Customize your website

City changes way police get paid for off-duty work

Published on April 15th, 2009
Published on June 14th, 2010
Dave Stewart
Topics :
Police Service , Charlottetown Police Department , Verheul and Associates , Charlottetown

The City of Charlottetown is changing the way its police officers are paid for providing late-night security to a number of downtown businesses.
Coun. Rob Lantz, chair of the city's police committee, told the media Tuesday night the city is in the process of drafting a policy that regulates extra duty work
Right now, many officers on the force can be seen standing outside nightclubs in full uniform providing security during their off-duty hours. Presently, those officers are paid by the establishment where they are providing that security.

The business will now enter into a contract with the Police Service for each request. Upon completion the business will be invoiced for the cost of the officers extra duty, and the officers will be paid through the regular payroll system.

Instead of paying officers directly in cash, the Police Service is invoicing the clients and retrieving the money through accounts receivable. This ensures that all income received through extra duty is taxable income. It will not cost taxpayers anything additional to pay for extra duty.

Following council's regular public monthly meeting Tuesday night, Lantz said the change makes things more transparent.

"There's liability issues, there's issues of the appearance of police being paid by third parties, issues of whether that income is documented all the time,'' said Lantz. "It's just to provide some more transparencies and control on the whole process.''
The matter of off-duty security work is one of a number of issues the City of Charlottetown is reviewing as part of the report made public in February on the Charlottetown Police Department.
The city commissioned a full review of the department last September in an effort to deal with growing demands for more police services. A request for proposals was issued and the firm of Verheul and Associates conducted the review. It produced a detailed 29-page report.
The consultant didn't question the right to alternate employment but noted that the department needs to draft a policy to protect taxpayers from conflict of interest, having public servants employed by private business.
Lantz didn't know exactly how much the new policy will cost city taxpayers but did say off-duty pay would be the same as the current overtime rate, more than they currently make on duty.
"It is a stipulated rate now. It's the overtime rate of corporal, I believe.''
A draft policy is in place now. The police committee chair wants his fellow councillors to have a close look at it to see what they think.
"It's comprehensive, it really defines exactly what we expect of our officers when they are performing these types of duties. It lays out the process for payment, how a client provisions these types of services from (the) police service.''
Lantz expects the policy to take effect in another month.
Lantz said the city is also nearing a decision on where it will establish a downtown satellite police station and making the force more visible to the public in terms of communicating with the media. It means the public will hear from more than one officer all the time. The currently position of media spokesman will be discontinued soon.

Comments

  • Username
    Honky Tonk
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:36:21

    For heavens sake folks...READ the article. Payment flows through the City...the City bills the establishment. It's pretty straight forward.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Hmmmmm
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:27:41

    Does anyone else find it unusual that off duty police officers are allowed to be wearing their police uniforms while being security guards....not actually policing. I find that very wrong. When i see an officer in uniform I assume that he is an ON duty officer; Not a security guard in a police officer's uniform. If these officers want to bounce and do security off duty I think the establishments should be providing them with a uniform CLEARLY marked security....not in city police uniform.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Tom
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:23:48

    they don't want to read the article. If they read the article there would be nothing to complain about.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    RG
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:22:29

    If the city's going to start paying for them working after hours, They'd better start protecting the city and not just those establishments.

    Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for bouncers. I have no problem with more officers working at night, but if the city's paying, then they should be patroling the whole city.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Councillor Rob
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:21:52

    This story is incorrect. The City is NOT paying for Extra Duty. There was obviously a big misunderstanding when I spoke to the reporter. I've offered a clarification andn asked for a correction.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Retired
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:20:52

    With the increased wages being shown paid by the city on the officer's T-4, perhaps a check into the collective bargaining agreement should be done. In some of the country's larger cities an officer's pension amount is determined by TOTAL income - not the officer's salary- from his last few years. In some cities it can be as little as the last two years of service. If an officer in those cities is planning on retiring the next couple of years they work all the extra duty shift they can on their days off at time and a half - the hockey games, doormen at special events, at liquor stores, etc. A constable's pension can be increased dramatically to be more than that of a shift sgt or even the chief. A check of the retirement funding clause with the Ch/town City police should be done as the increase shown on the T-4's COULD mean a bigger pension - something that is paid for by ALL the citizen's - not just the bar owners.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    city
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:19:06

    I say let the licqour commision pay these wages as they are the one profiting from the sale of the product that is the reason (drunkiness in public and fighting) after the clubs are out. We as city tax payers shouldn't have help the owners of the bars to pay for the prescence of the police for their protection !!!!

