:4-7.6(d), which
    authorizes transfers of civil service employees between departments or agencies within the same county.

                                                          1
       Authority to Act

Freeholder authority to authorize the restructuring and transfer of governmental functions
between county offices, divisions, and agencies is provided in Section 2.1.a of the Bergen
County Administrative Code (“BCAC”) under which the Freeholders may organize the
administration of the county government, including setting the duties and responsibilities and
powers of all county officials and agencies, and the manner of performance needed.
Additionally, Sections 8.0.b and 8.5.3 of the BCAC provide, in relevant part, that the County
Executive has the authority to propose to the Freeholders a plan of re-organization within any
county department, which includes the Department of Public Safety in which the County Police
currently resides as a Division.

These provisions authorize the Freeholders to reorganize the County Police out of the
Department of Public Safety and into the Sheriff’s Office as proposed. This may be done by a
county ordinance passed by the Freeholders transferring the functions of the County Police to the
authority and jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s Office. The Essex County Freeholders achieved a
restructuring by such an ordinance. See, Matter of County Police Officers, Essex County Sheriff’s
Office, DOP Docket No. 2007-1525 (April 11, 2007); and, County of Essex, 18 NJPER 289
(¶23124 1992) (Hearing Officer’s decision on motion for partial summary judgment). No public
referendum was utilized and no need for one is referred to in the BCAC.

Bergen County would not need to negotiate with the unions in order to reorganize the County
Police officers into the Sheriff’s Office as a division of the Sheriff’s Office. County of Essex, 18
NJPER 289 (¶23124 1992) (Hearing Officer’s report granting County’s motion for summary
judgment finding that county’s unilateral transfer of County Police officers to the Sheriff’s
Office did not constitute a refusal to bargain an unfair practice in violation of the New Jersey
Employer-Employee Relations Act (the “Act”), which governs labor relations between public
employers and employees). The reorganization and transfer of employees between separate
employers, the County and the Sheriff, constitute managerial prerogatives and are not subject to
the statutory duty to bargain. Governmental policy determinations regarding the existence,
organization, size and services to be provided are not subject to the duty to bargain when they do
not involve transfer of work within the organization of a single employer. County of Essex, ibid.

However, as there will be a period during which the County Police continue to exist as a unit
within the Sheriff’s Office, it will continue to be represented by its own union for that period. As
it will be necessary to integrate the County Police further into the operations of the Sheriff’s
Office prior to consolidation, certain terms of integration will probably have to be negotiated
with the County Police union.

       Collective Bargaining

As noted above, the matter of the reorganization of the County Police functions and the transfer
of personnel into the Sheriff’s Office are not mandatory subjects of bargaining and therefore are



                                                 2
not properly within the scope of grievance arbitration under the Act. Cape May County Bridge
Commission, 17 NJPER 382 (¶22180 1991), cited in County of Essex, supra.


Additionally, the collective bargaining agreement between the County of Bergen and
Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 49 covering the County Police does not prevent or
limit management rights with respect to consolidation or merger. (Hereinafter, PBA Local 49
will be referred to as the “Police Union” for convenience.) In relevant part, that agreement
provides, in Article IV, Preservation of Rights, paragraph 1: “Nothing in this contract shall
abrogate the existing management rights of the elected or appointed officials in charge of the
various Departments of County Government subject to this Agreement and to all applicable
Federal, (sic) State laws, rules and regulations and the existing rights of Employees.”

Unless and until the County Police officers are formally consolidated into the Sheriff’s Office
and re-classified as Sheriff’s officers, it is most likely that the bargaining unit of police officers
represented by the Police Union will continue to be entitled to recognition and the terms of
employment set forth in the Police Union’s collective bargaining agreement will continue to
apply to those police officers.

