Chief of Police and General Manager are two separate roles. They require different management experience. They should act as checks and balances. What if George W. Bush held two jobs: President and Supreme Court Justice?

My vote is "Maybe, if the right conditions are met" because I believe that if we define the dual position VERY VERY carefully, and are careful to hire for the correct personality (not just good qualifications/experience), then we'll do well with that role. But because the requirement is so finely tuned, I'm skeptical that the correct amount of job definition can be combined with a perfect candidate. More likeley, Kensington could get its needs met better by having a half-time City Manager and a 50-50 Chief/Patrol officer, as discussed.

As I have read the arguments presented in this forum, I have become increasingly convinced that it is probably time to separate the police chief's role from that of community administrator. I'm not sure what the best way is to do this, and I oppose increasing bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. However, I, as a 30+ Kensington resident, now realize that I have not felt well represented by the KCSD/Police Chief council over the years. I shall try to illustrate my position below. I will begin by noting that I tried to be considered for a KCSD opening once when I first arrived in Kensington so that I could be an active community participant. However, I, like several others whom I know who have attempted to do the same thing at various times, was summarily rebuffed as I was seen as not representing a "mainline" view in Kensington--whatever that may be.

Back to my illustration of problems with the present system....

1. Most recently (2006) when Stege Sanitary District began digging up our newly planted yard without consulting us and when I tried to get the KCSD to discuss procedures for customer notification when Stege chose to enter private property, the police chief/KCSD manager called me and told me it was inappropriate for me to bring my issue to the KCSD. I was not allowed to propose an agenda item.

2. Earlier I found that when I had a complaint to file against inappropriate police procedure against two officers including the chief (no current personnel involved), I did not have an independent forum for filing a complaint. The police chief shooed me away, defending the department's actions (which consultations with experts in constitutional law suggested were inappropriate and probably illegal). I did not have independent access to the KCSD to discuss the chief's behavior.

3. (Many years ago) I had difficulty receiving timely responses from Martinez to obtain inspections when remodeling and trying to correct dangerous road conditions. In both of these undertakings I was told that the problem was that I lived in Kensington, and we had no one to represent us with strength in Martinez.

I have thought about the separation of the roles of police chief and Kensington general manager for quite some time now, and until tonight, my position on this issue did not become clear to me. However, as I review my long history in Kensington, I realize that I would be delighted if Kensington had one elected official who did focus on Kensington's problems as it tries to sustain itself as an unincorporated, livable community and who helps represent Kensington to the county and its agencies. And I would like to see a police chief in place (perhaps halftime as administrator and halftime in the field) who focuses on appropriate police administration, training and oversight. Thus I cast my vote for the creation of two positions rather than continuing combining the roles of Kensington general manager and police chief.

I have already voted earlier (So please don't count my vote again.) Now I want to post a comment, and had to vote again to have my comment accepted by the computer.

First: I really appreciate Bill Wright's taking the trouble to raise this issue in this venue, and to summarize the pros and cons so cogently.

Second: My personal experience with having a non-police matter being dealt with in an offensive and inappropriate fashion by a past police Chief strongly influences me to prefer a separate City Manager.

Third: To me the solutions which Mr. Wright and Richard Mueller have proposed to address the added cost of having a separate City Manager seem to me quite cogent and plausible. Moreover, with all the talent and committment available in our energetic community, I believe it would be feasible to find a capable half-time City Manager at a modest salary -- or perhaps even pro bono-- from within our own community. And perhaps a half-time position would be quite adequate.

The two roles require very different skill sets, area of focus, and perspective. To find one person who can successfully fill both roles, as we have seen, is unlikely. Let's go with the better odds and create two separate positions. I believe the community is better served with this approach.

We live in a democracy, not a police state, therefore, the police chief should focus on the security and safety of the citizenry and a general manager should be elected to manage the town at large.

One person should serve as Chief of Police and General Manager. If Chief of Police is made a separate position, then I believe we will be taking the first step on the road to contracting for Kensington police services with El Cerrito or some other agency. I can easily envision some future KPPCSD board performing an analysis that "clearly demonstrates" the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing police services.

Kensington residents are aware that personnel issues have arisen in the district over the past year or so. But these issues appear to be related to staffing decisions, management practices within the police department, and board oversight. The combined chief/GM role is not part of the problem.

A local police force is vitally important to preserving the Kensington way of life and the KPPCSD board should not consider any decision that could threaten it.

My personal experience of Chief Garfield's effectiveness suggests that the duties currently required of a General Manager allow the Chief's attention to drift away from the management of police department and law enforcement issues. Like others who have responded, I would like to know more specifically what the General Manager is expected to do, and how these tasks will be prioritized and incorporated into the job of police chief. Ideally I believe that it would be best for Kensington if we could continue to have one person oversee all of these jobs, but not at the expense of law enforcement related issues.

So, my maybe vote is based upon a desire to continue with a General Manager/Police Chief as one position, but if it becomes clear that the nonlaw enforcement part of the job is too demanding then a change should be considered. Clearly the selection of a new KPD Chief is a very key to the success of this change.

