Cops Union or Someone Doing anti-MAPS Push Poll

[flintysooner]

flintysooner.

the City's Last BEst Offer was found Illegal and THROWN out. that means that the city DOES NOT HAVE a last best offer so when the vote comes it will only have the UNIONS offer on there rather than the city;s and the union's. its not a yes no vote its a which do you vote for but if there is only one option you cant vote against it. Make Sense now?

I thought it went to arbitration which failed.

[Wambo36]

I thought it went to arbitration which failed.

It did go to arbitration, where it was ruled that the city submitted an illegal last best offer. That is why it failed.

[andy157]

I thought it went to arbitration which failed.

As wambo has already explained, it did. He also gave you the reason as to why the City lost. They lost because they did not act in good faith. For a City, or for that matter a Union to act in bad faith is against the law in this State. Now the City will be asking that you as a Citizen vote to overturn and reverse the arbitrators decsion and ruling by voting against the Firefighters.

The City by asking you to vote against the Firefighters, is asking that you do a couple of things. First, that you condon their act of bad faith for this year. Secondly, that you support their illegal actions, and they have your blessing to do the same next year. It's really that simple. However before they spend the money on the election which is about 200K they will spend 500K in legal fees. Which isn't really all that bad when you figure the problem could be fixed for half that

[flintysooner]

I guess I'm confused but I did not think the arbiter's decision was a matter of law.

As I understood it (and admittedly only from the newspaper account) the arbiter ruled against the City but the City chose to not be bound by the arbiter's decision which then leads to the future vote.

If it wasn't an arbiter but an actual court that ruled the City was in violation of one or more laws then why is this not continuing on in court?

If it does go to a vote I think there is going to have be a lot of effort on the part of the fire fighter's union to garner support.

I have no idea what it means for either the City or the union to lose the vote but it doesn't seem like a very good thing to me in any event.

[Slivermoon]

[QUOTE=andy157;267343]"They lost because they did not act in good faith. For a City, or for that matter a Union to act in bad faith is against the law in this State. Now the City will be asking that you as a Citizen vote to overturn and reverse the arbitrators decsion and ruling by voting against the Firefighters.

The City by asking you to vote against the Firefighters, is asking that you do a couple of things. First, that you condon their act of bad faith for this year. Secondly, that you support their illegal actions, and they have your blessing to do the same next year...."

It may be one thing to differ on the proceedings of the outcome of arbitration (I have no idea whether this specific issue was subject to binding or non-binding arbitration), however, I doubt seriously that the County Election Board would allow a special election to be called that would potentially constitute (or "condon") an "illegal" action.

Be that as it may, I have no issue with your dissatisfaction. Everyone feels somewhat similar about their particular place in life periodically. I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who choose public service as their profession and those who serve and protect others are integral to the fabric of our society.

I just think, with respect, you may want to choose your words more carefully if you wish to win this particular issue in the minds and hearts of the public, especially on this forum. Simply put, by publicly accusing your employer (The City) of acting illegally (which, by recollection is the first time I have read this accusation), and by extension City Voters should they uphold the City's position, such statements weaken your appearance of credibility and reduce your arguement to that of casting stones rather than substantiating the true basis for your case.

I don't mean this to be critical. Just an observation.

[iron76hd]

just think, with respect, you may want to choose your words more carefully if you wish to win this particular issue in the minds and hearts of the public,

Choose your words more carefully? Or what? Thank goodness MEN and WOMEN are able to speak their mind in this country. You insinuate the words were slander. I don't believe so. I'd appreciate you taking the same interest in the Mayor's conflict in his new job and current position as Mayor. That's a direct violation and City Charter but, no one cares about that. Take a look.

Cornett Blogs

such statements weaken your appearance of credibility and reduce your arguement to that of casting stones rather than substantiating the true basis for your case

That's merely your opinion. I wouldn't make a habit of speaking for the rest of our city's voters. There may be many more voters that see through all of the smoke and mirrors the Mayor is putting up.

Who's casting stones? I fell like the FALSE and misleading comments the Mayor has made on recent news stories has caused him to lose a little credibility.

I don't mean this to be critical. Just an observation.

