Is San Jose really on its way to becoming known as Sin City?
Sgt. Jim Unland, vice president of the police union, recently made that claim in a post on the San Jose Police Officers’ Association’s blog site, Protect San Jose. Mayor Chuck Reed dismissed the moniker, but he acknowledged that San Jose needs more police officers. Meanwhile, Police Chief Chris Moore is under fire for the 140% increase in San Jose’s year-to-date homicide rate and for a perceived unresponsiveness to issues raised by community members. Could it be that almost everyone in public safety is now losing the public relations battle?
Immigrants rights groups conducted a high profile media campaign against Moore’s decision to use federal immigration agents to combat gangs. His travel schedule — 12 out-of-town trips during his first six months as chief — and a homicide rate that jumped to an average of four a month in 2011 from last year’s rate of 1.67 per month have placed additional pressure on the new chief. The indictment last week of a San Jose police officer accused of having sex with two underage boys will only create more negative press for the chief. A prosecutor in the case says there is a “strong possibility” that officer Patrick D’Arrigo molested more boys.
Unland contends in his blog posts that the elimination of targeted task forces, vacant positions being eliminated rather re-staffed and the layoffs of 66 officers this summer have put the safety of San Jose residents at far greater risk. He writes that street crime on the rise and cites the case of a 14-year-old girl from Fresno who was “forced into prostitution” before being rescued by San Jose police.
The savvy in such an anecdote’s use depends on the reader, because it is sensational and difficult to determine the prevalence. A local television station cited police in saying there have been 38 prostitutes arrested in the last two months, including three teenagers. The report does not give context by offering comparative numbers for past years.
The fight over reducing retirement costs for sworn officers, which includes firefighters, is clearly being played out on the most basic of emotional levels when the mayor publicly calls out officers for riding the “gravy train” so they will voluntarily reduce their pensions, and then, months later, Unland writes that San Jose is on its way to becoming Sin City, before concluding: “I’m left to think about that frightened and abused 14-year-old child who was forced into prostitution. Forced to submit to grown men who, for a small amount of cash, abuse her body to satisfy their most animalistic of urges. My nightmare is that when she or others like her are finally at the end of their rope and call 911 for help, we won’t have an officer close enough or available to respond.”
Oftentimes, the media is all too happy to be present stories in the most scandalous and shocking way possible, whether it’s linking homicides to hotel stays or videotaping women in short skirts walking the street, regardless of their actual profession. But with less than two months left in a city-imposed deadline on labor negotiations with public safety, it will soon become clear whether the fear-mongering and hyperbole ends with a greater police presence in San Jose, something all sides agree is necessary.
Mr. Unland sound like he was a victim. “Animalistic of urges?” Try another line of work. This is not going to work
Graveytrain????…..Abberation???….When it comes to crime at least we are not like Oakland or San Francisco???……No worries Mayor Reed the graveytrain will soon be leaving the station…your corrupt cops will either lateral or better yet retire. With all the new money you will be saving, you can build a football stadium for the Jacksonville Jaguars
Look at this. Chuck Reed spends over thirty grand to pay a guy from Omaha who has a known tie to several groups raising money for Hamas, and the conclusion has been that Reed has cut almost every part of the Police Department dealing with quality of life issues. Reed has been influenced by people who want the overall quality of life to decline in downtown San Jose. Why? Because Reed has no love for downtown San Jose, he would love it to see downtown life rot and crumble. It is not his favorite place in San Jose. Reed is a Mayor of his base, not of the community, a group of bumblers and bulls. Brian Darby writes on his website that he has had several PRIVATE DINNERS with Reed. Darby supports the elimination of prostitution laws, and the relaxing of limits on teenagers below the age maturity, it is part of the Libertarian Party creed. Darby has written on the need to eliminate the vice squad and he has a friend in Santa Clara who supports the relaxation on laws about pot clinics. Downtown will continue to sink in the morass of petty crime and prostitution while Reed goes home to the Compound and switches on the Direct Buy Club cable channel, and goes to sleep knowing he has accomplished what Darby wants for his colleagues, a pickup place on Julian without police interference, and a little blow aftewards from guys who broke into some cars of SJSU students to finance their seed money.
> . . . it is part of the Libertarian Party creed.
What!!
