innov8ion wrote:once we begin advertising.
Dramatic foreshadowing?
Was going for more the latter than the former.Framer wrote:Dramatic foreshadowing?innov8ion wrote:once we begin advertising.
Mayor Slay and representatives of the St. Louis Police Department testified yesterday on local control. I don't recall when the deciding vote is set to take place.
- 1,000
I think everyone here is being a bit naive.
If you think the City only wants control for philosophical reasons, naive.
If you believe City control will fix endemic corruption etc, gullible.
If you don't think the City will try use it's new control to work out (read: force through) a much better deal on the pension or make a grab if it can, naive.
If you believe that legislators from Sedalia should impart some control over the SLMPD, not naive but hard to explain logically and legally.
If you think the City only wants control for philosophical reasons, naive.
If you believe City control will fix endemic corruption etc, gullible.
If you don't think the City will try use it's new control to work out (read: force through) a much better deal on the pension or make a grab if it can, naive.
If you believe that legislators from Sedalia should impart some control over the SLMPD, not naive but hard to explain logically and legally.
^ But at least now we can actually BLAME the city politics (assuming this passes.) Right now they just past the buck and say they don't run the department.
So no matter what, I think this will be better. Now there will be TRUE ownership of the department and therefore we know exactly who to blame or even, "not vote for," if something goes down.
So no matter what, I think this will be better. Now there will be TRUE ownership of the department and therefore we know exactly who to blame or even, "not vote for," if something goes down.
Just because we may disagree doesn't make us naive.lukethedrifter wrote:I think everyone here is being a bit naive.
Does it matter? Every city in this nation but ours has control of its own police department. The Civil War is over. It's past time we get on with it. That's what matters.lukethedrifter wrote:If you think the City only wants control for philosophical reasons, naive.
No sane person would make that claim. I mean, look at all the corruption we've had while under state control! Is it possible that city control could bring greater oversight? Perhaps. At the least, it can't be much worse. (But that ain't what this issue is about is it?lukethedrifter wrote:If you believe City control will fix endemic corruption etc, gullible.
)lukethedrifter wrote:If you don't think the City will try use it's new control to work out (read: force through) a much better deal on the pension or make a grab if it can, naive.
"I'm not a @MayorSlay cheerleader but if they can't touch the pension, why not b n favor of local control - like every other city n the nation?"
- 424
Just to clarify, Kansas City has the same system we have. They tried city control a while back and then ultimately returned to State control. As far as the pensions go, Slay keeps saying that the pensions will not be touched, however, all the aldermen, including Reed, blame the pensions for the city's current economic woes. I find it VERY hard to believe that once the city gains control, that they won't go after the pension.
They keep saying that city control will save money by allowing the consolidation of departments. Not only will this cause hundreds to lose their jobs, but there is already cooperation between the police department and city. As it is now, the Police Department garage repairs all city vehicles, except for the Fire or EMS vehicles. This all comes out of the Police Department's budget though when it comes to salary and what not. As far as other departments, such as HR and IT, the Fire Department has their own HR just as the police department should. In these type of careers, you need specialized hiring practices and processes. As far as the IT departments go, our IT personnel have security clearances. The see a large amount of restricted and confidential information that should not be open to others in different departments. Besides that, we have people in the IT department that are efficient and beyond qualified at doing what they do. If they were forced out when the city takes over, who knows what kind of trouble could happen.
The largest problem I have with the whole scenario is the lies the those supporting city control are spouting out. A certain rep. stated she spoke with SEVERAL officers who are FOR city control. I have yet to meet a single ONE. When I spoke with a number of representatives in Jefferson City last week, several told me that they were under the impression that the officers were for this, due to the lies they were being told by others.
I guess if this is how politics really works, I know why I do not deal with them.