[How to rock]

Betts,
Check out the following links:
KOCO News Broadcast Concerning MAPS 3
KFOR News - Local groups oppose MAPS 3

This last one is lengthy but the information you are looking for is in the first few minutes of the interview.
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.c...TOK_Radio.html

I hope this helps.

[betts]

Sorry, I don't listen to Mark Shannon. He'll be against any extra money for police and fire too, if it comes up for a vote, I would assume. Be careful of whom you get in bed with where politics are concerned. As far as the others go, again, I see no connection between the two issues. I doubt a convention center, since it will replace an existing one, a streetcar, bike paths and senior citizens centers will be requiring significant increases in personnel in either department. I would guess that the area where the park is planned has been a bigger headache for police and firemen currently and in the past than it will be when it's grass and trees. I've said I'm not at all against extra funding for policemen and firemen, if that's what we need, but I don't see that it precludes MAPS.

[Wambo36]

It may be one thing to differ on the proceedings of the outcome of arbitration (I have no idea whether this specific issue was subject to binding or non-binding arbitration), however, I doubt seriously that the County Election Board would allow a special election to be called that would potentially constitute (or "condon") an "illegal" action.

Be that as it may, I have no issue with your dissatisfaction. Everyone feels somewhat similar about their particular place in life periodically. I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who choose public service as their profession and those who serve and protect others are integral to the fabric of our society.

I just think, with respect, you may want to choose your words more carefully if you wish to win this particular issue in the minds and hearts of the public, especially on this forum. Simply put, by publicly accusing your employer (The City) of acting illegally (which, by recollection is the first time I have read this accusation), and by extension City Voters should they uphold the City's position, such statements weaken your appearance of credibility and reduce your arguement to that of casting stones rather than substantiating the true basis for your case.

I don't mean this to be critical. Just an observation.[/QUOTE]

It may be of interest to you that the ruling of the arbitrator is binding on the union but not on the city. That's thanks to a state law they pushed and got passed several years ago. That's why they have options even though they lost.
As to using the word "illegally". That is the language of the arbitrator. He found the city had put forth an illegal last best offer and therefore ruled for the firefighters. I'm not sure how this weakens our appearance of credibility or reduces our argument. If anything, an unbiased observer would see that this weakens the cities appearance of credibility and argument.

[andy157]

[QUOTE=Slivermoon;267355]

"They lost because they did not act in good faith. For a City, or for that matter a Union to act in bad faith is against the law in this State. Now the City will be asking that you as a Citizen vote to overturn and reverse the arbitrators decsion and ruling by voting against the Firefighters.

The City by asking you to vote against the Firefighters, is asking that you do a couple of things. First, that you condon their act of bad faith for this year. Secondly, that you support their illegal actions, and they have your blessing to do the same next year...."

It may be one thing to differ on the proceedings of the outcome of arbitration (I have no idea whether this specific issue was subject to binding or non-binding arbitration), however, I doubt seriously that the County Election Board would allow a special election to be called that would potentially constitute (or "condon") an "illegal" action.

Be that as it may, I have no issue with your dissatisfaction. Everyone feels somewhat similar about their particular place in life periodically. I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who choose public service as their profession and those who serve and protect others are integral to the fabric of our society.

I just think, with respect, you may want to choose your words more carefully if you wish to win this particular issue in the minds and hearts of the public, especially on this forum. Simply put, by publicly accusing your employer (The City) of acting illegally (which, by recollection is the first time I have read this accusation), and by extension City Voters should they uphold the City's position, such statements weaken your appearance of credibility and reduce your arguement to that of casting stones rather than substantiating the true basis for your case.

I don't mean this to be critical. Just an observation.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you trying to say in your first sentence. A collective bargaining agreement between the City of OKC and the IAFF is the specific issue. If those parties do not, can not, or will not settle the CBA by mutual agreement, then both parties submit the unresolved issues to a neutral arbitrator who has the authority to settle those issue in favor of one of the parties.

