I would like to know how the Tulsa Police let 21 of their own men / women be layed off? Its easy to blame Mayor Taylor but she has offered different solutions and the #1 solution is cop cars! Is it true that 60% of TPD live outside of T-town and they still drive their patrol car home? I thought the TPD was a brotherhood - the TFD knows how to take care of their own - they do not have any lay offs. Its time for TPD to do the right thing for Tulsa!!
I am OK with letting a police officer drive his patrol car home if they live in Tulsa. That would be a nice incentive for them to reside in the town in which they work and Tulsa neighborhoods would feel safer.
It is the out-of-town take home policy that most of us have a problem with. It is a luxury that we taxpayers can't afford anymore.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 02, 2009, 05:01:30 AM
I am OK with letting a police officer drive his patrol car home if they live in Tulsa. That would be a nice incentive for them to reside in the town in which they work and Tulsa neighborhoods would feel safer.
It is the out-of-town take home policy that most of us have a problem with. It is a luxury that we taxpayers can't afford anymore.
Agreed. Michael your remarks on this matter have been focussed and well crafted. We simply have to put the level of services we demand of the city in line with our ability to pay for them. Past luxuries cannot be funded during poor economic times.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 02, 2009, 05:01:30 AM
I am OK with letting a police officer drive his patrol car home if they live in Tulsa. That would be a nice incentive for them to reside in the town in which they work and Tulsa neighborhoods would feel safer.
It is the out-of-town take home policy that most of us have a problem with. It is a luxury that we taxpayers can't afford anymore.
+1 - come on how obvious is this?
Quote from: waterboy on November 02, 2009, 07:50:57 AM
Agreed. Michael your remarks on this matter have been focussed and well crafted. We simply have to put the level of services we demand of the city in line with our ability to pay for them. Past luxuries cannot be funded during poor economic times.
The recent vandalizing of a police car sitting at the officers home at the time frame when others citizens are going to work leaves a doubt in the minds of many citizens. If the police cannot protect the taxpayer property them one would assume that a single parking lot should be provided and an independent security company be hired to protect the taxpayer's property.
Or is that what Tulsa crime scene has come to? ??? ???
Claremore has it figured out:
Quote
Officers assigned personal take home units will use good judgment in utilizing them. Avoiding any conduct likely to cause unfavorable comment or embarrassment to the Claremore Police Department. Examples: parking illegally, inappropriate driving behavior, testing siren in neighborhoods etc.
1. Eligibility for participation in the assigned take home unit program must meet the following:
A. Officer resides within the Claremore City limits
B. Upon approval of the Chief of Police
C. Vehicles will be assigned to those officers who meet the first two requirements, if vehicles are available.
D. If more officers are eligible for a vehicle and vehicles are not available, an eligibility
Claremore Police Department Policies and Procedures.
While we are at it, Claremore also has a drug testing policy and a DVR policy.
Quote2. Policy Statement
The use of an in-car video system can provide powerful evidence of criminal activity. The audio and visual record of a suspect's actions and statements can be the most powerful evidence of criminal activity. The in-car camera or digital Video Recorder has also been proven to be a valuable tool for law enforcement practitioners by documenting their honesty, integrity, and professionalism. The use of an in-car video system will quickly resolve many unfounded complaints against officers. This system will also deter many unfounded and frivolous lawsuits against the Claremore Police Department and the City of Claremore. By virtue of their authority, law enforcement personnel are held to a higher degree of accountability by the community and must continuously strive to ensure that this contract is not violated. Therefore, by keeping this trust and maximizing the effectiveness of this valuable tool, the following procedures for In-Car Camera equipment use are set forth.
Claremore Police Department Policies and Procedures.
It's kind of embarrassing when a small suburb seems to run things better than the larger municipality. :-[
I am all for parking cars for those that live outside of the city limits, I guess the one thing that still bothers me, is again, this was taken in leiu of a raise several years ago, I beileve an approximate 4%, this benefit didn't help all officers, but for the "good of the order" it was approved. I wonder why other city employees aren't being asked to take another 4% hit in pay. Other departments got that raise, police didn't, they got to take their cars home instead. I just wish people would focus more on the facts and less on the emotions of all of this.
The FOP presented an option to take all overtime in time off rather than pay for the year, which would have eliminiated the need for furloughs, cutting mounted and helicoptors, keep all 21 officers and, guess what, even hire 18 more officers because the $$ would have been there to actually use the stimulus money as promised. Why assume that only the FOP is saying no to reasonable options.
The firefighter's aren't doing more to help the budget crunch, they were just smart enough to put the language to protect themselves from future layoffs. They choose to take their hits in a different way a few months ago, and make the mayor promise no more cuts. Doesn't sound like doing their part, everyone else is having to cut again, except the firemen.