They keep saying that city control will save money by allowing the consolidation of departments. Not only will this cause hundreds to lose their jobs, but there is already cooperation between the police department and city. As it is now, the Police Department garage repairs all city vehicles, except for the Fire or EMS vehicles. This all comes out of the Police Department's budget though when it comes to salary and what not. As far as other departments, such as HR and IT, the Fire Department has their own HR just as the police department should. In these type of careers, you need specialized hiring practices and processes. As far as the IT departments go, our IT personnel have security clearances. The see a large amount of restricted and confidential information that should not be open to others in different departments. Besides that, we have people in the IT department that are efficient and beyond qualified at doing what they do. If they were forced out when the city takes over, who knows what kind of trouble could happen.
The largest problem I have with the whole scenario is the lies the those supporting city control are spouting out. A certain rep. stated she spoke with SEVERAL officers who are FOR city control. I have yet to meet a single ONE. When I spoke with a number of representatives in Jefferson City last week, several told me that they were under the impression that the officers were for this, due to the lies they were being told by others.
I guess if this is how politics really works, I know why I do not deal with them.
If that's true, then it appears you suggest that St. Louis policemen should be exempt from the sacrifices that every other St. Louisan is subject to. Our city, like many others, is facing harsh financial realities. Should we not share this burden together or are some people more "special" than others?FloPoErich wrote:Just to clarify, Kansas City has the same system we have. They tried city control a while back and then ultimately returned to State control. As far as the pensions go, Slay keeps saying that the pensions will not be touched, however, all the aldermen, including Reed, blame the pensions for the city's current economic woes. I find it VERY hard to believe that once the city gains control, that they won't go after the pension.
In today's world we must do more with less. Consolidation and lean thinking bring necessary efficiencies that can help us meet this reality. Is it a comfortable process for everyone? No, but it's not like we have much of a choice. Something has to give...FloPoErich wrote:They keep saying that city control will save money by allowing the consolidation of departments. Not only will this cause hundreds to lose their jobs, but there is already cooperation between the police department and city. As it is now, the Police Department garage repairs all city vehicles, except for the Fire or EMS vehicles. This all comes out of the Police Department's budget though when it comes to salary and what not. As far as other departments, such as HR and IT, the Fire Department has their own HR just as the police department should. In these type of careers, you need specialized hiring practices and processes. As far as the IT departments go, our IT personnel have security clearances. The see a large amount of restricted and confidential information that should not be open to others in different departments. Besides that, we have people in the IT department that are efficient and beyond qualified at doing what they do. If they were forced out when the city takes over, who knows what kind of trouble could happen.
- 1,000
innov8ion, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it okay for the city to make a pension grab or not? You posted that it's okay but linked that it won't happen.
Also, I was simply pointing out the realities associated with City control, not in any way saying that it shouldn't happen. Earlier in this thread you pointed out state control based corruption, using it as support for local control. I call BS on that. There are plenty of reasons for local control but eliminating corruption is only a reason to a politician, liar or someone who is incredibly naive.
Also, I was simply pointing out the realities associated with City control, not in any way saying that it shouldn't happen. Earlier in this thread you pointed out state control based corruption, using it as support for local control. I call BS on that. There are plenty of reasons for local control but eliminating corruption is only a reason to a politician, liar or someone who is incredibly naive.
I don't believe I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I've heard that the pension is untouchable but in the case it's not -- we are all subject to the financial reality that St. Louis is facing. No one is exempt and the burden must be shared.lukethedrifter wrote:innov8ion, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it okay for the city to make a pension grab or not? You posted that it's okay but linked that it won't happen.
My benefits in the private sector have decreased. I'm not the only one, am I? And what sane person is depending on their pension for retirement? How stable are pensions in the long run? I don't know and I'm sure as hell not counting on it. We must take retirement in our own hands.
Well, not exactly. It's inevitable there will be some level of corruption under both state or local control. It's really a moot point, don't you think? Doesn't it seem odd to you that we're one of only two cities in the nation that doesn't control it's own PD (stemming from concerns that the Confederacy may take it over!?!)lukethedrifter wrote:Also, I was simply pointing out the realities associated with City control, not in any way saying that it shouldn't happen. Earlier in this thread you pointed out state control based corruption, using it as support for local control. I call BS on that. There are plenty of reasons for local control but eliminating corruption is only a reason to a politician, liar or someone who is incredibly naive.