That process is referd to as Binding Interest Arbitration, binding on the FF that is, not the City. If the arbitrator rules in favor of the FF the City has the option of asking the Citizens to overturn the ruling. All of this is covered by State law, which can be found in the Statutes in Title 11 (11-51-101 thru 113. I don't have the time or the energy to try and explain the details of this case to you. Maybe if you have the time and the interest you can read it for yourself.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with how you responded back to me and I repect your observation. Having said that, let me say this, there are many reasons why I don't need to choose my words more carefully. Why? Because it would not matter to most of the people on this board anyway.

The fact is, the City acted in Bad Faith. The evidence confirmed the act. The arbitrator ruled. The City admitted they acted in bad faith. In the State of Oklahoma if a City and/or a Union act in bad faith, that action violates the law thereby making that action illegal.

Lastly, lets for the record clear up the issue of me publicly accusing my employer. I used to work for the City. The City is my Employee, not my employer.

[Larry OKC]

Sorry, I don't listen to Mark Shannon. ...

Before these threads I have never even heard of the man (and can't get any of the posted links to work, so still haven't). What do you have against him?

[Larry OKC]

...I doubt a convention center, since it will replace an existing one, a streetcar, bike paths and senior citizens centers will be requiring significant increases in personnel in either department....

Are you of the opinion then that some of those items WON'T lead to "revitalization", a "vibrant", "vital" downtown and/or City? That they WON'T "continue the momentum" and resulting continued growth in population? All of that translates into the need for additional services, doesn't it? Besides all of that, part of their argument is that we haven't kept current with the CURRENT needs and promises to address those needs since the original MAPS (16 years ago), much less any increased needs.

I am confused again...

Now don't get me wrong, I am not generally in favor of the whole bigger government theory. If you can still get the same job done (without endangering public safety) with more efficient use of available resources (buildings, equipment and the efficient use of personnel), I am all for it.

But I definitely support fulfilling the NEEDS of the City, then you take care of the WANTS. If you can do both at the same time, Great!

[How to rock]

Betts,
It is obvious you have not listened to Mark Shannon lately. Mark has been taking the side of both the police and fire unions on this issue. He has voiced his support for the issues cited by both unions. Mark has made it clear that this is not his common position but he understands the issues being raised by the union representatives.

Larry OKC,
Try these alternate links. I hope they work for you.
http://www.kfor.com:80/news/local/kf...,7470496.story
YouTube - Public Safety An Issue In MAPS3 Proposal
YouTube - MAPS 3 KTOK Interview (Part 1) with Mark Shannon & FOP President Hensley / www.okcissues.com
YouTube - MAPS 3 KTOK Interview (Part 2) with Mark Shannon & FOP President Hensley / www.okcissues.com

[Slivermoon]

"Choose your words more carefully? Or what?"

I believe I made my intentions clear there was no intention to be-little the union position. I was commenting only on the content of a single post, which appeared, at least to me, as if it would likely not be helpful to the union's stated position with the general public.

My statement was not a threat. Tear my carefully chosen words to shreds if you think that will help your cause.

[betts]

Betts,
It is obvious you have not listened to Mark Shannon lately. Mark has been taking the side of both the police and fire unions on this issue. He has voiced his support for the issues cited by both unions. Mark has made it clear that this is not his common position but he understands the issues being raised by the union representatives.

Of course I haven't listened to him lately. I'm not going to start. His politics are antithetical to mine. And again, he's on your side right now because it helps his side: no taxes. I'm just saying, I wouldn't necessarily assume he'll stay there if there's a bond issue or a new tax to increase wages. Your side helps his right now. It may not stay that way.

[OSUFan]

Mark Shannons' alliance with the unions has nothing to do with his support for public safety or their views. If the unions try to do a bond or sales tax to add police officers I doubt Mark would be in favor of that.

[betts]

Are you of the opinion then that some of those items WON'T lead to "revitalization", a "vibrant", "vital" downtown and/or City? That they WON'T "continue the momentum" and resulting continued growth in population? All of that translates into the need for additional services, doesn't it? Besides all of that, part of their argument is that we haven't kept current with the CURRENT needs and promises to address those needs since the original MAPS (16 years ago), much less any increased needs.

I am confused again...

