OKC Police & Fire needs

[iron76hd]

What's so irritating is that you all know this full well and are going ahead with this Sherman to the sea scorched earth policy.

Absolutely disgusts me.

Relax Flinty. It's ok for someone to have a different point of view that you. I suppose anyone who votes NO is doom and gloom by your comment.

Now as far as the illegal activity or activities that is alleged on the part of the City of Oklahoma City I want to know if the City Auditor agrees with your position? Has a formal complaint been made to the City Attorney and/or to the City Council?

I'm not sure if I know what illegal activity you're talking about. If you mean I think there is a "Conflict of Interest". Yes I do. Don't you? Take a look.
Cornett Blogs
(Article IV S 11 No officer of the City shall benefit DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY in any contract made by, to or with the City, or be otherwise directly financially interested in any corporation having any contract or subcontract for doing any contact job or work for the City.) What's that mean to you?

On another note I cannot find the email address for the Chief of Police on the City website. I also can't find the email for the City Attorney or for the City Auditor. But they have FAX so I suppose I'll contact them that way.

I doubt the Chief of Police is going to be able to help you. The City Attorney may be able to. The City Auditor also probably has something better to do. If the city auditor or city attorney return your email, then you've made it alot further than most citizens. I doubt they want to get into the middle of MAPS3 anymore than they already are.

I'll tell you something that I don't like. The Chamber of Commerce get 5 MILLION dollars in PUBLIC Funds to fight me in an election. That's disgusting!
By definition isn't the Chamber of Commerce a nasty "UNION"? So aren't they "UNION PEOPLE"?

The "top heavy" question and Was it ineffective leadership on your part? may be answered by the Chief, but again i doubt he wants to deal with MAPS3 anymore than he has too. I'm only glad I don't work for Chesapeake. I've been told that they are polling their own employee's and if they feel contrary to what Chesapeake leaders about MAPS3 they might risk being fired. Wow!

[Chance23]

I'll tell you something that I don't like. The Chamber of Commerce get 5 MILLION dollars in PUBLIC Funds to fight me in an election. That's disgusting!
By definition isn't the Chamber of Commerce a nasty "UNION"? So aren't they "UNION PEOPLE"?

Depends what definition you use. Anyone getting together it technically a union. The CoC is a bunch of people with similar motives but who all don't get money from the same organization, so not a labor union, more just nasty people.

[iron76hd]

How about the definition everyone uses Chance. Is that one ok? Did you have another?

un·ion (ynyn)
n.
1.
a. The act of uniting or the state of being united.
b. A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.

Sounds like they are "UNION" people to me.

[Chance23]

Like I said, technically, anything is a union, because a union is any group of people that come together, which is the definition you so helpfully pointed out. That includes everything, social groups, PACs, gangs, cartels, etc etc

When people speak of unions in the way others have in this thread, they're talking about labor unions, which typically requires the same field of employment. That doesn't tend to the case with CoC. They have the same purposes, which is to try to promote anything that helps themselves and their members no matter the costs, but widely different occupations and fields of employment.

[iron76hd]

They have the same purposes, which is to try to promote anything that helps themselves and their members no matter the costs, but widely different occupations and fields of employment.

Chance ..now you're talking!!

That includes everything, social groups, PACs, gangs, cartels, etc etc

Their you go...went a little to far with that didn't you? again...Gangs and cartels and social groups are not the same by "definition" Not your definition...

COC...they meet the "UNION" definition though don't they?

[Chance23]

Chance ..now you're talking!!

Hey, I'm not saying anything people shouldn't already know.

Their you go...went a little to far with that didn't you? again...Gangs and cartels and social groups are not the same by "definition" Not your definition...

COC...they meet the "UNION" definition though don't they?

By your definition, I don't think so. A union is that broad. Like you said, it's any group of people who meet together for their own benefit. Gangs, cartels and social groups are all groups of people who meet together for their own benefits, are they not? By that definition, CoC's are a union, but that's the broader of definitions, and not really one people talk about when they talk about labor unions.

