Chief Tim Vasquez Fires Back at CLEAT Over San Angelo Police Management Survey

Tim Vasquez released response to the survey published by the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas (CLEAT) during early voting for the May 7 election. Vasquez, the incumbent, is facing Lt. Frank Carter in a July 2 runoff election. Early voting begins June 20.

“I feel that this survey impacted election results dramatically. I sincerely appreciate that our community cares about our officers. However, there are details to the survey that I don’t feel the public had time to become aware of before the election. I’d like to help people discover some of the other things the survey says," Vasquez stated with the release, printed below.

Dear Citizen,

I wanted to share my reactions to the “CLEAT Survey” that was released during early voting. With the future of the department being decided, I think there are important points that need to be addressed and things you need to know. I still maintain my objection to how and when it was done, and I have serious doubts as to the true number of respondents. Nonetheless, I believe that your concern for the officers in the department may have allowed this survey to affect your vote. I actually appreciate that you are concerned for the department, so I feel I owe it to you to address your concerns and offer some observations.

Who is CLEAT?

The Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas. As Chief, when an officer has a serious disciplinary problem, my job is to consider public safety and the good of the department over that individual officers’ best interest. That officer is likely to belong to a labor union. The union’s job is to fight for that officer alone. CLEAT is such a union.

CLEAT also works in the annual “meet and confer” salary negotiation process. Their role there is to help get their members as much pay as possible, regardless of the economic situation or the burden on the taxpayers.

This is not intended to demean CLEAT. This is their job. However, it is to point out that their goals and ambitions are not in alignment with you, the public. They are a labor union, and in this instance some of the rank and file officers are their members and are “labor,” and you as a taxpayer and voter are management.

Prior to being Chief, I was president of their local affiliate, San Angelo Coalition of Police, and they named me Officer of the Year for this region immediately after my election. However, over the intervening years CLEAT and I have not seen eye to eye. In over 40 incidents I have had to implement disciplinary actions against CLEAT members as decided by our internal peer review board, or if the officer in question preferred, as decided by myself.

My opponent, Lieutenant Frank Carter, after not being a member for the first two decades of his career, suddenly joined CLEAT just before they announced their endorsement of him. In the second week of early voting, the state CLEAT association created, conducted and released results from an online survey. The results were sent directly to media, and not to me. It is worth noting that the president of their local affiliate SACOP resigned between the survey being conducted and prior to its release. SACOP has a standing policy of staying out of Chief elections.

To the main issues:

The Survey Did Not Include All Officers

CLEAT selected who they wanted to include and omit. For example, while my opponents themselves, and many of their pledged supporters were allowed to participate, neither I nor any of our command staff were. Since the entirety of the SAPD was not invited to participate, this is a non-probability sampling, so the results are non-scientific from the start. Additionally, those that were invited had an affiliation to the authors of the survey. The authors of the survey have a clear interest in achieving a particular result. Having sought the opinions of outside statistics experts from academia, their opinion on the validity of the survey was that it was pre-biased beyond usefulness, and they added additional commentary about the way the questions themselves were constructed with particular responses in mind. These concerns formed my initial overall response to the survey.

Low Morale?

The survey does not actually ask if morale is low. The survey asks if you agree that morale is high. (#7). It’s true that very few agreed, but the conflicts that take hold in our department during each election cycle guarantee morale won’t be “high.” But is it low? Low morale and strife within the department is often presented during elections as a productivity and/or a retention issue.

However, 84% of respondents said they enjoy their current assignment (#10). 64% say they are content to spend their entire career in the SAPD (#16). 67% responded that they are satisfied with their choice of a career in the SAPD (#75). Most importantly, to me, 88% responded that they feel supported by the citizens of San Angelo (#17). That is great compared to how it was 12 years ago and compared to much of the country. So while many respondents did not agree morale was high, in looking over all their responses, they do report a general sense of contentment, and morale is apparently high enough that they intend to stay with the department. So, this survey actually offers two different perspectives on morale in the SAPD.

Officer Input Encouraged?

88% of respondents said they don’t feel I “encourage input from line level employees” (#30). 77% disagreed that we “encourage them to express new ideas” (#58). 82% disagreed that my administration “values input and suggestions” (#59). And 90% said they disagreed that there was “good communication between admin and rank and file officers” (#60). However, we have a monthly Chief’s Advisory meeting that I initiated after I was first elected. Its entire purpose is for line level officers to make suggestions, give me feedback and offer new ideas. Over the past couple of years, very minor suggestions and/or requests have been made through the Chief’s Advisory board. Every request is taken seriously, and if it has merit or is valid, it is implemented. We have purchased new equipment such as less lethal shotguns, allowed uniform shorts and summer attire. Other times, we can’t justify or afford the extra expense or the “request” is unrealistic, e.g. metal body armor plates and carriers (at an additional cost of $600 per officer) or a popcorn machine for the briefing room.

