So many thoughts, but in the end, just too bad, not only for those losing their jobs but also for the safety and secuirty of Tulsans.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on October 26, 2009, 10:25:50 PM
So many thoughts, but in the end, just too bad, not only for those losing their jobs but also for the safety and secuirty of Tulsans.
Source?
Yes. It is always to sad when people lose their job. But no work force is immune. I have faith that each department head, including the police chief, will make the best choices possible. There is only so much money. The city is not in a position to provide the level of service that it's citizens want.
It is a good thing that the city chose to accept the federal dollars. It at least will allow them to rehire some of them sooner.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091026_298_0_Tulsas31624
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11387637
The problem, as I said when the furlough deal came down is that minimum manning levels won't change, so lay off officers, and then guess what, you hire back to have the same number on the streets. They just keep putting bandaids on the issues and never fix the source of the problems. From what I understand the police are getting laid off because the union didn't to put it in their "amended" contract to prohibit layoffs, the firemen did.
I also think there is a difference between the "level of service its citizens want" and providing basic safety for citizens. Just frustrating, it's a quick fix to a really big problem and it's not easy to undo...
Fire er, maybe Charles Hart will retire soon. His salary package would probably be enough to afford three or four rookie officers.
I can't help but think there has to be a payroll cost equal to the police shortfall in redundant positions in other departments they could probably cut from instead of public safety. Maybe whittle down the high-paying at-will positions in the Mayor's cabinet. I realize it takes more than one pair of eyes to assist a mayor in a city our size, don't get me wrong. But, it might mean some positions having to double down on their responsibilities. As I understand it, the Public Works audit is supposed to be a performance audit and determine where there might be inefficiencies and redundancies under that umbrella, perhaps that will help as well.
We've also got to get our representatives in OKC to get a percent of the state sales tax back as an additional revenue stream. There's no doubt a very large sales tax drain into the suburbs which is not helping Tulsa. It's been great for development in those cities and is allowing for expansion of law enforcement and infrastructure in those areas, that is no doubt part of the revenue noose around the city's neck right now.
This sucks. Those young rookies are hungry for some action and they could really do some good.
Congratulations to Mayor Taylor for officially becoming the WORST mayor this city has ever seen. She has only tried to protect one thing from the very beginning... her legacy. Well, she blew that too!
How many more lists does Tulsa have to finish near the top of when it comes to: best home market, best place for business, best place for the economy, best place.... Yet, locally we get to claim worst city budget planner. How many other cities in this state are laying off/furloughing employees to this extent. Did these other cities not experience the same regional market.
No other mayor in the history of the city has blown through more money than Taylor.
But, the mayor can hang her hat on: The Cube, Furlough Field, .... Don't you love it when she tries to claim "no city money was used on...."
Not to fret. She'll soon be gone. Unless you have children - she'll soon be over education. OMG!
And, don't believe for a minute cuts have stopped. Other cuts will be a further detriment to this city's safety when they are announced.
Uhm... we'll she have the courage to hand out the pink slips her self? We'll find out at 3:30 this afternoon.
If the council had not accepted the grant, there would be no TPD layoffs. This is all a scheme to be able to change the use of the grant money.
It would be nice if the extra millions collected from the EMSA water bill fee could be allocated to the city budget.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on October 27, 2009, 07:06:56 AM
If the council had not accepted the grant, there would be no TPD layoffs. This is all a scheme to be able to change the use of the grant money.
It would be nice if the extra millions collected from the EMSA water bill fee could be allocated to the city budget.
Kinda like the storm water management fee keeping the city afloat?
The reason this city isn't up in arms is because they see it for what it really is, a political issue. Swapping stimulis funds for general budget items and 'harsh' cuts to depts is all slight of hand.
Quote from: Wrinkle on October 27, 2009, 10:09:55 AM
The reason this city isn't up in arms is because they see it for what it really is, a political issue. Swapping stimulis funds for general budget items and 'harsh' cuts to depts is all slight of hand.
Yep.
So how many unnecessary expressway lights did we furlough? None?
I dont mean the ones already out (but still being billed by PSO) for lack of maintenance...
It's not a joke, we really will cut police and fire before we touch the sacred cow of street lighting.
Quote from: patric on October 27, 2009, 11:36:24 AM
So how many unnecessary expressway lights did we furlough? None?
I dont mean the ones already out (but still being billed by PSO) for lack of maintenance...
It's not a joke, we really will cut police and fire before we touch the sacred cow of street lighting.
Lights are going off too:
QuoteThe city is also selling 225 underutilized vehicles from the city fleet and shutting off some lights on city-controlled
expressways, she said.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091027_11_0_hrimgs761777
If only we weren't having to pay $1.2 million a year on the new city hall...
Quote from: sroemerman on October 27, 2009, 02:17:33 PM
If only we weren't having to pay $1.2 million a year on the new city hall...
...Or given BOk $7.1 million to get us out from under Great Pains Airlines
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/07/bartlett-praised-tulsa-paying-71.html
Good point SRoemerman...not to mention the costs associated with the report that the adminstration replied upon to justify the purchase, the multiple fees associated with litigation instigated by acts of the City, contracts to third party out of state vendors for services and market analysis (think Jones Lang LaSalle), constant change orders for the BOKCenter and Convention Center beyond the budget, exorbinant City employee salaries (particularly in upper management - they are public service positions people!), redundant services and positions throughout the City offices, under-utilized vehicles and their insurance, maintenance and depreciation, failure to consolidate all City offices as promised into OTC...whew...could go on but Im too busy reading the comments on the latest TW story...wow!
Quote from: tulsa_fan on October 26, 2009, 10:25:50 PM
So many thoughts, but in the end, just too bad, not only for those losing their jobs but also for the safety and secuirty of Tulsans.
One would have a hard time even explaining why the reaction of the populist of Tulsa falls for even the quirk of selecting the TPD as the villain in order to reduce the shortfall. The citizens have allowed the implementing of fee's and service charges far beyond the ability of the working poor to sustain. The budget assumes the every person, including their off springs, should be satisfied with a bloated governing body that is costing over $1,476 dollars per individual. (source 4th grade math) If in error the budget allotted so many millions of dollars to run a city, while encouraging the population to move to the suburbs, then in a flaunted business way they should make a "cross the board reduction" in all cost including the sacred elephant of the overweighed salaries that are being paid. The propaganda department is working overtime selecting the public safety departments to relying on the assumed stupidity of those who make up the funds for the budget to run the city.
Oh well is any of credit cards taking more credit just to save the city from bankruptcy? The constant cliché today is "people need to spend more" but I believe the bank owned revenue bonds have already taken care of that for the citizens.
I guess giving lots of raises and bonuses are starting to catch up.
Tulsa's city payroll increased 5.5 percent to $185 million from early 2007 to August 2008. The city employs nearly 6,000 people.
The highest-paid city employees include Dr. John Sacra, medical director of the Emergency Medical Service Authority, earning $214,000 a year; Charles Hardt, director of Public Works, earning $178,000 a year; and Steve Williamson, president of the medical service authority, earning $168,000 a year.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081019_11_A11_Thehig535357
Quote from: patric on October 27, 2009, 11:36:24 AM
So how many unnecessary expressway lights did we furlough? None?
I dont mean the ones already out (but still being billed by PSO) for lack of maintenance...
It's not a joke, we really will cut police and fire before we touch the sacred cow of street lighting.
Yeah, whatever is most painful for the folks at large, so they see the need for more revenue.
Police cuts, besides enabling use of the O-Funds for their 'replacements', comes down to politics. Cutting out the entire helicopter force IS political, expecting the masses to feel the need to cough, up money that is. Very targeted for anticipated response.
Street light expense goes to utility companies. Can't cut them. Improved efficiency would do likewise. Follow the money.
With Kitty's $11 million annual slush fund in the TARE accounts, there is no shortage. That is not a static 'reserve fund' as is being reported, that's the annual surplus take in your trash bill. That's before saving another $750,000 on burn rates with the new contract and after paying off an incinerator.
Of course, city employee wages are a sacred cow too. Heaven forbid we bring our government worker's wages in line with other cities our size with similar costs of living (some go up [teachers], some go down [firefighters]). Or, god forbid, examine how many employees the city actually needs.
I understand it is a big stupid game. 21 will be laid off and 18 rehired, then squeeze the union for $250,000 to rehire the other 3. But why aren't we playing with firefighters? They earn more than cops and do far less. On a daily basis a cop makes a difference on the street and can generate some revenue . . . on a given day a firefighter can't say the same thing. Plus, firefighters can supplement their incomes easier by working their second jobs.
Bah. I'm convinced the city government is as dysfunctional as the feds. Each fiefdom looking out for itself. No one bothering to check in on them. No one comparing performance or need to budget.
Someone with time: what is the budget of similar sized cities? What about general per capita spending for cities 150K - 500k? Throw in cost of living for Portland, California, etc. . . I'm guessing we spend plenty. But the results are only mediocre.
