Abbildungen der Seite

Mr. Fazio. As I remember, our concern was not questioning the value of the K-9 dogs. We said we couldn't get enough of them on board and trained to the point where they would be useful to have to do it in a supplemental. We said we would do it in the 1993 bill, but everybody said, Oh, no, no, we have to have it. I just want to say, I appreciate the fact that nobody felt constrained to spend money after you had it to justify the request that you made.

So I don't want to be too critical. At least we did what was appropriate. In retrospect, we had more money to do it with than we needed. But the other factor is the Persian Gulf affair didn't last very long, and if it had gone on throughout the rest of the year, maybe these expenditures would have been incurred. So we shouldn't be too quick to be Monday-morning quarterbacks about this decision.

Chief LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman, we would not have been able to do the job as we did if it were not for your generosity of providing us those animals. They worked day and night.

Mr. Fazio. And they have a lot of utility even today, and in a less terroristic threat environment.

Chief LANGLEY. Yes. We are using them.
Mr. Fazio. Good. I have a question to submit for the record.
[Question and response follows:]


Question. For the record, insert a table which compares the amounts orginally requested by item, the amount appropriated, the amount actually expended. Explain any deviation between appropriation and expense.

[blocks in formation]

The differences between the appropriation and the amount expended can be attributed to the reprogramming of the supplemental funds that were approved by the House and Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations to purchase Capital Assets (Bus and Storage Trailer).


Mr. Fazio. Let's talk about pay compression a little bit. Last year we provided funds for pay compression so that a number of steps within each salary grade would be compatible with what we were told were typical police officers' career patterns in surrounding jurisdictions, as well as other Federal police agencies.

How have you gone ahead to implement the pay compression effort, and would you explain how it works? Perhaps, if it is not too early, you could give us some idea of what you think this may be doing to maintain our recruits on the force. We have trained individuals at our expense, however, we have been far too frequently losing them to other police agencies.

Chief LANGLEY. We went from the 26 years, 16-step pay scale, Mr. Chairman, to a 17-year, 14-step pay scale pay compression. The average increase is hard to pinpoint. I can give you some brief fig.


From the first through the sixth year was less than $500 per person. Seven through 10 years of service, approximately, $1500. Eleven through 21 years of service, which is the biggest jump, is $2000. And 22 to 26 years' service less than a thousand, with the beginning and ending level staying the same.

We had $1.7 million that was appropriated for pay compression and our calculations indicate that we will probably spend about $1.5 million. We won't really know until the end of the year.

Mr. Fazio. Could you give us some feel for what this would mean for a private, sergeant, lieutenant, as you work your way up the ranks?

Chief LANGLEY. Well, personally, I have been here 23 years, Mr. Chairman, and I was still not at the top of the scale.

When you are young and you are raising a family, I think it is important for the young officer to have the opportunity to max out on his pay during the early years. The initial request, I think, was based on consensus and a study that we had done for 14 years. The final decision was 17 years. But it is important to them, the children being raised and they are wrestling with bills and budget, to have that money coming in at an earlier time.

Mr. Russ. There was a difference in time. The Senate had a different time, we had a different time, but 17 was a compromise, based on making your high grade in 17 years and then they give you three years at that, and then you can retire.

Mr. Fazio. I have a new pay schedule here. This is the updated one effective January 1 of 1992. This doesn't mean that as you have indicated, the total is higher, so there obviously are increases in compensation for people along the way. Is it concentrated in the lower ranks? Is that where it is most likely to be felt?

I mean, those were the people we were losing most frequently, as I understood it. When we were told that we had invested in a lot of good people who went off to some other jurisdiction, it was because the individuals who were younger members of the force, such as people in the private, technician, detective, sergeant rank, who were the ones who were most likely to be lost.

What I am really interested in determining is does the money go

made a career commitment to stay with us, given their increased responsibility and status?

Chief LANGLEY. We were losing them in greater numbers, I believe, Mr. Chairman, about the third or fourth year. But this data would indicate that from one through six years, it is only a $500 increase. But I think I should point out that if at the third or fourth year, you are projecting your career, looking at your career from an economic perspective, that if you realize that you are not going to top out until mid to high 20s in terms of longevity, and that there is not much light at the end of the tunnel. However, if you look at the 14, 15, 17th year, you see some big change there that might be an inducement to stay.

