The city council discussed the proposed FY2024 budget during our formal city council meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 2023. Here are my comments in support of shifting some money from the proposed status-quo police budget into other ways to enhance community safety. If you want to watch the whole budget discussion, it’s here. Transcript of this section is below.

My comments:

I wasn't expecting a 40-minute rundown in all the horrific things that could happen if we shift less than 10 percent of the police budget to ways of providing community safety other than policing.

So I do want to address some of the items that were that were raised in our city manager's presentation as well as talk through really where I'm coming from with this proposal. I do think it's important to think about why now and why this and how we could achieve what Geoff himself said we're aligned on wanting to achieve.

So, starting off with why now: we heard in the budget presentation that the budget process really never ends; it goes all year round and what's different about this year is the fact that we adopted a really fantastic strategic plan that I think we're all very excited about. That didn't occur until December 6th of 2022.

And two weeks later, on the 21st of December, was when the budget document we're considering tonight was released to the public and released to us. So that was really the first opportunity that we had to see the budget that was crafted under our prior strategic plan — which there's of course a lot of similarities and alignments from that prior plan — but that was really our first opportunity to say “How does this proposal for fiscal year 24 align with what we've now sort  of codified in this new strategic plan?” 

And just a couple of weeks after we received that more than 700-page document, we had our first opportunity to discuss it as a team so among ourselves. On that Saturday we had that first budget presentation from staff we didn't receive any public input at any of the work sessions. Tonight is the first time that we've had a public hearing on this budget. And so that is kind of the why now.

Starting back in January, I first raised the premise of a shift in the funding.

I want to be really clear about what this proposal is and, kind of, what it isn’t. 

Just to step back for a minute, because a number of speakers tonight have said, “you know we're not looking for a decrease, just a non- increase.” 

So where did I get the $1.6 million and what does that represent?

The proposed increase from Fiscal Year ’23 to Fiscal Year ’24 was $955,336. 

At the time we were considering that proposed increase for the first time in at our January 7th work session — and I think you all know I've been working with Geoff and Dustin prior to that as well — we had six patrol positions open. And you may recall we discussed the six patrol positions being open at the time in January at that presentation, and so I asked Geoff to provide me with the value of those six open positions because at the time that we were considering this there's this increase of almost a million dollars and then there's this unused money which, as he mentioned, the police department hasn't been using all of its budget primarily due to unfilled positions since so much of the budget is in personnel. And he provided me with that number just on Monday of last week — and I'm not trying to say that he delayed in getting that to me, I'm just saying that's that's the time in which I received that information — which ranged from about $580,000 to, I think, $820,000 because it depends on who would have filled those positions and what step um in our pay scale they would come in at. 

So, the $955,336 proposed increase and the money that was sitting there in that approved 2023 budget that hadn't been used for those positions is how I got to the $1.6 million. That's sort of at the lower end of what would be the proposed increase plus those six positions so I just want to be really, really clear about that number, OK, because it is less than the approved FY 2023 budget because it takes into account the funds that were sitting unused.

I think you know the facts and the statistics that Geoff provided are important to think about in the context of where we are now and what all of this could mean, and I just want to be really clear that you know I hope you all had an opportunity to look at the information I had provided back in February, and have talked with each of you about, because my numbers aren't wrong. 

Geoff took a very different time scale, and so when we're talking about what departments have increased, for example, in comparison to the police department, I took a 10-year view. I'm saying what has the city been investing in over that period of time, so from Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year proposed 2024. 

So you heard, for example, someone say the police department budget has increased 40 percent in that time. That is correct. Yes, there have been smaller increases more recently, and we haven't filled positions recently. 

You've heard our police chief say that we have a really hard time recruiting now. I was speaking with a former Iowa City police officer a couple of weeks ago who said that when he joined the force, probably 15 or 16 years ago, he was in an applicant pool of 400. And now we have applicant pools of a couple of dozen, and we've started trying to hire year round because we just can't fill those positions when we're hiring in the ways that we have in the past.