The results are a reflection of our populace....not a very accountable city when you look at what they've thrown money at the last 8 years...just look at the priorities of our citizens? And yes, dysfunctional local government which now will be relying more and more on the private sector to serve public needs. What else is a capitalistic society to do?
CF, FOTD is not sure you can compare different municipalities by just mixing and matching budgets. In the big picture, Tulsa still has a good quality of life and we look much better going into the future than the chamber's our competition.
Quote from: patric on October 27, 2009, 02:33:33 PM
...Or given BOk $7.1 million to get us out from under Great Pains Airlines
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/07/bartlett-praised-tulsa-paying-71.html
... or the $3,000,000 new email system she had to have because the City wasn't using Outlook when she got here.
And, where's the media in this town? Why don't they ever look into government expenses? Where is the story about how the current mayor has sucked this town dry and the crazy projects the money went to? Oh, yea... politics.
The media can't micro manage this cities budget. The council needs to be out front on this system of checks and balances.
Compared to much of the country, our budget problems pale in comparison....what about Scottsdale, Phoenix, Portland, Detroit, California, Florida.....we are sitting pretty despite the hurt here. Hell, we're still credit worthy. And the 1982-1993 economy was a blessing in disguise.
CF, I think another poster said the FD's current contract has a "no layoff" clause in it. The PD's did not.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 27, 2009, 05:08:50 PM
CF, I think another poster said the FD's current contract has a "no layoff" clause in it. The PD's did not.
Do you think Dewey will spin the FD off and privatize it? Would he be so bold with the PD?
Quote from: FOTD on October 27, 2009, 05:15:48 PM
Do you think Dewey will spin the FD off and privatize it? Would he be so bold with the PD?
No, I don't think they could do that legally. Are you aware of other counties or municipalities where this has been done? I've never heard of such a thing.
Oh. Dewey's got me screwy with his privatization platform. What's left to privatize? Public works? Water and sewar? Trash was Jimmy's doing. Just curious.
Quote from: FOTD on October 27, 2009, 05:37:22 PM
Oh. Dewey's got me screwy with his privatization platform. What's left to privatize? Public works? Water and sewar? Trash was Jimmy's doing. Just curious.
Dunno, I'm not voting for LaFortune II.
What's your current line on the election?
There's alot more fat in the fire deparment's budget than the police department's budget.............
Quote from: Conan71 on October 27, 2009, 05:48:24 PM
Dunno, I'm not voting for LaFortune II.
What's your current line on the election?
Actually, any of these next mayors may leave office after 4 years making Bill look good in comparison.
Sticking with my previous predic... Mayor Dew. Perky diverts the win margin from TA. Heard just the opposite from the local Dim spoonies.
Toss up.
Quote from: Wilbur on October 27, 2009, 04:46:44 PM
... or the $3,000,000 new email system she had to have because the City wasn't using Outlook when she got here.
And, where's the media in this town? Why don't they ever look into government expenses? Where is the story about how the current mayor has sucked this town dry and the crazy projects the money went to? Oh, yea... politics.
3 million? pancakes?!?
I work somewhere locally that has 6200 Exchange mailboxes and am in the process of putting together the budget for a new server farm to run it. Total cost of the hardware? Just under $60k
The software for each client license and the Exchange software will be about $460k
So where the hell did they spend 3 million on a new email solution?
I still haven't gotten over Public Works spending $5 million in 1997 for a new software billing system, then having to spend another $5 million in 1999 because it wasn't Y2K-compliant.
Isn't it interesting the Mayor didn't offer up anyone out of her own office. Way to lead by example, Mayor!
A city of 400,000 now has to rely on OHP for police services. How embarrassing is that?
Quote from: Wilbur on October 28, 2009, 06:03:28 AM
Isn't it interesting the Mayor didn't offer up anyone out of her own office. Way to lead by example, Mayor!
A city of 400,000 now has to rely on OHP for police services. How embarrassing is that?
It's ridiculous......I dont understand how they could not find city employees to lay off....Some of them sure stand around enough.....
Quote from: Breadburner on October 28, 2009, 06:21:03 AM
It's ridiculous......I dont understand how they could not find city employees to lay off....Some of them sure stand around enough.....
In these tough times, does the Mayor really need an Education Czar and a Veterans Affairs Czar? We never had them before.
Before the layoffs, the Mayor asked the police union for a couple of concessions.
One was to stop some take-home vehicles, but only unmarked cars going outside the city limits. The other was to ask officers for five days notice when they want to use a comp day as a vacation instead of 24 hours notice.
The police union refused, even though these two steps would have been enough to reduce the layoffs.
Why would the union not agree to these? Why would they choose to lose officers?
Are the guys with unmarked police cars living outside the city so powerful in the union that other officers must lose their jobs so they can keep their benefit?
What possible benefit is it to the rest of us to have unmarked cars leaving the city?
Quote from: Wilbur on October 28, 2009, 06:03:28 AM
Isn't it interesting the Mayor didn't offer up anyone out of her own office. Way to lead by example, Mayor!
A city of 400,000 now has to rely on OHP for police services. How embarrassing is that?
With only two months left until most of those folks are hunting for new work, it would have been little more than a token statement, but I think it would have at least given the image that EVERY department is cutting where possible. It will be up to the next mayor to decide if they want such a big cabinet or not. I'd say it'd be a popular position to trim it down some.
The Mayor's office cut their budget by $28,000...about twice the percentage cut that the police department took this week.
I love how people in the city administration throw this out there like the union said, "No, F$#* those young guys. Lay them off!!!!" That is a total misrepresentation of what happened. Considering that negotiating in public is an unfair labor practice the FOP will not be making public comments about the negotiating process but I have no problem with it. The city administration emailed the FOP at 1:30pm on Monday and gave the ultimatum of officers giving up their take home cars (all of them) outside the city and to make it a requirement that you give 5 days notice before you take a comp day instead of 24 hours or they would lay off officers. The mayor's people then said they needed an answer by 3:30pm. The FOP stated they they needed more time to discuss this and wanted to know how much money the city was trying to save. The city responded nevermind that, those are your options! You need to accept this by 3:30pm. The FOP then responded that we couldn't even have a executive board meeting in 2 hours. So the city went ahead and started the lay off process. This is typical from this administration.
Earlier in the year, the FOP told them that the furlough days would cost the city more money in overtime then it would save and they did it anyway. Now the overtime is $500,000 over where the city thought it would be last year.
The chief then threw out this 1.1 million dollar or so number about how much take-home cars cost outside the city. This number is 10 times higher then the number they gave a year ago during arbitration. So either the cost of take-home cars increased by about 10 times in a year or someone is changing the numbers.
So needless to say, the FOP has alot skepticism about what the city administration says and always wants to check the numbers.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 28, 2009, 07:56:02 AM
Before the layoffs, the Mayor asked the police union for a couple of concessions.
One was to stop some take-home vehicles, but only unmarked cars going outside the city limits. The other was to ask officers for five days notice when they want to use a comp day as a vacation instead of 24 hours notice.
The police union refused, even though these two steps would have been enough to reduce the layoffs.
Why would the union not agree to these? Why would they choose to lose officers?
Are the guys with unmarked police cars living outside the city so powerful in the union that other officers must lose their jobs so they can keep their benefit?
What possible benefit is it to the rest of us to have unmarked cars leaving the city?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 28, 2009, 08:39:48 AM
The Mayor's office cut their budget by $28,000...about twice the percentage cut that the police department took this week.
The cut to the Mayor's staff was not a result of a budget cut..it was the direct result of Amy Polanchek leaving to take a job under Taylor when she moves to the State. Review the Mayor's budget cut proposal at the TW and the TW articles concerning these cuts. The Mayor has repeatedly refused to cut any of her at-will staff or seek a sizeable reduction in their salaries to offset budget cuts.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 27, 2009, 05:23:47 PM
No, I don't think they could do that legally. Are you aware of other counties or municipalities where this has been done? I've never heard of such a thing.
On the FD they have their own little kingdom under the article Xl of the charter. Section 5.1 No chief, officer, or sworn member of the Fire Department shall take an active part for the election of officers of the city, except to vote and privately state a personal opinion.
Article lll, Mayor, "O", provide, administer, maintain, and operate all police, fire protection, civil defense, and emergency services and functions".
Have you ever heard of Robert Peel's Privatized "Bobbies" that brought crime under control in London? Without guns?
When a city does not have the money to support its bureaucracies then it is time to privatize. I do not see in the charter where any "good faith" negotiation is required with public security employee's but there are statutes and codes that cover the actions of such employees when unionized. The union picks the cities that they want to be compared with and it is the highest priced ones.
In present day negotiations it should be brought out that it was the employee of the city that violated their own agreement under section 5.1.
The judge got a nice appointment that increased his retirement when the question was brought up. We have a right to work law in Oklahoma, remember. It is time to amend all union/city contracts for survival.
The people voted overwhelming to amend the charter although state statutes only allow one subject to one ballot title there was sure a slew of them on the amend ballot including around 300 words where the statute only allows 200.