[Larry OKC]

If each officer works a 12 hour shift, which is what I'm accustomed to, they would work 3.3 shifts per week, calculating a 40 hour work week. I don't know if they work 40 hours but since that's an average, that's the figure I used. There are 168 hours in a week, which comes out to 4.2 forty hours shifts to be covered. That would give us, at any given time, 244 officers working, excluding vacation. If each officer has 4 weeks vacation/sick leave, we would actually have 216 officers working at any given time. That would give us one officer per 2.87 miles. Then I assumed 50% working in some other capacity such as administration, which seems high, but what do I know, and that stretches it out to one officer per 5.76 square miles. If there's a mathematical error you spot, please forgive me, as I'm not a mathematician. But, I cannot come up with any mathematical formula that has 1,029 police officers unable to achieve a density of less than 100 square miles per officer, since at any given time we would only have to have 6.22 officers in the field to do so.

Thanks, that helps some. What threw me was your beginning calculation: "Oklahoma City is 622 square miles in size, and we have 1,029 police officers. That comes out to a figure of 1 police offer per .55 square mile."

[betts]

Thanks, that helps some. What threw me was your beginning calculation: "Oklahoma City is 622 square miles in size, and we have 1,029 police officers. That comes out to a figure of 1 police offer per .55 square mile."

Yeah, I didn't make it as clear as I should have. I just knew that one officer covering 100 square miles didn't make sense.

[iron76hd]

Yeah, I didn't make it as clear as I should have. I just knew that one officer covering 100 square miles didn't make sense.

I know it doesn't make sense, but many nights and days depending on the situation it happens!

[betts]

I know it doesn't make sense, but many nights and days depending on the situation it happens!

Can you show us how? And where? Even in a city as big as Oklahoma City, ten square miles is almost a sixth of it's total area. I can understand us having very little density of policemen in some of our underpopulated areas, as you can travel very quickly and I can't imagine there's any crime to speak of, but 100 square miles is still a huge amount of territory (although the farthest distance in 100 square miles is about 16 miles, due to the fact that it's ten miles square). If people are going to throw statistics like that out, I'd like to see some documentation.

[iron76hd]

i've explained how that works in a previous post. A shift doesn't start out that thin. 9-11 for over 300 square miles maybe, but one incident and it can easily be 1 to 100 square miles.

The only way to alleviate that is to have other officers from other divisions answer any calls that come out in the hurting division.

I can understand why it doesn't matter to you. You have the luxury of having a "TWO" police stations within 5 miles from your door. Other citizens don't have that and other citizens, not just you, are PAYING for maps. For your 900 dollars a year, you're getting taken care of quite nicely. You even stand to get yourself a "New" Mulit Million dollar park. That should help your property values quite nicely. I'd hope you'd send a thank you letter to other taxpayers.

[BoulderSooner]

i've explained how that works in a previous post. A shift doesn't start out that thin. 9-11 for over 300 square miles maybe, but one incident and it can easily be 1 to 100 square miles.

The only way to alleviate that is to have other officers from other divisions answer any calls that come out in the hurting division.

I can understand why it doesn't matter to you. You have the luxury of having a "TWO" police stations within 5 miles from your door. Other citizens don't have that and other citizens, not just you, are PAYING for maps. For your 900 dollars a year, you're getting taken care of quite nicely. You even stand to get yourself a "New" Mulit Million dollar park. That should help your property values quite nicely. I'd hope you'd send a thank you letter to other taxpayers.

900 dollars a Year???? really that would be someone spending 90K in okc in a year ... doubtfull ..

in fact for most people the 120 $ figure is way to high

when you consider the fact that a large part of the money spent in okc is from people that don't live in okc ..

[betts]

Out of 1,029 officers, you only have 9 to 11 working an entire shift? What are the rest of them doing?

[ThePlainsman]

i just got thinking. we do have a park very close to the same location they want to build this big onw. its called wheeler park, it looks nice with a nice skate park and grass and trees. why cant you guys use that park?

Because the police never bothered to keep the riff-raff out? Just saying.

[kevinpate]

Because the police never bothered to keep the riff-raff out? Just saying.

Sure they did, although they only chased them across Robinson to the other park of Wiley Post, which is where the skate park is.

[How to rock]

Betts,
The explanation you are seeking is complicated to explain. As Iron has said, I can assure you it DOES happen. By the way the police department has NEVER been fully staffed to the level of 1029 officers.

