Redeployment is HORRIBLE

After over a year of planning, hiring the expert, changing plans 15 times, talking about it and talking about it, redeployment is a horrible failure. After all the hype this is the crap we have ended up with?

Calls holding pages is now full all day, no one can keep up with them self, not to mention your zone partner and squad partners. Before the redeployment, I drove about 50 miles less a day and I'm not the only one. Now multiply this by 450 patrol units. Bottom line, everyone is working harder and driving farther. This implementation is by far thee hugest failure I have ever seen at this agency, and I have been here long enough to see several successes and failures.

Col Brown, I know this was your baby. I'm begging you to realize that this has created a disaster. Please don't be stubborn and stay with a failed plan. Go back to the drawing board and start over.

My advice is this. The model we chose to closely follow was the Richmond VA Police Department and LAPD deployment model. This model consist of sectors with a certain amount of sectors in each district. Each sector is manned by three patrol units each. Somehow, in our grand wisdom, we chose to place two units in each sector and still call it a zone. So now the radio is jammed packed with call signs that are too long, supervisors putting early cars in late car designations and late cars in early designations. After an all day absolute circus, at around 1700, there are so many calls holdings and X37's are dispatching early cars because they are logged on as late cars and not dispatching late cars because they are logged on as early cars. Add this on top of all the chaos that this deployment system has created, and it absolutely sucks balls.

Col Brown, we are going to need to totally commit to either three units in a sector and reduce the sectors (which is what LAPD and Richmond PD are doing successfully) or go back to our old zone organization. Col Brown I hope that you monitor gas usage after a month on the new deployment, the average response time, and the frequency of patrol vehicles having to be serviced for an oil change. I guarantee that all three of these categories will have increased, defeating what we set out to accomplish. Col I was at your meeting several months ago at Golden Corral and Sir, this is not what you wanted.

Please Please do not do what always happens in government work, and that's leave something in place that doesn't work just to justify the amount of time and money spent on the plan.

As a concerned citizen what exactly are the new district boundaries?

Perhaps some consideration should be given as to whether or not another agency to your liking is hiring currently.

[Cruel Truth]

Perhaps some consideration should be given as to whether or not another agency to your liking is hiring currently.

Your comment is inappropriate.

Unlike many posts seen here authored by whiners and complainers, the original post on this thread was written by someone who gave reasoned arguments for his position, provided concrete examples of why he considered the present plan defective and engaged in no name calling. He was completely respectful toward the policy maker who introduced the plan. He simply was asking for reconsideration of the policy decision based upon the information he was providing.

To make a comment like yours, which is the equivalent of "shut up or leave," shows that you did not comprehend the content of the original post.

Instead of such sarcastic messages you could respond to this: Do you like the new deployment, and if so - why?

:?:

Perhaps some consideration should be given as to whether or not another agency to your liking is hiring currently.

Your comment is inappropriate.

Unlike many posts seen here authored by whiners and complainers, the original post on this thread was written by someone who gave reasoned arguments for his position, provided concrete examples of why he considered the present plan defective and engaged in no name calling. He was completely respectful toward the policy maker who introduced the plan. He simply was asking for reconsideration of the policy decision based upon the information he was providing.

To make a comment like yours, which is the equivalent of "shut up or leave," shows that you did not comprehend the content of the original post.

Instead of such sarcastic messages you could respond to this: Do you like the new deployment, and if so - why?

:?:

OR:
Instead of attacking me, you could have asked the original commentator if he has ADD since the deployment has only been in effect for nine days.

The laugher is that TPD had to ask us to take calls for them last night in the city since they were tied up with a kidnapping. Haaa, we cant take care of our own.

The laugher is that TPD had to ask us to take calls for them last night in the city since they were tied up with a kidnapping. Haaa, we cant take care of our own.

yea, where did you take that call at? I call BS

I have to agree that so far everybody appears slammed all day and night long with the new deployment. This may have worked at other departments, but I bet they did not operate with such few Leo's on the street like HCSO is doing. Deputies are driving all over the county to back each other up and the response times so far are unsafe to say the least. Sure, you can stack calls, but how long can that last before many deputies get burned out.................NOT LONG! Not a whiner, just speaking from what has been said and witnessed so far. There is also little doubt that D1 & D2 got the shaft on this new deployment. Not surprising, since D2 has continually been dropped in the grease year after year with calls for service and as usual, neither district got any additional manpower to offset the call volume. Maybe a couple more specialty transfers to ILP, STAR and SCU is the answer................. :? :roll:

Alpha unit had to go into the springs for a sig 27 you bee boo.

[Cruel Truth]

Perhaps some consideration should be given as to whether or not another agency to your liking is hiring currently.

Your comment is inappropriate.

Unlike many posts seen here authored by whiners and complainers, the original post on this thread was written by someone who gave reasoned arguments for his position, provided concrete examples of why he considered the present plan defective and engaged in no name calling. He was completely respectful toward the policy maker who introduced the plan. He simply was asking for reconsideration of the policy decision based upon the information he was providing.

To make a comment like yours, which is the equivalent of "shut up or leave," shows that you did not comprehend the content of the original post.

Instead of such sarcastic messages you could respond to this: Do you like the new deployment, and if so - why?

:?:

OR:
Instead of attacking me, you could have asked the original commentator if he has ADD since the deployment has only been in effect for nine days.

You were not attacked. You were told your sarcastic comment was inappropriate and you were given specific reasons why it was inappropriate. Read it again.

You also failed to respond to the question: Do you like the new deployment, and if so - why?

:?: