 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Cobra Commander
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 06:27 am |
|
Commission Watcher wrote: ROP wrote: I have already voiced my thoughts about SPLOST. I would vote for one if all the money went to our protectors.
What would you have SPLOST funds go toward to help LE? Keeping in mind that SPLOST funds can only be spent on Capital projects.
Upgrade their radio communications system and equipment. Bringing our public safety agencies out of 1950's technology would be a good start. This is recommended every splost and is always rejected. There is NO DOUBT and NO ARGUMENT that this is a HUGE safety concern for public safety employees and the citizens at large. Many police officers have been injured and lives have been jeoparized b/c of their outdated equipment.
Of course, the upgrade would cost appx 5 million dollars. Thats a lot of money that could go for wanted sidewalks, cash cow baseball stadiums (commerically owned no doubt), forums that are too small to use, and a parking deck at the law enforcement center that is dangerously flawed.
|
FiddlersGreen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 09:17 am |
|
| There will never be a consolidation between Floyd County and Rome PD. People have been at this bone for years. Consider who would have the job of administering such a department( county trumps city on Jurisdiction) although the county would probably love to just give up a police department( I once heard a city officer say that the city would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it) There could be no happy medium. Calls and patrol in county areas would be second tier because less voters live in the county as live in the city and we all work for the voters in one way or the other right? So when consolidation seems like a magic pill that will fix all, remember that if you ask anyone who it would actually affect, they will give you a resounding NO as their answer to it.
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 12:17 pm |
|
Fiddlers green, in the old days, everyone in the county department was against it.............now, everyone with less than 20 years would jump at it......................
in principle I agree with you that it would hurt county response times and attention................................BUT, when you consider now that it's not patrolled properly, maybe the increased benefits would cause the new department to be fully staffed allowing the Metro Police Department to allot 5 officers to patrol the county on third shift (something that doesn't happen now)........
|
FiddlersGreen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 12:30 pm |
|
| Well Sir, I choose to disagree. I am a third shift patrol officer with the county. We are running with at least four and usually five officers on our shift. If we are doubled up , well, I prefer to have two officers in a car at any call( quickest back up available), but It is not all sweetness and light. Consolidation ( ONCE AGAIN , IN MY OPINION..SOLELY MY VIEWS ON THIS) would not be the answer. I would actively seek another department if that came to pass. Alot of officers are upset by the benefits, but are committed to staying at the county. Don't believe everything you read. The same officers would not work for a consolidated department, and the benefits would still be an issue, because the SO is in the same bucket we are in.
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 12:39 pm |
|
Fiddler's Green..................sounds like everything is okay then.................sorry to bother ya......................When I was working there, we regularly had three on third shift, and there have been officers on here lying and claiming that y'all have regularly been operating with three or four on third shift (and those lying officers that I talk to say, in response to your post, that "Yeah, they have four or five NOW, for a couple of months, because the new guys were just released on the road; and now we wait to see who leaves first; you know, those new guys who are making around a dime less an hour than we, as five year officers are making; but for the past year third shift has operated with 3 and maybe 4, and it was impossible to take a vacation day" ) but what do they know................................
As far as I'm concerned, you have closed the topic................if there are five people on third shift, then that is the sign of a healthy department, and all this gripin' and moanin' about pay and stuff should stop immediately...........................
|
FiddlersGreen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 03:05 pm |
|
| Not sayin that, sayin that consolidation is not a workable answer. Everyone is unhappy about the way things have been. The fact that an effort is being made is a hopeful sign. I ( and I can only speak for me) will continue to work and watch. I am not a toady who will follow meekly whatever happens and yes there were nights we worked with three and four officers( are you counting the Supervisor?) but the new schedule is out and the new people are on the road, so what does it serve to keep harping about events that are past? If it goes back that way, then we use it to show history and no real improvements....but if things are changing...well. how do we look if we keep finding things to complain about? over and over...ONCE MORE DEAR READER>>THESE OPINIONS ARE SOLEY MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND IN NO WAY REFLECT COUNTY POLICY OR THE FEELINgS OF OTHERS
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
| sounds good to me...........................
|
BillT962
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
FiddlersGreen wrote: There will never be a consolidation between Floyd County and Rome PD. People have been at this bone for years. Consider who would have the job of administering such a department( county trumps city on Jurisdiction) although the county would probably love to just give up a police department( I once heard a city officer say that the city would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it) There could be no happy medium. Calls and patrol in county areas would be second tier because less voters live in the county as live in the city and we all work for the voters in one way or the other right? So when consolidation seems like a magic pill that will fix all, remember that if you ask anyone who it would actually affect, they will give you a resounding NO as their answer to it.
You make your argument well but I believe that it's fundamentally flawed. I work in one of those areas (Bartow County). Certainly, we have a much larger area and we answer many many more calls for service. I can assure you that our County jurisdiction does not receive 2nd tier service. If anything, the City of Cartersville, and the other incorporated areas are the ones that receive less service from us simply because they have their own agencies. If called, we of course respond to assist the agencies that call us. In a rare situation, we may even "assume" jurisdiction.
