The Chief of Police (Howe, Detroit: compensation, storage, beachfront)

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

What's so funny is that the contract was entered into by the city council with much hoopla and fanfare. Said then that it was going to be a budget-buster. Now, the city is trying to blame the SAPD union for an agreement that THEY made.

Mayor Ivy Taylor (then newly-elected District 2 representative), and Ray Lopez (then newly-elected District 6 representative), are the only two current members who were on the Council when the last Police contract went into effect in 2009, and both those individuals had served between 3 & 4 months, at that time. Not sure if they were there when the actual vote was taken to approve. Hard to say they are criticizing the agreement they made, when most of them weren't on the Council, then. Kind of sounds like the SAPOA bosses successfully pushed through a lucrative deal (which is what they want to do for their members), and the then-Council pretty much caved.


Now that that contract has expired, the City is trying to negotiate a more "Budget Friendly" deal, but in the absence of a new agreement, SAPD is still operating under the terms of the expired contract.

[TexasRedneck]

Oh, I understand THAT aspect - like I said, when they first passed it I was shaking my head in amazement that they could be so.....what's the word.......stupid? But don't blame the SAPD - they came with their wish list, and the city council showed their true lack of business acumen by agreeing to it - after all, it wasn't their money. Guess that's the part that really makes me laugh - people are blaming the PD, when it's actually the city that agreed to it, and frankly the citizens of the city were completely asleep when they didn't blow the roof off of city hall.

[rynetwo]

Your post just said it was a stupid deal. I could negotiate my union oceanfront property in Arizona but that is not making a good deal. It is just not a feasible deal that needs to be paid out. Sorry SAPD you need to give up concessions also..... By the way when I was talking about being an unsafe tactic, you're taking one of the best police chiefs in the entire country and trying to make him lose his job just so you get your deal.... Unsafe.

[TexasRedneck]

Originally Posted by rynetwo

Your post just said it was a stupid deal. I could negotiate my union oceanfront property in Arizona but that is not making a good deal. It is just not a feasible deal that needs to be paid out. Sorry SAPD you need to give up concessions also..... By the way when I was talking about being an unsafe tactic, you're taking one of the best police chiefs in the entire country and trying to make him lose his job just so you get your deal.... Unsafe.

I don't know that McManus is one of the best Chiefs in the country.....I DO know he's got some significant baggage with past cities he's worked at. BUT that's neither here nor there - that the rank and file dislike him enough to push for a "no confidence" vote is unprecedented in my memory here in SA - and in NO way is that making anyone "unsafe".

As to the contract being feasible. Well, if you make a bad deal on a contract, the courts are going to tell you that YOU made the deal - live with it.

Understand this....I do NOT think they deal was in the best interest of the city. I do NOT support the contract. But by the same token, this city entered into it, and the police union is pushing for the terms to be honored. I can remember in the past when contracts were entered in the city's favor, they'd insist the terms be honored, so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy.

[rynetwo]

The union had no problem with the chief until now. I call BULL on the intention. FYI if you saw the news conference today he has the backing of the entire management team of SAPD, the city, and going by recent polls the public. Sorry the rank and file listened to the union....

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

As to the contract being feasible. Well, if you make a bad deal on a contract, the courts are going to tell you that YOU made the deal - live with it.

Understand this....I do NOT think they deal was in the best interest of the city. I do NOT support the contract. But by the same token, this city entered into it, and the police union is pushing for the terms to be honored. I can remember in the past when contracts were entered in the city's favor, they'd insist the terms be honored, so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy.

The contract SAPD is working under actually expired about a year and a half ago, but due to an "Evergreen" clause that was agreed to decades ago, the terms of the expired contract can remain in effect, pending the signing of a new contract.


It seems to me, with the "Evergreen" clause, the SAPD union has little incentive to make concessions on a new contract, especially in the near term. Sure, they won't get pay raises, but some very lucrative benefits are on the line, and retention of those benefits at those levels, are apparently worth more to the union, than pay increases.

[TexasRedneck]

Guys....I get it. Again - the city was asleep at the switch when they signed the contract.....but that's what a good negotiator does - makes you THINK you're getting a good deal. What I don't get is the angst against the PD, rather than the fools that negotiated the contract AND those that agreed to it. You don't blame nature for doing what it does - and so far as rank and file being in support of this chief before all this........well, maybe I talk to different folks than you do.