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    please stop
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:18:09

    Hank, is welcome to the gentle Island the only phrase you can come up with. If you are trying for irony it was good for the first couple of posts, but after a dozen or more welcome to the gentle Island wears a bit thin. What say we start a contest to see if we can come up with a new phrase for Hank.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    I L
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:17:07

    Cash pay is illegal.

    Hypocrites.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    mra
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:16:54

    this is a policy all over no. americe. the people hire the police though the city, the ciiy assignes the officer(s) asked for, and bills the people. it insure's that the officer is paid, and the taxes are paid. it DID NOT say the city was picking up the tab.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Citysupporter
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:16:06

    I really am tired of all the people who post these crazy comments on here. I wish people would actually look into an issue and understand it before they would comment on it.
    Police Officers working for Private businesses outside of their regular police duties is actually a normal occuance accross the country. I actually think it is a great idea. Unfotunately, it is at the point where all these drunken fools who go out and cause problems are getting out of control. Private security and doormen are very limited in what the law actually allows them to do, especially outside of an establishment on public property. Police officers are needed in uniform to get the little bit of extra respect and to be able to enforce laws. Not that they recieve much of that anymore - which is really sad. If they were in security uniforms or shirts, they would be respected as much as a bouncer is, and we all know how much that is, which is also sad. If anything, the Uniformed Police office outside of velvet Underground prevents much more than we all realize. Just being able to radio in for assistance makes a big difference. Im actually impressed that the city and Charlottetown Police Service realizes this and is offering this service on a official level now. This is not costing the tax payers anything at all, it will actually probably save tax payers in the long run. So in the future before some people freak out and write down crazy comments, why dont you stop and think things through. I want to thank the Police Service and City of Charlottetown for their proactive stance on this issue.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Cuirous Georgia
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:14:05

    In or out of uniform, who cares as long as their doing the job they're hired to do. They would certainly have more clout that security guards or bouncers. And, as for the Me from PEI comment re: don't go beating up some innocent person and cuffing them just because they got a little drunk and mouthy. What exactly is a little drunk and mouthy? I'm sure the police officers get sick of being called to disturbance as a result of the Little Drunk and Mouthy mentalities and not necessarily only those at the clubs.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    another city resident
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:11:27

    Even better, let the patrons pay for security with a surcharge on admission $10 a head sound fair?

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Retired
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:08:35

    cCearly shows where the monies come from - the business to the police department who pays the officer. Only concern as a tax payer is this amount would be lumped into the officer's t-4 at year end. Reason for the concern is some police forces use the officer's highest years of earnings for pensions.( some forces as little as the last two)... therefore if an officer wants to work everyday off at time and a half to increase their total income for the year, they get a bigger pension which is paid for BY ALL THE CITIZENS... not just the bar owners. This method of pension increase is quite common in larger city forces and a constable can receive a larger pension than a sgt. or even a chief. A check of the collective bargaining agreement by the city police commission should clarify this.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Sue
    - June 21st, 2010 at 20:08:09

    We've all read the same article here. Where does it say the 'citizens' are paying them? That's NOT what this is. A 'Hire-on' list is common with all police agencies. The request comes from an establishment to have a police presence. THAT establishment then pays the fees/salary to have the officer(s) there in uniform. The establishment pays the police force who then in turns holds the prepayment until the job is completed. The money is then deposited into the general salary account and is then paid to the officer on their next payroll. This is good accounting as it clearly shows just how much the businesses are accessing extra police resources WITHOUT the citizens being on the hook for the bill. I would think the citizens of Charlottetown would welcome such accountability.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    wake up
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:58:10