Now don't get me wrong, I am not generally in favor of the whole bigger government theory. If you can still get the same job done (without endangering public safety) with more efficient use of available resources (buildings, equipment and the efficient use of personnel), I am all for it.

But I definitely support fulfilling the NEEDS of the City, then you take care of the WANTS. If you can do both at the same time, Great!

Larry, I was simply saying I don't see that the actual MAPS improvements will require greater personnel numbers than we currently have, as it seemed that's what was being argued here. I would think that the Core to Shore area is actually a problem area for police currently, and possibly firemen, given the number of warehouses and substandard structures there, although I clearly don't have data on that.

If the city grows in terms of population, and we determine we need additional personnel, them I'm all in favor of adding them. I have never once said I'm against adding policemen and firemen, if we truly need them. I do question some of the firemen's duties, as I think there's a lot of duplication of effort in firemen AND EMSA responding to all calls, and I think we could probably streamline some of the educational duties. There are many government departments having to look at efficiency right now, and I've simply been questioning whether that has been done in their department. More people isn't always and can't always be the answer. My other argument is that supporting MAPS does not preclude supporting our policemen and firemen. I understand your tipping point concept, but personally, looking at sales taxes in other cities, I don't think a quarter cent added to our sales tax for police and fire should be a tipping point.

[Patrick]

Mark Shannon is a fiscal conservative, who opposes all tax increases. Right now, he's just using the police and fire unions to try to get his mission accomplished: lower taxes. Like others have said, when it comes time that the police and fire unions are wanting to raise taxes for more manpower, he will oppose it. Mark has his own agenda, and it's not in the best interest of either the city or the unions.

[Slivermoon]

[QUOTE=andy157;267402]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you trying to say in your first sentence. A collective bargaining agreement between the City of OKC and the IAFF is the specific issue. If those parties do not, can not, or will not settle the CBA by mutual agreement, then both parties submit the unresolved issues to a neutral arbitrator who has the authority to settle those issue in favor of one of the parties.

That process is referd to as Binding Interest Arbitration, binding on the FF that is, not the City. If the arbitrator rules in favor of the FF the City has the option of asking the Citizens to overturn the ruling. All of this is covered by State law, which can be found in the Statutes in Title 11 (11-51-101 thru 113. I don't have the time or the energy to try and explain the details of this case to you. Maybe if you have the time and the interest you can read it for yourself.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with how you responded back to me and I repect your observation. Having said that, let me say this, there are many reasons why I don't need to choose my words more carefully. Why? Because it would not matter to most of the people on this board anyway.

The fact is, the City acted in Bad Faith. The evidence confirmed the act. The arbitrator ruled. The City admitted they acted in bad faith. In the State of Oklahoma if a City and/or a Union act in bad faith, that action violates the law thereby making that action illegal.

Lastly, lets for the record clear up the issue of me publicly accusing my employer. I used to work for the City. The City is my Employee, not my employer.

Andy,

I do appreciate your explanation, which I found helpful. I also very much respect your thoughtful approach in representing your position.

Thank you for clarifying your post for me.

[Slivermoon]

Andy,

It occurred to me I did not answer your question.

Perhaps I could have phrased it more precisely, but my point was that the special election is, I believe, controlled by the County Election Board.

I understand your premise on the "illegal" act, but certainly the County Election Board must have at their disposal attorneys to review the content of any proposition that may be submitted for voter consideration. If the proposition was by nature "illegal," would not it be dead on arrival at the Election Board?

Even if not, I would think if the proposition was ultimately submitted to and approved by voters, and if it was "illegal," I would think it would be a likely target for a taxpayer, or other, lawsuit.

Anyway... that was the intent of my statement... more or less an open question. I have no idea if it has merit or not, but I would be interested in any thoughts on the matter from minds better than mine.

[Larry OKC]

...I don't think a quarter cent added to our sales tax for police and fire should be a tipping point.

I most have missed it, but where did a 1/4 cent come from? ALL taxes add up. The argument frequently is "it's only a penny" (or whatever the tax is) then before you know it, you are at 8.375%. Add in a County sales tax (if that comes to pass). Gasoline taxes started out at being 9/10s of a cent, and now is 35.4 cents PER gallon? Point is with every new tax (no matter the size) you are always getting closer to whatever that tipping point is. Even after pushing the Ford tax, the Oklahoman opined that we were approaching the 10% mark as some cities have already passed.