Upon the reclassification of the police officers as Sheriff’s officers, based upon their assumption
of the greatest number of Sheriff’s officer duties as may be feasible after the reorganization of
the County Police functions into the Sheriff’s Office, then the police officers will likely be
considered to have lost their separate identity as a bargaining unit represented by the Police
Union and they will be deemed “accreted” into the bargaining unit of Sheriff’s officers and like
personnel represented by Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 134 (“Sheriffs Union”)
under its collective bargaining agreement with The Bergen County Sheriff. As in the case of the
merger of the Essex County Police Department into the Essex County Sheriff’s Office, it is likely
that the Sheriff will have to petition the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”)
for a unit clarification proceeding to determine that the Police Union’s right to represent the
former police officers is extinguished after they are reclassified to be Sheriff’s officers. See,
generally, Essex County Sheriff’s Office, 34 NJPER ¶97 (2008) (Representation Director’s
Decision clarifying Sheriff’s Office bargaining unit to include former police officers following
the reclassification of the police officers into Sheriff’s officer job titles).

In view of the likelihood that a determination ending the representational rights of the Police
Union will not be made until the police officers are formally consolidated into the ranks of the
Sheriff’s officers, including a reclassification of their civil service job titles to be Sheriff’s
officers, it is advisable that the consolidation be undertaken simultaneously with, or as promptly
as may be feasible, after the Freeholders’ reorganization is enacted.

The Sheriff would also be well advised to bargain with the respective unions regarding work
assignments, duties, changes of shifts, and like issues, in the course of integrating the County
Police and Sheriff’s Office prior to a formal consolidation and reclassification that eliminates the
police officer job title and ends the Police Union’s bargaining unit and bargaining rights.




                                                  3
Once the former County Police officers are fully consolidated into the Sheriff’s Office, a unit
clarification petition will most likely result in the determination that the reclassified police
officers will be represented by the Sheriff’s Union and the Police Union will cease to represent
them, as was decided in the unit clarification case in the Essex County Sheriff’s Office matter, 34
NJPER ¶97, supra. Prior to that point, the Police Union will most likely be entitled to continued
recognition as the bargaining representative for the police officers while they remain a separate
force within the Sheriff’s Office operation.

           Seniority and Promotion Rights

Lateral title changes are not automatically available to the Sheriff in order to accomplish
integration of the two workforces and eliminate the duplication of efforts and inefficiencies
resulting from the two sets of officers operating essentially independently within the Sheriff’s
Office. 1 The Merit System Board Decision in the Matter of County Police Officers, Essex
County Sheriff’s Office, DOP Docket No. 2007-1525 (April 11, 2007), makes clear that “while
both [job] title series are in the same occupational group and some of the duties between the two
series overlap, the County Police Officer and Sheriff’s Officer title series are not
interchangeable.”

In the Merit System Board decision, the Sheriff, through the New Jersey Department of
Personnel, requested that the lateral title change process be relaxed so that the police officers
could be moved into the corresponding, lateral Sheriff’s officer job title without taking the usual
civil service examination, passing a working test period and without loss of seniority. 2

A prompt consolidation of the forces, which among other things will allow for a unit clarification
petition at PERC to recognize the accretion of the smaller number of police officers into the
larger unit of Sheriff’s officers and eliminate the Police Union as an additional bargaining agent,
will, as a practical matter, require the transfer of police officers into Sheriff’s officer titles.
Makeup promotional exams were utilized by Essex County to expedite consolidation once it
finally moved in that direction. However, the former police officers were not entitled to that
expedited treatment. However, once having taken and passed the examination, the successful
employee would be placed on the eligible list for promotion.

There is not a vested right in promotion for anyone on the eligible list. The only interest
resulting from placement on the list is consideration for appointment so long as the list remains
in force. (DOP Docket No. 2007-1525, supra; and cases there cited.) Therefore, any active
County Police eligible lists would be extinguished after consolidation has taken place.

           Social Security



1
    The inefficiencies are further exemplified by the existence of two CBAs and two labor unions representing the
     officers until effective consolidation of the forces is accomplished.
2
    As distinguished from a transfer under 4-7.1, a lateral title change under N.J.A.C. s. 4A:4-7.6 occurs within the
     same organizational unit, here, the BCSO since the police officers will be BCSO employees at this point in the
     reorganization and consolidation process.


                                                          4
County Police officers are currently exempted from the Social Security tax (FICA). It is likely
that the Social Security tax exemption would be lost upon the police officers being placed on the
Sheriff’s Office payroll because the same tax treatment ordinarily is required for all employees
of a given employer. This conclusion is subject to further confirmation by the Social Security
Administration.

