The City Council either has to accept or not accept the Freesmeyer Patrol Staffing Analysis.

Not accepting Freesmeyer’s Patrol Staffing Analysis will require some backbone because a large majority of the Citizens of Spokane have been led to believe that SPD is understaffed, whether they actually are or not is a big question that needs answered but certainly can’t be based upon Freesmeyer’s Analysis.

The first question the City Council should have for Mayor Condon, Craig Meidl, and Justin Lundgren is where did you come up with this Freesmeyer fellow especially in light of the fact that COPS/DOJ recommended a staffing analysis of SPD and did not limit the staffing analysis recommendation to just the Patrol Division?

Did Craig Meidl, Justin Lundgren, or someone else attend one of Mr. Freesmeyer’s training secessions and decide he would be great for SPD? 😊





Since COPS/DOJ got the ball rolling why haven’t Mayor Condon, Craig Meidl, and Justin Lundgren not bothered to evaluate some of their extensive research library?

COPS DOJ Staffing




So, just how long is this $38,000.00 Etico Solutions contract going to extend?

“A final report from Tim Freesmeyer, a researcher and consultant who has performed similar studies of staffing needs at law enforcement agencies in Bellevue, Snohomish County and elsewhere throughout the country, is expected sometime within the next 30 days, Coddington said, and Condon would have further thoughts then.”


https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/4db3b099-59a5-4ee6-8ce8-1772f5a5bc15 (Contract)

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/f8bf921b-f454-4b62-a2a2-152d22d7b48e (Extension)


Another question the City Council should be asking is why Freesmeyer pushes “Pitman Staffing” every time he does one of these? We know the Cops love it and certainly a Consultant’s recommendation to use it helps during union contract negotiations.


  • No employee works more than 3 consecutive days
  • 3 day weekends, every other week
  • If an employee takes 2 vacation days on one of the 2-day work weeks, they get 7 days’ off
  • Work days = approx. 15 days a month, 182 days a year (not including time off, personal, etc.)
  • If switching between night and day shift on 4-week rotation, you have a 3-day break prior to the switch… more time off
  • Kelly time accumulation to use later – approx. 104 hours a year


Okakland Interest Arbitration Freesmeyer


The City Council has to ask themselves as well as Condon, Meidl, and Lundgren whether or not we are getting our $38,000.00 worth from Mr. Freesmeyer, or is it the Guild that is it the Guild that might be reaping the benefits?

Remember when I mentioned “boilerplate” in a previous story? It is pretty easy to figure out when you review all the previous work and see the same things over and over. But even a novice at this kind of stuff would have caught it right away without having to review Freesmeyer’s previous work.





When you use the same PowerPoint presentation over and over again sooner or later someone is going to catch you and it is always a good idea to clear the properties on your PP Presentations, and you should check your PPP to make sure that there isn’t any evidence it is just a “boilerplate”.

Spokane PowerPoint Presentation (Ooops BPD instead of SPD):




Bothell PowerPoint Presentation:

Bothel BPD image



It is all the same stuff, same justifications, same “stuff” (for lack of a better term) everywhere Mr. Freesmeyer, you are going to have to change it up for the next one.

PP Presentation to the Bothell City Council:


For the folks that were present at the “Special Meeting” of the Spokane City Council… You might enjoy this!



Yes Mr. Freesmeyer was a Cop for 10 years, on a small department, in the small City of Normal Illinois, but left ostensibly to pursue this type of business. There are lots of folks out there that do this type of stuff… some good… some not so good.


As I’ve stated time and time again SPD needs another complete staffing analysis for the entire Department not just the Patrol Division. The problem is that it may be too late to accomplish prior to the finalization of the 2018 Budget, and great consideration has to be given to the ongoing Police Guild negotiations which very well could result in a big salary increase for the Unions.



THE HEADLINE READS, Consultant: “Spokane needs 44 more police officers on patrol”

I have a different view than reporter Kip Hill has of what transpired during the Special City Council Meeting Monday June 26th, 2017 at 10:30 AM, and I’m glad I was tipped that the meeting was going to take place so that I could show up.