MH2010....are those arbitration transcripts a part of the public record and available for viewing?
MH2010: though I have high expectations for the TPD and am often critical; I always appreciate your comments.
Per the take home cars:
As i understand it take home cars have several benefits: 1) it reduces wear on the vehicles to assign it to one officer, it is their car and treated better, 2) they can get to work quicker or respond nearly immediately in an emergency, and 3) a police car parked in a neighborhood will discourage crime and give confidence to the community. In light of those benefits, a serious argument can be made that in the long run the money is well spent.
HOWEVER, taking police cars outside the city limits of Tulsa removes the entire benefit of #3 and significantly reduces the benefit of #2 while greatly increasing the cost to Tulsans and increasing the wear and tear on vehicles (whereby limited the benefits of #1). Why not initiate a common-sense program that would pass the cost of take home cars on to officer who choose to live outside the city limits of Tulsa? This would not only save the city money, but encourage a greater police presence in Tulsa - whereby increasing the number of police cars traversing and parking on our streets, creating a greater investment in Tulsa on the part of officers, a limited boost to real estate and commerce as each officer represents ~$70K in income, and increasing the cities ability to respond rapidly to emergencies. If an Officer still chooses to live in Owasso, then they can pay mileage on the vehicle for the privilege of driving it back and forth (which might still make it an economical choice).
According to the IRS driving one mile in a car costs ~55 cents (probably more for a custom police car with a high perfromance engine). If you live 25 miles away you are spending $27.50 per day in commuting costs. Five days a week, 50 weeks a year . . . $8,750 per year. If there are ten officers living outside of Tulsa doing this each year, the changes would pay the salary of one officer.
Not a major change, but I don't see how the negatives offset the benefits to the citizens of Tulsa. I get why the police living outside of Tulsa wouldn't like it, but I don't think the change would be unreasonable. Not a panacea for correcting the budget problem, but one example of items that should be considered.
I don't know if the arbitration transcripts are public record. I don't think they are but I will check. I know the administration won't let us record negotiation meetings anymore because we caught them in a lie during the last arbitration so I don't think they would want any of that public.
I, personally, don't have a problem with officers that live outside the city paying a fee to driver their cars home. I live in the city. There is always the arguement that it was a benefit that was given to us instead of a pay increase. Which it was during the Lafortune administration so we would be giving up a benefit. We already pay a fee for driving the vehicles to off-duty jobs. Especially, now in a economic downturn and if it would save the jobs of other officers.
I didn't see the email but I heard today that the city is not planning on replacing any of the officers that retire with laid off officers. I know of one officer that is retiring at the end of this month and there is no plans to replace him with a soon to be laid off officer even thou the city would be saving money because the officer that is going to retire is on the top pay step and the new officer is one from the bottom. I'm not saying they should replace them one for one but if 20 to 40 retire like is planned this year then I think they could hire back the few that can't be covered by the grant.
I am curious if this is actually true or not.
Quote from: MH2010 on October 28, 2009, 10:23:38 AM
I didn't see the email but I heard today that the city is not planning on replacing any of the officers that retire with laid off officers. I know of one officer that is retiring at the end of this month and there is no plans to replace him with a soon to be laid off officer even thou the city would be saving money because the officer that is going to retire is on the top pay step and the new officer is one from the bottom. I'm not saying they should replace them one for one but if 20 to 40 retire like is planned this year then I think they could hire back the few that can't be covered by the grant.
I am curious if this is actually true or not.
I believe the retirees are part of the budget cuts.
Quote from: MH2010 on October 28, 2009, 08:47:03 AM
The city administration emailed the FOP at 1:30pm on Monday and gave the ultimatum of officers giving up their take home cars (all of them) outside the city and to make it a requirement that you give 5 days notice before you take a comp day instead of 24 hours or they would lay off officers. The mayor's people then said they needed an answer by 3:30pm. The FOP stated they they needed more time to discuss this and wanted to know how much money the city was trying to save. The city responded nevermind that, those are your options! You need to accept this by 3:30pm. The FOP then responded that we couldn't even have a executive board meeting in 2 hours. So the city went ahead and started the lay off process.
Did that completely take the union by surprise?
There was never any previous discussion of eliminating take-home cars out of the city?
They talked about it during the last negotiations but they really wanted furloughs for everyone. I think we would have done the charge for taking the cars outside of the city but the administration was all about furloughs. They had this deal about furloughs for eveyone no matter what. Recently, there was no talk about taking the cars. They only figured out the lay-off deal on Friday and then set that stuff to the FOP on Monday.
Sounded to me that the city is still open to last-minute negotiations.
The FOP and the city are in negotiations now but I don't have high hopes.
The FOP has been making numerous suggestions to the City for the past several months, but most get rejected before even the slightest consideration.
The FOP warned months ago that furloughs would end up costing more in the long run, and they were right. Don't you find it curious furloughs were never discussed this time around?
The FOP proposed taking 64 hours (same amount of time as furloughs) of comp time away from each officer in place of furloughs. This has several benefits: no furloughing one employee then hiring back another at time and one half, it is less time you have to replace an officer in a future comp day, plus it allows officers to work overtime and put in for comp time instead of pay (if they were previously maxed out on comp time). City said no.
The FOP offered to go with all comp time instead of pay for overtime, which would have saved at least $2.1M. But the city insisted on furloughs for all employees, so the city said no.
The $1.1M cost for take home cars is NOT correct. The last figure I remember hearing for the cost of take home cars AND using the cars at part time jobs was around $250K.
Other offers were made that I was not privy to, but, believe me, the FOP has been trying.
MH and Wilber thanks for the insight from your point-of-view, helps knowing both sides. FWIW, I appreciate what you guys do.
I don't really like to see anyone lose their jobs, but we had police officers sitting at speed traps all day. We definitely need a little house cleaning, those guys could have been following leads into real crimes. A crime like my stolen truck tailgate a few years ago, that took 4 hours for a police officer to come to my house. And then a year later my stolen truck which took only 3 hours for them to come out to. On top of that, either case was solved, no evidence was collected and I was never called back on anything. Maybe they can use this as a wake up call. I would expect to get fired if I failed at my job like that.
The officers that did respond were very cordial and professional though, so I hope it wasn't them. Just the slackers.
I have kind of an interesting perspective on this whole situation. Up until now, I thought Kathy Taylor had done a pretty decent job, but she had some faults. She certainly wasnt perfect, but who is? Like other people have said, why didnt our Mayor and City Council see this coming? Ever since we (the city) decided to accept the grant money, I have been working on my app for TPD (it is very lengthy). I was hoping to test in Jan and get into next summers academy. That looks like it has been thrown out the window.
I don't understand (from all accounts I have read) the mayor didnt give us and the police dept more of a notice. And why didn't the police union ratify their contract like the fire dept did? Why didnt Kathy Taylor come to the citizens and companies of Tulsa and say hey "we are in deep trouble with our budget, we might be looking at laying off police officers, grounding helicopters and getting rid of mounted patrol. Please if every citizen can donate 5 or 10 dollars that would help out tremendously." Also companies like QT or Kaiser or some other affluent names in the city could come up with some money. Collect money at the doors of concerts at the BOK, cains and TU football games.
To me it just sounds like they hastily decided on this decision without putting much effort or thought into it. It is like a kid who is working a puzzle or trying to solve a problem and they just give up within a few minutes and say "its too hard, I cant do it". To me thats how I feel. I feel our city leaders let us down as and it really stings.
I don't have much faith in Bartlett or Adelson, but I hope one of them steps up and corrects this HUGE MISTAKE quickly.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on October 27, 2009, 07:06:56 AM
If the council had not accepted the grant, there would be no TPD layoffs. This is all a scheme to be able to change the use of the grant money.
It would be nice if the extra millions collected from the EMSA water bill fee could be allocated to the city budget.
I was pretty sure that IS the case. IIRC, the City Water Bill FEE (tax) for EMSA is collected by the City. Water/Sewer/Storm goes to PW, Trash goes to TARE and EMSA goes to General Fund from which City subscribes to EMSA services at fixed fee. Balance stays in GF. But, that has been my assumption. As it were, that represented about a $5 million surplus to GF just on the EMSA tax.
You'll also recall there's been three years in a row where water rates increased by 7% each year (think one year was even greater).
And, Ms. Kitty unnecessarily raised the Stormwater Management Fee by 25% last year in anticipation of those extra funds being allocated to the General Fund. But, that can't happen since those are Enterprise Funds, as I understand it. So, she's been busy trying to find a way to get her hands on Enterprize Funds, which, once done, opens access to them all to shift around at will. Thus, defeating the designed purpose of Enterprise Funds.
Maybe that's the trouble with the EMSA tax funds now, too. Even if they aren't all paid to EMSA, she might not be able to access the balance.
