|
Post by oaklandave on Jan 10, 2010 23:51:50 GMT -5
Mr. Gatto; with respect; I think dfc raises a very interesting, and very pertinent question. Why did the town lay off two police officers in 2008 when they were still flush with Audubon Park money? They; the former commissioners, did not yet know about what we all saw happened with the contract with Audubon Park. Dfc also makes reference to the medical costs; which is also a valid concern. I would trust your uncanny ability of research and factual reason to provide some sort of answer. Pretty funny in a letter to the retrospect Bob Howard talks about what a great job he did and how well the town was policed and then makes the comment that they let two officers go because of Audubon Park when in fact they let those officers go long before Audubon Park. He failed to mention what happened to the 2 million dollars they had set aside for their club house, or the $200,000.00 they took from the library. Oh well. I also find it ironic that in this weeks Retro Chief Tom Tassi is discussing the crime wave in Audubon around the Walmart, the very Walmart that his brother and him begged to come to Audubon. Dave
|
|
Pasta
getting the hang of it
Posts: 46
|
Post by Pasta on Jan 10, 2010 23:56:26 GMT -5
Mr.Gatto; Sir; Yes, I do remember that. But while I an no big "fan," of dfc; he does bring a very salient point and a very valid question. I think what dfc is asking, from what I can tell, is the very same thing you offered as the response. What was the "budget issue in 2008 aside from Audubon Park" that you mention? He mentioned that he was never able to get a response to that question. I believe that is where the confusion lies; and that is where I am confident that you will be able to provide some answers. You are so adept at explaining all of this to us, and I think your research is essential in the explanation that officers were laid off in two budget years.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 11, 2010 8:19:10 GMT -5
Mr.Gatto; Sir; Yes, I do remember that. But while I an no big "fan," of dfc; he does bring a very salient point and a very valid question. I think what dfc is asking, from what I can tell, is the very same thing you offered as the response. What was the "budget issue in 2008 aside from Audubon Park" that you mention? He mentioned that he was never able to get a response to that question. I believe that is where the confusion lies; and that is where I am confident that you will be able to provide some answers. You are so adept at explaining all of this to us, and I think your research is essential in the explanation that officers were laid off in two budget years. At the time Tassi blamed the layoffs on a cut in state aid...and that's a fact.. that is the reason he gave....(March 28, 2008)Audubon Shows Cops Empty PocketsMark Swanson 28.MAR.08"Audubon Mayor Chris Tassi faced a full house at Tuesday’s borough commission meeting, but the attendees weren’t all regular residents. Many were police, members of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), unhappy about two proposed layoffs in the town’s police department. FOP members from many local towns – including Haddon Twp., Haddonfield, Haddon Heights, Oaklyn, Collingswood and Audubon – were seeking answers to questions about the proposed layoffs. They also made it clear that they thought the two patrolmen should be reinstated, as the pair have already received pink slips from the borough. Tassi laid the blame at the feet of the Governor Jon Corzine, whose administration has proposed tremendous municipal aid cuts to small towns like Audubon. By the numbers, the governor has proposed a cut of $325,851 from the aid the town received last year, which was $1,284,396..." www.theretrospect.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=1376&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1155&hn=theretrospect&he=.com
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 11, 2010 10:38:58 GMT -5
Mr. Gatto; with respect; I think dfc raises a very interesting, and very pertinent question. Why did the town lay off two police officers in 2008 when they were still flush with Audubon Park money? They; the former commissioners, did not yet know about what we all saw happened with the contract with Audubon Park. Dfc also makes reference to the medical costs; which is also a valid concern. I would trust your uncanny ability of research and factual reason to provide some sort of answer. Pretty funny in a letter to the retrospect Bob Howard talks about what a great job he did and how well the town was policed and then makes the comment that they let two officers go because of Audubon Park when in fact they let those officers go long before Audubon Park. He failed to mention what happened to the 2 million dollars they had set aside for their club house, or the $200,000.00 they took from the library. Oh well. I also find it ironic that in this weeks Retro Chief Tom Tassi is discussing the crime wave in Audubon around the Walmart, the very Walmart that his brother and him begged to come to Audubon. Dave In a post further down in this thread, I have quoted a newspaper article from March of 2008, in which the Commissioners gave the official reason they laid off two police officers. You mention a letter in which Howard contradicts what is said. Maybe your memory is not as good as you think or you misread the letter to the editor. Produce the text of the letter for us to see, before we start discussing potential misinformation you are trying to produce from memory. There was never a club house for the previous Commissioners. They got a commitment to borrow $2 million to build a senior citizen's community center. The project got killed and they used part of the money to upgrade the current center on Oakland to accommodate handicapped access ( which was the law). The current Commissioners finished the job and I believe the rest of the money was not borrowed or given back. Nobody took $200,000 from the library. They failed to fund it and the reason tossed around after they were out of office was that there was a surplus of substantially more than $200,000 in the library savings fund. It was possible for the library to operate from reserves for a year without taxing residents another $200,000. (this discussion is on one of the videos documented by the new Commissioners at a meeting) It appears that the previous administration had a strategy to draw down on all sorts of budget surpluses and reserves to avoid raising taxes. Whether that was a good strategy or not may be a point of debate, but nobody took money from the library. Get your facts straight. Before we discuss crime and cops assigned to Walmart, we should find out how APD policed the old shopping when Bradlees was there. If memory serves me right, Bradless attracted the same class of customers as Walmart. Any town that has a large shopping center or shopping district can expect petty crime and needs to police their commercial district. The trade off is that the shopping center has rateables and produces tax revenue - far in excess of what it costs to provide police protection. You may find things funny and ironic but chances are you do because you are a wealth of misinformation and little or no facts.