The “Consultant”, didn’t say SPD needs 44 more police officers on patrol. What he actually said was that in order to reach “his” theory that 30 minutes per hour of a police officer’s time should be spent reacting to Calls for Service (CFS), and the remaining 30 minutes should be involved in proactive policing, to reach his 30/30 theory would require 44 more officers. Tim Freesmeyer the hired Consultant cleared up where his 30/30 per hour theory came from in response to a direct question posed to him by Council President Stuckart. The follow-up was, is his 30/30 theory something other departments use and his answer was yes, however no one asked which departments those were.

One of the other follow-up questions regarding Mr. Freesmeyer’s 30/30 theory should have been;

“So, what you are saying is that 50% of each hour a police officer spends on shift they should be doing proactive police work, which means that during the 10-hour shift SPD now uses, 50% or 5 hours of that shift should be doing proactive police work is that correct?”

The follow-up to that question would of course be;

“How does a 50% proactive shift target stack up with industry standards?”


Well, the truth is that there aren’t any “industry standards”, and it just depends on who is doing the staffing analysis. Decades ago, yes when I had to do this stuff, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) came up with the 20/20/20 ratio or one third of the shift devoted to proactive time which they still use today when doing Staffing Analysis.

20 minutes of each hour to be allocated to calls for service

20 minutes of each hour to be allocated for administrative duties

20 minutes of each hour is free for proactive patrol response

What is interesting regarding IACP’s long standing formula is that according to Mr. Freesmeyer’s analysis SPD is over the 20 minutes of each hour using IACP standards by 2.06 minutes.

Freesmeyer 22.06


Some folks will remember this story I did.




Etico (Tim Freesmeyer) was chosen to do the Patrol Division Only Staffing Analysis of SPD ahead of other Consultants. There is a story behind his choice, but SPD has spent enough time and money on “Leak Investigations” involving me so I will forego the background at this point. By the way according to sources the “Great McMurtrey Leak Investigation” is supposed to be completed this week with a finding of “Administratively Suspended”.

Just to give you an idea of how other Consultants who responded to the “Minor Contract” Patrol Staffing Analysis would have said and what they would have recommended differently from Mr. Freesmeyer, I’ll document for you.


The Matrix Group who previously did an analysis of the entire SPD would have said this:



  • While pro-activity needs depend on the community served by the department,

between 50% and 60% of the actual time worked in the field by patrol units

should be used to handle community-generated workload. The remaining 40-

50% of time should be used to conduct proactive patrol and community policing



“Proactive time” is defined as all other activity not in response to a citizen

generated call; it occurs during the shift when Officers are not handling

calls and have completed other necessary tasks; it includes items such as

traffic enforcement, directed patrol, bike and foot patrol. It is also

sometimes referred to as “uncommitted” time but that is somewhat of a

misnomer as it only means “not committed to handling community

generated calls for service”.

  • The Bureau should have clearly defined uses for “proactive time” – i.e.

Officers should know what they are expected to do with their time when

not responding to calls for service. This may include targeted preventive

patrol for general visibility, traffic enforcement, developing relationships

with members of the community, visiting schools or parks.

  • The proactive element of field patrol should make up between 30% and

50% of an Officer’s day (on average).

  • Research and experience has shown the 30-50% range to be reasonable

“proactive time” levels:

– Less than 30-35% “proactive time” available to Officers typically does not

allow for sufficient “bundling” of available time – time comes in intervals

too short to be effectively utilized by law enforcement personnel for

meaningful activity.

– “Proactive time” of more than 50% results in less efficient use of Officer

resources as it is difficult to have sufficient meaningful work tasks and

manage personnel whose time is so heavily weighted toward proactive


– Some exceptions to this latter concern are units which are dedicated to

handle certain types of activity, (e.g., traffic enforcement units, School

Resource Officers, etc.) However, it should be noted that the Officers

assigned to these units should respond to any call for service when


– A level of 50% “proactive time” or higher is typically seen in smaller

suburban or rural communities; a level of 35-40% is more common in

larger cities.

