Comments by reader1
Posted on August 7 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First you stated the details were changed because the Chief was upset because he did not have access to those earnings. Your words - "Some chief did not like the idea that the officers could make money and he could not" - go back reread what you wrote. Now, you are asserting that he it was related to the fact he was not in control. Which is it? It is not inconvenient fact for me - it is for your argument.
Surprising that you apparently prefer the former system in which officers managed the details and made the decisions on who worked them, as opposed to a seniority system. So, you complain about Chief a showing favoritism to "his boys" but a system in which officers could restrict the details to their "boys" is okay?
Posted on August 4 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, please stop putting words in my mouth as I have not claimed to be an expert or a know-it-all.
You falsely attribute statements to me then refute them. I have not made one comment about the number of hours any officer has worked. Nor did I make any statement about "hours being spent at the department - not being compensated".
Since you seem to have a problem with seeing things that are not there and/or reading comprehension I will summarize my position, one last time. Raising the issue over whether the private details should be pensionable does not make one a cop basher. Regardless of what side of the issue you take - it is totally not clear cut. One side says - police work is police work - it is all the same so it should all be pensionable. The counter argument is that earnings caused by a third party and not part of their regularly scheduled duties should not add to the taxpayer's pension burden. The Schenectady Gazette writer, or anyone who takes the latter position, nor I have said that the officers should not be paid for hours worked. And, if they are not allowed to use it calculate their pensions they can always dump it in their 457 accounts, another form of retirement revenue. And, re: individual pensions - I think most agree we are not talking about a lot of money. Please, read this a few times, commit it to memory, write it down if necessary, so you can stop attributing opinions and statements to me that I have never made.
And again, regardless of what anyone's opinion is the law is the law.
Assistant Chiefs have worked a few of the details. It is not overtime. They were paid a straight fee. It was not overtime. It had nothing to do with operational demand. And again - please, answer the question - if "some Chief" changed this entire process because of jealousy over the earnings, why change it to a process in which the officers still work and earn from those details. You keep stepping over this inconvenient issue.
I won't respond further to you as it is pointless. And, I won't respond to personal attacks as I could care less about your opinion of me.
Posted on August 3 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Decision was not made unilaterally by Chief. And,even if it was - your rationale for it being made is silly. You stated the Chief made it because of resentment that officers had access to earnings the Chief did not. Again, if that was the motivation - how did it deny any of those earnings to the officers? And, how did it make those earnings accessible to the Command Staff. It's a straightforward question - just answer it.
Assistant Chiefs have worked the details. They are non-bargaining unit members like the Chief.
Not going to bother responding to rest of your comments. The comments and any subsequent response = totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Posted on August 2 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Daily - I have never said I know everything. But, I do know that decisions like bringing the details under the control of the City are not made unilaterally by Police Chiefs. You have put forth no factual argument to refute that.
And again, your assertion that the decision was made because "some Police Chief" was jealous of the money being made by the officers makes no sense - Because the officers are still allowed to work the details and earn the same money. The argument that the detail earnings are not pensionable is being made the the NYS Comptroller's Office not the police administration. If anything, having the the City take control of the details and requiring that entities hiring the officers pay fringe benefits is consistent with the position that the detail earnings were pensionable.
You made a statement in a public forum that was inaccurate and illogical. If you don't like being called on your posted statements - try doing some research and thinking a little bit before you post.
Posted on August 1 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great idea, there is no shortage of musical talent in this area, great way to showcase it.
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.