Here's a notice. General Robert E. Lee is dead and he's not buried in Grant's tomb.
I think you are giving way to much credit to the HR department. Are you saying that HR cant cross train? Hopefully when they combine they just take the best from both sides. Plus I would think being in HR for the fire department would be the MOST qualified to be in the HR for the police, or vice a versa.FloPoErich wrote: As far as other departments, such as HR and IT, the Fire Department has their own HR just as the police department should. In these type of careers, you need specialized hiring practices and processes.
It is called "Administrative Rights" that is easily fixed by a click of a button. Even your home computer has this capability to allow who has acces/view/edit/write to certain programs/files.FloPoErich wrote: As far as the IT departments go, our IT personnel have security clearances. The see a large amount of restricted and confidential information that should not be open to others in different departments.
I think you are giving way to much credit to the HR department. Are you saying that HR cant cross train? Hopefully they when they combine they just take the best from both sides. Plus I would think being in HR for the fire department would be the MOST qualified to be in the HR for the police, or vice a versa.FloPoErich wrote: As far as other departments, such as HR and IT, the Fire Department has their own HR just as the police department should. In these type of careers, you need specialized hiring practices and processes.
Once again, that pension is 33% underfunded. $300 million dollars worth of a shortfall. People are acting like this is a gold mine. I would focus my attention on how to actually FUND the thing.FloPoErich wrote: I find it VERY hard to believe that once the city gains control, that they won't go after the pension.
As far as the other things that come when 2 companies combine... yes people get fired. Thats american life. Look at all the AB employees.
Boeing just had a fairly sizable Reduction In Force (RIF) a week or two ago. Like I said, this is a reality we ALL face. The police department ain't special. And if you think you are, it means you're selfish and that's not a very good quality.
- 1,000
HR? IT? In the FD? I don't think so.
As far as the pension goes, I do think it should be left untouched. It is a part of the pay package that was negotiated in good faith. If it has to be renegotiated from this point on, so be it but simply because some in the private sector lost their earned pension doesn't mean it's right or ethical.
As far as the pension goes, I do think it should be left untouched. It is a part of the pay package that was negotiated in good faith. If it has to be renegotiated from this point on, so be it but simply because some in the private sector lost their earned pension doesn't mean it's right or ethical.
- 424
I apologize, I thought the FD had their own HR, I knew they did not have their own IT.lukethedrifter wrote:HR? IT? In the FD? I don't think so.
As far as the pension goes, I do think it should be left untouched. It is a part of the pay package that was negotiated in good faith. If it has to be renegotiated from this point on, so be it but simply because some in the private sector lost their earned pension doesn't mean it's right or ethical.
I'm not saying the department is an exempt entity, however, are you for cutting the already understaffed police department? The city is talking about saving the city's cable channel, but cut the department. Even though I am biased, if I was not in law enforcement and was speaking as a lay citizen, I would not want public safety cut.innov8ion wrote:Boeing just had a fairly sizable Reduction In Force (RIF) a week or two ago. Like I said, this is a reality we ALL face. The police department ain't special. And if you think you are, it means you're selfish and that's not a very good quality
The city has failed to even mention or propose changes that would be brought with city control. When asked, both the mayor and aldermen have different ideas of how to run and what to do with the police department. Do we really want them to take over the department, and budget and importance that comes with it, without having a plan in place? The city charter would need a number of changes to it, in order to accommodate the department being rolled under city control.
The following is from a letter written by the President of the SLPOA to the post.
Tom Walsh wrote:Examples of overly burdensome city bureaucracy abound. State Auditor Susan Montee determined that the city has grossly mismanaged most of its departments. Audits uncovered serious monetary discrepancies and procedural inefficiencies in several city departments, including the Department of Public Safety, which would oversee the police department. And how qualified is the department's director, Charles Bryson, in running a police department? His record with the Fire Department has been controversial.
