Police Layoffs

[MDepr2007]

... or the $3,000,000 new email system she had to have because the City wasn't using Outlook when she got here.

And, where's the media in this town?  Why don't they ever look into government expenses?  Where is the story about how the current mayor has sucked this town dry and the crazy projects the money went to?  Oh, yea...  politics.

A lot less than $3,000,000 for Outlook according to this unless installing it cost $2,950,000 and some change.

[Bledsoe]

Seriously, other than murders, home invasions, and bank robberies - does Tulsa investigate any crimes?    Or did I just happen upon a slew of examples that are rare?  Or does investigations or even casual looking into non-violent non-drug crimes not really happen anymore?  If I were a criminal I'd have supreme confidence in my ability to get away with any theft I wanted.

I admit I may be delusional.  But I'd think they would at least pick the low hanging fruit.

And I agree.  All my interactions with the TPD have been very professional.

My limited interaction with the police has been similar.  My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law.  We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done.  We recorded the telephone call.  We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic.  There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime.  It has been a over a year--no prosecution. 

[shadows]

I think some are forgetting it was Mayor Taylor that gave them their raise in 2006 without it going to a vote of the people.

It is at the mayors discretion under the charter which selects the TPD as an separate entity from PW giving the mayor authority to increase their salaries, perks or replace the entire force and hire a private force.   This is what the citizens by a majority voted for.  At a future time this could happen. 

[Wilbur]

My limited interaction with the police has been similar.  My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law.  We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done.  We recorded the telephone call.  We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic.  There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime.  It has been a over a year--no prosecution. 

Just for clarification, the district attorney prosecutes, not the police.

[Bledsoe]

Just for clarification, the district attorney prosecutes, not the police.

I certainly know this, but as far as I can tell, the police have not submitted anything to the DA.  In fact the detective told me that I could expect limited action and that it was a low priority.  I pointed out that all he had to do was type up a report and send it along with the telephone confession to the DA's office.  In fact I, as counsel for the business, I basically prepared the report for him when we turned it in.  He said he would get to it when he finished more important matters.  I understand this should not be at the top of the list, but I would have expected some action by now.  Any suggestions Wilbur?

[cannon_fodder]

OK . . .

There are 777 cars that the TPD allows to be taken home.  Of those, 397 are taken out of the city of Tulsa.  WHAT THE HELL?  Why do MOST of our police officers live outside of the city they "protect and serve"?

Police take-home vehicles have been a source of debate among city leaders for years. But because it is a contract benefit that the union — backed by arbitration — has been unwilling to give up, no changes have been made.

The current policy allows officers to drive their vehicles within 25 miles of 41st Street and Yale Avenue, which is considered the geographic center of the city.

That enables some officers to drive to Owasso, Broken Arrow, Kellyville, Jenks, Claremore and other cities. Enforcement of the radius also has been cited by city officials as lax.

The policy was negotiated with the union by then-Mayor Bill LaFortune, who offered it in a year when there were little to no raises.

A 2007 council study, spearheaded by Christiansen, showed that of the 777 police vehicles, 392 were being driven to residences outside the city.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091029_11_A1_SgtDav614616

It's a perk.  Those 392 vehicles leaving the city of Tulsa does nothing to help the City of Tulsa nor to help the police do their jobs.  It is a perk the FOP is unwilling to give up in order to save police jobs.

When the question was asked "how many officers are outside the 25 mile radius" they were totally unable to answer that question.   The rule isn't enforced or even monitored.  But let's use 20 miles as the average commute for an officer living outside of Tulsa, pretending they are within the guidelines (which isn't monitored at all).

392 (cars leaving Tulsa) * .55 (2009 IRS rate) * 20 (distance) * 300 (working days in a year) = $1,293,600

Which is pretty damn close to what the Counselors were saying.  The FOP says the number is more like 40,000 - $70,000, or about 60 cents per vehicle per day.  Or pretending that each officer drives just over 1 mile . . . or that a patrol car is cheaper to drive than an average vehicle (pretending the number is only 25 cents, then they are driving 2.5 miles).  It CLEARLY isn't an honest assessment.

For $1.3 million we could save 21 officer, the helicopters, and the mounted patrol.  OR . . . allow officers to commute out of Tulsa.  The FOP chooses to allow Officers to commute.  To protect and serve - union members.