I assume that your questions are as a result of the following document that was distributed concerning the issues related to MAPS 3.

http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.c...S%20info-1.pdf

The item was distributed by First Vice President of the Fraternal Order of Police John George. I can tell you that the specific distribution of officers is kept confidential by the police department. With that being said, I do believe that John George would welcome your inquiry concerning the fact sheet he distributed and he would be able to explain the issue without giving you specific information which may endanger the safety of officers and the public. You may contact him at the FOP at phone number 236-4631. If John is not available, you may consider asking for Second Vice President Sky Kays.

[iron76hd]

If you mean I think there is a "Conflict of Interest". Yes I do. Don't you? Take a look.
Cornett Blogs
(Article IV S 11 No officer of the City shall benefit DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY in any contract made by, to or with the City, or be otherwise directly financially interested in any corporation having any contract or subcontract for doing any contact job or work for the City.) What's that mean to you?

[DOWNTOWN COWBOY]

Ok first post where to start? We voted in a sales tax years ago to add 200 officers. The City recieved them but now they are gone; no longer in patrol that is. So what we have are fewer people answering our 911 calls and patroling our streets. That's why we now have a response time of around 9m 40sec, 70% of that time is to priority 1 & 2 calls. Other cities in the metro have reported an average of 5m time. This may be to all calls no matter what the priority, but I don't know for sure. I do believe that I should get about the same level of service, not double the response time of the metro average. So where have these officers gone to? Bricktown, schools, and the airport to name a few locations. The thing that bothers me the most is that the airport and the schools pay for part of the officers' salary they recieved in those locations. But then comes Bricktown. Bricktown received a whole division of officers and didn't have to pay a dime to do so. Why? I'd like to know that answer as well. And if the first maps "grew the pie", then why didn't the city add officers back to patrol to replace the ones that got reasigned to Bricktown? I'm not bashing Bricktown. I actually enjoy that area. What I am disgusted with is our lovely city management. Bottom line: The airport and schools and the community as a whole are getting screwed. They all pay the city (be it salaries or taxes) for these officers which then get distributed to protect the interest of the rich. I want these officers back on the street protecing my family and my home. If that means hiring 200 more officers... then so be it.

[betts]

Betts,
The explanation you are seeking is complicated to explain. As Iron has said, I can assure you it DOES happen. By the way the police department has NEVER been fully staffed to the level of 1029 officers.

I assume that your questions are as a result of the following document that was distributed concerning the issues related to MAPS 3.

http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.c...S%20info-1.pdf

The item was distributed by First Vice President of the Fraternal Order of Police John George. I can tell you that the specific distribution of officers is kept confidential by the police department. With that being said, I do believe that John George would welcome your inquiry concerning the fact sheet he distributed and he would be able to explain the issue without giving you specific information which may endanger the safety of officers and the public. You may contact him at the FOP at phone number 236-4631. If John is not available, you may consider asking for Second Vice President Sky Kays.

To be honest with you, I don't have any reason to call him. I simply thought it was an odd mathematical figure that I couldn't logically explain, and I don't think he'll be able to convince me otherwise. Because if that's the case, even if you cannot come up with the full 1,029 officers, then you've got a good old style beaureacracy going, where you've got more people telling others how to work than doing the work. But, it's a moot point because I don't have any argument with policemen and firemen thinking they need more help. Figures can be twisted by both sides to prove their point, and it will take a far more sophisticated analysis than anything I can do to understand it. You all may be right, but, I can also accept the possibility that you may be wrong, and that you might have waste, inefficiency and programs that sound cool but don't really accomplish much. So, I'm going to leave it to others who have access to more data than me to make that decision.

I think a lot of people work hard, a lot of people deserve more money, more help and more time off and that it's our job as individuals to be honest with ourselves and others as to whether that's really the case or not.

Since I have no way of telling whether you're really right or not, whether the union or city or both are being honest or dishonest or a little of both, I've decided it's not part of my decision-making process for this particular election. I'm voting based on what I want to happen in this particular election only, and when it's time to vote for more money for policemen and firemen, I'll vote based on what I want to happen at that time. For me, they're two separate issues and will always remain so.

[Slivermoon]

Irrespective of the IAFF position, at this point it all comes down to the Police collective bargaining group asking for one more City funded union representative. After all the negotiations, arbitration and Not This Maps campaign, etc. that is essentially what it boils down to... asking the City to pay for one more full time FOP union position, end of story.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Maps 3 at all.