Apparently the pension is $300M unfunded, as has been suggested by zink. If that's true, how can it pay out over the long run per the negotiated agreement? Therefore, there may need to be subtle changes applied to the pension. And yes, I'd think adjustment of the pension should be dealt with in great care and respect for past agreements in good faith.lukethedrifter wrote:As far as the pension goes, I do think it should be left untouched. It is a part of the pay package that was negotiated in good faith. If it has to be renegotiated from this point on, so be it but simply because some in the private sector lost their earned pension doesn't mean it's right or ethical.
I have a hard time believing the police force is grossly understaffed given that we have the highest number of police officers per capita in the nation. And I didn't say I was for cutting the police department. However, you are aware we're undergoing a 30M budget cutting exercise in which many undesirable cuts are and must be made? I know I sound like a broken record here, but again, the burden must be shared.FloPoErich wrote:I'm not saying the department is an exempt entity, however, are you for cutting the already understaffed police department? The city is talking about saving the city's cable channel, but cut the department. Even though I am biased, if I was not in law enforcement and was speaking as a lay citizen, I would not want public safety cut.innov8ion wrote:Boeing just had a fairly sizable Reduction In Force (RIF) a week or two ago. Like I said, this is a reality we ALL face. The police department ain't special. And if you think you are, it means you're selfish and that's not a very good quality
This seems like a silly argument. I presume that there would be a transition period to accommodate for any necessary administrative and code changes.FloPoErich wrote:The city has failed to even mention or propose changes that would be brought with city control. When asked, both the mayor and aldermen have different ideas of how to run and what to do with the police department. Do we really want them to take over the department, and budget and importance that comes with it, without having a plan in place? The city charter would need a number of changes to it, in order to accommodate the department being rolled under city control.
I don't think the Police Department has much room to talk about trust and mismanagement given the various scandals we've all read about in the paper over the last few years. I know this only reflects on a small portion of the force, but it only takes a few to screw things up for everyone.FloPoErich wrote:The following is from a letter written by the President of the SLPOA to the post.Tom Walsh wrote:Examples of overly burdensome city bureaucracy abound. State Auditor Susan Montee determined that the city has grossly mismanaged most of its departments. Audits uncovered serious monetary discrepancies and procedural inefficiencies in several city departments, including the Department of Public Safety, which would oversee the police department. And how qualified is the department's director, Charles Bryson, in running a police department? His record with the Fire Department has been controversial.
As if the current state governance structure isn't without controversy? Stating that Charles Bryson's record w/ the FD is controversial doesn't tell us much -- more specificity would be helpful. However I think we all know that appropriate leadership decisions aren't always easy nor can they please everyone.
Whoa whoa.... I thought I JUST read from the State Auditor that the City did VERY well on their last four audits of the Office of Circuit Attorney, Office of Recorder of Deeds, Judicial Expenditures and the Office of Public Administrator. Look at them here:FloPoErich wrote: The following is from a letter written by the President of the SLPOA to the post.Tom Walsh wrote:Examples of overly burdensome city bureaucracy abound. State Auditor Susan Montee determined that the city has grossly mismanaged most of its departments. Audits uncovered serious monetary discrepancies and procedural inefficiencies in several city departments, including the Department of Public Safety, which would oversee the police department. And how qualified is the department's director, Charles Bryson, in running a police department? His record with the Fire Department has been controversial.
http://auditor.mo.gov/auditreports/prsl.htm
Sorry FloPlorich, but I think you are being manipulated by what ever group you are getting your info from. You falling right into the politics game by NOT doing any research. Arguing about HR and IT?....when it sounds like they dont even have any?
As far as the audit on the Public Safety, their report was "Needs Improvements." I am an auditor myself and Needs Improvements is exactly that. Nothing major, but it does need improvements. I am sure if most people were audited for their job they would get "needs improvement"
Howver, "needs improvement" is NOT from what the President of the SLPOA says is "GROSSLY MISMANAGED" or "serious monetary discrepancies." I personally would sue for libel. O and if you want to see a bad audit... check out the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners report: http://auditor.mo.gov/press/2009-123.htm
I think people should start thinking logically and not emotionally or what other people tell them.