Other than turf protection, there is no valid reason that is apparent to me why we have two separate police agencies in Floyd Co. I would of course grant that combining the City and both County Agencies may present some insurmountable turf problems LOL. Not based on the model, but based on human emotion
|
Optimus Prime
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Lindale, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 574 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
FiddlersGreen wrote: Well Sir, I choose to disagree. I am a third shift patrol officer with the county. We are running with at least four and usually five officers on our shift. If we are doubled up , well, I prefer to have two officers in a car at any call( quickest back up available), but It is not all sweetness and light. Consolidation ( ONCE AGAIN , IN MY OPINION..SOLELY MY VIEWS ON THIS) would not be the answer. I would actively seek another department if that came to pass. Alot of officers are upset by the benefits, but are committed to staying at the county. Don't believe everything you read. The same officers would not work for a consolidated department, and the benefits would still be an issue, because the SO is in the same bucket we are in.
You can make up any excuse you want to against it. And consolidation may not and probably is not the answer, but the real reason that you fight it is that it is a turf issue and you fear change and the unknown and having to answer to someone whom you don't know or have a working rapport with.
(these are just my opinions and in no way represent the autobots, transformers as a whole or cartoon network) Gimme a break!
Last edited on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 11:55 pm by Optimus Prime
|
FiddlersGreen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 05:07 am |
|
| Nahhhhhhhhhh.............it would be way too easy to get into a barking contest with you over this and you would enjoy it too much, So you keep your opinion and I will keep mine. You are way off base though, I am too new to have any turf to protect.
|
NewsChick
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Mon Oct 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, GA |
| Posts: | 2803 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 12:55 pm |
|
Mayor McCheese wrote: Am I the only one concerned about this?
Lets do a poll and see. Maybe I just get paranoid here by myself at night (guess that why I'm up so late, I worry about too much, lol)
I have read of two instances in the past few days, where response time/location has already been a concern. The child locked in a car at Walmart, and the gentleman driving with a medical emergency. What's next ?
|
roman2000
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 113 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 01:21 pm |
|
| It's a huge safety issue. Unbelievable. Slightly off topic, I've noticed ads for cops in the past and have been shocked at the pay. I realize that now probably isn't the time, but it seems they need significant pay increases as well as being allowed to patrol.
|
scottford
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
One and two man patrols have always been accepted police tactics (at least since patrol cars gained popularity) the choice of when to employ what tactic should be made by looking at several issues, such as area of the patrol, type of crime targeted or expected, distances covered, and experience of your officers, why budget constraints must be considered it should not be the only factor in this decision.
Public Safety officers of all types should not be lumped in with all other government employees, and while I know every governmnent employee has a difficult job, public safety has A much higher standard for employment, standards, liability, retention, conduct, etc. Their needs to be seperate pay rates, retirement, insurance everything for them. Without it every time someone says we need to give the police or raise someone always says we can't do that without giving one to everyone else
Scott
|
Cobra Commander
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Scott, if right on the money. Two-man patrols are effective means for some types of police work. It's odd how it's never been an issue w/ either agency until the "alledged budget crisis" hit. That the only motivating factor here.
The city also received a favorable review of the 2007 budget from auditor Rich Hartley whose company was tasked to audit the City’s 2007 financial books. Commissioner Evie McNeice said the audit is a yearly requirement
The above is an excerpt from a RNW story on the past city commission meeting. An outside auditor was tasked with auditing the city's budget. Heres the figures they came up with...
1. General fund revenue increased to about $26 million in 2007
2. General fund balance increased to $11.9 million from $10 million in 1998.
3. The the balance of the general budget dropped $107,000 between 2006 and 2007. However, the city esitimated the hit to be appx $250,000 .
4. The water and sewer fund, increased its assets to $101 million from $96.2 million in 2006 .
5. The city stayed close to its original spending plan, adjusting it only about $600,000, from $26.3 million to $27 million.
6. Local option sales taxes showed the biggest decrease in revenue, coming in at $6.7 million instead of the budgeted $6.9 million, but Hartley said the situation is the same across the state.
Heres a couple of more budgetary tidbits from the meeting...
The city commission approved a Revolving Loan Fund Application – D & L Acquisitions, LLC - $22,000. The low-interest loan will go to David and Leigh Ann Dempsey to help offset costs of opening a coffee and gift shop at 15 Third Ave.
So, during these times of "economic crisis" we see the city playing banker by giving a low intrest rate loan to private individuals to open a private business. It's hard to get ACTUAL BANKS to approve loans right now, b/c the nation is legitmately in credit market crisis. Unstable times means loans are risky investments for the loaner. I understand the supposed good faith in issuing this loan, but according to elected leaders, when need to be more conservative with public funds.
Although, being that city made a good bit of money this year, I guess they can afford it.
|
BillT962
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
scottford wrote: One and two man patrols have always been accepted police tactics (at least since patrol cars gained popularity) the choice of when to employ what tactic should be made by looking at several issues, such as area of the patrol, type of crime targeted or expected, distances covered, and experience of your officers, why budget constraints must be considered it should not be the only factor in this decision.
Public Safety officers of all types should not be lumped in with all other government employees, and while I know every governmnent employee has a difficult job, public safety has A much higher standard for employment, standards, liability, retention, conduct, etc. Their needs to be seperate pay rates, retirement, insurance everything for them. Without it every time someone says we need to give the police or raise someone always says we can't do that without giving one to everyone else
Scott
well said Scott. there are times when two man units are the cat's a**, and other times when they get in the way. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, within our HIDTA, we always run two man cars
|
Current time is 04:19 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|
|
|