[dastexan]

These overly generous benefits to the SAPD started with Cisneros back in the 80s when he was doing anything and everything he could in order to get support for the Henrydome aka Alamodome.

This no confidence vote is all due to the wars the Police Union is having with Scully and the COSA.

McManus was hired by Scully and the city. Therefore it helps advance the agenda of the Police Union to give a no confidence vote. This was explained in some detail in yesterday's paper in the Chasnoff column.

If the Union was not at war with the city essentially, this no confidence vote doesnt happen and it doesnt go down in the manner it did with a 97% no confidence happening.

Its all politics plain and simple.

[huckster]

While the anti-labor laws passed into law in Texas after world war two are some of the most - most vicious anti-labor laws in the country, the police union is legal in the state of Texas. Texans cannot keep the cops at slave wages in Texas as it does to the rest of labor. Funny how this works, isn't it ? It was a plan
from the start , plain and simple.
It was Herman Brown of the Brown and Root Constr. Company, with the asistance of Alvin Wirtz and Ed Clark, that rammed through the Texas legislature these aforementioned exploitative laws in the late forties. Herman Brown hated blacks, believed them lazy and hated unions, thought unions made white men lazy. With enough power these theories could be and were put into effect. Made law.

All these running comments here are a fart in the wind, with no merit at all, are not even cogent. Hot air.
Verbal thrashing about. The contract is legal,sacrosanct and cannot be trifled with.
Keeping the health care levels as they are is merely the economic equivalent of pay raises, nothing more.
Noone is gettng rich here. It is a matter of keeping up with inflation, as the cost of living goes up every year, cop wages must stay even with it. As the cost of health care goes up so must the cost of cop health care. These are not mere civil service people working an 8 hour shift at some military base either, these are uniformed, armed personnel and the defenders of public safety. Criminal or honest. It is their job to arrest people, a very unpleasant task, one which we relegate to this particular set of wage earners.
Deserving of what they get , this is not a "gimme" these are earned wages. One will get what one pays for
as the old adage states.

It is not politics plain and simple ,No. Hell no.

It is simple Economics 101. A premium benefit package is needed to keep cops on the job, honest........straight, and not crooked. It must behoove the officer to stay straight and hold the line. The front lines must be kept uncorrupted. Undiluted as possible. To care for these selfless persons well, not just good enough, is the duty of the citizens. As much as it is the duty of every cop to protect the citizens in return. To short change these folks would cause a backfire that would be heard all over town.
These benefits are not the much touted over-inflated golden parachutes of a CEO , it is the wages of public safety officers.
Hilarious. All the weeping and knashing of teeth here as though anyone here actually has a hand in it.
The proselytizing is hilarious. I am much amused over all the pettiness. Really. As though all are labor -management negotiators. San Antonio will continue to grow, I believe I remember 17,000 as the figure of people relocated to the city last year, so will the tax base. No big deal, nothing to get in a fuss over. This is not Flint, michigan and we will not cut nor sell ourselves short, poison ourselves with lead, nor will we let any city manager do it for us, emergency manager or not. We will care for our own.
Go on ahead and blow some more off, smoke that is.

Originally Posted by dastexan

These overly generous benefits to the SAPD started with Cisneros back in the 80s when he was doing anything and everything he could in order to get support for the Henrydome aka Alamodome.

This no confidence vote is all due to the wars the Police Union is having with Scully and the COSA.

McManus was hired by Scully and the city. Therefore it helps advance the agenda of the Police Union to give a no confidence vote. This was explained in some detail in yesterday's paper in the Chasnoff column.

If the Union was not at war with the city essentially, this no confidence vote doesnt happen and it doesnt go down in the manner it did with a 97% no confidence happening.

Its all politics plain and simple.

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by huckster

It is simple Economics 101. A premium benefit package is needed to keep cops on the job, honest........straight, and not crooked. It must behoove the officer to stay straight and hold the line. The front lines must be kept uncorrupted. Undiluted as possible. To care for these selfless persons well, not just good enough, is the duty of the citizens. As much as it is the duty of every cop to protect the citizens in return. To short change these folks would cause a backfire that would be heard all over town.

I would hate to think that the integrity of police officers would be tied to how well they are compensated.