Quote from: brianh on October 28, 2009, 06:49:05 PM
I don't really like to see anyone lose their jobs, but we had police officers sitting at speed traps all day. We definitely need a little house cleaning, those guys could have been following leads into real crimes. A crime like my stolen truck tailgate a few years ago, that took 4 hours for a police officer to come to my house. And then a year later my stolen truck which took only 3 hours for them to come out to. On top of that, either case was solved, no evidence was collected and I was never called back on anything. Maybe they can use this as a wake up call. I would expect to get fired if I failed at my job like that.
The officers that did respond were very cordial and professional though, so I hope it wasn't them. Just the slackers.
Stolen truck tailgate? Real crime? I dunno, theft is theft, but let's be honest, your only recourse on that (unless you got a tag number of the bum that stole it as he drove away) was to fill out a police report and file it on your insurance. They can't possibly afford the man-power to go out and track down your stolen truck parts unless it's part of a larger ring of theft and stolen parts dealing.
He does raise a good point. In other cities I have lived in (and other police officers I know), they at least pretend to collect evidence or care. When ~$20,000 worth of items were stolen from my friends construction yard he told the cops who took it (1 employee that had a key never showed up for work again) - they said if he didn't have a video they wouldn't investigate. A home near mine was broken into (a retired Chicago cop lives there) and there were palm and finger prints on the glass next to the window they broke out. They didn't bother collecting them. I've had acquaintances in Tulsa have vehicles or parts of vehicles stolen with no investigation at all (including, in one instance, a transmission taken from a truck overnight. The apartment complex had video and the police never bothered getting it). I personally witnessed a hit and run and when attempting to get the license plate number ended up chasing down what turned out to be a stolen vehicle - the guy fled on foot after a couple blocks. I gave a description of the guy to the police and they found a hotel room key while searching the truck (plus prints all over, etc.). But nothing ever came of it (you know what he looks like, you have his finger prints, you know where he was staying). On another occasion I was shot at by another car (Harvard and the BA) who then proceeded to race onto the BA. They came a few hours later and took a report . . . but nothing ever came of it.
Seriously, other than murders, home invasions, and bank robberies - does Tulsa investigate any crimes? Or did I just happen upon a slew of examples that are rare? Or does investigations or even casual looking into non-violent non-drug crimes not really happen anymore? If I were a criminal I'd have supreme confidence in my ability to get away with any theft I wanted.
I admit I may be delusional. But I'd think they would at least pick the low hanging fruit.
And I agree. All my interactions with the TPD have been very professional.
I believe that sales taxes are submitted to the OTC weekly which city can access as to the anticipated amount to be expected by the city almost 45 days later. This at the present seem why the reduction in the budget funding has become so critical to establish what funds are available before overdrawn notices are issued.
The city has been divided into several department thus each department submits how much they need to operate their department. There is no source available or provided to audit the departments on how the money could possibly have been misspent. You elect a auditor but the departments will not cooperate in any auditing.(nor the union) The powers of Tulsa restricts even the Federal Government from interfering with its operations.
The line between controlled government and government of the taxpayers peers is being painted by a broader brush daily. Government jobs pay much more that those of private industries. Well except those that are established to divert the working poor's money to personal satisfaction by payoffs.
I think some are forgetting it was Mayor Taylor that gave them their raise in 2006 without it going to a vote of the people.
Quote from: Wilbur on October 27, 2009, 04:46:44 PM
... or the $3,000,000 new email system she had to have because the City wasn't using Outlook when she got here.
And, where's the media in this town? Why don't they ever look into government expenses? Where is the story about how the current mayor has sucked this town dry and the crazy projects the money went to? Oh, yea... politics.
A lot less than $3,000,000 for Outlook according to this (http://204.62.23.97/his_bid_summaries/07-753%20MicrosoftOutlook%202007%20-%20%20bid%20compilation.xls) unless installing it cost $2,950,000 and some change.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 29, 2009, 12:08:10 PM
Seriously, other than murders, home invasions, and bank robberies - does Tulsa investigate any crimes? Or did I just happen upon a slew of examples that are rare? Or does investigations or even casual looking into non-violent non-drug crimes not really happen anymore? If I were a criminal I'd have supreme confidence in my ability to get away with any theft I wanted.
I admit I may be delusional. But I'd think they would at least pick the low hanging fruit.
And I agree. All my interactions with the TPD have been very professional.
My limited interaction with the police has been similar. My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law. We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done. We recorded the telephone call. We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic. There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime. It has been a over a year--no prosecution.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on October 29, 2009, 09:32:20 PM
I think some are forgetting it was Mayor Taylor that gave them their raise in 2006 without it going to a vote of the people.
It is at the mayors discretion under the charter which selects the TPD as an separate entity from PW giving the mayor authority to increase their salaries, perks or replace the entire force and hire a private force. This is what the citizens by a majority voted for. At a future time this could happen.
Quote from: Bledsoe on October 30, 2009, 07:39:48 AM
My limited interaction with the police has been similar. My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law. We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done. We recorded the telephone call. We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic. There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime. It has been a over a year--no prosecution.
Just for clarification, the district attorney prosecutes, not the police.
Quote from: Wilbur on October 30, 2009, 09:09:39 AM
Just for clarification, the district attorney prosecutes, not the police.
I certainly know this, but as far as I can tell, the police have not submitted anything to the DA. In fact the detective told me that I could expect limited action and that it was a low priority. I pointed out that all he had to do was type up a report and send it along with the telephone confession to the DA's office. In fact I, as counsel for the business, I basically prepared the report for him when we turned it in. He said he would get to it when he finished more important matters. I understand this should not be at the top of the list, but I would have expected some action by now. Any suggestions Wilbur?
OK . . .
There are 777 cars that the TPD allows to be taken home. Of those, 397 are taken out of the city of Tulsa. WHAT THE HELL? Why do MOST of our police officers live outside of the city they "protect and serve"?
QuotePolice take-home vehicles have been a source of debate among city leaders for years. But because it is a contract benefit that the union — backed by arbitration — has been unwilling to give up, no changes have been made.
The current policy allows officers 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 officers to drive to Owasso, Broken Arrow, Kellyville, Jenks, Claremore and other cities. Enforcement of the radius also has been cited by city officials as lax.
The policy was negotiated with the union by then-Mayor Bill LaFortune, who offered it in a year when there were little to no raises.
A 2007 council study, spearheaded by Christiansen, showed that of the 777 police vehicles, 392 were being driven to residences outside the city.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091029_11_A1_SgtDav614616
It's a perk. Those 392 vehicles leaving the city of Tulsa does nothing to help the City of Tulsa nor to help the police do their jobs. It is a perk the FOP is unwilling to give up in order to save police jobs.
When the question was asked "how many officers are outside the 25 mile radius" they were totally unable to answer that question. The rule isn't enforced or even monitored. But let's use 20 miles as the average commute for an officer living outside of Tulsa, pretending they are within the guidelines (which isn't monitored at all).
392 (cars leaving Tulsa) * .55 (2009 IRS rate) * 20 (distance) * 300 (working days in a year) = $1,293,600
Which is pretty damn close to what the Counselors were saying. The FOP says the number is more like 40,000 - $70,000, or about 60 cents per vehicle per day. Or pretending that each officer drives just over 1 mile . . . or that a patrol car is cheaper to drive than an average vehicle (pretending the number is only 25 cents, then they are driving 2.5 miles). It CLEARLY isn't an honest assessment.
For $1.3 million we could save 21 officer, the helicopters, and the mounted patrol. OR . . . allow officers to commute out of Tulsa. The FOP chooses to allow Officers to commute. To protect and serve - union members.
Yep, it's a contract benefit. But if that's the way the game is played . . . fine. Clearly FOP profits and benefits are more important than the quality or quantity of Officers on the streets, ergo more important than the mission of the TPD. Message received. Thanks. When you care more about #1 than the public good, you're just an employee like everyone else. There's no altruism in it so you lose your special status as a "civil servant."
Next time the contract comes up, yank the benefit for anyone outside of Tulsa. Period. No Tulsa residence, no car. They don't provide a secure feeling for Tulsa overnight, they don't increase response time in Tulsa, and cost tons of money. You'll have to drive to work live everyone else, oh the humanity.
I agree. Name one other city that allows such a policy.
Now is not the time to let police officers have take home vehicles outside the city limits. We need to be as frugal as possible and this is a company benefit that we can't afford.
I am also tired of hearing that the policy was given in exchange for pay raises that year. That was the same year that every other city employee took pay cuts.
We can either have more officers on the street or stop 400 officers from having a perk that no other police force has.
Just wait till gas goes up to $3.50 a gallon again, the cost will be even more.
I'm curious do officers have to claim the auto benefit on their taxes. I know in private industry if you have a company car, it's a taxable form of compensation, at least if it's available for personal use and commuting.
The company driven cars between place of employment and home is one of chief sources that the IRS looks into. (three audit charges were based on the subject ) Fact I would believe that is the auditors chief training.
In the past seems the tag on city auto's were limited to in-city driving by OTC with certain exception that did not include private usage outside city.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 30, 2009, 10:11:26 AM
OK . . .