The dual role of Police Chief and Manager, I believe, is highly suspect. The two roles should be separate for a number of reasons, the most important one from my standpoint, being the obvious conflict of interest that such an arrangement entails. The police chief is charged with investigating and preventing criminal actions: as manager, he or she may be placed in a situation where the conflict enables the individual possibly to carry out illegal activities under the color of law, or avoid detection by covering up his or her activities! A manager, on the other hand, should be charged with the overall supervision of a police chief including their hiring and firing. These clearly are opposed duties and should not reside in one person. Further, it's obvious that Kensington is a small jurisdiction, but the police chief should be a fulltime supervisor of police business and not have to devote time to administration of town affairs as well--it makes no sense! I suspect that problems we've had recently with our itinerant former police chief stem from this blurring of roles. I believe some of the friction was caused over the use of funds for some petty activity with which a police chief shouldn't have been fussing to begin with.
I believe the matter should be aired in public forum. Of course, splitting the roles into their respective areas would probably entail added expenses or certainly a restructuring of the Kensington organizations, perhaps allowing for a paid parttime administrator, but that may be the direction that current issues are inevitably leading us toward.
Armando Rendon
272 Purdue Avenue
Kensington, CA 94708

As a Kensington resident since 1962, I have seen much "water over the dam" -- even the transition from the early days of volunteer firefighters. Over the years, I have been opposed to Kensington incorporation or of its annexation to El Cerrito because we have been successful in focusing Kensington efforts on things that matter without the need for expensive local politicians or structures like a "town hall." Newcomers may not realize the legacy of Kensingtonians who built the Community Meeting Hall (then called the "Youth Hut") or who locally raised the money and acquired the property for the Kensington Library. To improve interactions with Martinez, our community formed the KMAC, and I served as a member from its inception, and later as its 2nd chair. KMAC is the sort of local government by citizens that fits well the size and nature of Kensington. By far my most satisfying service has been in campaigning to acquire the property and support for the Kensington Park. In these capacities, I have seen how important it is to have someone local to be "in contact" with the government structure and agencies that affect us. For example, knowledgable residents were able to secure funding for the original tennis-court construction and later for needed refurbishing of the courts. More recently, money was secured by attentive volunteers on the KCSD that was instrumental in a major park improvement. These experiences convince me that Kensington would be very well served by someone putting full time into the management function of the community if the job also included establishing relationships that could benefit this community. The salary such a "manager" might be paid could very well be offset by the transfer into the community of government money that is available (e.g. from state or county bond issues), but only to those communities that make timely, well-considered applications for its use. The KCSD would have the obligation to monitor carefully this manager and should clearly define the role she or he would play.

I voted yes for a number of reasons.

1. This pole is skewed by being limited to people who are computer literate and readers of the West County Times! I couldn't find it in the December Outlook.

2. Includes people living with in 50 miles of Kensington!!! Why should this concern them?

3. Where as a police chief may not be best suited for managing the district, no mention has been made of how a separte position would be paid. Higher taxes may not phase newer residents, but many long time residents worked in years of much lower salaries and bought their homes at a small fraction of todays prices.

Kensington is too small for 2 high level executives. Need great police chief with good managment skills and good budget support staff.

Without all the facts, it is difficult to make informed decisions. Those people who have studied the current situation have stated that the current approach is good for Kensington. I assume they have good facts to come to this conclusion.

Based on the few facts I know, I currently agree with this opinion. My observation is that our crime is low and that the various activities that are required of a city manager are few. I would think that our recently elected board would take on responsibility for many "city manager" functions rather than act as just a supervisor to the police chief.

The cost of a new "city Manager" position would need to be cost justified for the savings it would bring to the community. The past expenditures regarding our recent police chief we have incurred I believe are unusual and not a potential future savings if we have a new city manager.

In order to have a more complete dicussion on this topic, it would be helpful to describe in more detail what functions we would envision the city manager to own and how the community would be different.

An indicator of good governance these days is to make sure the top jobs are one job, not multiple ones. This provides for proper checks and balances. The Chief of Police and the General Manager are separate jobs/roles and should be different people. Just like the CEO and Chairman of the Board of companies are separate jobs/roles and should be different people.

A separate general manager could lead to improvement in many services: road condition, bus lines, park, etc.

Before I cast a vote one way or another, I'd like to know what specific duties would fall under a "general manager." I am very concerned about creating a new administrative position in a town of our size, without taking great care to outline the role and responsibilities. Even a part-time administrator would require oversight, as well as creating new salary and benefits costs. If the roles of police chief and general manager require significantly different competencies, have we considered hiring two different people, EACH part-time? At this point I have more questions than answers ;)

The Kensington community does not have enough high level business to hire a General Manager; cost and compatibility of officials may become important factors.
In addition, it is my opinion that the KCSD board did not provide sufficient oversight of the Chief. It is NOT micromanaging to ask for the Board's (its) mail! I shudder to think of two "geniuses" filtering the information received by the Board.
The Board must insist on protocals that allow a proper oversight of the incoming Chief and if necessary its employees.

I have no expertise on these issues, but it strikes me that a law enforcement officer is not typically trained for (and perhaps by likely personal disposition is not necessarily interested in) "town manger" responsibilities. I therefore expect that adding those responsibilities to the job will make it harder to fill the job vacancy and that the town manager responsibilities will often take a back seat. My concern with hiring two people is related almost entirely to the potential additional expense. If the net result of having two separate positions is that any additional expense is fairly modest (i.e., can be covered within the range of our normal budgeting), then in my view the benefit outweighs the cost.

If the job is split between 2 people, those 2 people must be able to work smoothly together. I wouldn't want power struggles developing.

Also, how would money/benefits be allocated to get qualified people for both positions? Right now we are only paying for one position. I wouldn't want to end up with 2 unqualified people because we weren't offering a competitive salary for either position. If you work in Kensington, you at least want to be able to afford to live in or around Kensington so you don't come to resent the population that you serve.

I don't know enough about the 2 roles to know if it involves too much for one person to do effectively in a typical work week. I would be interested in having the current job description posted on line for citizen review so that I could get a better sense of what the current job entails and what salary/benefits are offered.

Thank you for putting this out to the citizenry. I have enjoyed participating.

I think the reasons have been well stated by those who already voted no.