I really don't think the mayor sucks across the board, but more and more as I learn details, I am becoming convinced this is way more political than just a "budget crisis", which is so sad to me.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 02, 2009, 10:21:08 AM
It's kind of embarrassing when a small suburb seems to run things better than the larger municipality. :-[
I think they have a different union than we do. ;)
I am against allowing cops to take home their cars if they live outside the city limits even in good economic times. and i live in a suburb.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 02, 2009, 12:00:33 PM
I am all for parking cars for those that live outside of the city limits, I guess the one thing that still bothers me, is again, this was taken in leiu of a raise several years ago, I beileve an approximate 4%, this benefit didn't help all officers, but for the "good of the order" it was approved. I wonder why other city employees aren't being asked to take another 4% hit in pay. Other departments got that raise, police didn't, they got to take their cars home instead. I just wish people would focus more on the facts and less on the emotions of all of this.
The FOP presented an option to take all overtime in time off rather than pay for the year, which would have eliminiated the need for furloughs, cutting mounted and helicoptors, keep all 21 officers and, guess what, even hire 18 more officers because the $$ would have been there to actually use the stimulus money as promised. Why assume that only the FOP is saying no to reasonable options.
The firefighter's aren't doing more to help the budget crunch, they were just smart enough to put the language to protect themselves from future layoffs. They choose to take their hits in a different way a few months ago, and make the mayor promise no more cuts. Doesn't sound like doing their part, everyone else is having to cut again, except the firemen.
I really don't think the mayor sucks across the board, but more and more as I learn details, I am becoming convinced this is way more political than just a "budget crisis", which is so sad to me.
Taking 4% of $50,000 which I figured would be an average salary across seniority ranges, that would be a $2000 per year raise. If that privelege kept someone from having to buy a vehicle for commuting, that would save them around $6000 per year in payments, insurance, and tags. Far better deal than a raise. I don't like the take home policy for those living outside the city limits.
One thing people haven't addressed fully. If a TPD officer is taking his vehicle home outside the city, that means that he or she is not paying taxes into the area he patrols, not voting for the officials who control his job and otherwise completely checked out of the community he or she is supposed to be protecting. Any officer who complains about budget cuts while spending their paycheck on a suburban housepayment and groceries at a BA Walmart needs a glass of water dumped on their heads.
I am against take home for out of city but would accept the following compromise:
Officers can take home their vehicles ONLY if they agree to have a standardized fee deducted from their paycheck to compensate for the fuel they are using. Approximately $30/week for in-city officers and $45/week for out-of-city officers. That would recoup the same costs and allow for officers who, for one reason or another, cannot provide their own transportation.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 02, 2009, 12:00:33 PM
I guess the one thing that still bothers me, is again, this was taken in leiu of a raise several years ago, I beileve an approximate 4%, this benefit didn't help all officers, but for the "good of the order" it was approved. I wonder why other city employees aren't being asked to take another 4% hit in pay.
Yes. That was the same year that all other city employees took a 2% pay cut. Lafortune cut the pay for everybody besides police, but he gave them take home vehicles instead of the 4% pay that the police union determined they were due.
The best part of the story is that even after this gift on the backs of other city workers, the union didn't endorse LaFortune the follwing year, instead endorsing Randi Miller in the primary and Kathy Taylor in the general.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 02, 2009, 01:35:18 PM
Yes. That was the same year that all other city employees took a 2% pay cut. Lafortune cut the pay for everybody besides police, but he gave them take home vehicles instead of the 4% pay that the police union determined they were due.
The best part of the story is that even after this gift on the backs of other city workers, the union didn't endorse LaFortune the follwing year, instead endorsing Randi Miller in the primary and Kathy Taylor in the general.
And in 2006 TPD got a raise from Taylor.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on November 02, 2009, 05:41:38 PM
And in 2006 TPD got a raise from Taylor.
All city employees got a pay raise in 2006.
C'mon guys...give us a hit of the old dirty Friendly Bear post regarding this issue....Just for giggles?
Complete with large text and BOLD words...
Pretty Please :-*
Vroooom :-X
Quote from: Nik on November 02, 2009, 12:16:41 PM
I am against allowing cops to take home their cars if they live outside the city limits even in good economic times. and i live in a suburb.
once again your logic is flawed. Like I have mentioned in the other thread, a person like myself living at 111th and hwy 75 (just outside tulsa city limits) who works out of Riverside division (73rd and Riverside) has a shorter drive then an officer who lives at 111th and Sheridan and drives to Gilcrease. Simply because they live "in the city limits" doesn't mean they have a shorter drive over someone that doesnt. Someone living 6 miles north of Gilcrease would be out of the city limits but a lot closer then someone who lives at 81st and Garnett. Its ignorant to assume that because the officer lives in the city, they must be closer to their divison when its not always the case.