[iron76hd]

Irrespective of the IAFF position, at this point it all comes down to the Police collective bargaining group asking for one more City funded union representative. After all the negotiations, arbitration and Not This Maps campaign, etc. that is essentially what it boils down to... asking the City to pay for one more full time FOP union position, end of story.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Maps 3 at all.

What? It all comes down to one more FOP rep? It comes down to the Mayor wanting his 6 FIGURE SALARY and his obvious CONFLICT OF INTERESTS!...That's it..Folks trying to get rich off of taxpayers, but giving us a Park and white water rapids.... What a joke!

[MGE1977]

Silvermoon

I think that perhaps you would feel differently, if you were involved in a profession that had no other recourse to change a governing body's governance except to bargain in good faith. I appreciate your comments relieving the IAFF in this matter, but honestly, as union brotherhoods we stand united.

We were all offered a deal that was far less than adequate by the city, and the city was not completely truthful in this matter in its press conference to the public, and in news articles it has run. I would prefer that you not villainize the FOP or the IAFF, though again I appreciate your "pass" in your last post. I respect your opinion, but I feel it unfair to chalk up this argument from the unions as power motivated. As unions, and as a voting body, we choose which fights to fight, and again, this argument began for us at the bargaining table and then steeled itself when a vague, money hungry proposal was delivered to citizens of OKC. OKC needs a better proposal.

[Chance23]

To be honest with you, I don't have any reason to call him. I simply thought it was an odd mathematical figure that I couldn't logically explain, and I don't think he'll be able to convince me otherwise. Because if that's the case, even if you cannot come up with the full 1,029 officers, then you've got a good old style beaureacracy going, where you've got more people telling others how to work than doing the work. But, it's a moot point because I don't have any argument with policemen and firemen thinking they need more help. Figures can be twisted by both sides to prove their point, and it will take a far more sophisticated analysis than anything I can do to understand it. You all may be right, but, I can also accept the possibility that you may be wrong, and that you might have waste, inefficiency and programs that sound cool but don't really accomplish much. So, I'm going to leave it to others who have access to more data than me to make that decision.

I think a lot of people work hard, a lot of people deserve more money, more help and more time off and that it's our job as individuals to be honest with ourselves and others as to whether that's really the case or not.

Since I have no way of telling whether you're really right or not, whether the union or city or both are being honest or dishonest or a little of both, I've decided it's not part of my decision-making process for this particular election. I'm voting based on what I want to happen in this particular election only, and when it's time to vote for more money for policemen and firemen, I'll vote based on what I want to happen at that time. For me, they're two separate issues and will always remain so.

So your stance is "I can't be assed to see if there's a real qualm, so I'm going to act like it doesn't matter."

Makes perfect sense!

[Mikemarsh51]

Betts, I don't know how much education you have. It doesnt take rocket scientist to understand that in the last 10 years, in a growing economy, with a thriving Maps tax in place, the Fire Dept. has lost 20 positions per shift (3). Were growing because of Maps, so says our Mayor. Use your logic and splain that one.

[betts]

I've not once said that I believe the fire department doesn't have enough employees. But, I also know that most departments have waste and inefficiency, have programs they think they have to have that on closer review are probably aren't accomplishing all that much. I honestly believe that very few ambulance calls for medical problems require more than 2 people, and that if you've got 2 firemen and 2 EMSA EMTs on all of them, it's overkill on many of them. Perhaps we need to get rid of EMSA, and only have 2 firemen going to all calls, giving the ambulances to the fire department, and increasing your departments' personnel commensurately. It's possible you had too many employees in the past. Departments never say "no" when they're offered money or positions, and they make the work accomodate them, so the money or positions aren't removed. Don't tell me that doesn't happen....I know too many people in the military. Perhaps you have too many people administrating, and not enough working. Don't know, and there's very little way I can know for sure.

I think that very few departments, if they feel they're stretched, actually look at how they can become more efficient, but always seem to think they need more employees. So, I recognize that the righteous indignation we're seeing here may be justified. But, as I've said, I have yet to see one side of a story and know absolutely that the other side doesn't have a point as well, and I suspect that's what's going on here. And, the bottom line is that I think that righteous indignation, even if justified, should have no bearing on MAPS. Take your battle to the city, don't casually let the fallout affect the people you say are your highest concern. People should be able to decide if they want MAPS based on it's pros and cons, not your pros and cons.