OPTION 3

Legal Analysis

The Study Team has reviewed Option 3 with labor counsel and believes it may be legally
implemented by the county. This option would result in the abolishment of the County Police
and the transfer of its functions to the Sheriff’s Office. Although created under authority of the
Bergen County Administrative Code, the operation of the County Police is not mandated under
New Jersey State law. Accordingly, complete consolidation of the County Police within the
Sheriff’s Office can be achieved without limitation under New Jersey State law and may be
effected by amending local law. Conversely, it should be noted that there are limitations on the
feasibility of consolidating the functions of the Sheriff’s Office and Bergen County Prosecutor’s
Office within another stakeholder agency because both the Office of the Sheriff and the Office of
the Prosecutor are mandated by the New Jersey State Constitution (see N.J. Const., Art. VII, Sec.
II, Para. 2 and N.J. Const., Art. VII, Sec. II, Para. 1, respectively) and the duties of such offices
are otherwise prescribed under New Jersey State law.

       Seniority and Displacement Rights

Laid off police officers have “special reemployment rights,” pursuant to N.J.A.C. §4A:8-2.1(c),
which allows the laid off employee to be “certified for reappointment,” better known as a right to
recall on the basis of seniority, but only for “the same, lateral and lower related titles” in the
“layoff unit” based on the employee’s civil service job title at the time of the layoff. As stated
by the Merit System Board in the Essex County Sheriff’s Office decision, DOP Docket No.
2007-1525, the Sheriff’s officer and County Police officer titles “are not interchangeable.” The
County Police officers and Sheriff’s officers are considered occupations with different
responsibilities and qualifications; it is likely that laid off police officers will not be able to
exercise recall or reemployment rights to take Sheriff’s officer jobs. This conclusion is made
stronger by the fact that the “layoff unit” is usually defined as the county department in which
the layoff occurs. In the event of layoffs taking place while the County Police is independent of
the Sheriff, before any reorganization steps are taken, the laid off police officers should have no
reemployment rights in the Sheriff’s office. However, that may be less clear after the County
Police’s functions are moved into the Sheriff’s Office; then the determination may again turn to
the question of whether the police officers and Sheriff’s officers have comparable job positions,
as is discussed next, below.

In the course of layoffs among the police officers, the more senior officers will have the right to
exercise “displacement rights” against an employee in the layoff unit holding a title determined
to be the “same or comparable to the affected title of the employee.” Comparability means that
the titles have substantially similar duties and responsibilities and the same class code; have


                                                 5
similar education and experience requirements; have the same special skills requirements, if any
are required in either job; and the employee in the affected title can perform the duties of the
designated job with minimal training and orientation. In connection with a layoff occurring
within the Sheriff’s Office before the consolidation and reclassification, it is unclear whether
police officers could exercise “displacement rights” to bump less senior Sheriff’s officers.


        If the police officers are reclassified to be Sheriff’s officers, and retain their seniority as
in the Essex County experience, then the senior, ex-police officers would acquire “displacement
rights” with respect to more junior Sheriff’s officers.




                                                  6
     Appendix H
ESSEX COUNTY Sheriff’s
        Office
             IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY POLICE OFFICERS,
                   ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
(DOP DOCKET NO. 2007-1525, MERIT SYSTEM BOARD, DECIDED APRIL 11, 2007)


Excerpt:

In the Matter of County Police Officers, Essex County Sheriff’s Office
DOP Docket No. 2007-1525
(Merit System Board, decided April 11, 2007)
       The Managing Director, State and Local Government Operations (SLGO),
Department of Personnel (DOP), requests that the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.6 be
relaxed in order to effectuate the lateral title change, with retention of seniority, for
employees in the County Police Officer title series to the Sheriff’s Officer title series.