Yep, it's a contract benefit.  But if that's the way the game is played . . . fine.  Clearly FOP profits and benefits are more important than the quality or quantity of Officers on the streets, ergo more important than the mission of the TPD.   Message received.  Thanks.  When you care more about #1 than the public good, you're just an employee like everyone else.  There's no altruism in it so you lose your special status as a "civil servant."  

Next time the contract comes up, yank the benefit for anyone outside of Tulsa.  Period.  No Tulsa residence, no car.  They don't provide a secure feeling for Tulsa overnight, they don't increase response time in Tulsa, and cost tons of money.  You'll have to drive to work live everyone else, oh the humanity.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree. Name one other city that allows such a policy.

Now is not the time to let police officers have take home vehicles outside the city limits. We need to be as frugal as possible and this is a company benefit that we can't afford.

I am also tired of hearing that the policy was given in exchange for pay raises that year. That was the same year that every other city employee took pay cuts.

We can either have more officers on the street or stop 400 officers from having a perk that no other police force has.

[Conan71]

Just wait till gas goes up to $3.50 a gallon again, the cost will be even more. 

I'm curious do officers have to claim the auto benefit on their taxes.  I know in private industry if you have a company car, it's a taxable form of compensation, at least if it's available for personal use and commuting.

[shadows]

The company driven cars between place of employment and home is one of chief sources that the IRS looks into.  (three audit charges were based on the subject )  Fact I would believe that is the auditors chief training.

In the past seems the tag on city auto's were limited to in-city driving by OTC with certain exception that did not include private usage outside city. 

[Wilbur]

OK . . .

There are 777 cars that the TPD allows to be taken home.  Of those, 397 are taken out of the city of Tulsa.  WHAT THE HELL?  Why do MOST of our police officers live outside of the city they "protect and serve"?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091029_11_A1_SgtDav614616

It's a perk.  Those 392 vehicles leaving the city of Tulsa does nothing to help the City of Tulsa nor to help the police do their jobs.  It is a perk the FOP is unwilling to give up in order to save police jobs.

When the question was asked "how many officers are outside the 25 mile radius" they were totally unable to answer that question.   The rule isn't enforced or even monitored.  But let's use 20 miles as the average commute for an officer living outside of Tulsa, pretending they are within the guidelines (which isn't monitored at all).

392 (cars leaving Tulsa) * .55 (2009 IRS rate) * 20 (distance) * 300 (working days in a year) = $1,293,600

Which is pretty damn close to what the Counselors were saying.  The FOP says the number is more like 40,000 - $70,000, or about 60 cents per vehicle per day.  Or pretending that each officer drives just over 1 mile . . . or that a patrol car is cheaper to drive than an average vehicle (pretending the number is only 25 cents, then they are driving 2.5 miles).  It CLEARLY isn't an honest assessment.

For $1.3 million we could save 21 officer, the helicopters, and the mounted patrol.  OR . . . allow officers to commute out of Tulsa.  The FOP chooses to allow Officers to commute.  To protect and serve - union members.

Yep, it's a contract benefit.  But if that's the way the game is played . . . fine.  Clearly FOP profits and benefits are more important than the quality or quantity of Officers on the streets, ergo more important than the mission of the TPD.   Message received.  Thanks.  When you care more about #1 than the public good, you're just an employee like everyone else.  There's no altruism in it so you lose your special status as a "civil servant."  

Next time the contract comes up, yank the benefit for anyone outside of Tulsa.  Period.  No Tulsa residence, no car.  They don't provide a secure feeling for Tulsa overnight, they don't increase response time in Tulsa, and cost tons of money.  You'll have to drive to work live everyone else, oh the humanity.

How on earth did you come up with 397 cars go outside the city?

The Chief reported 45% of officers live outside the city.  So, 45% of 777 = 349.  Not all 349 people take their cars home.  Not all officers who live within the city take their car home.  That's why you see numerous cars sitting at police stations, fire houses, water treatment plants, .....

Then, you jump to the conclusion they all live 20 miles away.  WOW!  Where does that figure come from?  As I reported here before, many officers drive across the line just into Broken Arrow to drive home, a shorter distance then driving their police car back to some police station.

Where are you going to park all those cars?  None of the three uniform divisions currently have enough parking.  So, lets spend how much building more parking lots.

And, if you don't believe increased moral results in a better employee, regardless of their occupation, then thank god you're not my boss!

[Wilbur]

I agree. Name one other city that allows such a policy.

Now is not the time to let police officers have take home vehicles outside the city limits. We need to be as frugal as possible and this is a company benefit that we can't afford.