Are you accusing Chuck Reed of being a LIBERTARIAN!!!
First I’ve heard of this.
Can any one else vouch for Reed’s closet freedomistic inclinations?
The statement was about Darby, who is a Libertarian and boasted of having private dinners with Reed.
Actually this is all silly because Reed people confirmed Brian Darby is sort of a stalker when it comes to Reed.
> The statement was about Darby, who is a Libertarian and boasted of having private dinners with Reed.
The writer may have been attempting to suggest or imply that their was a sympatico relationship between Libertarian Darby and Mayor Reed.
Instead of nodding knowingly and pretending that I knew the “facts” that actually were NOT presented, I challenged someone—anyone—to provide us with ACTUAL FACTS.
Imagine that! Actually getting facts to decide what to believe. It could revolutionize society.
Prostitution arrest might curb things a bit, but take a page from history about what cured it the first time. We wind up wasting court time and processing on people that likely will return to that life.
Chief Landsdown had his officers just stand next to them and start chatting. Would any John in their right mind pull up next to a streetwalker with a few cops standing next to them?
After about 3 months they got the hint and left town.
This is the second or third time I’ve seen this posted. But, Chief Lansdowne was not responsible for “Operation Starvation” where police officers were assigned to follow street walkers around until they gave up and found greener pastures. That operation was conducted back in the late 70’s and early 80’s during Joe McNamara’s reign. Chief Lansdowne was not CoP until 1998 and left in 2003. The Street Crimes Unit was born out of those initial operations and focused on street level prostitution. That unit was merged with the Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET) and the Metro Unit was created.
The Metro Unit was supposed to handle street level prostitution but in reality did a lot of street level drug enforcement with some prostitution efforts dependent on complaints. When the Violent Crime Enforcement Team (VCET) was recently disbanded, the Metro Unit has now been tasked with going after gang activity due to the skyrocketing homicide rates. Street level prostitution is rebounding dramatically and will continue to do so until enough citizens raise their voices, if they choose to do so.
As an aside, the Vice Unit was cut back and combined with the Narcotics Unit to create the Covert Response Unit. They are supposed to work organized prostitution but that is also running rampant with Vietnamese brothels and hookers pretending to be coffee waitresses all over the east side, escort services untouched by undercover stings, and the ease of ordering up services through the Internet. CRU has way too much on its plate and you can bet prostitution is far down the list. Just like SFPD giving a wink and a nod to the huge SF prostitution industry, San Jose will be a destination for hookers all across the country looking for little enforcement and well paid johns.
Yes, San Jose will soon be another Oakland or San Francisco. San Jose has long envied SF for being a true city, now they are getting their wish. Just like having only one firefighter to respond to 10 fires, at some point 9 structures are going to just burn to the ground due to a lack of resources.
Excellent summation.
Reed is like a character in Duckens reveling over the miasma of poverty and vice that has crept like a fog over downtown San Jose. REED IS A RIPPER OF POLICE BUDGETS, SITTING IN an alley waiting to lunge.
As for Brian Darby, he has opposed the Vice Squad, and he has gleefully smothered and crushed the ribs of many maiden projects such children health care. It was Darby who suggested a campaign flyer developed by Park Bench Bailey see kids being shoved. Darby also has opposed tight laws on prostitution.
Reed listens to this fiends making San Jose dangerous after dusk.
All this union busting is really about 2012 and pushing Obama out of the white house. The mayor is seeing it as a vehicle to build a ball field. San Jose has paid far less for public safety and has built a police department that was a model agency. The idea that any amount is too much is no rational. San Jose is not the highest paid or does not have the best retirement. The mayor and company get a better deal. Add up their real salary with all the side deals.
In his answer session Reed gave a better figure on the ball park which is now more than $500,000,000 and growing. My guess is San Jose will hold the note and give free rent and interest for a few years. When the ball club cuts and runs the city will be stuck with the bill. The days when RDA had more cash than it could spend are over but Reed grew up in those budgets and can’t accept a time when you pay the bill first then figure out what you have to spend after.
Let’s not forget nearly every member of the council and the mayor have been caught doing some shady deals, Some criminal. Reed had to pay back money he tried to cheat the city out for travel, he paid for many items then paid himself back out of his city account. Maybe he just wanted tp cheat the IRS at tax time?