Mr. Fazio. In other words, the increases were in the out years, but were supposed to induce the younger members to stay with it, because they would then see the increases when they got there?

Chief LANGLEY. Yes, sir.


Mr. Fazio. Do you think that is really going to work? Are people looking down the road 20 years to decide whether they are going to go out to Montgomery County or over to Fairfax County?

Mr. Russ. Mr. Chairman, in 1990 we had an 8 percent attrition rate, and in 1991 we were just a little over 4 percent.

Mr. Fazio. Well, that might have something to do with the ability of those local jurisdictions to meet their budget requirements, I am sure. An awful lot of them didn't hire or replace people.

Mr. Russ. I think a lot of police officers are also looking at what the State of Maryland did, just a blanket layoff.

Mr. Fazio. Sure. If you are lowest, freeze. It may not be a good year to judge is what I am saying, given the recession and it's effect on local government.

Mr. Russ. But I do think we are competitive now.

Mr. Fazio. I want to be competitive. I want to feel we are competitive in the ranks where this leakage has taken place.

Mr. Russ. If you looked at the charts, I would think we would be right in the middle, if I am not mistaken, in pay and benefits, and that is about where we want to be.

Mr. Fazio. At every level, at every rank?
Mr. Russ. At every level, across the board.

COMPENSATORY TIME Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, as you were expressing here, I have been concerned about the lower-level personnel in terms of income, and moving through the schedule, and I had presumed that maybe comp time might play a role or overtime to a lot of those people in numbers. But as you look at it, there is a pretty significant piece of that comp time that ends up going out to lower level, the sergeant or below, but instead ends up going to upper-level personnel.

Are you concerned about that? Have you got any thoughts about it? Have we reviewed that question?

Chief LANGLEY. Yes, we have, Congressman. In July when the board was kind enough to appoint me, collectively they directed

organization. So in early August I did just that. And historically, during the 1970s and 1980s, we didn't have a good, solid policy or grip on comp time. I think we are getting close to turning that around.

Presently, I don't receive comp time under any circumstance, and haven't for six months. The Assistant Chief doesn't either. The Deputy Chiefs, those bureau commanders, only receive comp time on my authorization. In my absence, the Assistant Chief's authorization for working on their day off or for a Joint Session or for some special event, demonstration or activity that requires them to come in and work their day off. But normal continuation of duty, which would be beyond the eight-and-a-half-hour day, they do not receive comp time.

Lieutenants, captains and inspectors are granted that authority to do that for continuation of duty, but it is just that. It has to be authorized by the bureau commander. And every hour is certified and approved prior to its being worked.

I had an initial meeting with the command staff and laid out my policy, told them how I wanted this to operate. And we have been monitoring it weekly. And it has improved greatly. I am comfortable with the fact that if we continue, continue to have this much success, that comp time is not going to be a problem.

In addition, we have a descending ceiling balance policy. I know that sounds a little convoluted. But if you have an enormous balance, you either give it up, or you use 208 hours a year until you get it down to a maximum of 240, which is our ceiling for carryover from one year to the next. And several, including myself, turned back quite a few hundred hours this year, because we just didn't use it. We currently have five persons, five executive level officers who have high balances. Three are scheduled for retirement this year, leaving two. And with this program in place, those balances are coming down.

Mr. Fazio. Well, this is an improvement. This is a policy change based on the language that was adopted last year.

Mr. Russ. That is right.

Mr. Fazio. My understanding was that we did have people, inspectors, captains, top level people who were working seven-and-ahalf hours a day, and then anything beyond that was comp time. I think that for people at that level of compensation, with that level of responsibility, that it is a rather inappropriate way of compensating them.

People in this institution work routinely long hours, well beyond the traditional work week. And I just don't think that we ought to treat our personnel in the police agencies any differently than we do all the other people with comparable responsibility and salary. So you are assuring me that we are no longer doing that.

Chief LANGLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. The Chairman is elaborating very much on my point. This place is not an eight-hour-a-day place, and our top-level people routinely work overtime. To have a system in place that almost calls for people to exercise the process of accumulating time whatever way they can is not a healthy circumstance.

I would like to have our staff help us review carefully the policy

« ZurückWeiter »