There are 777 cars that the TPD allows to be taken home. Of those, 397 are taken out of the city of Tulsa. WHAT THE HELL? Why do MOST of our police officers live outside of the city they "protect and serve"?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091029_11_A1_SgtDav614616
It's a perk. Those 392 vehicles leaving the city of Tulsa does nothing to help the City of Tulsa nor to help the police do their jobs. It is a perk the FOP is unwilling to give up in order to save police jobs.
When the question was asked "how many officers are outside the 25 mile radius" they were totally unable to answer that question. The rule isn't enforced or even monitored. But let's use 20 miles as the average commute for an officer living outside of Tulsa, pretending they are within the guidelines (which isn't monitored at all).
392 (cars leaving Tulsa) * .55 (2009 IRS rate) * 20 (distance) * 300 (working days in a year) = $1,293,600
Which is pretty damn close to what the Counselors were saying. The FOP says the number is more like 40,000 - $70,000, or about 60 cents per vehicle per day. Or pretending that each officer drives just over 1 mile . . . or that a patrol car is cheaper to drive than an average vehicle (pretending the number is only 25 cents, then they are driving 2.5 miles). It CLEARLY isn't an honest assessment.
For $1.3 million we could save 21 officer, the helicopters, and the mounted patrol. OR . . . allow officers to commute out of Tulsa. The FOP chooses to allow Officers to commute. To protect and serve - union members.
Yep, it's a contract benefit. But if that's the way the game is played . . . fine. Clearly FOP profits and benefits are more important than the quality or quantity of Officers on the streets, ergo more important than the mission of the TPD. Message received. Thanks. When you care more about #1 than the public good, you're just an employee like everyone else. There's no altruism in it so you lose your special status as a "civil servant."
Next time the contract comes up, yank the benefit for anyone outside of Tulsa. Period. No Tulsa residence, no car. They don't provide a secure feeling for Tulsa overnight, they don't increase response time in Tulsa, and cost tons of money. You'll have to drive to work live everyone else, oh the humanity.
How on earth did you come up with 397 cars go outside the city?
The Chief reported 45% of officers live outside the city. So, 45% of 777 = 349. Not all 349 people take their cars home. Not all officers who live within the city take their car home. That's why you see numerous cars sitting at police stations, fire houses, water treatment plants, .....
Then, you jump to the conclusion they all live 20 miles away. WOW! Where does that figure come from? As I reported here before, many officers drive across the line just into Broken Arrow to drive home, a shorter distance then driving their police car back to some police station.
Where are you going to park all those cars? None of the three uniform divisions currently have enough parking. So, lets spend how much building more parking lots.
And, if you don't believe increased moral results in a better employee, regardless of their occupation, then thank god you're not my boss!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 30, 2009, 10:18:40 AM
I agree. Name one other city that allows such a policy.
Now is not the time to let police officers have take home vehicles outside the city limits. We need to be as frugal as possible and this is a company benefit that we can't afford.
I am also tired of hearing that the policy was given in exchange for pay raises that year. That was the same year that every other city employee took pay cuts.
We can either have more officers on the street or stop 400 officers from having a perk that no other police force has.
You mean other then Glenpool, Broken Arrow, Jenks, OHP, .... All of whom have police cars being parked in Tulsa. None of which are laying off employees.
Quote from: Bledsoe on October 30, 2009, 07:39:48 AM
My limited interaction with the police has been similar. My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law. We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done. We recorded the telephone call. We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic. There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime. It has been a over a year--no prosecution.
In 1999, our previous home was burglarized. The perp left a girl's bike in the driveway, probably from an earlier burglary. A headset that was taken from our house was found at another home in the neighborhood that had been broken into. The burglar took a checkbook, camcorder and SLR camera (both of which contained pictures of my son's 3rd birthday party), and a portable CD player. The police came and wrote a report. To my surprise, they didn't dust the window where the burglar entered or the abandoned bike for prints. The officer told us they were there to write up a report we could give to the insurance company. I provided a list of missing items with serial and model numbers to the police, naively thinking that this would be helpful if the thief tried to sell the stolen property.
One of the stolen checks was used a few days later to pay for Pizza Hut delivery. I called the store to find out the address to which the pizza was delivered. The bank provided me with an image of the check, which showed a phone number written on the check (the source of the pizza delivery request) and a forged signature that bore no resemblance to mine. I passed this info on to the detective, who told me that nothing would be done with it. It wasn't enough information to justify a search warrant. If I recall correctly, they weren't even going to question the people at that address.
Why assign a detective if you aren't going to bother investigating a case? Here was a lead that was connected to at least three burglaries on the same day.
Do you all honestly believe that if the city could show a study that says taking the take-home cars away from the police officers would save 1.1 million dollars, they would not have released it? Wescott and others on the council would be waving that study in front of every news camera in Tulsa. That number is bogus and that is why the channel 6 story said, " The chief's office wasn't comfortable standing by those numbers until they could do more research."
The city didn't want the take home cars when they were trying to give us furloughs. At that time, they said take-home cars were worth about $150,000.00. The truth is, if there was some study that showed the saving would be 1.1 million and the city would guarantee that there would be no more lay-offs of police officers, the union would acccept the offer just like it did with the furloughs. However, the furloughs were supposed to stop the lay-off of police officers but it didn't. Officers are afraid that this is just another crazy idea from the mayor to try to save money that will fail just like the furloughs did.
As an example of this take-home car policy, I live inside the city of Tulsa. I drive further from my house to my division then officers that live in Glenpool and drive to the riverside division. So, this whole driving outside the city costs the city so much money is alot more complicated then people realize. One of the reasons, the city continued to let police officers drive their cars outside of the city is because, as officers drive into work, they are ready to respond to calls and back other officers which is happening more and more because of manpower issues and it gives the illusion that there are more officers on duty then their actually is.
What is wrong with having TPD employees live within their community, pay property taxes to their community and support businesses within that community? Then the issue of where you park your patrol cars is moot and Tulsa reaps more benefit from our investment in the police force. More property taxes, more sales taxes and more visibility.
Whether its $150,000 or $1 1/2 million, now is not the time to argue over decisions made when the local economy was fat and happy. Pick your battles carefully boys. Your not going to win them all.
Quote from: waterboy on October 30, 2009, 12:03:05 PM
What is wrong with having TPD employees live within their community, pay property taxes to their community and support businesses within that community? Then the issue of where you park your patrol cars is moot and Tulsa reaps more benefit from our investment in the police force. More property taxes, more sales taxes and more visibility.
Whether its $150,000 or $1 1/2 million, now is not the time to argue over decisions made when the local economy was fat and happy. Pick your battles carefully boys. Your not going to win them all.
I find it curious/funny/sad (depends on how you look at it) that our elected city officials can't figure out how to properly maintain the city's budget, and now they are turning to the FOP to cure their inabilities to manage money.
And, I don't understand how we criticize officers who choose to reside and raise their families outside the city of Tulsa, but put their lives on the line for the citizens of Tulsa. Truly sad.
Back in '93, when I was dating my now wife, her house near downtown was robbed, the thief took a bunch jewelry and other stuff. The police came out and did just about nothing. One of the things stolen was her father's class ring and her grandmother's watch. The family that owns Oliver's downtown are old friends of my wife's family and low and behold the thief took the ring and the watch to Oliver's Jewelry and Pawn. The thief had a homeless man pawn the stuff for him, but stood at the back of the store in view of the security cameras.
Oliver's had just happened to have repaired the watch just before the robbery and recognized it and the class ring. They bought as much as they could from the homeless man selling the stuff and got the homeless man to give them the name of the kid at the back of the store that he was pawning the stuff for. They gave my wife the stuff they bought back, fingerprints and all, the name (street name) of the thief, the name and DL# of the homeless man and the tapes showing the whole interaction including the face of the thief. The police wanted none of it. Wouldn't even look at it.
Last year a (probably) drunk driver hit my mother's house in south Tulsa in middle of the night and drove off. But they left an oil stain leading to a nearby house to the garage. They did over $15,000 in damage to the house. The cop that took the report wouldn't look at the stain or any of the damage, said that the detective would do that. The detective never called. When my mother finally got a hold of him over a week later, he said he wasn't going to do anything and the case was closed. A simple knock on the door probably would have led to an arrest.
And don't tell me TPD is overworked I know of specific TPD officers and detectives that spend a good deal of the working week just sitting at home with the radio on or traffic cops that once they write their quota of tickets they are done for the day. They also make sure that if they are going to show up to court, say for a traffic stop, they are getting OT for it. I'm not saying all TPD is like this, but a lot is.
In contrast, in Jenks, my wife and I saw a woman steal gas, just drive off. We then went shopping at Reasors and when we came out the same woman was in her car trying to leave the store. I noticed a cop in the parking lot and tried to block her in her space and waive him down. It turned out he was not only there for her, but so were two other cop cars on the other side of the parking lot. For stolen gas. That would never have happened in Tulsa.