“Immigrants rights groups conducted a high profile media campaign against Moore’s decision to use federal immigration agents to combat gangs.” Please call them what they really are—ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS’ rights groups.
JMO,
More properly illegal aliens.
Other cities have fought prostitution by forming neighborhood citizens patrols that shadow the streetwalkers, take photos of customers and generally make it impossible for hookers to ply their trade on city streets.
Perhaps neighbors in the affected areas should consider this type of response. It seems like a worthwhile project for all the activists this city likes to spawn. (Maybe Raj and his buddies would like to do something proactive for a change rather than sit around and criticize others who make the city safe? Don’t hold your breath…)
Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to just do it yourself. I’m just sayin’…
Hey Reader,
How about we bring back some laid off cops and staff all the units that deal with gangs and prostitution that were forced to shut down thanks to Chuckie and the city manager.
You can’t fight crime when you don’t have the officers. And it is not going to get any better when Chuckie is already threatening more layoffs next year. I can see why the mayor will not sell off the 92 million mothballed police substation because soon enough he will be able to staff it with the few officers that are left and give the old building to the county to pay off more poor decisions.
I’m all for re-hiring the laid off cops but until that happens people need to deal with the reality of the current situation.
My suggestion is that people be proactive in fighting crime in their neighborhoods during this time of reduced police presence.
The City (government) has enjoyed the perk of its own Arena Luxury Box, plus over a dozen or so other seats at the Arena for nearly 20 years for each and every event held there. Valued at over $150-200,00/year, StubHubbing them (and their free parking tickets) ought to pay for a police officer or two here and there, dontcha think?
Josh
That partially clothed girl’s picture looks like it came from a Metro topless / girlie bar ad files
A little T & A worked for Metro to boost readership and ad revenue maybe it will also work for SJI now that Metro owns SJI
Yea, you didn’t look at the picture, only read the blog, right
About as truthful, as City Hall telling us city and RDA tax dollars are only spent for essential city services and public good not Mayor and Council’s political favors and paybacks
Unland cries about San Jose becoming Sin City (because of reduced manpower) out of one side of his mouth but out of the other side he not only tells officers to leave SJPD but gives them pointers on how to do it (August Vanguard, “Lateraling to Another Agency”). Unland is crying the same crocodile tears for the citizens of San Jose that he and POA, cried for the laid-off officers – the POA didn’t fight to retain them but took their dues plus $50.00 a month for “political action” for almost a year…then cried and acted like cared after they were laid-off.
When is the POA going to learn that they can’t have it both ways? Remember their Measure V campaign? How about their contract that they fought “tooth and nail” for? It contained the same take-a-ways that other unions had imposed on them. In the past the POA cared about all their members and the citizens they served. The “truth” was their strongest weapon when battling city hall, Merc News, police detractors, etc. Public Safety has not only lost the PR front but their creditably with the public.
You know, the sour grapes whining is getting a bit old. The SJPOA is going to continue to represent the interests of the majority of officers and the Fraternal Order of Police doesn’t stand a chance of taking over. Just give it a rest will ya…..
Attack the facts not the supposed author. Paranoia isn’t healthy. Sorry….“Bobby” isn’t the author.
The same person has been harping on this issue every chance he/she gets. If it isn’t Bobby, it’s a surrogate. And, the facts speak for themselves. The problem is, somebody can’t accept the facts and continues to snivel.
Do I hear violins in the background?
Same Old Story, let’s see the POA comes out and tells the citizens if you cut VCET and don’t hire more cops crime will rise (the media and the City laugh at them – doom and gloom). The Chief of Police signs off on the VCET cut, states he is ok with staffing level of 1100 officers and approves of the City Manager only applying for 10 police officers from a Federal grant. The Chief is responsible for staffing levels, if he says he can do it with 1100 then the POA does not have a leg to stand on in a public forum. Look at the staffing levels in the good years, the most was 1400 and every study showed San Jose needed 1800 to 2000 officers. You expect the POA to win a fight in the worst of times with police chiefs who won’t fight with them? Get real.
Now the gang homicides climb through the roof and all of METRO is transferred to fight the gangs. They leave the streets empty and the low level drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes arrive. No surprise there, San Jose is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and Peter is broke too.