Interesting tactic in the Senate version of the local control bill. A Republican senator from St. Joseph added an amendment that would require the number of aldermen to be reduced to 14. This could get ugly...
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 78c22.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 78c22.html
Agree, talk about a political move. I would argue that both are needed for the city and if it takes a GOPer from St. Joseph, let it be.iceburg wrote:Interesting tactic in the Senate version of the local control bill. A Republican senator from St. Joseph added an amendment that would require the number of aldermen to be reduced to 14. This could get ugly...
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 78c22.html
Of course, I would go one amendment further and dissolve the County of St. Louis City.
Very happy to hear that someone recognizes the need to limit the aldermen. I know that a couple aldermen in particular meddle way too much in police business, expecting them to take care of problems that are neighborhood problems, not police problems. One north side alderman in particular carries a badge and poses as an officer on a regular basis. but that's another problem entirely. The number of aldermen will need to be limited if local control passes, because they will have more control than ever, using our officers for their personal benefit (of course there are exceptions). Right now, St. Louis City officers have the status of being State police officers, giving them authority over the few bad apples in the city government. When an officer graduates from the current academy, they can pretty much walk onto any department in the country, because it is very well respected and is one of the most rigorous programs in the country. With local control that status goes away, the city owns the department, cuts pensions, and we lose some of the best officers in the country, most importantly the ones who live next door to us, and choose to live in the city.
I love that the alderman reduction was attached to this bill, purely awesome. That ruffled some feathers for sure.
So the state thinks they can run our police force and also tell us how many aldermen we should have? GTFO, state.STL88 wrote:I love that the alderman reduction was attached to this bill, purely awesome. That ruffled some feathers for sure.
It could be unconstitutional and it will likely be dropped from Keavenny's bill: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 78c22.html
No, the state shouldn't. However, with how much they make and their healthcare benefits, along with regular population loss from the city, I don't see how 28, a number that used to represent hundreds of thousands more people, is acceptable today. It might take the state reducing the alderman count because any time local groups attempt to the ward organizations get the numerous neighborhood groups to get on their side because of the fear of less representation. Cut the alderman to 14, you can keep their pay the same, and make it a full time job. I think if a well funded local group can effectively get their message out, the voters will agree with them. Otherwise the only info people will base their vote off of is what they hear from the ward/neighborhood groups, they won't get to hear the other side of the story.
Whether one is for less aldermen or the status quo, I think most would agree it doesn't belong in this bill on local control.
- 2,093
Agree 110%!innov8ion wrote:Whether one is for less aldermen or the status quo, I think most would agree it doesn't belong in this bill on local control.
While I favor reducing the number of alderman I want it to be our decision--NOT the states
There is a disturbing trend that seems to have accelerated lately. Between those arguing for continued state control of the STL Police to wanting to tell us how to run our Board of Alderman and extending to those who want to overturn the urban votes that passed Proposition B--the puppy mill bill.
Outstate legislators are flagrantly admitting they don't think urban votes should count as much as those in rural areas.
They would never ever dream of suggesting Jeff City get involved in say, Warren County's system of local governance.
While I agree that the number of alderman should be reduced, it shouldn't be done by the state.No, the state shouldn't. However, with how much they make and their healthcare benefits, along with regular population loss from the city, I don't see how 28, a number that used to represent hundreds of thousands more people, is acceptable today.
Am I wrong in thinking that in 2004ish we had an opportunity to vote on Charter Reform and limit the # of alderman we currently have...and it failed by a pretty large margin?
Yes, I do believe reducing alderman has been on the ballot a few times before. I think it would have a much better chance at passing now because a lot has changed since the last time people voted on it. I'm not sure how easy it is to get on the ballot because to reform the city charter I believe the main way is through the Board of Aldermen, other than that I think it's done through the Legislature.