*** For those interested here is the earlier (2007) study of the entire City done by the Matrix Group see link below:




CPSM who use the “Rule of 60” would have said this:




In general, a “Rule of 60” can be applied to evaluate patrol staffing. The Rule of 60 has two parts. The first part maintains that 60 percent of the sworn officers in a department should be dedicated to the patrol function, and the second part maintains that no more than 60 percent of patrol time should be “saturated” by workload demands from the community.

The second part of the Rule of 60 examines workload and discretionary time and suggests that no more than 60 percent of time should be committed to calls for service. In other words, ICMA suggests that no more than 60 percent of available patrol officer time be spent responding to the service demands of the community. The remaining 40 percent of the time is the discretionary time for officers to be available to address community problems and be available for serious emergencies. This Rule of 60 for patrol deployment does not mean the remaining 40 percent of time is downtime or break time. It is simply a reflection of the point at which patrol officer time is saturated by CFS.

This ratio of dedicated time compared to discretionary time is referred to as the saturation index (SI). It is ICMA’s contention that patrol staffing is optimally deployed when the SI is slightly less than 60 percent. An SI greater than 60 percent indicates that the patrol manpower is largely reactive, and overburdened with CFS and workload demands. An SI of somewhat less than 60 percent indicates that patrol manpower is optimally staffed. SI levels much lower than 60 percent, however, indicate patrol resources that are underutilized and signal an opportunity for a reduction in patrol resources or reallocation of police personnel.

Departments must be cautious in interpreting the SI too narrowly. For example, one should not conclude that SI can never exceed 60 percent at any time during the day, or that in any given hour no more than 60 percent of any officer’s time be committed to CFS. The SI at 60 percent is intended to be a benchmark to evaluate service demands on patrol staffing. If SI levels are near or exceed 60 percent for substantial periods of a given shift, or at isolated and specific times during the day, decisions should be made to reallocate or realign personnel to reduce the SI to levels below 60. Lastly, this is not a hard-and-fast rule, but a benchmark to be used in evaluating staffing decisions.


IACP gets the contract and you see things like this:



Uncommitted time is the time left over after officers complete the work associated with

both obligated/committed time and administrative time.

A general principle for distribution of time for patrol is 30% across the board for

administrative, operational, and uncommitted time with a 10% flex factor. Ideally,

particularly for service-driven organizations, the remaining 10% becomes uncommitted

time, allowing officers more time for proactive community engagement. For a

jurisdiction the size of Alexandria, and with its stated focus on exceptional service and

community policing, no less than 40% uncommitted patrol time is ideal.

IACP Chart


The Police Foundation it is hard to tell what the Police Foundation would have said if they got the job instead of ETICO. They aren’t really into the Staffing Analysis business, but when they do get a job they usually either sub-contract or have their own staff do whatever the RFP entails. They do respond to a lot of RFPs, you have to keep that money coming in to pay that PF Staff.


The separate Police Foundation collaborative reform report of St. Louis County police anticipated more than 140 days of consultant work, spread among at least a half dozen consultants, at a rate of $550 a day. The estimates on consultants’ pay, travel costs, and that of Police Foundation officials over multiple trips to St. Louis, along with other costs, such as phones and space rental, came to more than $780,000, according to the documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.”




As I have mentioned time and time again Law Enforcement data presentations are for the most part intended to Baffle those that are being presented the data to accomplish a particular agenda. I am not trying to Baffle anyone in this story and I’m only presenting the FACTS.

Taking into consideration what I have documented above, and believe me there is plenty more documentation, and to make things simple as well as correct some misstatements made during Freesmeyer’s presentation to the City Council here are the facts


Mr. Freesmeyer’s 30/30, or half the shift theory for proactive activity is not consistent with other “Consultants/Experts” in the field, and in some cases establishing a 50% proactive target is not productive.