|
|
|
Post by B Kewl on Jan 11, 2010 15:56:18 GMT -5
I read that letter in The Retrospect by Howard. I miss the point he is trying to make. Fade away Mr. Howard. You were not right for Audubon and we told you that loud and clear on election day.
|
|
|
Post by dragonwind on Jan 11, 2010 18:27:40 GMT -5
so Vince as a student of politics 101 I am a little curious as whom to blame for the layoffs the old or new administration or the APD management It is obvious there was a failure somewhere. I would also like to know how pontius (AP) pilot is at fault ?
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 11, 2010 21:21:00 GMT -5
so Vince as a student of politics 101 I am a little curious as whom to blame for the layoffs the old or new administration or the APD management It is obvious there was a failure somewhere. I would also like to know how pontius (AP) pilot is at fault ? Audubon hired 4 cops to support the AP policing, we lost the contract - we don't need the cops - they got laid off. It is as simple as that. If AP wanted the 4 cops to keep their jobs, they should have made it a requirement of Haddon Twp to hire them and increase their PD by 4 officers like Audubon did. They did not. It's AP's fault they are out of work.
|
|
|
Post by Alwayssomething on Feb 22, 2010 19:13:11 GMT -5
I'm new to this but I do have a question - Why do we require more than one 'officer' Sgt. Lt. and such in our department? Am I the only person in town that thinks that we will never be able to 'share' services due to all the towns that we could share services with will want their chief to be the chief? I am extremely PRO PD - but it has come to the point in time where they need to contribute just a little more. Many of the town people are on their second or third year at their job without pay raises.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypeppers on Mar 1, 2010 18:32:14 GMT -5
I'm new to this but I do have a question - Why do we require more than one 'officer' Sgt. Lt. and such in our department? Am I the only person in town that thinks that we will never be able to 'share' services due to all the towns that we could share services with will want their chief to be the chief? I am extremely PRO PD - but it has come to the point in time where they need to contribute just a little more. Many of the town people are on their second or third year at their job without pay raises. I know I'll get blasted by the "usual suspects" but a few years ago I did a detailed "shared services " workup regarding Camden County as to the small Police depts. The plan was very detailed and I presented it to my Chief to be brought before the Camden County Police Chiefs meeting for review. I was told it was shot down and not considered....if it even was. I was also told thru the grapevine, the "good old boy" syndrome is alive and well in New Jersey, not much different to change as where I live now. Politics as usual....but my property taxes are MUCH MUCH 90% lower John
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Mar 1, 2010 21:31:31 GMT -5
I'm new to this but I do have a question - Why do we require more than one 'officer' Sgt. Lt. and such in our department? Am I the only person in town that thinks that we will never be able to 'share' services due to all the towns that we could share services with will want their chief to be the chief? I am extremely PRO PD - but it has come to the point in time where they need to contribute just a little more. Many of the town people are on their second or third year at their job without pay raises. I know I'll get blasted by the "usual suspects" but a few years ago I did a detailed "shared services " workup regarding Camden County as to the small Police depts. The plan was very detailed and I presented it to my Chief to be brought before the Camden County Police Chiefs meeting for review. I was told it was shot down and not considered....if it even was. I was also told thru the grapevine, the "good old boy" syndrome is alive and well in New Jersey, not much different to change as where I live now. Politics as usual....but my property taxes are MUCH MUCH 90% lower John Maybe you should come out of retirement and run for Sheriff down there, sort of a blend between cops and politics.