        By way of background, in 1990 the Criminal Justice Committee of the Essex
County Transition Team (Transition Committee) performed a study of the Essex
County Police Department. The results of the study found that the existing structure
“encourages duplication of work, stimulates excess overtime, condones unnecessary
specialization, and impedes the goals of good government.” The Transition Committee
also reported at length on the overlap of duties between the Office of the Sheriff and the
County Police Department. In pertinent part, it was noted that they were “duplicating
much of the work which ... should be done within the County Sheriff’s Department.”
The Transition Committee concluded that there should be a consolidation of operations
between the County Police and the Sheriff’s Department and that this consolidation
should be placed under the Sheriff. Subsequently, under its authority to authorize the
restructuring and transfer of governmental functions between county offices, divisions,
and agencies, the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders adopted an ordinance on
April 24, 1997 transferring the Division of Essex County Police, Essex Department of
Public Safety, to the jurisdiction and authority of the Sheriff, Essex County. This
resulted in the establishment of the Division of County Police as part of the
organizational structure of the Sheriff’s Department. Subsequently, in June 2006, the
Essex County Sheriff (Sheriff) promulgated an order to consolidate the functions of the
County Police with the Sheriff’s Office. In pertinent part, the Division of County Police
was to be restructured as a newly established Patrol Division within the Sheriff’s
Department that would perform similar duties as those performed by County Police
Officers. Specifically, the Sheriff indicated that the underlying purpose of the
consolidation was to provide the best and most effective service to the County at the
least cost to taxpayers and to ensure that no incumbent in the County Police Officer
title series would lose his or her job as a result of the consolidation. The Sheriff also
noted that this action was consistent with and in furtherance of State-wide efforts with
regard to consolidation of government services.


                                            1
       The former Division of Human Resource Management (now SLGO) worked
through a number of issues surrounding the proposed consolidation of the County
Police with the Sheriff’s Office. For example, a number of incumbents in the County
Police Officer title were on the promotional list for County Police Sergeant (PC2502G),
which has an expiration date of January 11, 2009. Thus, since these County Police
Officers were not able to compete in the last promotional examination for Sheriff’s
Officer Sergeant (PC2662F), closing December 21, 2004, they were provided an
opportunity to compete in a make-up examination for Sheriff’s Officer Sergeant in
January 2007. In this regard, it noted that eight County Police Officers competed in
that make-up examination. Similarly, the one County Police Officer Sergeant, who
would have been eligible for the promotional examination for Sheriff’s Officer
Lieutenant (PC2672G), closing November 21, 2005, was provided an opportunity to
compete in a make-up for that promotional examination in January 2007. The County
Police Officers who passed their respective make-up examinations were added to the
existing employment rosters in accordance with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.9(h).

       It is noted that the Essex County Sheriff’s Officers P.B.A. Local 183 (Local 183)
and Essex County Police P.B.A. Local 54 (Local 54) submitted letters to SLGO
expressing their opposition to the consolidation. In pertinent part, Local 183,
represented by Chris Tyminski, President, expressed its concern on the effect of the
consolidation on existing promotional and entry level employment lists. Local 54,
represented by Merick H. Limsky, Esq., expressed its concern over “civil service titles
[and] civil service examinations.” It is also noted that both bargaining units noted
concerns relative to their collective bargaining agreements. Additionally, the Essex
County Superior Sheriff’s Officers F.O.P. Local 138 (FOP), represented by David J.
DeFillippo, Esq., submitted a letter expressing its opposition to the merger, stating that
it would have an impact on the terms and condition of employment for all FOP
members as well as an impact on existing promotional lists and require Sheriff’s
Officers to perform duties outside of their job descriptions.

        In support of the instant request, the Managing Director, SLGO, presents that
the consolidation of the Essex County Police and the Essex County Sheriff’s Office will
eliminate the use of the County Police Officer titles series and change the County Police
Officer positions to the corresponding rank in the Sheriff’s Officer title series. The
Managing Director explains that the order implementing this consolidation indicated
that it was designed to achieve the most efficient and effective use of personnel,
facilities, and equipment. Moreover, the Essex County Sheriff’s Office indicated that
the consolidation is being implemented in order to avoid layoffs of permanent County
Police Officers. In this case, although the Sheriff’s Officer and County Police Officer
title series are in the same occupational group and some of their duties overlap, the
titles are not interchangeable. Therefore, based on the circumstances surrounding this
matter and in order to avoid any hardship to employees serving in the County Police
Officer title series, SLGO requests that the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-7.6 be relaxed in
order to effectuate lateral title changes, with retention of seniority, for those employees
in the County Police Officer title series to the corresponding rank in the Sheriff’s Officer
title series.