As was stated in the Special Meeting Notice members of the public were not supposed to ask questions or comment during this meeting, but when one of the several SPD Officers present interrupted Freesmeyer, you know what I did… yup… I asked Freesmeyer if he included officers of patrol rank who were not assigned to a patrol function, after a bit of a dance his answer was NO and the 165 Officers he used were actually assigned to patrol. The purpose of my question was two-fold, which hopefully the City Council will realize after reading this. First to establish if Freesmeyer even knew how many Officers of patrol rank are actually on SPD yet spread throughout the organization doing other than patrol duties, apparently, he doesn’t, and I’m not sure SPD does either.




If you had read my stories linked above you would know that Mr. Freesmeyer isn’t the only one that did a Staffing Analysis of SPD, as recommended by COPS/DOJ, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) also did one.


*** I should note that when I started on a roll with some knowledgeable questioning of Mr. Freesmeyer Council President Stuckart put an end to it, which I expected, but I did inform him after the meeting that if he interrupted me again when I was on a roll, he would have another George McGrath on his hands. All jokingly of course! 😊

Duty hours by unit


Attention Lori Kinnear

Attention Lori Kinnear

With respect to your concern about calls not being responded to, my assumption is you were referring to “Dropped Calls” which are CFS that for one reason or another were not dispatched. That information is readily available via the CAD/RMS system so all you have to do is ask for that data and you should be able to get it quickly, once you receive the data it has to be analyzed as to type of call, call priority, and staffing level at the time of the call. The image above gives you some idea of where CFS originate, and whether or not they are ultimately dispatched.


I thought some of the questions asked by the City Council members were good, but unfortunately, they didn’t ask enough and hopefully they will before any budget decisions are made regarding SPD staffing.




One of the funnier questions I thought was when Freesmeyer was trying to sell his 12-hour shit strategy. Council President Stuckart interrupted, turned to Craig Meidl and Major King and asked, “We have to negotiate a change in shift…right?” The answer of course is yes. I don’t know for sure if the Guild is looking to change to 12-hour shifts, but as a heads up to Council President Stuckart and the rest of the City Council, here is where Mr. Freesmeyer’s work sometimes ends up.

Okakland Interest Arbitration Freesmeyer


Another funny thing that happened during Mr. Freesmeyer’s presentation was his emphasis on the inability of SPD to capture the time it takes to write a report, now I found this quite odd considering the amount of money we citizens have spent on equipping the entire SPD with Laptops to do their report writing and improve their efficiency and pro-active time.

Laptop purchase



Who would have guessed that those Laptops with all that software would NOT capture and identify usage data…oh well?

 As would have been expected the conversation regarding the dangers of doing reports in the field on a Laptop were emphasized by Mr. Freesmeyer and some of the cop folks present.


Another funny thing was when Freesmeyer tried to tell the City Council Members how time consuming it is to take a Fraud Report by an officer in the field, citing all the social media stuff like Facebook, Identity Theft etcetera. The truth is Patrol Cops don’t take extensive reports on Fraud Cases in any mid to large Department, they take a basic report with just the names and the known facts, and a Detective does the follow-up. Of course, in Spokane SPD doesn’t do a whole lot of Fraud Investigation anyway.

Okay Followers and Councilmembers yes, like I told some of you I knew what would be coming from Mr. Freesmeyer, but it wasn’t any kind of wizardry on my part, just a matter of experience, reading all of his previous analyses, tracking the changes, noting the boilerplate and graphics utilization, and developing a probability matrix…no big deal!


I should note that at the end of the meeting Council President Stuckart suggested I talk to Mr. Freesmeyer, which I tried to do, but for some reason he was in a hurry to catch a plane…maybe next time?




Shit Happens


But for some unknown reason it always seems to happen to me when sources provide me with information about the truth and I try to corroborate the documents and information I receive through a Public Records Request to the Condon Administration.

***Note to Investigators of the “Intimidation Leak Investigation”, there are some more leads for you to follow-up on in this story.


Most folks know that on November 21st ,2016 I submitted a PRR to obtain public records regarding the highly controversial appointment of Craig Meidl as Chief of Police by Mayor David Condon.