Quote from: TUalum0982 on November 03, 2009, 07:54:15 AM
once again your logic is flawed. Like I have mentioned in the other thread, a person like myself living at 111th and hwy 75 (just outside tulsa city limits) who works out of Riverside division (73rd and Riverside) has a shorter drive then an officer who lives at 111th and Sheridan and drives to Gilcrease. Simply because they live "in the city limits" doesn't mean they have a shorter drive over someone that doesnt. Someone living 6 miles north of Gilcrease would be out of the city limits but a lot closer then someone who lives at 81st and Garnett. Its ignorant to assume that because the officer lives in the city, they must be closer to their divison when its not always the case.
It was your choice to live outside of the city though, you could have bought some place on Riverside and made that area a little safer. Actually that brings up a nice idea, maybe we should give bonuses to officers who live SW of 61st & Lewis. Those officers can move back to Tulsa and keep more money in our city.
To serve and protect(while living far away from where we're needed most).
Quote from: brianh on November 03, 2009, 08:26:32 AM
It sounds like it was your choice to live outside of the city though, you could have bought some place on Riverside and made that area a little safer. Actually that brings up a nice idea, maybe we should give bonuses to officers who live SW of 61st & Lewis.To serve and protect(while living far away from where we're needed most).
First off, I am not a police officer for TPD. I am working on submitting my application to become one. I was simply stating where I live in comparison to a local police station in my example.
In your scenario, I would get a bonus. I live south and west of 61st and lewis!
EDIT: Since you edited and put in BOLD that last sentence, I wouldnt call myself living at 111th and hwy 75 FAR from where we are needed the most. I am a mere 7.5 miles from 61st and Peoria area. In fact, I know of several officers who live near 81st and 33rd, and since they live 1 block WEST of 33rd, they are technically in CREEK county yet have a Tulsa address. So since they live in a totally DIFFERENT county they are FAR away, yet their neighbor across the street (a stones throw of maybe 50ft) would be considered close and is in a position where he is needed the most? It all makes perfect sense to me now (sarcasm).
CF: its amazing how that works. Our "big brother" down the pike of course finds ways to add police officers while we are trying to rehire the ones we laid off using federal dollars that was supposed to HIRE 18 more officers, not maintain the ones we currently have. Shows you how screwed up Tulsa is currently. Wow
TU Alum:
We've been over and over this. It is more likely than not that driving a vehicle outside the city limits of Tulsa ADDS overall mileage. While a few officers will save mileage, in the aggregate eliminating we save tons of miles.
This is true both in the real world (where ~400 cars would save 2X miles each day) and the hypothetical world (where those 400 officers then relocate inside the City limits). By eliminating the random data points OUTSIDE the city limits, statistically the miles driven would go way down.
It's a moot point anyway, the political maneuver is nearly complete. The FOP will make some phantom concession and the 3 other officers will be retained.
- - -
Anecdotal, I know of several prospective officers that were signed up for that academy and are now moving to Norman or OKC to seek a job on their forces. Apparently they are both hiring while we are in crisis mode. ???
The weirdest twist in this whole thing was when the TPD officers picketed Mayor Taylor's home the other day. Instead of picketing their fellow officers who drive to Owasso every day but won't give up their cars, (or picketing the homes of everyone who shops online, and thus, doesn't pay Tulsa city sales taxes...), they were marching by the home of someone who works 80+ hours a week for no pay...to complain about their benefits packages! Perhaps they should take a cue from KT, and just work for free for a few years. Heck, I'd even let them keep their cars!
The federal stimulus to hire 18 new officers for three years has been converted to retaining the present 18 officers. There is a condition to the grant that the officers must be retained by the city a fourth year with the city picking up the tab. After the third year the city could still be strapped for funds which would cause the firing again of another 18 officers. If there is an exit to the burbs, which will be shown in the census now being taken, such funds still may not be available at that time. (the great depression last 15 years and WWll ) Seems there is a need to prepare now on this short range problem such as taking advantage of being a resident of the city if one is a city employee. The illustration used on city employees driving only three miles out of the city in a city owned car is not taking in consideration of how many miles the car is driven from the last point of city use, across the city to get to a point three miles outside the city.
One would believe that some of the grown ups like the children are having trouble with Math. Its is the story of the grasshopper and the ant again. :o :o
Question,
Since take home cars for police that live outside of Tulsa are purely part of the officers compensation, are all these officers paying proper state and federal income taxes on this benefit?
Quote from: swake on November 06, 2009, 10:45:03 PM
Question,
Since take home cars for police that live outside of Tulsa are purely part of the officers compensation, are all these officers paying proper state and federal income taxes on this benefit?
I doubt the IRS cares where the officers live if it is a taxable benefit.
