Comments by reader1
Posted on August 1 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I agree with Ms. Foss re: Patterson. Not a good governor. But, I do not think he ever intended on being one. He was Lt. Gov to a Gov. who won by 70% of the electorate. I suspect Patterson planned on sitting in the backseat and enjoying the ride.
Posted on August 1 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
daily - got to the second sentence and realized you had no idea what you were talking about. police administration had nothing to do with the city taking over the details. Those decisions are made by Mayor, Council, and Finance Department. And, if that were some Chief's motivation - what changed - the officers were still allowed to work details and make money? And, while it is a rare occurrence - there is nothing preventing a Chief/Asst. Chief from working one of the details.
And, FYI Schenectady retains the vast majority of its' officers. Many who left, left to work for departments in the cities in which they grew up. Other left for larger agencies for more opportunity and yes, better pay.
The issue is not as clear cut as many think. But, adding inaccurate information to the discussion does nothing to resolve it. Personally, I suspect the impact on the pension burden is negligible. But, that is just speculation on my part.
Last year, the total was $32,000 - that is spread out over many officers, and many may not yet be in the years used to calculate their pensions.
Posted on July 30 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Familiar with the area so I certainly do not need an invitation from you to know what goes on.
Again, the true numbers are what is needed to understand the scope of the problem.
Posted on July 30 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Spot on. The only point not touched upon is the whether he'll ever be held accountable for the meddling (aka corruption). My bet is no.
Posted on July 30 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be interesting to see the amounts for officers who have retired to date and ascertain how much of their pension was actually derived from these details.
And, keep in mind, the details would have to have been worked during the three years used for pension calculation to be relevant to this discussion.
Posted on July 30 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Getting way off topic, but what are the annual costs to the City re: the pension costs and social services. I suspect much of the latter costs are for children and the elderly. You cannot make those arguments without knowing the numbers.
Posted on July 29 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another thing that muddies this up a bit is whether the City as a whole benefits from facilitating these events - is it better that there is a Stockadeathon, Summer Block Party, St. Anthony's Festa,...?
Posted on July 29 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Agreed, this is a loss.
Posted on July 29 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the biggest issue is that a private entity, able to afford to pay for cops as private security, is incurring a cost that a third party (taxpayer) must shoulder (pension liability).
This could get messy.
Posted on July 26 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was a reasonable question. While I am aware of incidents like these occurring elsewhere I do not recall any reports, certain non recently, of this type of behavior. The Gazette being a local paper, I was assuming that was the audience this commentary was directed to. In fact, they were reacting to a local incident, or more accurately - a local example of a national phenomenon.
ChuckD - You see things I don't. This article was clearly about interference with the media and civilian's right to film officers' behavior in public.