Comments by reader1
Posted on October 16 at 4:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kids and others who have broken the law have been arrested and many have been removed form school - so, where is the evidence that this problem has not been addressed this year? Unless something is reported by the Gazette means it has not been dealt with?
Posted on October 16 at 4:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The notion that lower paid officers are "waiting their turn" so senior officers can obtain the overtime for pension purposes is wildly off the mark. There is no evidence that this is occurring or has occurred at the PD. It defies common sense - why would lower paid officers, many just starting their young families, forfeit the overtime for senior officers?
Posted on October 15 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One issue Moore does not report is all the officers in training count against salary but provide no relief re: overtime. If an officer is in the academy or in field training they cannot work the shift assignments unsupervised. So, you are paying for their salary but they cannot lower ot costs. Once training is completed and they are considered staffing - that is when the new hires reduce ot costs. (This period covers their first nine months of employment.)
Senior officers do not get "first dibs" at OT. It is a rotating list. Once an officer works a shift their name gets placed at the bottom of the list. You can sign up to work overtime again but anyone whose name is above theirs on the list, due to the rotation system, has the right to work the shift first. Senior officers have no more right to the OT than the most junior officer, provided the officer has completed all their initial training.
Posted on October 10 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, what is the writer's solution - not put enough officers on the street?
Call volume dictates how many officers you need. So, "stern messages" = talk tough regardless of the realities of the workload.
There are not enough police officers. There were 166 several years ago, now there are 145. If that is all the officers the tax base can support - that's how many officers the Department can have. But, that does not mean there will not be consequences and struggling to meet the overtime budget is one of those consequences.
Posted on October 8 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure where Councilwoman Perazzo got her information from but there were plenty of comments left on the board when it was at the Hamilton Hill Arts Center. The lion's share of the comments were positive, and as usual - anonymity creates an opportunity for a few individuals to show their immaturity.
Posted on September 14 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It will be interesting to see if the Governor decides to take punitive actions against counties in which Sheriff's refuse to enforce the law. Cannot imagine he will let their positions go without some form of response. If my suspicions are correct, look for the response to come in the form of $, or withholding of same.
Posted on September 14 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Liberals own the legal system? I would think the Supreme Court, which by most accounts, is fairly conservative would be surprised to hear that.
Posted on September 4 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very fair editorial. Public safety retirees want to accomplish two things through the "padding" - protect against inevitable inflation (It'd be interesting to read an article detailing pensions from 10 to 30 years ago) and produce income when they leave public service and are at a disadvantage when they attempt to re-enter the workplace (e.g., age many in their fifties).
Still, until the system was recently revised retirees could increase their pension until it was close to their regular salary. Given the fact retirees often live into their 80s, a retiree leaving public service at fifty could earn that salary for thirty years after they are no longer provided a public service. Unless the stock market trends upwards forever - that is not a sustainable business model. Do not know if it was possible but I wonder if they could legislate some form of exemption to the 457 (401k) plan offered to firefighters/officers? For three years allowing them the ability to place more in their retirement investments or giving them a signing bonus at the beginning of their career. If an officer/firefighter was given $30k to sign and not allowed to add any OT in their pension, and the money was invested responsibly - I would think the retiree would have more available income in retirement and the taxpayers a lighter load to carry.
This is an instance where real experts should be allowed to design some of the worker benefits and move away from these matters being decided by unions and politicians. Both sides may make out better in the long run.
Posted on September 3 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are people who game the system but it is hardly accurate to blame the tax burden on people on welfare. Sure, that's part of it - but - certainly not all of it.
Posted on September 2 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not that I am defending Kathleen Moore, but to say that because the city has been deteriorating then you shouldn't report on other issues doesn't make sense. Clearly, this pension story is not a revelation - the pensions have been an issue for a while. And, the latest news was that the pension payments by the City have decreased. Interestingly, the one point the article makes no one has commented on is that people who are unable to build their pensions are more likely to struggle in retirement. Again - another reason to reform the system.
And, when you talk in glowing terms about the suburbs - keep in mind, were it not for people coning into the city from those prospering areas the drug markets would be a lot less lucrative.