The editorial in today's papers points out that part of the emergency cops live outside the city thus they surely drive emergency equip cars. In case of a true emergency, such is happening in many of the cities, would it be possible to just say "hold on guys our emergency squad is coming in from Wagoner and Claremore and they will be here in about 25 minutes to take care of this". Tulsa seems to be in line for a real emergency and is just waiting for a place in time as crowds gather during the coming Holiday season. Should they prepare now instead of waiting for another unnecessary killing only to please the union?
The cops union says they will make no more concessions. Doesn't the statement of sworn officers include "protect its citizens to the best of my ability"?
Tulsa citizens seem to be under an emergency and shortchanged because of an union contract that should have never been authorized. The show of any marked police car in a crowded parking lot discourages criminals. It is time to allow marked take-home cars to be used for personal business as long as it is in the city limits.
The Family Dollar on 11th street, which is next to the Mingo Valley station, was held up the other evening. If someone will robb a place next to a police station ,a police car in a driveway or parking lot is not going to deter someone from committing a crime either.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on November 07, 2009, 11:10:49 PM
The Family Dollar on 11th street, which is next to the Mingo Valley station, was held up the other evening. If someone will robb a place next to a police station ,a police car in a driveway or parking lot is not going to deter someone from committing a crime either.
OK, I have to call this one as compete and total B.S. Of course a parked car is a deterrent! There are always exceptions. How about good lighting, neighborhood watch groups, alarm systems - are these all a wasted effort? Plenty of homes that have these deterrents have been robbed. I have heard a lot of officers comments on the take home car policy and I'm shocked at the sorts of ridiculous arguments good sensible people will latch on to to serve their own interests. Weather or not the figures we are hearing about the savings from the take-home-to-my-suburb car policy are accurate or not, there is huge value in having those cars parked on the streets - it's too bad that it can't be quantified and considered in the estimate. Further value would come from the incentive of having a take home car if you actually live in the community you are serving. It's common sense and it is public consensus. If the FOP refuses to be responsive to that, then I'll expect its rapport with citizens to take a nose dive.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on November 07, 2009, 11:10:49 PM
The Family Dollar on 11th street, which is next to the Mingo Valley station, was held up the other evening. If someone will robb a place next to a police station ,a police car in a driveway or parking lot is not going to deter someone from committing a crime either.
In doing some contract work on a house where you could stand on the porch and look into the door of the police station on 11th street, we pushed the plastic bags of pot leaves off to the side out of the way in order to do the work. In the rear of the house was a small building made of 2 by 4's covered with clear plastic. Within the structure was a pot plant that when it grew to the 8 foot ceiling a two way slash was made in it and the plant extended 3 feet in the air.
When one speaks of the robbery of the Dollar store on 11th one can assume there could be an emergency created by a robbery of the police station or parking lot in that area.
Why didn't I report it? Because in the court I would not be qualified to determine what the plant was.
Quote from: shadows on November 08, 2009, 05:24:31 PM
In doing some contract work on a house where you could stand on the porch and look into the door of the police station on 11th street, we pushed the plastic bags of pot leaves off to the side out of the way in order to do the work. In the rear of the house was a small building made of 2 by 4's covered with clear plastic. Within the structure was a pot plant that when it grew to the 8 foot ceiling a two way slash was made in it and the plant extended 3 feet in the air.
When one speaks of the robbery of the Dollar store on 11th one can assume there could be an emergency created by a robbery of the police station or parking lot in that area.
Why didn't I report it? Because in the court I would not be qualified to determine what the plant was.
Tell me you at least swiped a bud off that 11 ft. pot plant. :o
One street south of mine, a shotgun was stolen from a parked police car at night. I don't buy into the cop-car-as-deterrent idea.
I've been on the department for about 10 years and have always lived in Tulsa. As a result, when I worked patrol, I had a marked take-home car and parked it at my house. During the time that I have had a marked vehicle at my house, my vehicle, my house nor any of my neighbors' houses (on my street) have ever been broken into. So my neighbors and I strongly believe it is a deterrent.
What a great benefit for your neighbors!
Why should we pay for the same benefit for outside Tulsa neighbors to police officers?
I whined about this issue at my board meeting the other day and the Owasso and Bixby guys said how much they love all those Tulsa Police cars in their town providing a sense of security...
Yeah, but they have to put up with me. They probably come out even on the deal. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2009, 05:50:32 PM
Tell me you at least swiped a bud off that 11 ft. pot plant. :o
No, but one of the employees said one of the little plastic bag got mixed up with the tools when he picked them up. He said it was top grade stuff, whatever that meant.
It would be at the height of stupidity to assume that any person would enter any store to commit a crime when there was a marked police car sitting in front of the business. On entering they could expect any person inside in civilian dress (man or woman) to produce a gun having been trained to use it. If the suburbs feel safer to have Tulsa marked police cars parked in their town then they should pay Tulsa taxpayer for that protection.