The City says they are going to lay off some 100 officers then as it gets closer they add another 150 to that number. The POA decides to take the 10% and save the last minute 150 from being laid off. Did the City bluff, who knows? Fire thought the City was bluffing when they lost 50 fire fighters. To affect 150 more families in that way, not sure it wasn’t the right call, and the membership voted for it. It was a very close vote and I do not think that they will vote that way again even in the face of more layoffs.
So, you have the City saying we are going to lay off again next year, their offer of a new retirement package the worst in the nation (1 1/2% per year and retire at 62 years old), the threat of doing this on a ballot measure (which will pass) and you find it hard to believe that the POA is telling its members to leave? I think it is smart and they are taking care of their younger members. The cities these officers are going to are paying them more and demanding less work, why stay here with the threat of layoffs always present? The officers need to think of their families too. The POA has told the citizens of the danger of lower staffing and the citizens are not listening, they are not lying to the public.
Not sure what you expect the POA to do, but the Chief “runs” the Department and the City Manager and Mayor run the City. The POA can inform and try to make these people see what is happening, but they do not make the decisions.
Once A Cop, I expect the POA i.e. Mr. Unland, to speak truth…not talk out of both sides of his mouth. Yes….the POA is suppose to inform their people…and the public. Their power of persuasion came from their creditably because they didn’t spread BS…they told it like it was…i.e. the truth. That isn’t the situation now. I don’t blame officers for leaving…SJPD is a shell of it’s former self and it is only going to get worse. The problem I pointed out was Unland telling his members to leave ASAP (as he has been doing for over a year) AND then telling the public that crime is out of control because there isn’t enough officers on the street. He can’t have it both ways.
You’re right…the chief is responsible for the department’s staffing and he will have to live with his decisions. His public statement that he could safely police the city with 1100 officers is almost criminal. He obviously cherishes a positive recommendation from the city manager (for his next job) more than the welfare of his officers or the citizens he is sworn to protect. He is systematically dismantling (and in process destroying) SJPD.
Not only reducing manpower to criminal levels (and in the process cutting critical units) but moral is at a all time low.
To set the record straight:
The POA did not fight (or even skirmish) to retain the laid-off officers…before or after the chief’s public statement. They decided to cut them lose a year ago…and publicly told them so. My point is…how could they do that and then take their dues and a additional $50.00 each month…don’t they have a conscience?
The POA also “signed off” on the Special Operations manpower cuts which included
VCET.
Only at the “11th hour” , when it was clear that the contract wouldn’t pass without it, did the POA go back to the city and ask for a no lay off clause for Tier 2 officers. They didn’t save the 150. Once the city got the POA to sign off on the pay cut the Tier 2 officers were not going to be laid-off.
“The problem I pointed out was Unland telling his members to leave ASAP (as he has been that crime is out of control because there isn’t enough officers on the street. He can’t have it both ways.”
The problem here is that you fail to understand the main purpose of the SJPOA. Each elected member of the SJPOA leadership is supposed to fight for the best working conditions for their members. The only reason they must venture into the realm of public discourse is because the city officials have forced them to. When the mayor and his minions excoriate the PD rank and file, the majority of which are POA members, with the goal of then passing initiatives that take away union rights, the POA is forced to try and fight fire with fire.
Sadly, the POA does not have nearly the endless resources of the city officials. The media has supported Reed and Figone in their efforts abandoning their historical support of unions due to their stronger dislike for the SJPD. As a result, everything has become public cannon fodder. The only choice the POA has to try and help their membership from losing their homes and support for their families is to encourage them to find a better job.
You see, the POA sees the writing on the wall. Reed and Figone have the public so completely in the palm of their hands that they will pass any initiative proposed no matter how illegal or shortsighted. The POA knows that in the next couple of years San Jose will be one of the worst places to work in public safety. The pay and benefits will drop far below other surrounding agencies. The staffing will place public safety employees in untenable danger, and the quality of future candidates (years away however)will be dismally low since San Jose will not attract the “best and brightest” any more.
The POA would be irresponsible and negligent if they didn’t tell their membership the truth. It is the only rational and compassionate thing to do to encourage their members to place themselves and their family’s welfare over the needs of the city. Sgt. Unland and the other POA board members are simply telling the truth. If I were a younger officer and the POA blew smoke up my ass telling me everything was going to get better and that resulted in my being laid off after all the hiring opportunities had passed me by, I would be rather irate.