    If you morons read the article you would see that it clearly states the officers would be paid by the establishments thru invoice.lol.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Hank
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:57:20

    So the city will now be paying for the security at Velvet Underground (Breakers). Funny how the off duty officers are nowhere to be seen after last call when everyone has been over served. Instead of 'baby sitting' why doesn't the city crack down on these places (for over serving)? Welcome to the Gentle Island where officers are paid to be doormen and you get tickets for drive thru coffee.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    jackie
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:54:27

    cant the bars find their own thugs ?? guess not. there must be a uniformed thug shortage in town.see what happens when they get out of their cars.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Confused On Priorities
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:53:39

    I would assume that this simply means that the officers will be paid by the city and the city will be billing the establishment for the services...unlikely that the city will do this for the establishment for free. This is the way things are done in many locales.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Len
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:49:23

    I'm kind of siding with Hmmmmm on this one . Off duty Cops got no business moonlighting in Cops uniforms . Does a bouncer have the authority to arrest a drunken patron who stupidly attempts to enter a vehicle and leave a Bar ? Likely not . Does a Cop who moonlights as a bouncer have the authority to do the same ? Probably , or he can grab his phone and call one of his Buds on regular Patrol , give them all the details and , Voila , another impaired charge on the books . You can't keep feeding people booze and not be somehow responsible for their actions when they leave the Bars . If people get nailed for imbibing too much after leaving a Bar where uniformed Cops are on duty , they would be wise to fight the charge . It's like a setup , and if Cops are underpaid , let them Bounce all they want . Just leave the Uniforms at home .

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    john
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:47:57

    I`m wondering off duty police wearing their uniforms and driving police vehicles while providing security for the bars . Well I hope my taxes will not go up paying for this service to the bars.
    Police chief should put an end to this the police needs to pay more attention to the city to get things right first waste of our tax dollars good going Mayor

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    KL
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:47:51

    Cripes people. READ the article before you comment.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Me
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:39:09

    I agree with Hmmmmm about the police being in full uniform with doing OFF DUTY security work. Since they are still in uniform, does this mean they are still carrying a gun? Drunk people can be idiots and if they wanted to, they could gang up on a Security guard/police officer and take his gun and really hurt someone.

    I think SECURITY GUARDS should be hired to do these jobs since that is in their title, at least they know the difference between the two occupation and don't go beating up some innocent person and cuffing them just because that person got a little drunk and mouthy.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    RG
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:38:23

    I find it funny how people complain saying we didn't read the article.

    Did YOU read the comments? Councillor Lantz posted himself that the article was incorrect and had to be fixed.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    is this the misprint ?
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:37:28

    Lantz didnt know exactly how much the new policy will cost city taxpayers but did say off-duty pay would be the same as the current overtime rate, more than they currently make on duty.
    It is a stipulated rate now. Its the overtime rate of corporal, I believe.
    -----
    well what does this tell you then if they say it isnt going to cost the tax payers anything?

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    vick
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:36:17

    Uniforms are needed as is the gun! Unfortunately these PUNKS need some fear and if our city uniforms are going to help control these punks then put more of them out front of these bars with the bill going to the BAR for patroling their BAR!
    Good job with following through on the reports recommendations!

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Confused On Priorities
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:35:46

    some of the later comments came after the story was edited and corrected...the earlier version didnt mention the city invoicing the business...hence the confusion.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Councillor Rob
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:35:36

    There's a bit of confusion here because some people commented before the story was corrected this morning, so people are commenting on two different stories.
    It originally indicated that taxpayers would, in effect, be paying for security for private business. Just a misunderstanding and I'm grateful to reporter for making a quick correction when I pointed out the error.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Overtaxed
    - June 21st, 2010 at 19:35:30

    Why would it cost the taxpayer a dime? Wouldn't the downtown businesses have to pay the full cost? Better yet you could just tell the police not to wear the uniforms when they are not working for the city.

    Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Email to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.

The Guardian is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Enter the following code

Please copy the text above in this box.