Nov 21 PRR

As I have chronicled in other stories it has as usual been a long-term battle for the Condon Administration to cough up the documents I requested nearly seven months ago. The newest roadblock was this.

Farnsworth 1

Farnsworth 2

Farnsworth 3

I sent Ms. Farnsworth an attachment with a copy of the files in the CD .


As I mentioned it has been a battle and the question is will Mayor Condon be able to hold off until after he is out of office?


This is what was contained on the CD Ms. Farnsworth apparently mistakenly sent me.



Although I wasn’t particularly interested in Officer Jay KernKamp’s driving reprimand, perhaps Law and Order David should have been.


There was one interesting thing however about the KernKamp reprimand and that was the “IA Control”, “No 16-004”.

The 15 minute “interview” (Confession) of Officer McMurtrey I had already received, and got a good laugh out of.


In defense of Ms. Farnsworth, stuff does happen, and when one considers the pressure she is under with Brian Coddington’s extremely close scrutiny of PRRs, to protect his Mayor, as well as the City Attorney’s Office involvement at every turn, mistakes are understandable.





Apparently OPO Bart Logue isn’t a walkover like Tim Burns was because SPD is going all out in trying to intimidate Logue and other members of his staff as well as the OPOC by investigating them as suspects in the “Great McMurtrey Leak Investigation”, and as this goes on Mayor Condon is nowhere to be found because if he put stop to it, as he should, he would be admitting his very own “National Model for Police Oversight” is a complete joke.

Even though the OPO Ordinance clearly says no person should attempt to unduly influence or undermine the independence of the OPO it would be pretty hard not to draw the conclusion that is exactly what they are doing by throwing the OPO into the usual suspects category.

OPO Ordinance

One has to wonder if Logue and the OPO staff are intimidated in any way. It doesn’t appear that they are but the attempt to intimidate must be some kind of a last-ditch effort to Kitty Cat a Lion.

You also have to wonder who the dope was that came up with the idea to jam the OPO, even if they were my sources, which they aren’t, any buffoon would know that once the public found out that they were using intimidation tactics against the OPO all hell would break loose, there are many people in this town that honestly believe that SPD and the Police Guild are completely out of control and get away with anything so how in the world would anyone in their right mind believe they could get away with it?

Don’t give me or the Public the “We had to do a complete and thorough investigation” crap Meidl! Even a rookie cop would have looked at this and would have known from the beginning it was a dead-end case, and jamming the OPO would only make the SPD look worse than it already does. How much time and money have you spent on this farce already? Got wires and surveillance teams working it? Getting subpoenas and search warrants…if so for what bloody crime…Mopery, Malicious Mischief, Indecent Exposure? And you think you need more Cops?

Once you are finished with this stupid thing go ahead and waste the taxpayers’ dollars on trying to find my sources on the other cases you know I know all about, and go ahead and jam the OPO on those like you did with McMurtrey. Is this McMurtrey some kind of a Golden Boy or something like Lydia Taylor was a Golden Girl, or is it because his wife’s father was a cop?

I’m probably the only one that watches this stuff, and even if other media do they probably don’t get it, but if you watch this you will see that OPO Logue clearly and publicly states that he and other members of the OPO and OPOC were under investigation by SPD IA, hell even the IA Boss Stevens was there at the meeting.


I was going to hold back this story until later but as you may have noticed today something made me angry, and it isn’t nice to make an old man angry!


As I mentioned in yesterday’s story I sought information from both Logue and Meidl.


Meidl of course doesn’t have the fortitude to respond to me because I catch him every time, but Logue did.

Logue response 1


I responded to OPO Logue with this.

Breen 1

Breen 2

Breen 3


Logue in turn responded with this.

Logue response 2


So the big question now is….When will I get the OPO and OPOC statements SPD intimidated them into giving?


BTW, it wasn’t the snarky emails between Logue and myself that has got me angry, as a matter of fact it was information I received from sources about some other things going on at SPD…stay tuned!