Roll call appearance

We received a visit a couple of weeks ago from "a certain Deputy Superintendent." After the thorough lashing we took from Channel 5 News in November, in which this DS was interviewed & told the public that it's basically our fault for delays in police service, he visited our roll calls and apologized to us. Second City Cop has called out this blog and Let's Talk ChiTown 911 for answers about what the DS said in the roll calls.

We'll need help from our readers, because frankly, we don't recall most of it offhand. We were still appalled by the whole thing, and felt that the visits to roll calls were a matter of backpedalling. We're aware that the media cuts interviews and shows only the parts that are the most controversial in a lot of issues (bastards). But they surely didn't edit what could be seen and heard coming out of his mouth at the same time. And in the last part of the interview shown, it was mentioned that there are "other resources available," if only "dispatchers and supervisors would use them."

We do recall, however, that when the DS appeared in roll calls, blame was placed on the Patrol Division (not in the media, only behind closed doors, but that's a different story). And particularly on supervisors in the field.

We took it as a matter of catering to whomever was being talked to at a particular time, but we digress.

The DS asked us to report to him when units are:

Held down on station assignments out of roll call
Given lunch during a backlog per a sergeant
Held down on details and unavailable for radio assignment (this includes tac/gang)
Logging off of their PDTs before 15 minutes after the hour
Given disregards on assignments per sergeants in order to be on time for checkoff
Doing an assortment of other things that we don't recall

Our supervisors have been holding us to this. The DS actually calls and asks for verification that the Patrol Division is complying with it. Everything we mentioned that keeps us from dispatching jobs, including the station assignments and the details, etc...was responded to with [loosely] "Get approval from a field sergeant." We have been told to get sergeants' names and star numbers (if you notice on the radio, we have to ask for that even for backlog notification). We have also been told that, when a sergeant approves these things, we have to put the unit down on, say, "Lunch in 026 per 2610." We then are to notify our Watch Managers and print copies of these events, with names and stars included, for forwarding to the DS.

And we do recall a comment from the DS that we should put the responsibility on the sergeants, because "that's what they get paid to do."

For the first time in the history of the OEC/OEMC, we were asked by a sworn member to give suggestions on what changes to the dispatch policies (the General Order on "Communications" from which most of our SOPs are derived) need to be made. We have been asked to submit ideas about what works and what doesn't work, and [our opinion] what doesn't work anymore (did it ever?) due to changes over time, and factors such as, oh, the fact that annual call volume is at least 4 times what it was when OEC opened 11 years ago?

The DS is still calling on a daily basis, even to find out that each district faxed all of its lineups (tac/gang and marked units). And we understand that he is personally calling watch commanders to address issues.

We've said a mouthful (handful?), but we said it to say "Don't kill the messenger." Like it or not (we know people form habits and are averse to change, including ourselves). But for all of the comments and such on the radio, or the smart ass remarks like "You need to look at the clock before you dispatch this job to me"?

Tell it to your DS and our supervisors/watch managers. We're only doing what we're told to do. We don't have it in for you.

Okay, a small handful of the 230+ dispatchers do, but those truly are few.

Most of us aren't trying to shit on the cops in the field, and we're not adding to the "Us vs. Them" mentality by choice.