So when we look at what this investment is, and what the scope and scale of it is, just be thinking about the fact that the argument you heard tonight from our city manager and what you've heard from our police chief is for the status quo — the status quo that we know is getting harder and harder to maintain because we're having a harder and harder time finding people to do these jobs; and the status quo that says it's okay to have officers spending 18,500 hours of overtime, which is incredibly expensive to our bottom line and harmful to those employees, let alone how someone is presenting to the public when they're overworked in that way — that the solution to that is just fill the positions.

More of the same. That's what I heard tonight.

And that's just so disappointing, because that is not in line with our visions. That is not in line with the changes that have to happen in order for us to think systemically, to think holistically, to be a resilient community who can address the challenges of this moment, as we're going to have continuing climate crises. 

Geoff talked about how police are often the first to respond after a natural disaster. That's true because they're the people who we have. They're the people who are on call 24/7. And every time an officer interacts with the public — regardless of their intentions, regardless of the situation — they bring a firearm, they bring legal immunity. So that if something goes wrong, and they harm someone, there can be almost zero accountability.

And they bring the legal authority to seize people and property and — in this moment, particularly in this state — the idea of enhancing as public servants the arm of our government that can do those things should be terrifying. 

That should not be what we are investing in right now.

And I think we can talk about what are the opportunities for making sure that some of those functions that Geoff said would go away will be filled.

And we know from the statistics that we have, based on what Geoff has provided, 10 percent of calls for service resolve as requiring an officer. 10 percent of calls officers respond to many many more calls than than require a police officer because they are the people who are in those roles. And we've seen in just the last few years how we have other options, like mobile crisis response. 

And in the last couple of months, I've had some amazing opportunities to meet with the people who are leading those programs and to understand that they want to be First Responders. They want to be more proactive. They want to be more present.

And we heard from organizations who provide care to some of the most vulnerable people in our community just recently about the youth mental health crisis, and we know that CommUnity Crisis Services mobile crisis response to our schools has increased dramatically. They need more resources. We want those professionals responding to those kinds of calls. We want people who don't bring everything that a police officer might mean to someone who has had a harmful interaction in the past or has just watched what has gone on in our country in the last few years.  

We want response that is tailored to the need.

And I absolutely appreciate Geoff's indication that we can and should emphasize prevention, and we know that the proposal that's in front of us is not doing that. 

The proposal that is in front of us for the police department is the status quo. 

It is saying the calls for service that we have for police need to be met by police, and they're overworked right now so we need to be able to staff up completely so that we can respond to those calls for service in the ways that we have. 

We need to do something different, and we have those opportunities — we have those tools — directly in front of us.

What can we do with $1.6 million? 

I want to really emphasize that if we at the point where staffing is 100 percent, these are union employees. They're paid very well — all public servants should be paid very well. All public servants should have good pensions. But these particular employees cost more than many others and and once they are in those positions, we're pretty locked in. And if we invest at the same time — what Geoff was suggesting — if we are finding other revenue sources and, somehow, in this worst budget situation that we've seen in a very, very long time with decreasing revenue and starting out in the hole — if somehow we invest still in prevention and police at the same level that it is now, and calls for service go down, we still have the officers. We still have that investment, and they still will continue to be in those roles.

I'm not in favor of firing people, and I don't think any of you are either. I appreciate what our city manager is saying, that he thinks this proposal would result in all of the things that he listed. But I think the key is we just have to invest in those alternative ways and at this moment we have those opportunities in front of us. 

It's really about taking the chance to craft a future that we want to live in together, that is not based in fear, but is based in hope and community and strengthening our neighborhoods and finding and modeling ways as public servants — which armed officers unfortunately often cannot do because of their uniform, because of their firearm — to model ways for us to show up and care for each other.

I think a status quo budget will mean status quo policing.