Most of TPD just doesn't care. Wilbur, you talk about morale, well, the morale for the citizens of Tulsa towards their police force is pretty low. The most common interaction most people with TPD when they are the victim of a crime is one where the police don't give a crap. Why do we need to pay TPD officers $50,000 to fill out forms that no one will ever read? You can find plenty of people to scribble on forms for $10 an hour. And they won't feel entitled to drive a company car home each night.
Quote from: Bledsoe on October 30, 2009, 07:39:48 AM
My limited interaction with the police has been similar. My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law. We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done. We recorded the telephone call. We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic. There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime. It has been a over a year--no prosecution.
Boy, have I gotten an education in crime and deterrence the last decade. Here's a couple examples:
-watched a thief following a UPS truck, park in my neighbors driveway and steal packages from his porch. Wrote down the tag, the model/make of car and a description of the thief. Police arrived, told me the car belonged to a recently released convict by that description but made no effort to arrest him or search for the car. I would had to have filed a report and pick him out of a lineup because he would simply allege someone else used his car. A difficult case to prosecute and the packages were insured. Thief happily continues career.
-crazy drug user loses temper and sideswipes a friend of mine who is trying to get into his car after brief altercation. Severely damages car and breaks both legs of my friend, then drives off. Three witnesses, license tag number, name of assailant and description of car. No arrest and no warrant issued. Policeman says that's up to prosecutor. I'm seeing "leaving the scene of an accident", "assault with a deadly weapon" and perhaps more. A week later the investigator sends an e-mail to inquire if he wants to file a complaint!?
There is so much serious crime occurring that I believe the system is overwhelmed. The bottom line is that pursuing all but the most egregious, easily prosecuted crimes is not feasible. Especially if the miscreants are serious drug users or gang members. Feels like we're up feces creek to me.
After I vowed to myself over and over not to argue about police wages and take home cars on this forum any more, I can't believe we're still doing this (or, at lease I'm still doing this).
I love this city and love this police department. But, citizens need to realize they get what they pay for.
Look at Miami PD in the 1970s, Houston PD in the 1980s, New Orleans PD in the 1990s, ..... I would truly hate to see this police department go the way these departments did because we continue to fall further and further behind in pay/benefits. Tulsa has been at the bottom of the barrel for many years and it's only getting worse. Our talent is going elsewhere. Our hiring standards are getting lower. I'm afraid we're heading into the same fate as these other agencies.
Quote from: Wilbur on October 30, 2009, 12:09:18 PM
I find it curious/funny/sad (depends on how you look at it) that our elected city officials can't figure out how to properly maintain the city's budget, and now they are turning to the FOP to cure their inabilities to manage money.
And, I don't understand how we criticize officers who choose to reside and raise their families outside the city of Tulsa, but put their lives on the line for the citizens of Tulsa. Truly sad.
They are turning to everyone in city employ to cure their longstanding inability to manage a city that is beset with economic, philosophical and drug related turmoil. That is sad.
I put my life on the line for my family every day in Tulsa traffic, businesses and public places and I don't carry a gun, so please forego the self pity unless you feel it for all of us.
Is it so much to ask that city employees reside within our confines? How sad is that? This is not professional sports where a MInnesota Viking might live in Jenks but retain Minnesota loyalties. This is our hometown and it isn't unreasonable to expect that our TPD employees have more than just an employment stake in its protection. Or perhaps you think we ought to go a step farther and simply hire a professional private security force based out of state?
Wait a minute....no union problems....no self insurance problems...liability falls outside our jurisdiction. Might not be too bad.
***Due to my math error, I really used 10 miles. I failed to address the fact that each officer drives his car TO work and from work. Thus 20 miles represents round trip. Or each officer driving an extra 10 miles to commute home in his Tulsa vehicle. * * *
Quote from: Wilbur on October 30, 2009, 11:33:01 AM
How on earth did you come up with 397 cars go outside the city?
By reading:
QuoteA 2007 council study, spearheaded by Christiansen, showed that of the 777 police vehicles, 392 were being driven to residences outside the city.
But you are right, there are 392 vehicles going outside the city limits, not 397. I apologize for that error. The best evidence I have seen cited indicates 392 TPD Officers are driving city owned vehicles outside of Tulsa for commuter purposes.
QuoteThen, you jump to the conclusion they all live 20 miles away. WOW! Where does that figure come from? As I reported here before, many officers drive across the line just into Broken Arrow to drive home, a shorter distance then driving their police car back to some police station.
***The figure I sued in the equation actually equates to 10 miles.
As for my 20 mile figure: it comes from the total lack of any information available from the TPD on how far the vehicles are being driven. When asked how many officers routinely broke the rule by living further outside of Tulsa than allowed - they were not able to give any indication and admitted they don't know. Per the Tulsa Metro Chamber the average Tulsa commute time is 20 minutes. Given that these Officers necessarily live in a different town than they work, I extrapolated that to mean 20 miles. For some officers this is probably high, for others it is probably low.
At the end of a shift an officer may be closer to home than the precinct, but that would be an entirely random event (well, should be. If I were free to range on my job I admit the odds are I would end up closer to my home by the end of the shift). It is no more likely that the Officer is closer to home than the precinct than it is likely that he drives passed the precinct on his drive out of Tulsa to his home. It is more likely that an officer is assigned to a precinct that has no relation to his non-Tulsa address (an officer assigned to Uniform Division North may live in Jenks, a South officer living in Collinsville). Since they are more likely to expend fuel driving out of Tulsa than save it, the fuel savings argument doesn't apply in the aggregate (it may work for several officers, but not the whole).
If you remove the random points from the map that are outside the city limits of Tulsa, the aggregate commuter mileage in TPD cars would go down as the potential area for said mileage decreases AND the number of vehicles being used for this purpose also decreases.
QuoteWhere are you going to park all those cars? None of the three uniform divisions currently have enough parking. So, lets spend how much building more parking lots.
If the perk is that important, before the next negotiating contract comes up they could purchase nice homes in Tulsa in which to park their Tulsa vehicles in front of.
Quote
And, if you don't believe increased moral results in a better employee, regardless of their occupation, then thank god you're not my boss!
Moral does equal better employees. But that is not an argument for affording wages or benefits we can not afford. I wish everyone could have a company car to commute with, but at the cost of 21 police officer's jobs it is a perk we really can't afford.
MH2010:
To get to the $150,000 number you would have to believe that each officer is driving just an extra 1.1 miles every day (150k/300 working days/.55 mileage/392 officers/2 each way). I don't buy that.
While it is true that for SOME Officers it saves time and money to return home after the shift - in the aggregate it adds mileage. See above.
As for officers responding more quickly, that argument fails for two primary reasons:
#1) If the object was to ensure officers were able to respond more quickly, wouldn't a policy mandating residence inside the city be more likely to succeed? Certainly a policy which discharges 21 officers in order to enable an officer living in Collinsville to respond faster is poorly thought out.
and #2) I deal with police on a semi regular basis. I've never interviewed or read a transcript of an officer that responded to an incident from home. The occurrence of such an event is a rarity.
- - -
At the end of the day it's simple for me: we spend money allowing city assets to leave the city. As a citizen of Tulsa, that doesn't make sense to me. The costs outweigh the benefits, so think it should be changed.
Okay swake, if u kno officers that do that, name them. If u are afraid to name them on a public forum, private message me their names and I will have them investigated. They r making more work for the rest of us. If u don't know their names or won't name them then I will believe they don't exist or don't sit at home like u said.
As far as people helping on their way to and from work, I am a tulsa police officer and I know it happens. It is not listed on reports because the officers that help aren't the one writing the reports, no reports are made (they assist or open charges r filed) or any number if other reasons.
As far as the cars go, if a study is done that gives a real value to the take home cars and it would save the jobs of the laid off officers then officers would give them up. However, as of today, no one can give a number or say for sure it would save their jobs or prevent further lay-offs. Until then officers will probably vote to keep the benefit for the 300 or so officers that use it.
Quote from: Wilbur on October 30, 2009, 12:09:18 PM
And, I don't understand how we criticize officers who choose to reside and raise their families outside the city of Tulsa, but put their lives on the line for the citizens of Tulsa. Truly sad.
Are delivery men, construction workers, and oil hands above criticism to? Their jobs are more dangerous than yours is. 39 Tulsa Police Officers have died while on duty, 17 by the violence of others. I my lifetime 2 Tulsa Police Officers were murdered. Every death is a tragedy, but realistically speaking it isn't that hazardous of an occupation.
Actually, look at this way: 30 year murder rates (chances of death by the violence of another).
TPD: ~750 officers * 30/2 murders = 1/11,250
Public: ~360K * 30/1740 murders = 1/6200
You are more likely to die from the violence of another as a citizen of Tulsa than as a police officer in Tulsa. So lets not play that card and agree that all people are equal. A job that puts you at risk is just that: a job. It does not exempt you from any level of criticism.