                                             2
       The parties involved in the matter were provided an opportunity to supplement
the record prior to the Board’s review of this matter. The FOP expressed its opposition
to the request, stating that it is without a legal basis and must be denied. Additionally,
it notes that prior to the fall of 2006, Essex County maintained its own Police
Department, which had its own chain of command, and, more importantly, its own
statutorily-defined responsibilities. Moreover, the FOP contends that a rule relaxation
is impermissible as the merger of the County Police into the Sheriff’s Office was done
unilaterally and without the consent of the FOP. It also argues that it is inconceivable
that officers who spent their entire career working in the County Police, performing
separate and distinct statutorily-defined duties, could now be rendered eligible to
receive a promotion within the Sheriff’s Office, instead of other individuals who spent
their entire career in the Sheriff’s Office. Further, the FOP states that it is inconsistent
to permit the former County Police Officers to retain whatever duties, benefits, and
other emoluments they had under the prior collective bargaining agreement, which are
not currently afforded to the FOP’s membership, while at the same time, provide them
with equal seniority. Thus, the FOP opposes the subject request.

       The Essex County Sheriff, represented by Brian W. Kronick, Esq., presents that
in the spring of 1991, Essex County, in lieu of abandoning the County Police
Department in its entirety, laid off and subsequently assigned or reassigned 88 of its
approximately 148 County Police Officers and Superior Officers represented by Local 54
without negotiating with that bargaining unit. Local 54 subsequently filed an unfair
labor practice charge with the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission
(PERC) and good faith layoff appeals with the Department of Personnel. With respect
to the unfair labor practice charge, in County of Essex, 18 NJPER 23124 (1992), the
PERC hearing examiner determined that Essex County did not violate the New Jersey
Employer-Employee Relations Act when it unilaterally reassigned or assigned 88 of its
Police Officers to the Essex County Sheriff without first negotiating with Local 54.1
Moreover, the Sheriff underscores that the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
adopted County Ordinance No. 0-97-0006 removing the County Police from the Essex
County Department of Public Safety and adding the County Police as a Division of the
Office of the Sheriff. As a result of this ordinance, the County Police were placed under
the exclusive authority and control of the Sheriff’s Office as a division thereof.
Subsequently, in April 2001, the Sheriff amended its general orders and established the
County Police as a functioning Bureau within the Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, under
the authority of the collective bargaining agreement with Local 54, it became the
practice to utilize both County Police and Sheriff’s Officers when police work became
available, to cover assignments, and to utilize cross-assignments. In this regard, the
Sheriff notes that his cross-utilization of employees, in both a supervisory and rank and
file capacity, was employed during emergencies and in pre-determined instances such
as holidays.

      The Sheriff also notes that the successor to the contract for 2002 through 2005
with Local 54 was voluntarily settled to include a term that provided for salary parity
between Sheriff’s Officers and County Police Officers, and discussed the contemplated
merger. Thereafter, in March 2006, the Sheriff issued an amended general order

                                             3
reorganizing the Essex County Sheriff’s Office due to the acquisition of additional
responsibilities of the County Police Division, the Office of Emergency Management,
Homeland Security, and the County Security Bureau. In order to achieve the most
efficient use of personnel, facilities and equipment, the County Police Division was
designated as a component of the Field Operations Operational Division. This resulted
in certain duties formerly performed by County Police being performed by Sheriff’s
Officers. Likewise, duties traditionally performed by Sheriff’s Officers were being
performed by County Police Officers. In June 2006, for the purpose of economy and
efficiency, the Sheriff directed the formal and complete merger of the County Police
with the Sheriff’s Office. This was to effect administrative, equipment, and personnel
advantages. Additionally, since October 2, 2006, all former County Police Officers have
been sworn in as Sheriff’s Officers and have worn Sheriff’s Officers’ uniforms, and all
former County Police vehicles have been modified to mirror Sheriff’s Officers’ vehicles.