[Larry OKC]

Larry, I was simply saying I don't see that the actual MAPS improvements will require greater personnel numbers than we currently have, as it seemed that's what was being argued here. I would think that the Core to Shore area is actually a problem area for police currently, and possibly firemen, given the number of warehouses and substandard structures there, although I clearly don't have data on that. ...

Thanks for clarifying. You may be right if the argument is DIRECTLY a result, but that isn't the way I have been reading it. Increased demands will be there as the other things I mentioned happen. But there may be something to the direct argument (if there is one), not meaning a result of a particular project, but MAPS as a whole.

Case in point. The Bricktown area was in a similar situation as the C2S area is now before MAPS happened. I don't have the data either but imagine the fire/police calls may have been similar. Then MAPS happened and the resulting increases happened as well which resulted in a new Bricktown Police substation and the personnel needed to man it. If not mistaken a new Fire House in the area and firefighters as well.

[jbrown84]

—$10 per month according to Dr. Mark Snead, OSU economist

And what does each of us get for $930? Mainly the City’s third convention center and a 70-acre park (a front yard for Devon Energy’s skyscraper?)

1) $10 a month is a small price to pay if you are one of the ones whose job depends on the convention business or tourism. The jobs that will be created are endless, and so is the future tax revenue.

2) The Ford Center is NOT a convention center. Look up the definition. And the Myriad is 40 years old and has had 1 partial renovation. It is smaller than convention centers in Wichita and Tulsa, just to name a couple embarassing examples. When the new CC is complete, the Cox probably won't be kept long. There will in no way be 3 convention centers.

3) I think you have your parks confused. The new central park is nowhere near Devon Tower.

They should ask "Would you support MAPS3 if the KKK did since the program does nothing for the mostly black east side?"

That'd be a good question!

4) WRONG. The east side will get new sidewalks, new trails, and an aquatic/fitness center or two. Stop spreading lies.

[Larry OKC]

2) The Ford Center is NOT a convention center. Look up the definition. ...

It appears the Mayor is confused on that one too, he said back during the Ford tax campaign that the improvements would result in "...bigger and better concerts, special events and CONVENTIONS."

Also, according to the Mayor, the Cox Convention Center isn't really a Convention Center either. It is an arena that we added some large rooms around.

3) I think you have your parks confused. The new central park is nowhere near Devon Tower.

May depend on what your definition of "near" is. True, it is not adjacent to Devon, but is nearby. According to the plans the Park is only one block away from the Myriad Gardens which IS adjacent to Devon. So, essentially, the park is 2 blocks away from Devon?

4) WRONG. The east side will get new sidewalks, new trails, and an aquatic/fitness center or two. Stop spreading lies.

Do you have any links on that? One might presume that "all over the City" would include the east side, but has anything specifically saying that east side locations are a definite? Have the new sidewalks in MAPS 3 been announced? Which new trails in MAPS 3 are located in the east side? And lastly, have they announced the locations of the Aquatic Centers yet? The City's MAPS 3 website (City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing) only has this generic location(s):

Sidewalks

Cost: $10 million
Description: This project will strategically construct sidewalks in different areas of the city on major streets and near facilities used by the public (such as schools and libraries).
Background:
• The 2007 bond issue included $68 million for sidewalks next to all resurfacing projects, but this sidewalks project is focused on strategic placement of sidewalks in areas of potentially high foot traffic.
• The sidewalks will be placed all over Oklahoma City.

Trails

Cost: $40 million
Description: This project will construct 57 new miles of bicycling and walking trails, all but completing Oklahoma City’s trails master plan.
Background:
• The City has a trails master plan that will not be complete for decades, unless this initiative passes.
• The trails will be placed all over Oklahoma City.

Health and Wellness Aquatic Centers for Senior Citizens

Cost: $50 million
Description: This project will construct multiple state-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers for senior citizens at locations around the city.

[Larry OKC]

The 70 acre Park is the front lawn for the Convention Center (if both are built where currently proposed).