Any officer with any talent whatsoever should be seeking another agency. San Jose, once the envy of other departments nationwide, is a laughing stock these days. Why should police officers not have the option of always looking for better opportunities like those in the private sector. How many private sector folks out there have changed employers for better working conditions, better pay, better benefits, a shorter commute, or any number of other reasons? Why can’t police officers do the same?
“Officer should leave”. At least quote correctly…and keep it in the context it was stated (maybe “copy and past” would do the trick.) The correct and full quote is: “The problem I pointed out was Unland telling his members to leave ASAP (as he has been doing for over a year) AND then telling the public that crime is out of control because there isn’t enough officers on the street. He can’t have it both ways.”
Nowhere do I state or suggest that Unland is ill responsible or unjustified in encouraging officers to look for employment elsewhere. My only comment on the subject was “I don’t blame officers for leaving…SJPD is a shell of it’s former self and it is only going to get worse.”
I will make my point as simply as possible: Unland is hypocrite (i.e. talking out of both sides of his mouth) when he writes a article telling officers to leave SJPD and then writes a article stating that understaffing is the cause of the city’s crime increase. If you contribute to a problem (encouraging the exodus of officers to other agencies) and then use the problem (understaffing) to your benefit (we need more officers or were going to turn into Sin City)…you are a hypocrite. Politicians are hypocrites (the mayor voting for past POA contracts and now blasting the same contracts as the cause of the city’s economic woes); Command officers are hypocrites (demanding performance from subordinates that they never come close to). POA leaders are not suppose to be hypocrites, they are suppose represent the superior qualities that police officers symbolize i.e. the voice of reason, adherence to high moral principles, professionalism, etc. No wonder the POA has so little influence at city hall and has lost most, if not all, of it’s creditably with the public.
SJPD does need more officers…a lot more. And better leadership. And more support personnel. And better equipment…etc. SJPD has been understaffed since at least the 1970’s. But it still excelled and was the leader in many areas of law enforcement: FTO program, TABS, gang suppression, pro-activity and many other areas. Attracting quality officers and having high standards was SJPD’s strength. Lateraling officers came to SJPD for many reasons: SJPD was a place that valued pro-active work; hard work and competency was rewarded (promotions, unit assignments); for the most part you were treated like an adult and not over disciplined or supervised; and SJPD had a strong POA that took care of its members. Are any of these true today?
You state “You see, the POA sees the writing on the wall”. Others see the same wall and see more. They see a leadership vacuum at the chief level (who would believe that Davis’s reign would be looked backed on with fondness); a mayor and city council that is bent on destroying them economically; a cultural change – from being proud and confident to ambivalence and distrust; and a POA that has given up (name another POA that has adopted a policy, as opposed using it as a negotiation tactic, of telling its members to vamoose?)
If you are going to ding me for having fat fingers, then hold yourself to the same standard. “Nowhere do I state or suggest that Unland is ill responsible”? I also see no contradiction between Unland’s comments about a lack of staffing being a problem and encouraging officers to leave. In fact, Unland is simply recognizing that the goal of Figone and Reed is to reduce staffing at the PD anyway. It is fait accompli that the city wants officers to leave.
You seem to have some knowledge of the PD, perhaps are an employee, and if so you should know that Figone and Reed have said in several venues that they can police the city with 900 officers. This was born out of an audit Figone conducted of the department albeit using flawed methodologies and rationale. Unland and others in the department know that Reed and Figone want the department to shrink to 900 and are hoping that officers leave so they don’t have to lay them off. You see, laying off officers was initially tolerated by many members of the public. Now as crime rises, some of those same folks are questioning whether or not that was smart after all. It is getting harder to lay off so the other tactic is to go after existing pay and benefits hoping that it will scare existing employees into early retirement, lateraling to another agency, or just plain resigning.
Reed and Figone are still banging the same drum saying the if the officers were just cheaper to employ, they could keep them. In reality, Reed and Figone want the staffing levels to drop to 900 and then they will institute the second tier system that includes lower pay and reduced benefits. Reed and Figone view cops as blue collar uneducated necessary evil workers that can be had by the bushel full. They look at the amount of applicants for police officer and assume that equates to a plethora of candidates to choose from. They ignore the fact that out of thousands who apply, very few actually end up being qualified. It is easy to fill out the initial application. It is very difficult to get to the hiring meeting as a qualified candidate.