        The Sheriff emphasizes that the decision to merge the County Police Officers and
Sheriff’s Officers is a non-negotiable, managerial prerogative to reorganize the way it
delivers governmental services. Further, with limited exceptions, decisions concerning
transfers and reassignments fall exclusively within the sphere of managerial
prerogatives. Thus, the Sheriff states that his decision to consolidate is in the realm of a
governmental policy determination and within his managerial prerogative to determine
policy. The Sheriff presents that this situation is analogous to circumstances that
occurred in Hudson County in the 1990’s when that County passed a resolution
effectively abolishing the Hudson County Police Department and the work of that
department was unilaterally transferred to the Hudson County Sheriff’s Department
and local police departments. Finally, the Sheriff maintains that N.J.S.A. 40:37-11.6,
which provides certain rights to displaced County Park Police Officers, is analogous to
the instant situation and thus, it is appropriate for County Police Officers to receive
lateral title changes to the corresponding Sheriff’s Officer title and retain permanent
status and seniority.

       In response, the FOP maintains that it has not been provided ample opportunity
to respond to all of the issues involved in this complex matter. Nevertheless, it
reiterates its position that the duties and responsibilities of the County Police Officers
have always been separate and distinct from those duties performed by members of the
Sheriff’s Department. The FOP also maintains that the merger of the County Police
into the Sheriff’s Office was done unilaterally without the consent or participation of
the FOP and that all former County Police Officers were permitted to take “make-up”
promotional examinations for titles within the Sheriff’s Office, over the objections of the
FOP. Finally, the FOP reiterates that it is inconsistent to permit the former County
Police Officers to retain whatever duties, benefits and other emoluments they had
under their prior collective bargaining agreement.

      In its response, Local 183, represented by Merick H. Limsky, Esq.,2 notes that
Essex County fails to mention that it has a pending unfair labor practice matter
pending before PERC that will directly impact the subject merger. As such, until such


                                             4
time as the underlying unfair practice charge has been resolved, Local 183 maintains
that the subject matter should not be forwarded for review.

        In response to the FOP and Local 183, the Sheriff presents that the FOP’s
concerns regarding the propriety of promotional opportunities for the newly appointed
Sheriff’s Officers are misplaced. In this regard, he notes that in accordance with State v.
State Supervisory Employees Ass’n., 78 N.J. 54, 90 (1978), promotional procedures
utilized by a public employer are non-negotiable. Regardless, the Sheriff underscores
that subsequent to the consolidation, FOP members, not former County Police Officers,
have been promoted. Thus, none of the FOP’s members have been adversely affected by
the administration of the make-up examinations. With respect to the FOP’s argument
that it is inconsistent and inequitable to permit former County Police Officers to retain
benefits under their prior collective bargaining agreement, the Sheriff maintains that
he has continued to abide by the negotiable terms and conditions of employment under
that collective…..




       1
          The Board acknowledged a settlement between the parties, with modifications, in In the
Matter of Police Officer and Superior Officers, Essex County (1991 Layoffs) (MSB, decided December
6, 1995).
       2
           It is noted that Mr. Limsky now represents Local 183.




                                                   5
      APPENDIX I
  IT BEST PRACTICES
     TECHNOLOGY
CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Utilizing a best practice information technology methodology, infrastructure/service capabilities
analysis and widely accepted business integration principles, the Study Team reviewed the IT
departments and capabilities at each agency using the following, generally accepted technology
capability model:

                          Best practice technology capability model




 




                                               1
ANALYSIS

Prosecutor’s Office

Based upon the generalized analysis of the Prosecutor’s IT organizational capabilities versus the
above technology capability model, the following results were derived:

                  Prosecutor’s Office Governance Structure / Capabilities




                        Prosecutor’s Office IT Solutions Management




                                                2
Prosecutor’s Office IT Infrastructure Management




Prosecutor’s Office IT Enterprise Service Assurance




                        3
SHERIFF’S OFFICE

 Based upon the generalized analysis of the Sheriff’s IT organizational capabilities versus the
above technology capability model, the following results were derived:

                     Sheriff’s Office Governance Structure / Capabilities




                          Sheriff’s Office IT Solutions Management




                                                4
Sheriff’s Office IT Infrastructure Management




Sheriff’s Office IT Enterprise Service Assurance




                       5
COUNTY POLICE

Based upon the generalized analysis of the County Police’s IT organizational capabilities versus
the above technology capability model, the following results were derived:

                     County Police Governance Structure / Capabilities




                           County Police IT Solutions Management




                                               6
County Police IT Infrastructure Management




County Police IT Enterprise Service Assurance




                     7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:11/5/2012
language:English
pages:192