Tulsa Police - the cars do not belong to them - they are paid by our tax money!

[RecycleMichael]

What a great benefit for your neighbors!

Why should we pay for the same benefit for outside Tulsa neighbors to police officers?

I whined about this issue at my board meeting the other day and the Owasso and Bixby guys said how much they love all those Tulsa Police cars in their town providing a sense of security...

[MH2010]

Yeah, but they have to put up with me.  They probably come out even on the deal.

[shadows]

Tell me you at least swiped a bud off that 11 ft. pot plant.   

No, but one of the employees said one of the little plastic bag got mixed up with the tools when he picked them up.  He said it was top grade stuff, whatever that meant.

It would be at the height of stupidity to assume that any person would enter any store to commit a crime when there was a marked police car sitting in front of the business.  On entering they could expect any person inside in civilian dress (man or woman) to produce a gun having been trained to use it.  If the suburbs feel safer to have Tulsa marked police cars parked in their town then they should pay Tulsa taxpayer for that protection.     

[custosnox]

And now the twist in the story

http://apps.facebook.com/castle_age/battle_monster.php?user=591483866&action=doObjective&mpool=3&lka=591483866&twt=drg

Tulsa's police take-home vehicle policy, which allows officers to drive their patrol cars to residences outside the city limits, violates a city ordinance, the City Council learned Tuesday.

What will be done with the information provided by council attorney Drew Rees, however, remains to be seen.

The provision is written into the city's labor contract with Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 93 and has been a source of recent debate in light of the budget cuts that prompted officer layoffs, grounding the police helicopters and disbanding the mounted patrol.

Councilor Bill Martinson said it appears that the ordinance governing city take-home vehicles, approved by the council and signed by the mayor in 2007, "isn't worth the paper it's printed on."

"I guess the laws apply to everyone but the FOP," he quipped during the council's weekly committee meetings.

Two years ago, the council enacted an all-encompassing ordinance that limited which city employees are assigned take-home vehicles.

Part of the motivation was the revelation that of the Police Department's 777 vehicles, 392 are driven to homes outside Tulsa.

The ordinance specifically states that marked patrol cars can be driven home by officers only if they are parked in plain view within the city limits.

It further states that city-owned vehicles cannot be used for an employee's regular commute to and from work from another city.

A temporary exception was granted to the police force because of the union contract that was in place at the time. But that exception was valid only until June 30, 2008.

Martinson, who lost his re-election bid this year, in part because his challenge of the size of the city's public safety budgets drew the ire of the unions, said he wanted this fact on the record.

"We've heard repeatedly that the FOP refuses to give up that portion of its collective-bargaining agreement, and that portion, if Drew Rees is right, is illegal," he said.

The city administration has said taking the vehicles away from the officers who live out of town would save about $1.1 million. The union contends that the savings would be much less.

But whatever the savings would be, Martinson said, the city is in a financial crisis and needs all it can get.

"I'm tired of hearing they won't give it up when it's something they are not entitled to," he said.

Officers are being allowed 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 to drive as far as Owasso, Broken Arrow, Kellyville, Jenks, Claremore and other cities. Enforcement of the radius has been cited by city officials as lax.

This benefit was negotiated with the union in 2005 by then-Mayor Bill LaFortune, who offered it in a year when there were little to no raises.

FOP President Phil Evans refused to discuss union contract specifics with the press, saying he is barred from doing so.

But he said the collective-bargaining agreement is negotiated in good faith between union and city attorneys and that it follows state laws, which supersede any conflicting city ordinances. He said he was not aware of the 2007 ordinance.

Rees told the council that his research shows that many states have laws indicating that if a municipal ordinance conflicts with a collective-bargaining agreement, the agreement overrides.

"Oklahoma, so far as I can find, does not have such a condition," he said. "That absence, I believe, is significant."

Absent any compelling law or case law that says otherwise, Rees said, "I believe our city ordinance is valid and should be enforced."

An independent arbitrator in the police contract process has before determined that the city failed to prove that cost or public policy factors would warrant taking away the benefit.

But minutes from the last arbitration show that the legality of the take-home car provision was not brought up, Rees said.

Earlier this month, the union announced that it would make no further concessions through its contract as a means of cutting the Police Department's budget.

This came after public appeals from some councilors for the union to give up the out-of-town take-home cars.

Police had already agreed to take eight unpaid furlough days this fiscal year along with the rest of the city's workforce

[patric]

The FOP's attitude now is "we dont have to obey ordinances, we have a contract". 

[tulsa_fan]

Again, I think it's totally fine to leave the cars inside the city limits, but why is this now the FOP's fault regarding the city ordinance?  They city signs off on this contract, the city negoiates it as well.  You might not like the fact that the officers take the cars home outside of the city, but somehow implying that the FOP is breaking the law by living within the terms of a contract, REVIEWED BY CITY LEGAL, is a joke.  It's really grasping at straws.

My question that no one seems to know the answer to yet is can a labor contract supercede a city ordinance?  I guess in corporate world I'm thinking deals are made regarding employment all the time that go against policy.  Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.  I think attorney's would be having a hayday with it.