Sorry to go here, I respect your profession. You deal with crap people in difficult situations as a career. But pretending you are above criticism of your salary and benefits because you "put your life on the line" demanded a response.
and +1 to Swake. Reality or not, the reputation of the TPS is one of filling out forms and nothing ever happening. Post after post here indicates similar experiences. I can't speak to the reality, but that's the common perception.
I don't disrespect police officers. My father is a retired Tulsa Police officer and a proud member of the FOP. I grew up with an officer and the job was too hard for me to ever consider it as a career. He had many scary instances, being shot at, having to arrest friends, being assaulted off-duty by a guy he had arrested before all come to mind.
This argument isn't about the job or the reputation of the Tulsa police. It is a budget issue.
Take-home vehicles for out-of-town officers is costing us so much that we have to lay-off other officers. Why won't the police union representatives recognize this?
I said it earlier in this thread, but need to repeat it. WE CAN'T AFFORD THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WE WANT. We have a simple choice. We can hire back these police officers or let other policemen have a company perk that almost no other government employee has.
Quote from: MH2010 on October 30, 2009, 01:21:53 PM
Okay swake, if u kno officers that do that, name them. If u are afraid to name them on a public forum, private message me their names and I will have them investigated. They r making more work for the rest of us. If u don't know their names or won't name them then I will believe they don't exist or don't sit at home like u said.
As far as people helping on their way to and from work, I am a tulsa police officer and I know it happens. It is not listed on reports because the officers that help aren't the one writing the reports, no reports are made (they assist or open charges r filed) or any number if other reasons.
As far as the cars go, if a study is done that gives a real value to the take home cars and it would save the jobs of the laid off officers then officers would give them up. However, as of today, no one can give a number or say for sure it would save their jobs or prevent further lay-offs. Until then officers will probably vote to keep the benefit for the 300 or so officers that use it.
There is no way I am naming crap. None of this is news to anyone on the force anyway.
Quote from: swake on October 30, 2009, 01:43:46 PM
There is no way I am naming crap. None of this is news to anyone on the force anyway.
I'd say that's prolly a great personal and career move on your part.
This will all pale in comparison to the rumors.....layoffs will turn into resignations.
Think you've had bad service from TPD, wait until those desk sergeants hit the streets after 10 yrs or so off. I would think they'll be a little grumpy and short fused.
Quote from: FOTD on October 30, 2009, 02:01:52 PM
This will all pale in comparison to the rumors.....layoffs will turn into resignations.
OK ... you've been teasing about this so-called rumor for weeks. Put up or shut up.
Quote from: MDepr2007 on October 30, 2009, 06:55:38 PM
Think you've had bad service from TPD, wait until those desk sergeants hit the streets after 10 yrs or so off. I would think they'll be a little grumpy and short fused.
Cry me a river.
Jeez Louise, the country is going through the worst recession in more than a quarter-century, and all I'm hearing is whining from cops about everything, including the layoffs.
Guess what? Darned near everyone is laying off workers these days. Police departments are not immune. Belts are tightening. Buck up.
And don't give me this sob story about how dangerous police work is. Being a police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs most years. Farming makes the top 10 every year and has for decades. You don't hear farmers breaking out sad violins about the hazards of their jobs. As I've said before, buck up.
Quote from: waterboy on October 30, 2009, 12:03:05 PM
What is wrong with having TPD employees live within their community, pay property taxes to their community and support businesses within that community? Then the issue of where you park your patrol cars is moot and Tulsa reaps more benefit from our investment in the police force. More property taxes, more sales taxes and more visibility.
Whether its $150,000 or $1 1/2 million, now is not the time to argue over decisions made when the local economy was fat and happy. Pick your battles carefully boys. Your not going to win them all.
who says they dont? Like I mentioned before, I plan on putting in my app for the academy. I live just outside the city limits of Tulsa but still in Tulsa County. I pay Tulsa County tax (almost 3,000 dollars a year) and I supoort local businesses in Tulsa. Just because they live outside the city limits, doesnt mean they dont support the community. That is a very naive thing to say. And like MH2010 said, the drive from my house (outside city limits) to Riverside station is shorter then someone that lives at 111th and Sheridan (inside the city limits) and drives to Gilcrease. The logic that "if you live in the city limits, you are closer to work" is flawed.
Quote from: FOTD on October 30, 2009, 02:01:52 PM
This will all pale in comparison to the rumors.....layoffs will turn into resignations.
Before any of the officers resign it would possibility be to their advantage to see where they can find another job that has both compatible salaries and perks that they are accustom too. The propaganda department seem to elaborate grossly on Tulsa coming out of the recession. Many times static's are not reliable.
Quote from: TUalum0982 on October 30, 2009, 07:26:42 PM
who says they dont? Like I mentioned before, I plan on putting in my app for the academy. I live just outside the city limits of Tulsa but still in Tulsa County. I pay Tulsa County tax (almost 3,000 dollars a year) and I supoort local businesses in Tulsa. Just because they live outside the city limits, doesnt mean they dont support the community. That is a very naive thing to say. And like MH2010 said, the drive from my house (outside city limits) to Riverside station is shorter then someone that lives at 111th and Sheridan (inside the city limits) and drives to Gilcrease. The logic that "if you live in the city limits, you are closer to work" is flawed.
I don't think the issue is whether folks who live outside city limits support the area. The issue is simple economics. It costs the city more money to let cops drive their patrol cars home -- period. That is indisputable.
And when you have cities all across the country that are cash-strapped, it seems stupid and intractable to let the police union keep a minor perk at the expense of jobs and public safety. At this point, the police union is nothing more than utterly self-serving.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 30, 2009, 07:35:24 PM
I don't think the issue is whether folks who live outside city limits support the area. The issue is simple economics. It costs the city more money to let cops drive their patrol cars home -- period. That is indisputable.
And when you have cities all across the country that are cash-strapped, it seems stupid and intractable to let the police union keep a minor perk at the expense of jobs and public safety. At this point, the police union is nothing more than utterly self-serving.
I agree with you 100%. Either take it away from EVERYONE that is elgible to drive a car home or let everyone that is elgible keep the perk. I don't think its fair to say "anyone that lives in the city is OK, and everyone else isn't" because of the variables I mentioned earlier. It doesnt make sense from a financial standpoint if you do decide and do it that way IMO
As for who to blame, I have heard varying accounts from both sides obviously blaming someone else. If the city did in fact agree to this "benefit" of taking cars home over a pay raise then I can see why the FOP and officers would be upset.
I dont think the police dept should be immune from cutbacks, but the mayors office should have asked Chief Palmer and TPD where they think they can cut back. Give them an amount they need to come up with and let them work on it, dont just start laying off officers and grounding helicopters. Like I mentioned before, I think the mayors office did this totally the wrong way and should have offered up some alternatives to both the citizens of our city and the police dept.
From how I understand it, the mayors great idea of all city employees taking furlough days, didnt help the city budget, only made it worse(speaking in terms of police officers only). If these are the decisions they are making, maybe they should let the people who actually run the police dept make decisions on where they can/should cut back not the other way around.
Better yet, maybe the mayor and her husband could sell one their planes and/or Bentley they keep at US Aviation at TIA and give the city a nice contribution. That would definitely offset some of our budget woes!!
The latest thing on Friday, is a deal has been reached. I'm not sure what it is but before the deal with the Lafortune administration, the policy was that the only people that drove their vehicles outside the city were S.O.T (SWAT) members (that is about 30 officers), bomb squad members (7), meth lab response units (eight) and on-call detectives (i have no idea how many). I think (my own personal opinion) if the city can show how they came up with the 1.1 million dollar number and put on paper that no more officers will be laid off unless revenue falls below X amount, this is what will happen.
I think the city wants the police vehicles at homes inside the city and that will not change.
The only interesting thing is what they will do with the federal money. It has already been changed so they can use it to keep 18 of the officers. So, will they save the 1.1 million and hire back the officers with the city's money or will they keep the officers on the federal money and use the 1.1 million somewhere else?
Putting the helicopter and the horses back in service is a given.
Quote from: TUalum0982 on October 31, 2009, 09:11:02 AM
the mayors office should have asked Chief Palmer and TPD where they think they can cut back. Give them an amount they need to come up with and let them work on it, dont just start laying off officers and grounding helicopters.
Do you really think that's how it was done?
My understanding of why we are where we are is that the FOP doesnt think it has to budge, and childishly sit on contracts and perks that were negotiated under better financial times.
We forget it's not the union's job to do what's best for the city, but to do what's best for the union.
It almost reminds me of the Wall Street executives who expect an uninterrupted flow of bonuses while people are living in cardboard boxes.
The FOP should face reality and negotiate realistically, but instead they just crank out pity propaganda about how the horses might end up as taco meat or babies will be born naked because we dont have helicopters.
Where are you going to park all those cars? None of the three uniform divisions currently have enough parking. So, lets spend how much building more parking lots.
