Proposal For An Inter-Agency Cooperation Committee

[George MacHawk]

Sorry for the late respond and yes - you have the support of LCPD. We need such core to create and keep the very important connection among Argonath police departments.

[Allison]

Now im mad, Leroy u better post here 

PS:Maybe for this we can get the help of criminal groups too, expand RPS between multiple servers, this will allow factions from others servers to meet and give the departments something to work together upon

Uhm no. No criminal groups for a law enforcement committee.

[Chief J. Schappell]

I have spoken with Leroy personally and he assured me they will be responding soon.

[Jaaskaa]

I do believe removing the ARPD leader would be risky. Plus remember that Ron and Ronnel have this role de facto. They may nominate a person to represent them. So this committee should not be a power usurpation but a way for agencies to coordinate their actions by exchanging work methods, ideas and agreeing on aspects of our tasks and on the procedures to follow in certain situation. I would agree to join a committee that would bring discussions in a constructive way in order to generalize aspects of emergency response and develop techniques to help emergency services in giving a better response to situations, making the tasks safer and establishing clear procedures and path of action.

I wouldn't agree on a group that would have task to lead departments. Such could easily be used to control remotedly a group that is being in minority. I wouldn't agree either on giving special access to group members to any sensitive informations. This could compromise our work (talking about every group). Finaly I wouldn't agree on a group that has for purpose to solve complaints toward other groups. Complaints are to be treated in the way they currently are.

To wrap up if the committee is consultative and has no decisional power over groups and does not usurp authority of actual leaders, I have no problem with it. If you agree on this, then you can count IV:MP FBI in.

[Allison]

It's strictly for cooperation/communication between the agencies. No power over anyone. I'll show Jack your reply. 

[Jaaskaa]

In such case, I totaly agree on the purpose of the group.

[Chief J. Schappell]

I do believe removing the ARPD leader would be risky. Plus remember that Ron and Ronnel have this role de facto. They may nominate a person to represent them. So this committee should not be a power usurpation but a way for agencies to coordinate their actions by exchanging work methods, ideas and agreeing on aspects of our tasks and on the procedures to follow in certain situation. I would agree to join a committee that would bring discussions in a constructive way in order to generalize aspects of emergency response and develop techniques to help emergency services in giving a better response to situations, making the tasks safer and establishing clear procedures and path of action.

I wouldn't agree on a group that would have task to lead departments. Such could easily be used to control remotedly a group that is being in minority. I wouldn't agree either on giving special access to group members to any sensitive informations. This could compromise our work (talking about every group). Finaly I wouldn't agree on a group that has for purpose to solve complaints toward other groups. Complaints are to be treated in the way they currently are.

To wrap up if the committee is consultative and has no decisional power over groups and does not usurp authority of actual leaders, I have no problem with it. If you agree on this, then you can count IV:MP FBI in.

I never said to replace the ARPD Leadership position, which currently is not held by anyone since CBFasi's resignation. What I'm describing is a committee of non-Chief/Director users that work with the other departments in order to promote better cooperation. They aren't dealing with the actual tasks that agencies and departments do, but more-so handle disputes and promote better "working togetherness" between agencies and departments. They would be trusted users, picked by the Chiefs/Directors through their own valid method of decision-making in order to represent the Department/Agency on this committee.

As for complaints, that's the whole issue. A user complains and goes unheard. If they complaint is within that specific Department/Agency the user works for, it would stay as it was before, but say a member of MTA:VC FBI has a complaint against MTA:SA SAPD for discrimination of it's users, then that would be something the two departments would need to work side-by-side on in order to resolve, bringing the other committee members into it if necessary or desired to prevent a hostile environment. No worries, I'm not trying to change how things currently work. This is more-so something to promote Agencies and Departments to have better relations than anything else. They won't have any access to sensitive information unless their specific Department or Agency grants them access to it purposefully.

At what you said on emergency response, task safety, and clearing up procedures, I like where that idea is headed and yes, if the Departments and Agencies desire to bring such ideas or issues into consideration as a whole of ARPD (or emergency services, in the case of the secondary committee), then they will be tasked with solving/resolving and bringing about said ideas and issues that work for everyone.

[Jaaskaa]

Solving disputes has been, at least on SA:MP, been performed through informal meetings between leaders. I remember as FBI Director on SA:MP speaking to CBF and we could solve alot within very few minutes. So if a committee starts discussing about that, all I fear is it will turn in a trench war between agencies. Might be personnal feeling but in my book if any member of an organization has a problem with the member of another organization, he shall either fill a complaint or address to a high ranked in the so told organization. If he is unheard, he should take it to his own leader who will discuss leader to leader. But yeah that is called the good ol`way. :p

As for the rest, I agree on that.

