I say no

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?

I say no

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 say no

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.

I say no

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.

I say no

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

I say no

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 say no

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.

I say no

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

I say no

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

I say no

It seems logical that during this period for the selection of a new police chief for our community, we take a good look at the past/present/future of not only the selection process, which is full swing, but at the following: How/when/why was the dual role of police chief/director started? My question naturally follows, is it still a viable position today and in the future? This is the perfect time to reflect on the past and have us predict for the future.

My guess is that concerned citizens were more important for the maintenance of the Community Park and other aspects of "the other job" than was the coordinator of both jobs.

I realize the constraints of a budget but... money may not be as important as the issue. Why? Finding money to carry through with this year's problems hasn't been that difficult - our former chief continues to be on paid leave, the lawyers and search team are getting reasonable revenues.
Let's look at the whole picture.

I say no

Thank you, Bill, for electronically reaching out to your constituents. I appreciated the background piece you wrote. After reading it, I voted "no" to the question. There is, most likely, a current KPD officer who is qualified to serve as Chief. The KCSD board can focus on the qualifications for a town manager who will look after the park, monitor the cost and quality of the refuse collection and perhaps investigate other sources of funding that can be tapped to help complete the park development and fund its ongoing maintenance.

I say no

I think it is important that the individual hired as the police chief be solidly qualified to serve as police chief. The skills necessary for that are not necessarily consistent with the skills necessary to manage other town functions. To get someone who can do both well has proved to be difficult and will narrow the number of qualified candidates for what is the more important function of running the police department. Under the current structure, the police department has suffered probably to some extent because the chief has had to direct some of his attention elsewhere. That said, the other functions have been under-managed to an even greater degree.

Lastly, all voters should note that a "yes" vote means you want to retain the status quo of having one person handle both roles. A "no" vote means a vote for change.

I say no

I see this idea as an exciting, progressive, and very "do-able" way for Kensington to keep what it has long valued--a focus on high-quality public safety services--while, at the same time, adding new value to our community.

As a past-President of the KCSD, I can tell you that I would have found it very helpful during my tenure to have had District staffperson able to support Kensington and the Board with specific skills and experiences related to negotiating refuse collection services contracts, identifying sources of possible resources for park development, and managing public communications on a wide range of issues, among other things.

I say no

I say no

I say no

I say no

I say no

I say no

I say no