---------------------------------------------
That is a very stupid question as any bank or business would love to furnish a parking space for one of those 12 foot sign boards painted with "POLICE". Talk about a deterrent to anyone getting ready to holdup the business they would not know if a cop was inside or arrive for the car at any moment or sitting in his private car ready to change cars.
Quote from: patric on October 31, 2009, 10:18:59 AM
Do you really think that's how it was done?
My understanding of why we are where we are is that the FOP doesnt think it has to budge, and childishly sit on contracts and perks that were negotiated under better financial times.
We forget it's not the union's job to do what's best for the city, but to do what's best for the union.
In doing so, they are acting just like the Wall Street executives who expect an uninterrupted flow of bonuses while people are living in cardboard boxes.
The FOP should face reality and negotiate realistically, but instead they just crank out pity propaganda about how the horses might end up as taco meat or babies will be born naked because we dont have helicopters.
How is losing membership (21 officers being laid off and no academy for awhile) beneficial to the union? It isn't. You are losing dues, voting power, etc.
IMHO (from the articles and stories I have read) that the mayors office acted hastily and decided "oh this is the easiest and simplest thing to do, so lets do that". KOTV's website has had plenty of coverage ranging from what would/will happen the horses, helicopter unit, and also posting press releases from both the city and TPD showing numbers,etc. I wouldnt call that propaganda from the FOP. Once again, from all the accounts I have read I dont think the city bothered to inform the FOP/TPD about the drastic shortfall in the budget until it was too late. The mayors office basically said "you have x amount of time to decide this, take it or leave it" mentality. That is no way to solve a problem.
Like I stated before, I don't think they believe that they are immune from any budget cuts but what was proposed, how it was proposed and how quickly it was proposed I am sure caught many in TPD and FOP off guard. In their defense, the city of Tulsa has a brand new shiny city hall where all depts are together and all is well, yet we are laying off police officers? It makes no sense. Maybe these highly paid public officials could contribute as well. Does the public works director need to make 178K? Does the director of Emergency Managment services need to make 214K? Do we need to leave the lights on in the ice cube all night long? Did we need to fly a helicopter from old drillers stadium to ONEOK field to deliver home plate? I appreciate the mayor forfeiting her salary and all, but from the outside looking in, it doesnt look like the city as a whole did too much to contribue to shed 6 million dollars from the budget.
And like I proposed earlier, why not have some sort city wide campaign to raise money to try and save some of these jobs and cutbacks? If its as important to the city as a whole when compared to the comments on the board, I would imagine there would be plenty of donations from concerned citizens of Tulsa, as well as local business and foundations. I am by no means rich by any stretch of the imagination and took a pay cut at work, but I would be willing to donate what I could to help save some jobs from being lost at the police dept.
As for Shadows comment, You can't leave a police car parked overnight at a random parking lot of some business. People will catch on, and I can gaurantee you, they will break the windows, steal equipment from the trunk, computers, ammo, guns, etc. Then you would have people bitching "we can't afford to be replacing all these windows, equipment, etc. whose decision was it to randomly park all these squad cars at random businesses around town."
There are plenty of fire stations, city lots, and police stations for officers to park their squad cars within a few miles of their house but I dont think it should be at a bank or random business because its almost certain the cars will be vandalized.
I know of a business on the near north side of town that was pledged with break-ins until they bought a surplus police car and put it in their building. When they closed each day they parked the car in front. Break-ins stopped. Every driver when they see a police car or OHP parked they automatically check their speed. I don't hear of the police cars parked in the suburbs being vandalized but have been assured on this form that Tulsa police cars deter crime in these areas. Two-thirds of the drive home cars can be parked on streets or in drives in the daylight.
If a police car cannot be parked on a parking lot least it is vandalized then Tulsa does have a problem more than a 6M shortage.
Quote from: shadows on October 31, 2009, 12:34:50 PM
I know of a business on the near north side of town that was pledged with break-ins until they bought a surplus police car and put it in their building. When they closed each day they parked the car in front. Break-ins stopped. Every driver when they see a police car or OHP parked they automatically check their speed. I don't hear of the police cars parked in the suburbs being vandalized but have been assured on this form that Tulsa police cars deter crime in these areas. Two-thirds of the drive home cars can be parked on streets or in drives in the daylight.
If a police car cannot be parked on a parking lot least it is vandalized then Tulsa does have a problem more than a 6M shortage.
Fine. Parking police cars at homes deters crime. Let's make sure it deters crime in Tulsa, and not in suburbs on our dime.
Quote from: shadows on October 31, 2009, 12:34:50 PM
I know of a business on the near north side of town that was pledged with break-ins until they bought a surplus police car and put it in their building. When they closed each day they parked the car in front. Break-ins stopped. Every driver when they see a police car or OHP parked they automatically check their speed. I don't hear of the police cars parked in the suburbs being vandalized but have been assured on this form that Tulsa police cars deter crime in these areas. Two-thirds of the drive home cars can be parked on streets or in drives in the daylight.
If a police car cannot be parked on a parking lot least it is vandalized then Tulsa does have a problem more than a 6M shortage.
A police car that is parked in the driveway of their residence is totally different then parking a squad car and left unanttended day or night at some random business. You don't think crooks will catch on to a police officer locking their car up and driving off in another car around the same time on certain days? I have several OHP and TPD officers that live in my neighborhood, most of them park their squad car in the garage. If I were a police officer I would not want to leave my squad car in a parking lot of some business only to come to work the next day and its windows are busted out, its burned out, and my equipment is stolen.
Quote from: shadows on October 31, 2009, 12:34:50 PM
I don't hear of the police cars parked in the suburbs being vandalized but have been assured on this form that Tulsa police cars deter crime in these areas.
For some reason, break-ins involving police cars arent reported like other crimes -- you have to hear it on a scanner or some other source, but it eventually gets documented:
Tulsa police car recovered after being stolen
By KELLY HINES World Staff Writer
Tulsa Police have recovered a patrol car after it was stolen from outside an officer's home Tuesday morning.
The vehicle, a 2003 Ford Crown Victoria, had been taken from the 7400 block of South 87th East Avenue, according to police scanner traffic.
The patrol car was recovered about 8:45 a.m. after a manager from Quail Creek Villa Apartments, 7334 S. Memorial Drive, called police. The car had been abandoned in a fire line at the apartment complex, Officer Leland Ashley said.
The car was stolen sometime after 7:10 a.m., when the officer's wife last saw it in their driveway. A shotgun that was inside has not been recovered, but the officer's computer was not taken.
Police have no suspect description, Ashley said. It appeared the thief shattered the window on the driver's side to break into the car.(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8383421_BG1.jpg)
Scratch the argument about parked police cars making neighborhoods safer.
Quote from: shadows on October 30, 2009, 07:34:17 PM
Before any of the officers resign it would possibility be to their advantage to see where they can find another job that has both compatible salaries and perks that they are accustom too. The propaganda department seem to elaborate grossly on Tulsa coming out of the recession. Many times static's are not reliable.
Rumor is many will not have that chance .... handcuffs make filling out a resume difficult...
Quote from: patric on October 31, 2009, 01:44:07 PM
For some reason, break-ins involving police cars arent reported like other crimes -- you have to hear it on a scanner or some other source, but it eventually gets documented:
Tulsa police car recovered after being stolen
By KELLY HINES World Staff Writer
Tulsa Police have recovered a patrol car after it was stolen from outside an officer's home Tuesday morning.
The vehicle, a 2003 Ford Crown Victoria, had been taken from the 7400 block of South 87th East Avenue, according to police scanner traffic.
The patrol car was recovered about 8:45 a.m. after a manager from Quail Creek Villa Apartments, 7334 S. Memorial Drive, called police. The car had been abandoned in a fire line at the apartment complex, Officer Leland Ashley said.
The car was stolen sometime after 7:10 a.m., when the officer's wife last saw it in their driveway. A shotgun that was inside has not been recovered, but the officer's computer was not taken.
Police have no suspect description, Ashley said. It appeared the thief shattered the window on the driver's side to break into the car.
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8383421_BG1.jpg)
Scratch the argument about parked police cars making neighborhoods safer.
Yeah, that is why multiple cities with police departments let their officers take home police cars. Because they are totally ineffective in making neighborhoods safer. They just do it because they love to spend money.
Three officers with one print man thinking I suppose how to make a report.
Took shot gun at a time most people were going to work. Will there be an investigation or after the report will the case be closed like it was a citizens break-in. There sure could be a lot of questions that will go unanswered.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 30, 2009, 07:20:32 PM
OK ... you've been teasing about this so-called rumor for weeks. Put up or shut up.
Props to FOTD
Several TPD offers and a federal agent under investigation. Should make the layoffs fewer since some should be getting fired. ;D
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20091031_297_0_Severa480380
Apparently a friend of mine got his official call back to the TPD today.
Yes, as best i can tell they all got calls to report to the academy on July 16th, although I though only 56 were untill the budget and contract passed, maybe they called all on the fair assumption both would happen. I still am disgusted how all this was handled, but am so thrilled for our officers who are crazy excited to get back to work.