And now the twist in the story
http://apps.facebook.com/castle_age/battle_monster.php?user=591483866&action=doObjective&mpool=3&lka=591483866&twt=drg
Quote
Tulsa's police take-home vehicle policy, which allows officers to drive their patrol cars to residences outside the city limits, violates a city ordinance, the City Council learned Tuesday.
What will be done with the information provided by council attorney Drew Rees, however, remains to be seen.
The provision is written into the city's labor contract with Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 93 and has been a source of recent debate in light of the budget cuts that prompted officer layoffs, grounding the police helicopters and disbanding the mounted patrol.
Councilor Bill Martinson said it appears that the ordinance governing city take-home vehicles, approved by the council and signed by the mayor in 2007, "isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
"I guess the laws apply to everyone but the FOP," he quipped during the council's weekly committee meetings.
Two years ago, the council enacted an all-encompassing ordinance that limited which city employees are assigned take-home vehicles.
Part of the motivation was the revelation that of the Police Department's 777 vehicles, 392 are driven to homes outside Tulsa.
The ordinance specifically states that marked patrol cars can be driven home by officers only if they are parked in plain view within the city limits.
It further states that city-owned vehicles cannot be used for an employee's regular commute to and from work from another city.
A temporary exception was granted to the police force because of the union contract that was in place at the time. But that exception was valid only until June 30, 2008.
Martinson, who lost his re-election bid this year, in part because his challenge of the size of the city's public safety budgets drew the ire of the unions, said he wanted this fact on the record.
"We've heard repeatedly that the FOP refuses to give up that portion of its collective-bargaining agreement, and that portion, if Drew Rees is right, is illegal," he said.
The city administration has said taking the vehicles away from the officers who live out of town would save about $1.1 million. The union contends that the savings would be much less.
But whatever the savings would be, Martinson said, the city is in a financial crisis and needs all it can get.
"I'm tired of hearing they won't give it up when it's something they are not entitled to," he said.
Officers are being allowed to drive their vehicles within 25 miles of 41st Street and Yale Avenue, which is considered the geographic center of the city.
That enables some to drive as far as Owasso, Broken Arrow, Kellyville, Jenks, Claremore and other cities. Enforcement of the radius has been cited by city officials as lax.
This benefit was negotiated with the union in 2005 by then-Mayor Bill LaFortune, who offered it in a year when there were little to no raises.
FOP President Phil Evans refused to discuss union contract specifics with the press, saying he is barred from doing so.
But he said the collective-bargaining agreement is negotiated in good faith between union and city attorneys and that it follows state laws, which supersede any conflicting city ordinances. He said he was not aware of the 2007 ordinance.
Rees told the council that his research shows that many states have laws indicating that if a municipal ordinance conflicts with a collective-bargaining agreement, the agreement overrides.
"Oklahoma, so far as I can find, does not have such a condition," he said. "That absence, I believe, is significant."
Absent any compelling law or case law that says otherwise, Rees said, "I believe our city ordinance is valid and should be enforced."
An independent arbitrator in the police contract process has before determined that the city failed to prove that cost or public policy factors would warrant taking away the benefit.
But minutes from the last arbitration show that the legality of the take-home car provision was not brought up, Rees said.
Earlier this month, the union announced that it would make no further concessions through its contract as a means of cutting the Police Department's budget.
This came after public appeals from some councilors for the union to give up the out-of-town take-home cars.
Police had already agreed to take eight unpaid furlough days this fiscal year along with the rest of the city's workforce
The FOP's attitude now is "we dont have to obey ordinances, we have a contract".
Again, I think it's totally fine to leave the cars inside the city limits, but why is this now the FOP's fault regarding the city ordinance? They city signs off on this contract, the city negoiates it as well. You might not like the fact that the officers take the cars home outside of the city, but somehow implying that the FOP is breaking the law by living within the terms of a contract, REVIEWED BY CITY LEGAL, is a joke. It's really grasping at straws.
My question that no one seems to know the answer to yet is can a labor contract supercede a city ordinance? I guess in corporate world I'm thinking deals are made regarding employment all the time that go against policy. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I think attorney's would be having a hayday with it.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 18, 2009, 10:01:47 PM
Again, I think it's totally fine to leave the cars inside the city limits, but why is this now the FOP's fault regarding the city ordinance? They city signs off on this contract, the city negoiates it as well. You might not like the fact that the officers take the cars home outside of the city, but somehow implying that the FOP is breaking the law by living within the terms of a contract, REVIEWED BY CITY LEGAL, is a joke. It's really grasping at straws.
My question that no one seems to know the answer to yet is can a labor contract supercede a city ordinance? I guess in corporate world I'm thinking deals are made regarding employment all the time that go against policy. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I think attorney's would be having a hayday with it.
