Something Fartlett left out....
Palmer has been a great public servant. Shameful how Screwey Simonson dealt with him in the end.
What does Palmer mean when he says the new guys are planning to take the Police department into a new direction?
Is that an indirect cut at Union busters?
I liked Chief Palmer and agree he has been a good public servant. I had the good fortune to work with him a couple of times per year and he was always very professional to me.
I wish him the best of luck and trust the next chief will do as good a job.
I too, believe Palmer has had the greatest impact on our Police Force in recent history, although it was during his first tenure. I did come to respect him again recently as he told the mayor's office the truth in light of being pressured to say what the mayor's office wanted to hear. I wish him the best. That said, I am SOOOO disappointed in our "interim" chief, which we know is never meant to be interim. I wish the mayor would have taken the time to do a nationwide search and bring someone with the experience and passion to take our department to a new level. Regardless of whether layoffs happen or not, morale is non existent, it is sad. I had wished for a strong leader to come in and turn things around, unfortunately, just more "good ol boy" tricks. The rumor has been Dewey was bringing Jordan on since before the election, apparently the rumor was true. I can only hope something good comes out of all of this madness.
So, who lied here? I see a video of the news conference where Mayor Bartlett is telling everyone that Him and Palmer were discussing his resignation that very morning. This conference appeared to be the conference Palmer said he found out he resigned from. Can the new police chief investigate this first?
News is passing the rumor around that the new chief is there to merge TPD and TCSO.
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 22, 2010, 09:09:40 PM
News is passing the rumor around that the new chief is there to merge TPD and TCSO.
great!
umm, don't think that is a new rumor, it's been discussed since the day Bartlett was elected, check his record he tried to do it before, but got nowhere. Everyone knew Jordan was his next chief . . .
What I would have liked to see from the Mayor today, when asked . . "the chief said he heard of his resignation from the media rather than you" . . . uh, well, that's really unfortunate, I hate that it happened that way . . . does thing man ever lead? How about . . . "personnel decisions shouldn't be leaked to the media, I will look into this, this isn't acceptable to have this type of information leaked before I have talked to the chief." I mean really, can we at least pretend to be a professional?
Of course it fits with sending Terry Simonson to talk with the union leaders, but then when Bartlett goes against what Simonson said at the table, Bartlett tells the union he won't be bound by what his chief of staff says . . . then you be there the entire time buddy, don't send others to do the work if they can't speak on your behalf. The mayor says I don't care how the department gets to the number, but then says, either take pay cuts or layoffs . . . . tells the media that he isn't the one that suggested mass layoffs, that came from the chiefs . . . truth is the chiefs provided proposals to meet the budget cut that included no personnel cuts or pay cuts and the mayor rejected them and required a proposal that refelcted the number of officers to be cut. He is a liar, plain and simple.
Yes, he came into a pile of SH!T, yes, there is a shortage of money from years of poor planning and overspending, but there are options. He could handle it differently. The lies are what make me the sickest. That and the fact that he is putting the burden of the budget problem on police and fire to fix. URGH . . . ok, off soap box.
And sorry for getting off the topic a bit, but the way he treated Palmer today is inexcusable. I'm sure it had nothing to do with Palmer's interviews yesterday confirming public safety would be affected by the massive cuts Bartlett was imposing.
Quote...truth is the chiefs provided proposals to meet the budget cut that included no personnel cuts or pay cuts and the mayor rejected them and required a proposal that refelcted the number of officers to be cut.
I have no reason to doubt this but no reason to believe it either. Can you provide a reference?
I've heard that Palmer sent his resignation to Bartlett a week before the leak. If so, it sounds like a called bluff to me. To reiterate my question: just what the hell is going on here?
Quote from: buckeye on January 23, 2010, 11:04:24 AM
I have no reason to doubt this but no reason to believe it either. Can you provide a reference?
I've heard that Palmer sent his resignation to Bartlett a week before the leak. If so, it sounds like a called bluff to me. To reiterate my question: just what the hell is going on here?
Palmer submitted his resignation (from what I know from a co-worker who used to work on the force) when Dewey took office. Dewey rejected it.
At the start of Bartlett's term, Palmer, who was an at-will employee, and technically a member of the Mayor's staff, told the mayor if he (Palmer) needed to resign so that Bartlett could put in his own person, he understood and would stand aside, just like any dignified at-will employee should have done. Bartlett told him he wanted him to stay.
Two-three weeks ago, Bartlett stood in front of every member of the police union and said he had no intentions of removing Palmer and requested Palmer to stay at least 'till the end of 2010.
It has been rumored, as soon as Bartlett announced his intentions to run for Mayor, that Jordon would be police chief. Just wait for the rest of the rumors to come true.
If you believe what this Mayor is telling you, stand by....
Quote from: Wilbur on January 23, 2010, 11:58:22 AM
If you believe what this Mayor is telling you, stand by....
Frankly, there's been so many conflicting stories that I don't know who to believe, Palmer included.
You can believe the Tulsa Fan.... and you should be prepared for Screwey Simonson to be a farce.
Talk about dumbing down the town's appeal. Heckle and Jeckle have already shown their lack of integrity less than two months into their term. Duck and cover...
Economic development, law and order, and credibility my a$$.
(Which nicknames? Duck (Dewey) and Cover (Terry) ...or Heckle (Terry) and Jeckle (Dewey)... Or just Screwey Simonson?)
Here's my plan . . . just by looking at the numbers submitted by the Mayor and stated by DC Webster.
Cuts, non salary
$98,700.00 Comp Time
$326,503.00 Cars
$227,460.00 1% benefit reduction
$537,229.00 Other non-pd personnel cuts
$1,189,892.00 TOTAL Cuts
$21,656.00 Officer Salary Savings Feb - June
94 JAG Officers saved, per Webster
$2,035,664.00 Total savings from JAG money
$3,225,556.00 Total Savings
$235,236.00 Difference between required savings/concessions
$291.13 Each officer reduction $$ (based on 808 officers)
My question, if the police can save the money requested without cutting jobs or pay, why should they have to take the cuts?? There are 23 supervisors retiring before the end of the fiscal year, that will have a significant impact on next year's budget and the JAG money pays for 36 officers next year. There is a new contract to be negotiated (and anyone who thinks the police won't have to take a pay cut is CRAZY) . . . . reduction in management through attrition . . . the ideas are plentiful for making things better. That's why you have to question his motives. And the LIES, oh my gosh, they are plentiful. There have been three officers that have already tendered their resignation and taking jobs with other departments, there will be many more, so attitrition is going to be significant this year.
I have sent this proposal with other ideas and discussion to several of the councilors, and have had some good talks with Bynum. I appreciate Barnes, Henderson and Turner coming out last night . . . . the mayor won't talk to us. That's been my question to the councilors, where is the voice of reason in all this?
I'll look for the article regarding Palmer's first proposal . . . it had to do with putting off purchase of new cars for 18 months, overttime changes, and some other things. I know it was in the paper, but even better I'll work on getting a copy of the memo, which I think I might have.
Quote from: FOTD on January 23, 2010, 02:37:02 PM
You can believe the Tulsa Fan....
'
Aww, thanks! I really do try to stick to the facts and ignore the conspiracy theories and extremes coming from both sides.
TF: " My question, if the police can save the money requested without cutting jobs or pay, why should they have to take the cuts? "
Because they have no new ideas....union bustin' has always been the end game for jackboot thugs like Duck and Cover.
Quote from: tulsa_fan on January 23, 2010, 03:23:36 PM
My question, if the police can save the money requested without cutting jobs or pay, why should they have to take the cuts??
Remember... it's not about the money. Never has been.