Beyond that, the Assistant Chiefs and I maintain an open door policy. Any officer knows they can meet with myself or an assistant essentially any time they wish. I do value the officers, and the results of this survey do not paint a complete picture of communication within the SAPD.

Effective Management?

96% of respondents say they don’t feel patrol is adequately staffed (#13). However, on average, for more than 40% of a patrol division’s time they are not committed to a particular call. This is exactly where national standards recommend they be. This counter-indicates short staffing in patrol. Now, I would like to have more officers on patrol as well, but in determining how to allot the manpower we have, we have set the number based on results and stats. 64.4% surveyed also disagree that special services is adequately staffed. (#15) I agree that the department as a whole is understaffed. We have the same number of officers now, with over 100,000 in population that we did when we were just over 80,000, and this population increase was not a surprise.

This is why I have been before council each of the past five budget years asking for more officers. However, the money simply wasn’t there. In question 31, 73% disagree that we have made staffing decisions “in the best interests of the citizens and police services”, however, while certain crimes have risen somewhat in the short term, they have not risen equivalent to the population increase, and we still fare far better than our neighboring cities. So the staffing ratios are in fact working for the public good. 77% disagree that I am “a good manager of employees”. However, the documented increase in productivity, our improved retention rate and our success despite being short staffed would show otherwise. 57% disagreed that my administration “encourages pro-active self initiation”. However, under my administration self-initiation is our primary focus and has increased 122.54%, from 17,663 self-initiated calls in 2003 to 39,308 in 2015.

Officer Complaints?

I know the officers in the SAPD. I don’t believe that the negative picture this survey paints of them is any more complete or accurate than what it says about me. In the survey results, 79% feel their pay is “unfair and uncompetitive” (#11). 45% disagree that “The City of San Angelo promotes treating all employees fairly and equitably” (#18). However, over the past 10 years, through “Meet and Confer” our pay has been brought much closer in line with our competitive cities. Between 2004 and 2008 an officer’s base salary increased 23.9%; between 2008 and 2015 the base salary increased 41.7%; thus, from 2004 to 2015 the total increase is 65.6%.

It goes on to say that 50% disagree that “officers receive transfer to specialized divisions based on qualifications and experience, not relationships with supervisors” (#65). However, the process used to fill specialized vacancies is set by CoSA human resources. It MUST consist of personnel from the division seeking to fill an opening along with a couple of randomly selected officers. Supervisors DO NOT choose who they want for an open position. Each position is filled by the majority vote of the interviewing group of officers.

Finally, in question 67, 76% disagree that discipline is handled fairly. However, one of my first acts as chief was establishing the peer review board. So, when a discipline problem arises, the officer chooses whether I or his peers decide on the disciplinary measures. Often they choose to have me review it because it is widely known I handle things more leniently than the peer review board does. Either way, I know of no policy in any department that goes further to insure fair treatment in disciplinary procedures. As stated, I don’t want you to think this reflects accurately the daily demeanor of the majority of the officers of the SAPD. If it did, I wouldn’t fight so hard to remain with them.

Fear Of Retaliation?

88% of respondents disagreed with the statement “I have no fear of retaliation”. However, Lieutenant Mike Hernandez campaigned vigorously against me in my first election. Later, I personally helped him study for his Sergeant and Lieutenants exams. I sponsored his “Walk to Emmaus”, and I selected him for the FBI academy.

Lieutenant Ed Kading ran against me for Chief in 2008. I have since promoted him into a Command Staff position and transferred him into administration to help him gain leadership experience in pursuit of his desire to be a Police Chief some day. I have even written letters of reference for him. The list goes on. I am not vindictive. I understand that the unusual circumstance of having elected chiefs has always created these situations and always will. So, best as I am able, I try to forget the personal attacks and statements made in the heat of campaigns and move on with the progress of the department every day. And while I may never feel the same on a personal level about some of my past opponents, I have not ever nor will I ever take any action to retaliate.

In closing, I encourage you to look through the survey results for yourself. I also hope you will then spend some time learning the differences in myself and my opponent and our relative qualifications to lead the department going forward. ** Subsequently, despite the endorsement, his participation in the survey, and possibly benefiting from its “results,” Lieutenant Carter has claimed he had nothing to do with the survey and has somewhat distanced himself publicly from CLEAT. (Perhaps because in the survey 73% of respondents say they don’t want to work 12 hour shifts as Lieutenant Carter has proposed?).

Thank you,

Tim Vasquez,
Chief of Police,
San Angelo Chief of Police

--

Correction: Vasquez emailed us with a correction: "A typographical error has been discovered and corrected.  In the “Officer Complaints” section, the statement about pay raise incorrectly showed 75.6% when it is actually 65.6%.  The sentence should read:  "Between 2004 and 2008 an officer’s base salary increased 23.9%; between 2008 and 2015 the base salary increased 41.7%; thus, from 2004 to 2015 the total increase is 65.6%.” Vasquez's letter has been updated to reflect this.