This all sounds like a negotiating ploy to me. The city knows that the vehicle-take-home policy outside city limits is coming under a ton of fire from residents, and bringing up the ordinance is throwing on gasoline.
If the FOP knows what's good for it, it would make a tentative offer right now to go to the bargaining table to partially or completely yank the take-home police cars away from suburb-residing cops. Might as well try to make some sort of effort to restore public confidence, in wake of the grand-jury investigation and assorted other recent ills.
There's a new article on the TW, and I think this is how it will play out, legally, the FOP's contract is enforcable.
Although the public relations work at the FOP is a joke, they have gone to the table with the mayor and others to come up with compromises, the city refuses the FOP's options, flip side the FOP refuses the city's options. Someone should be able to get the two together. I hope Bartlett brings that to the table, I'm sure we can all agree a mayor whose daughter was arrested for DUI isn't going to be the most cop friendly mayor. Unfortunately, the more I learn about all this, the more I am convinced some of this is personal and that's too bad, the citizens are hurt the most. There are still 3 officers who are well trained to be TPD officers and a helicopter that sits idle, what a waste. We can do better.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 18, 2009, 11:25:12 PM
... I'm sure we can all agree a mayor whose daughter was arrested for DUI isn't going to be the most cop friendly mayor...
No, I'm sure we can't....thanks for the assumption.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 18, 2009, 11:25:12 PM
There's a new article on the TW, and I think this is how it will play out, legally, the FOP's contract is enforcable.
Although the public relations work at the FOP is a joke, they have gone to the table with the mayor and others to come up with compromises, the city refuses the FOP's options, flip side the FOP refuses the city's options. Someone should be able to get the two together. I hope Bartlett brings that to the table, I'm sure we can all agree a mayor whose daughter was arrested for DUI isn't going to be the most cop friendly mayor. Unfortunately, the more I learn about all this, the more I am convinced some of this is personal and that's too bad, the citizens are hurt the most. There are still 3 officers who are well trained to be TPD officers and a helicopter that sits idle, what a waste. We can do better.
Honestly, from what I know of Mayor Taylor, I don't think her daughter's DUI would matter one iota in dealing with this issue. That doesn't appear to be how she thinks. I honestly don't see where that belongs in this discussion unless you are a conspiracy theorist.
The TPD enforces and writes fines for ordinance violations all the time. Quite an irony though that they have a contract which openly flaunts an ordinance.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 18, 2009, 10:01:47 PM
You might not like the fact that the officers take the cars home outside of the city, but somehow implying that the FOP is breaking the law by living within the terms of a contract, REVIEWED BY CITY LEGAL, is a joke.
City legal signed off on taking cars home within the city, not taking them out to Miami or Bristow.
They didnt bother to account for the officers in violation because then they would have had to obey the law. Ignorance is bliss.
Quote from: patric on November 19, 2009, 10:54:58 AM
City legal signed off on taking cars home within the city, not taking them out to Miami or Bristow.
They didnt bother to account for the officers in violation because then they would have had to obey the law. Ignorance is bliss.
By the article in today TW there is no question that the police union is the law of the city. (Police State) To reduce and bring the budget under control we need to replace the city council with the FOP union thus it will save enough to place the helicopters back in the air and rehire the policemen laid off.
By the recent campaign we have a new city manager on the way who can carry out any needed to rewording contracts in further negotiations.
PS: if the contract was negotiated by the city legal then money could be further salvaged by going with private sources.
;D ;D
Quote from: shadows on November 19, 2009, 02:58:51 PM
By the article in today TW there is no question that the police union is the law of the city.
Someone explain how donations actually end up as police salary?
"the police union is now asking for private donations so the department can rehire three officers who were laid off last month"
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Police-Union-Seeks-Donations-to-Rehire-Officers/NURoedJ2rkilhXYyJ6_q5w.cspx
I think the next step in the FOP's media campaign involves cops panhandling downtown...
If the union says that eliminating the take home vehicles for the officers will not save very much money, then why are they fighting so hard against giving up this "perk"?
Quote from: TulsaSooner on November 25, 2009, 03:14:33 PM
If the union says that eliminating the take home vehicles for the officers will not save very much money, then why are they fighting so hard against giving up this "perk"?
The eliminating of the illegal take home policy would require cops to furnish their own cars (with deprecation) normal upkeep and repairs including tires, oil serving and gasoline, plus upwards to $500 of liability insurance and hundreds of dollars of comprehensive insurance all at present the cost is paid by the citizens,
One would not consider a city bull dozer (capital improvements)being taken home outside or even within the city for private use.
It is very easy to increase the anticipated city budge my maneuvering it through funds and trusts but on the bottom line we must accept that all moneys come from the working poor in the private sector.
If we are to sustain our quality of life we must wake up to its deterioration.
In all, it could be worse:
We could be wrestling with the problem of take-home guns...