|
|
Pasta
getting the hang of it
Posts: 46
|
Post by Pasta on Mar 1, 2010 22:29:05 GMT -5
I'm new to this but I do have a question - Why do we require more than one 'officer' Sgt. Lt. and such in our department? Am I the only person in town that thinks that we will never be able to 'share' services due to all the towns that we could share services with will want their chief to be the chief? I am extremely PRO PD - but it has come to the point in time where they need to contribute just a little more. Many of the town people are on their second or third year at their job without pay raises. I know I'll get blasted by the "usual suspects" but a few years ago I did a detailed "shared services " workup regarding Camden County as to the small Police depts. The plan was very detailed and I presented it to my Chief to be brought before the Camden County Police Chiefs meeting for review. I was told it was shot down and not considered....if it even was. I was also told thru the grapevine, the "good old boy" syndrome is alive and well in New Jersey, not much different to change as where I live now. Politics as usual....but my property taxes are MUCH MUCH 90% lower John Mr. Peppers, I am certainly no expert as I believe you are in law enforcement, but did your plan of consolidating all the police departments outline the process of reducing the number of police officers needed to make your plan workable? It seems that a big issue these days is how many of these local towns handle the reduction of officers, which is always painful to those officers and their families, and this might be the reason your plan was not considered. I have no idea, really, but I thought I should ask.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Mar 1, 2010 22:44:59 GMT -5
I know I'll get blasted by the "usual suspects" but a few years ago I did a detailed "shared services " workup regarding Camden County as to the small Police depts. The plan was very detailed and I presented it to my Chief to be brought before the Camden County Police Chiefs meeting for review. I was told it was shot down and not considered....if it even was. I was also told thru the grapevine, the "good old boy" syndrome is alive and well in New Jersey, not much different to change as where I live now. Politics as usual....but my property taxes are MUCH MUCH 90% lower John Mr. Peppers, I am certainly no expert as I believe you are in law enforcement, but did your plan of consolidating all the police departments outline the process of reducing the number of police officers needed to make your plan workable? It seems that a big issue these days is how many of these local towns handle the reduction of officers, which is always painful to those officers and their families, and this might be the reason your plan was not considered. I have no idea, really, but I thought I should ask. I believe his plan included doing away with all local Police Chiefs and having only one County Chief, which could explain why is was not well received at the Police Chief's Association. But then, again, I am not a law enforcement expert either. ;D
|
|
Pasta
getting the hang of it
Posts: 46
|
Post by Pasta on Mar 1, 2010 23:12:23 GMT -5
Mr. Peppers, I am certainly no expert as I believe you are in law enforcement, but did your plan of consolidating all the police departments outline the process of reducing the number of police officers needed to make your plan workable? It seems that a big issue these days is how many of these local towns handle the reduction of officers, which is always painful to those officers and their families, and this might be the reason your plan was not considered. I have no idea, really, but I thought I should ask. I believe his plan included doing away with all local Police Chief and having only one County Chief, which could explain why is was not well received at the Police Chief's Association. But then, again, I am not a law enforcement expert either. ;D And neither am I, which is why I wanted to ask him what the plan included.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Mar 2, 2010 9:25:31 GMT -5
I believe his plan included doing away with all local Police Chief and having only one County Chief, which could explain why is was not well received at the Police Chief's Association. But then, again, I am not a law enforcement expert either. ;D And neither am I, which is why i wanted to ask him what the plan included. I think that if you take a plan to a group of people and you say, "If you endorse this plan, you are all going to lose your jobs...", you are not going to get a warm reception. I don't think that you have to be an expert in anything but human nature to know that. However, from an organizational standpoint, Pepper's plan looks good and is well thought out. He may want to report the details again for the new people here.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypeppers on Mar 2, 2010 13:28:28 GMT -5
I know I'll get blasted by the "usual suspects" but a few years ago I did a detailed "shared services " workup regarding Camden County as to the small Police depts. The plan was very detailed and I presented it to my Chief to be brought before the Camden County Police Chiefs meeting for review. I was told it was shot down and not considered....if it even was. I was also told thru the grapevine, the "good old boy" syndrome is alive and well in New Jersey, not much different to change as where I live now. Politics as usual....but my property taxes are MUCH MUCH 90% lower John Mr. Peppers, I am certainly no expert as I believe you are in law enforcement, but did your plan of consolidating all the police departments outline the process of reducing the number of police officers needed to make your plan workable? It seems that a big issue these days is how many of these local towns handle the reduction of officers, which is always painful to those officers and their families, and this might be the reason your plan was not considered. I have no idea, really, but I thought I should ask. I do not have the plans in front of me but from what I recall there was a formula for Officer /Supervisor ratio to population and area of coverage . Also I recall the areas of coverage would be patterned after the Tactical zones for Camden County. I do not believe there would be any loss of Patrol Officers BUT there definitely would be a reduction/retirements in Command personal IF the ratio of Command to Patrol Officers exceeds the presented formula. There also would be two centrally located main Headquarters, one West and one East in Camden County which would house the Command personal and Detective Divisions as well as Evidence storage and would be the start point of patrol for East and West County Patrol Officers. The East and West Divisions would be split into an "upper end and a lower end" and each would have a different (half hour) start and finish time so there is always Patrol coverage. Each Division would also have a fueling station. The County would buy fuel in bulk at a cheaper cost. This undertaking would need the support of the County Administration $$$ and maybe the State and Federal Governments via grants. Getting rid of the "old school" train of thought would be the biggest stumbling block. CHANGE (I hate that word) sometimes is a hard pill to swallow but I have no doubt the plans I had recommended would benefit all of Camden County. Will it happen in my lifetime....nahhh Just my opinion John
|
|