I am also tired of hearing that the policy was given in exchange for pay raises that year. That was the same year that every other city employee took pay cuts.

We can either have more officers on the street or stop 400 officers from having a perk that no other police force has.

You mean other then Glenpool, Broken Arrow, Jenks, OHP, ....  All of whom have police cars being parked in Tulsa.  None of which are laying off employees.

[MichaelBates]

My limited interaction with the police has been similar.  My family's business discovered that an employee who had just resigned to go to work for a competitor had accessed our computer system without permission and stolen client information, a clear felony violation of Oklahoma's computer crime law.  We called the former employee and he admitted what he had done.  We recorded the telephone call.  We presented all this information to the police who were very nice to come out and take it but you could tell their attitude was less than enthusiastic.  There attitude seemed to be that this was not a "real" crime.  It has been a over a year--no prosecution. 

In 1999, our previous home was burglarized. The perp left a girl's bike in the driveway, probably from an earlier burglary. A headset that was taken from our house was found at another home in the neighborhood that had been broken into. The burglar took a checkbook, camcorder and SLR camera (both of which contained pictures of my son's 3rd birthday party), and a portable CD player. The police came and wrote a report. To my surprise, they didn't dust the window where the burglar entered or the abandoned bike for prints. The officer told us they were there to write up a report we could give to the insurance company. I provided a list of missing items with serial and model numbers to the police, naively thinking that this would be helpful if the thief tried to sell the stolen property.

One of the stolen checks was used a few days later to pay for Pizza Hut delivery. I called the store to find out the address to which the pizza was delivered. The bank provided me with an image of the check, which showed a phone number written on the check (the source of the pizza delivery request) and a forged signature that bore no resemblance to mine.  I passed this info on to the detective, who told me that nothing would be done with it. It wasn't enough information to justify a search warrant. If I recall correctly, they weren't even going to question the people at that address.

Why assign a detective if you aren't going to bother investigating a case? Here was a lead that was connected to at least three burglaries on the same day.

[MH2010]

Do you all honestly believe that if the city could show a study that says taking the take-home cars away from the police officers would save 1.1 million dollars, they would not have released it?  Wescott and others on the council would be waving that study in front of every news camera in Tulsa.  That number is bogus and that is why the channel 6 story said, " The chief's office wasn't comfortable standing by those numbers until they could do more research."

The city didn't want the take home cars when they were trying to give us furloughs. At that time, they said take-home cars were worth about $150,000.00.  The truth is, if there was some study that showed the saving would be 1.1 million and the city would guarantee that there would be no more lay-offs of police officers, the union would acccept the offer just like it did with the furloughs.  However, the furloughs were supposed to stop the lay-off of police officers but it didn't.  Officers are afraid that this is just another crazy idea from the mayor to try to save money that will fail just like the furloughs did.

As an example of this take-home car policy, I live inside the city of Tulsa.  I drive further from my house to my division then officers that live in Glenpool and drive to the riverside division. So, this whole driving outside the city costs the city so much money is alot more complicated then people realize.  One of the reasons, the city continued to let police officers drive their cars outside of the city is because, as officers drive into work, they are ready to respond to calls and back other officers which is happening more and more because of manpower issues and it gives the illusion that there are more officers on duty then their actually is.

[waterboy]

What is wrong with having TPD employees live within their community, pay property taxes to their community and support businesses within that community? Then the issue of where you park your patrol cars is moot and Tulsa reaps more benefit from our investment in the police force. More property taxes, more sales taxes and more visibility.

Whether its $150,000 or $1 1/2 million, now is not the time to argue over decisions made when the local economy was fat and happy. Pick your battles carefully boys. Your not going to win them all.

[Wilbur]

What is wrong with having TPD employees live within their community, pay property taxes to their community and support businesses within that community? Then the issue of where you park your patrol cars is moot and Tulsa reaps more benefit from our investment in the police force. More property taxes, more sales taxes and more visibility.

Whether its $150,000 or $1 1/2 million, now is not the time to argue over decisions made when the local economy was fat and happy. Pick your battles carefully boys. Your not going to win them all.

I find it curious/funny/sad (depends on how you look at it) that our elected city officials can't figure out how to properly maintain the city's budget, and now they are turning to the FOP to cure their inabilities to manage money.

And, I don't understand how we criticize officers who choose to reside and raise their families outside the city of Tulsa, but put their lives on the line for the citizens of Tulsa.  Truly sad.