"MANGUM, Oklahoma – An off-duty Mangum police officer who shot his brother-in-law during a disturbance has died.
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Jessica Brown says investigators believe 37-year-old officer Brian Ditmore shot his brother-in-law during the disturbance Thursday night in Mangum.
The brother-in-law was taken to an Altus hospital with non-life threatening injuries, Brown said.
Officer surrounded the home Thursday night and after they could not contact Ditmore, they sent in a bomb squad robot, Brown said.
Ditmore was found dead inside. It appeared he had died from a self-inflicted gun shot wound, Brown said."
Although Google in view of the highest educated (four years college) cops only are accepted, then thousands of dollars are spent in training them in the police academy, furnish them shot guns that are stolen and uniforms where by the FBI stats Tulsa's crime rate is on constant increase, might suggest every citizen should be under curfews from being on the streets and not protecting their property.
Now the top cop has been chosen by the new mayor to continue "business as useable? Is that 150K bonus or is there something wrong with this picture?
;D ;D
Arbitrator: Tulsa must pay back patrol car fees to officers
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091208_11_0_Aninde716273 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091208_11_0_Aninde716273)
Palmer said he completely disagrees with the arbitrator's ruling.
"This is about allowing officers to use our city police vehicles to supplant the budgets of persons who hire them for off-duty jobs," he said. "Is that really what the people of city of Tulsa want? I'm not sure that is the case."
Palmer is right on this one.
Here's a new policy idea for TPD http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/4414130/
Quote from: MDepr2007 on December 08, 2009, 07:56:15 PM
Here's a new policy idea for TPD http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/4414130/
That's an interesting connundrum. I don't like the concept of limiting someone having the ability to earn as much of a second income as they want, when they are off the clock from their first job. My initial reaction was: "This policy is a bad idea and over-reaching" but I thought about why pilots have limits on the number of flight deck hours, number of hours from drinking alcohol (bottle to throttle), required rest between flight shifts, etc. because it's a public safety issue.
I could see problems arising from a cop who is terribly fatigued and winds up in the wrong situation with his day job or pulls a Trooper Martin because he's tired and irritable or falls asleep behind the wheel, etc. I think you simply have to trust the common sense of these people and figure they know how much rest they need to drive around or investigate crimes all day. Their day job can be stressful enough as it is.
Where do you find repo men that reposess police cars?
THIBODAUX, La. — The two new cars the Napoleonville Police Department got this summer have been repossessed and the department is being sued by an Oklahoma car dealership.
Mayor Ron Animashaun said Tuesday the police department planned to buy the cars using federal stimulus money, but paperwork mistakes left them unable to pay for the cars once they arrived.
Joe Watt Auto Sales of Vinita, Okla., repossessed the cars Oct. 9, one day after Animashaun made it clear to the dealership that the village did not have the money to pay. Animashaun previously told Watt on numerous occasions that he had put a "check in the mail," the car dealer said.
The Napoleonville Police Department was awarded $151,628 in federal-stimulus money through the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice. The two-year reimbursement grant is aimed at improving community policing. With the money, the village was supposed to hire two new officers and buy two new police cars.
The department hired two officers, but the grant money came in much later than expected.
The newly hired officers were eventually released Nov. 15 because the money had still not arrived, the mayor said. That left Police Chief Lionel Bell as the village's only paid officer.
Quote from: Townsend on December 08, 2009, 04:40:22 PM
Arbitrator: Tulsa must pay back patrol car fees to officers
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091208_11_0_Aninde716273 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091208_11_0_Aninde716273)
Palmer said he completely disagrees with the arbitrator's ruling.
"This is about allowing officers to use our city police vehicles to supplant the budgets of persons who hire them for off-duty jobs," he said. "Is that really what the people of city of Tulsa want? I'm not sure that is the case."
Is the union the Arbitrator? If not then he must be a member in good standing. Does this exclude the use of the police car as a off-duty escort service job?
I'm jumping in late on this one but seems to me that the take home policy was always intended for the officer's to take the vehicles to and from home to work - work being their TPD jobs, not a second, off-duty job. That is not fair to the taxpayer to supplement.
At larger issue is how and where the TPD salary budget is being spent. A review of the TW database for City of Tulsa employees classified as "police officers" would seem to suggest a very top heavy department, with long term career employees making the most. In that case, it would seem more beneficial to cut from the top through early retirement incentives and such and promote greater numbers to patrol positions at lower salaries. Its always been my understanding that after serving so many years, most long term police officers are assigned other more desk bound duties than patrol...if I'm wrong, someone please tell me.
The data: (not including Chief Ron Palmer and benefits)
Salary (rounded) Officers
$61,000 310
$57,000 57
$54,000 61
$51,600 14
$49,200 27
$46,800 140
$44,600 17
$42,500 23
$38,600 16
I think that was the gist of the Martinson proposal that pissed everyone off.