[rwarn17588]

Again, I think it's totally fine to leave the cars inside the city limits, but why is this now the FOP's fault regarding the city ordinance?  They city signs off on this contract, the city negoiates it as well.  You might not like the fact that the officers take the cars home outside of the city, but somehow implying that the FOP is breaking the law by living within the terms of a contract, REVIEWED BY CITY LEGAL, is a joke.  It's really grasping at straws.

My question that no one seems to know the answer to yet is can a labor contract supercede a city ordinance?  I guess in corporate world I'm thinking deals are made regarding employment all the time that go against policy.  Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.  I think attorney's would be having a hayday with it.

This all sounds like a negotiating ploy to me. The city knows that the vehicle-take-home policy outside city limits is coming under a ton of fire from residents, and bringing up the ordinance is throwing on gasoline.

If the FOP knows what's good for it, it would make a tentative offer right now to go to the bargaining table to partially or completely yank the take-home police cars away from suburb-residing cops. Might as well try to make some sort of effort to restore public confidence, in wake of the grand-jury investigation and assorted other recent ills.

[tulsa_fan]

There's a new article on the TW, and I think this is how it will play out, legally, the FOP's contract is enforcable. 

Although the public relations work at the FOP is a joke, they have gone to the table with the mayor and others to come up with compromises, the city refuses the FOP's options, flip side the FOP refuses the city's options.  Someone should be able to get the two together.  I hope Bartlett brings that to the table, I'm sure we can all agree a mayor whose daughter was arrested for DUI isn't going to be the most cop friendly mayor.  Unfortunately, the more I learn about all this, the more I am convinced some of this is personal and that's too bad, the citizens are hurt the most.  There are still 3 officers who are well trained to be TPD officers and a helicopter that sits idle, what a waste.  We can do better.

[Hoss]

... I'm sure we can all agree a mayor whose daughter was arrested for DUI isn't going to be the most cop friendly mayor...

No, I'm sure we can't....thanks for the assumption.

[Conan71]

There's a new article on the TW, and I think this is how it will play out, legally, the FOP's contract is enforcable. 

Although the public relations work at the FOP is a joke, they have gone to the table with the mayor and others to come up with compromises, the city refuses the FOP's options, flip side the FOP refuses the city's options.  Someone should be able to get the two together.  I hope Bartlett brings that to the table, I'm sure we can all agree a mayor whose daughter was arrested for DUI isn't going to be the most cop friendly mayor.  Unfortunately, the more I learn about all this, the more I am convinced some of this is personal and that's too bad, the citizens are hurt the most.  There are still 3 officers who are well trained to be TPD officers and a helicopter that sits idle, what a waste.  We can do better.

Honestly, from what I know of Mayor Taylor, I don't think her daughter's DUI would matter one iota in dealing with this issue.  That doesn't appear to be how she thinks.  I honestly don't see where that belongs in this discussion unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

The TPD enforces and writes fines for ordinance violations all the time.  Quite an irony though that they have a contract which openly flaunts an ordinance.

[patric]

You might not like the fact that the officers take the cars home outside of the city, but somehow implying that the FOP is breaking the law by living within the terms of a contract, REVIEWED BY CITY LEGAL, is a joke.

City legal signed off on taking cars home within the city, not taking them out to Miami or Bristow.
They didnt bother to account for the officers in violation because then they would have had to obey the law. Ignorance is bliss.

[shadows]

City legal signed off on taking cars home within the city, not taking them out to Miami or Bristow.
They didnt bother to account for the officers in violation because then they would have had to obey the law. Ignorance is bliss.

By the article in today TW there is no question that the police union is the law of the city. (Police State) To reduce and bring the budget under control we need to replace the city council with the FOP union thus it will save enough to place the helicopters back in the air and rehire the policemen laid off.

By the recent campaign we have a new city manager on the way who can carry out any needed to rewording contracts in further negotiations. 

PS: if the contract was negotiated by the city legal then money could be further salvaged by going with private sources.
           

[patric]

By the article in today TW there is no question that the police union is the law of the city.

Someone explain how donations actually end up as police salary?
"the police union is now asking for private donations so the department can rehire three officers who were laid off last month"
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Police-Union-Seeks-Donations-to-Rehire-Officers/NURoedJ2rkilhXYyJ6_q5w.cspx

I think the next step in the FOP's media campaign involves cops panhandling downtown...

[TulsaSooner]

If the union says that eliminating the take home vehicles for the officers will not save very much money, then why are they fighting so hard against giving up this "perk"?

[shadows]

If the union says that eliminating the take home vehicles for the officers will not save very much money, then why are they fighting so hard against giving up this "perk"?

The eliminating of the illegal take home policy would require cops to furnish their own cars (with deprecation) normal upkeep and repairs including tires, oil serving and gasoline, plus upwards to $500 of liability insurance and hundreds of dollars of  comprehensive insurance all at present the cost is paid by the citizens,

One would not consider a city bull dozer (capital improvements)being taken home outside or even within the city for private use.

It is very easy to increase the anticipated city budge my maneuvering it through funds and trusts but on the bottom line we must accept that all moneys come from the working poor in the private sector. 

If we are to sustain our quality of life we must wake up to its deterioration.