We've heard from the community, not just tonight but over the last several years, and the result of planning — not just our own strategic plan but the Better Together 2030 plan, the inclusive economic development plan, EICOG Envision East Central Iowa plan — all of these plans came from processes with a lot of public input and a lot of people responding to “wow, we're dealing with a lot of crap, and we really need to figure out what we're going to prioritize now.” 

All of those plans point to solving problems and preventing harm in creative ways that are about collaboration.

If we just continue to turn towards punishment, I don't see how we find that path to the future that we've committed to in those documents.

I appreciate you all giving me time. I have many other points from what our city manager said, and I just have a couple of other things I want to highlight at the beginning of this discussion. 

Geoff said that with the expenditures going up — inflation, labor, fuel, insurance — and being in revenue trouble, that was the biggest red flag.

So we know that our resources are limited. And we have to prioritize the limited resources that we have.

And when Geoff gave a very compelling list of all the things that we've invested in, I tried to total them up while he was going. But since 2020, I don't think we hit even one year of the police department budget. I don't think we even hit $17.3 million with the things that he mentioned.

I just say that if we agree on the end goal or the vision, what we're talking about is is the proportionality of investment. What do we want to prioritize? How much are we willing to really put towards the kinds of solutions that we think are going to solve these problems. 

And it breaks my heart that it has to be this kind of adversarial thing, because I think what it shows is an unwillingness to consider that those services that are provided can be provided in other ways in the vast majority of the time. And we have an opportunity to be creative. 

We have an opportunity to work with our partners who are already doing this work. We have an opportunity to respond to what we're hearing tonight, as well as really what we committed to in terms of unarmed professionals responding to need in our community. And I think we need to do that at scale.

I also just wanted to point out that, as Geoff said, we have a lower number of sworn officers per capita than many cities. We also have a much lower crime rate than most cities, and I think that really raises an interesting question as to what are we trying to achieve, then, if we just continue on the status quo path and increase the police budget. Because I don't think that the data shows, as other people have said tonight, that increasing police force leads to a reduction in crime. If we had that data, you would have heard it from our city manager.

You also heard Geoff talk about the need for innovation in the police department. And I just would really, really challenge you to think about what that could look like. 

The thing that makes police police are those three things that I mention: having a gun — being a sworn officer which in Iowa, we cannot tell them not to carry a gun, that's something we can't do — having that legal immunity if something goes wrong ,so there's a lack of accountability and having the authority to take you into custody or seize your property in a lot of situations, and also having an obligation to enforce laws. Even if we up here don't agree with them. 

You remember that other amendment recently to the state code that said we cannot impose non-enforcement as a policy of any particular law. And so the more officers we have whose job it is to enforce, yes, they can also exercise discretion but that is puts our residents in a terrible situation when they're faced with someone who just has to make a personal choice in that moment as to whether or not they're going to carry out enforcement of a law that we believe is wrong.

I think one of our commenters said it best: what really is at issue here is is the philosophy. That we can choose a better ethic of community. That we can have a philosophy that's really oriented around empowering neighborhoods, empowering people, modeling care for each other in ways that we know other communities are doing.

This is not like some imaginary fairy tale. This is investing in the kinds of things that we see in the South District. The kinds of things that we've talked about with the community outreach and our Communications Department and it's not something radical and crazy.

It really is about living out the values that we've set forth in the strategic plan.

I guess the other thing I just really wanted to make clear, and I hope you all know me enough to know that I trust our city manager. I am a big proponent of staff I know that they are the experts.

I trust our police chief. And what they are providing to you and what they are recommending to you, is what's in line with the status quo, and what I would expect them to provide.

If we want to shift that — if we want to fundamentally consider a change to orient around harm prevention and care instead of punishment — that has to come from us.

That can only come from us. That is a policy decision that I would never expect to come from staff, and that's why this is a very unusual, very uncomfortable moment where we are in opposition on this idea. 

Because I don't want the status quo, and I hope that you all don't either.