[Chief J. Schappell]

Solving disputes has been, at least on SA:MP, been performed through informal meetings between leaders. I remember as FBI Director on SA:MP speaking to CBF and we could solve alot within very few minutes. So if a committee starts discussing about that, all I fear is it will turn in a trench war between agencies. Might be personnal feeling but in my book if any member of an organization has a problem with the member of another organization, he shall either fill a complaint or address to a high ranked in the so told organization. If he is unheard, he should take it to his own leader who will discuss leader to leader. But yeah that is called the good ol`way. :p

As for the rest, I agree on that.

Well this is more for organization versus organization issues themselves, not person versus person. Of course, if it couldn't be easily resolved through this method, the Chiefs/Directors would take over, but they have a say in this committee regardless, so it's not like this will be something they don't see. It's more of a group of people lower in the ranks that see the real issues as they happen...the ones that higher ranks don't witness because users are too afraid to screw up in front of them

[JDC]

Paging Fernando, Leonardo, and JayL.

As for representatives, there should never be instituted a policy, where the number of representatives will be based on the size of the organization they represent, as organizations like SA:MP-SAPD will have half the seats at the table...

[Chief J. Schappell]

Paging Fernando, Leonardo, and JayL.

As for representatives, there should never be instituted a policy, where the number of representatives will be based on the size of the organization they represent, as organizations like SA:MP-SAPD will have half the seats at the table...

I actually planned it to only have one per department/agency because this is already going to be huge, but in the case of multi-Department agencies, each department would have a say. For example, each FBI and each SA:MP SAPD Department would have a representative. The reason being is because sometimes it can be a Department within the Agency has cooperation issues when another doesn't. The reason why I recommend keeping it to one per Department, though, is because if it's based on Department size, then SAPD would be the majority of the entire thing, and that's not fair to everyone else. The multi-Department agency thing would still apply, however.

[JDC]

If each SA:MP SAPD Department had a representative, then SAPD would have a total of 4 delegates on the board... so much for not being based on size. It should be one per group, meaning one from SAPD, one from SA:MP FBI, one from VCPD, one from MTA:VC FBI, and so on...

[Chief J. Schappell]

If each SA:MP SAPD Department had a representative, then SAPD would have a total of 4 delegates on the board... so much for not being based on size. It should be one per group, meaning one from SAPD, one from SA:MP FBI, one from VCPD, one from MTA:VC FBI, and so on...

Well technically that'd mean FBI could only have one, which doesn't seem very fair either

[JDC]

SAPD is as much a division of ARPD as much as SA:MP FBI is a division of FBI, given the circumstances involved. FBI is a separate "wing" of ARPD, containing a different group of divisions.

Analogy between SA:MP's SAPD and FBI.

Parent Department: ARPD
Departments: Police Departments; FBI
Agencies: SAPD (SA:MP); FBI (SA:MP) < Representatives are chosen at this level
Divisions: LSPD, SFPD, LVPD, DPD (SAPD); Alpha, Bravo, Charlie (FBI)

[Chief J. Schappell]

SAPD is as much a division of ARPD as much as SA:MP FBI is a division of FBI, given the circumstances involved. FBI is a separate "wing" of ARPD, containing a different group of divisions.

Analogy between SA:MP's SAPD and FBI.

Parent Department: ARPD
Departments: Police Departments; FBI
Agencies: SAPD (SA:MP); FBI (SA:MP) < Representatives are chosen at this level
Divisions: LSPD, SFPD, LVPD, DPD (SAPD); Alpha, Bravo, Charlie (FBI)

I know what they are JDC. I've been here longer than you :O

[Ben]

SAPD is as much a division of ARPD as much as SA:MP FBI is a division of FBI, given the circumstances involved. FBI is a separate "wing" of ARPD, containing a different group of divisions.

Analogy between SA:MP's SAPD and FBI.

Parent Department: ARPD
Departments: Police Departments; FBI
Agencies: SAPD (SA:MP); FBI (SA:MP) < Representatives are chosen at this level
Divisions: LSPD, SFPD, LVPD, DPD (SAPD); Alpha, Bravo, Charlie (FBI)

Some people in the FBI are under the impression they are not in the ARPD 

[Boricua56]

You can add SA:MP FBI.

[Chief J. Schappell]

You can add SA:MP FBI.

Thank you!

[~Legend~]

Hey again,

I think our [VC:MP] VCPD Chief is already aware of this, and in support.
To prevent confusion, I will ask if possible/see if he is able to post.

[Chief J. Schappell]

Hey again,

I think our [VC:MP] VCPD Chief is already aware of this, and in support.
To prevent confusion, I will ask if possible/see if he is able to post.

Thank you very much!