OKC is suppose to have a ½ cent sales tax to support their police. I understand the TPD equivalent cost is 2 cents of the 3 cent sales tax we collect. There is no way to reduce the cost of the salaries and perks when they have become so deep rooted in the system. A normal operation in the business world would require expenditures to balance out with the income, not the use of projected income needed. The one at present continue for citizens to be pissed off but it is like pissing into the wind.
Inflation has been very easy to achieve but how do you deflate in such a highly political system? How many of these desks job could be done by civilians that furnish their own cars and uniforms?
It is easy to see when a call is sent out for police openings 200 applications are received.
One would think that when over 1/3 of the officers are desk jockeys that would help slow down the increase in bank robberies. ;D ;D ;D
My crazy thought for the day... What if the FOP re-classifies "police car" to something more to it's liking?
I mean, If they can call a dog a "police officer" for the purposes of semantics games then why not just call the old Crown Vic an officer. Just another instrament of justice, right? ;)
Looking at the title for this thread, the issue appears to be where the money comes from to pay for the cars. Although I live in the northern part of Bixby, I do most of my shopping (read sales tax) in Tulsa. I should then be provided an off duty car in my neighborhood for security appearances.
(Now running for cover...)
Dogs are considered "police officers"? How do they usually vote at union meetings? Do they get vacation? Psych evaluations?
The mayor signed the order to stop take-home police vehicles going to other municipalities today, saving 22 jobs.
Unfortunately, it comes in the form of 22 fewer layoffs, which also take effect today.
The FOP union must be proud of themselves.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100129_11_0_Moreth648058
And if the mayor had signed the MOUs back in early December when the union presented them, I wonder how many jobs would have been saved? Had the mayor signed them then, maybe the entire "neogitiation" process might have gone differently, the union stepped forward in good faith, stop the take home cars, change time off procedures, they started saving money right away; the mayor didn't accept it. The mayor says more jobs could have been saved if the union had made more concessions, the truth is if they would have done things "his way" . . . there could have been a middle ground here, the union tried to find it, the mayor didn't. It was his all or nothing proposal, not the unions.
To say the union screwed their junior members is also BS. 90% of the membership rejected his offer, that means a lot of the officers who are getting laid off voted that way too. They saw through the BS and walk away with their heads high. There were many arguments in my home the last few weeks as I defended the mayor's option and reasons the union should accept it, in the end, the union's position has been backed up over and over again; it's the mayor who continues to change the rules and is playing politics with my safety. Next he'll agree to use the JAG money, and we'll hire back even more. Then attrition will come into affect, and next year, we'll have a much lower salary budget (retirements, attrition in management and officers who are going to other departments) and the short term fix the union has promoted all along will be accomplished. We found a way to meet the budget restrictions through the end of the fiscal year, and we already have decreased next year's budget significantly. WOW, could be it be the union's plan has been right? Even I am shocked at that, but more and more it's showing to be true.
KOTV is now reporting 31 jobs saved by not letting officers drive Tulsa cars to their out-of-Tulsa homes:
"TULSA, OK -- Of the 155 Tulsa police officers that were expected to be laid off on Friday, 31 of those jobs have been saved. Now, 124 officers are expected to be laid off."
"To say the union screwed their junior members is also BS."
Yes unfortunately that is exactly what we have here..... BS
The definition of which is "Bartlett and Simonson"
Oh, I forgot Chuck.
I'm not taking one side or another, but I really don't see what the point was in the union ultimately playing hardball with the city instead of taking pay cuts and other concessions. They are saying 60 or so union members voted for the cuts instead of layoffs (okay this point is sketchy without seeing the ballot). That would mean over 90 officers voted for the elimination of their own job, basically (under the 155 layoffs scenario before the subtraction for the 31 re-hires) and accepted a chincy severance package?
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 29, 2010, 12:15:10 PM
And if the mayor had signed the MOUs back in early December when the union presented them, I wonder how many jobs would have been saved? Had the mayor signed them then, maybe the entire "neogitiation" process might have gone differently
Maybe the Mayor didnt really expect the FOP would kick 155 of it's members who havent been paying union dues long enough out into the snow? It's pretty clear the union's loyalty is to itself.
Quote from: patric on January 29, 2010, 07:02:03 PM
Maybe the Mayor didnt really expect the FOP would kick 155 of it's members who havent been paying union dues long enough out into the snow? It's pretty clear the union's loyalty is to itself.
I think you are right. I didn't believe they would vote to layoff the new officers.
I don't think the officers who voted to eliminate their jobs took a completely objective view to the situation. They continued to hear the union perspective about how the Mayor was being unfair and thought their vote would be a message back to him.
They were wrong and are now unemployed. I feel bad for them, they became pawns in a chess game about their future.