You are quite correct that SJPD is no longer the organization it once was. But that plays into the hands of Figone and Reed. They don’t care if the applicants are knuckle dragging go to the freezer get the box people. Those types of folks will gladly accept low pay with gratitude. Surrounding agencies that value highly educated mature officers will continue to pay the going rate. Once the number hits 900, Figone will stall a year or two and then start hiring back at a much lower pay after public outcry forces them to do so. They will pat themselves on the back and point to the money savings. Never mind that the quality of the candidates is sub-par and SJPD is considered in the same realm as New Orleans PD or any other PD with a poor reputation. By the time the effects of a lousy PD start to take effect, Figone and Reed will be on a beach somewhere sipping a Mai Tai.
So, Unland and other POA members recognize that they have already lost the public support they need to fight Reed and Figone. Like any good military commander, sometimes you have to retreat and give up ground to protect yourself. Sometimes you have to recognize when things are so bad you have to walk. Like a bad marriage, occasionally you have to know when to try and extricate yourself from a deteriorating situation. Beattie, Unland and others are just being realists. I’d rather hear honest opinions from a union leader than false promises or worse yet, expending money and time on a complete lost cause.
There is also the issue of employee value. If you had a son or daughter who went to medical school and was a qualified MD, would you encourage them to continue to work at a hospital or office if they kept cutting their pay and benefits down far below industry standards, particularly if surrounding hospitals or clinics continued to pay the going rate? There is a market for good cops whether Reed and Figone want to address it or not. Other agencies are snapping up SJPD cops gladly if they apply. Do you really expect any SJPD member, POA leader or not, to tell SJPD officers to hang around and watch them take a 10% pay cut every year for the next several years, see their benefits slashed, and put up with an ungrateful city government and community? I say anybody who is foolish enough to stand by and take that abuse deserves it. If you believe police work has such a lack of value, then you are in line with Reed and Figone’s thinking.
Same old story; Your right, the POA told the officers on the “hit list” that they were going to be gone. what is wrong with that in these times. POA took a pay hit and no one was laid off, Fire did not and lost 50 people. The City tells the POA that officers WILL be laid off next year even with an agreed pay cut. At the time the mood around the Department, as I heard it, was that police would not take another pay cut. So the POA believes they will lose officers and tells them that. I call that honest and facing the reality of the times. It wasn’t until the City said tier two were also going that the police voted for the pay cuts. You are right, the no lay off clause for the tier two should have been in writing, obvious mistake.
As to taking dues, they are still being represented by the POA and get legal defense etc. That would have been a Board decision and should they have not collected from 100 – 150 officers and then when only 66 were laid off, collect a lump sum back dues? Maybe a kick back for the last 6 months or so??? I don’t know did you suggest that at a meeting or bring it up to a Board member?
As to signing off on the VCET fiasco, I remember a full page add and a press conference from the POA saying it was wrong. Again if the Chief says the Department does not need it what do you want the POA to do? Sue the Chief in court over Department staffing issues, that he and he alone is in charge of? The POA did agree to how the officers would be reassigned etc, as a union should do, but I don’t see that as “signing off” on the decision.
Again I do not believe that saying the Department is understaffed and advising those officers that are newer to leave is speaking out of both sides of his mouth or being hypocritical. As has been stated by “Officer Should Leave” this City is trying to destroy the Police Department and does not appreciate them, nor will it any time soon. Why would you tell officers to stay and bring hardship on their family when you know that things will not get better? The POA is not responsible for the loss in staffing, the City is, the POA is not responsible for the mismanagement of the City policies and finances that brought us to this point, the City is, so why should an officer suffer do to no fault of his or her own?
Sounds like you should run for the POA and try and resolve these issues from within, since you do not agree with the direction it is currently going.. Good luck….
Josh,
Corrupt LE? Really,…we are here because the Mayor has his personal bodyguard and does not give a damn about police and fire. Love Alba but your story line does not fit.
Reduce police at historic levels and bingo, crime goes up. Not rocket science here. Snipers here who hate police can enjoy the response when they need us. You reap what you sow.
Officer X,
Quit crying you baby. All of you city cops and firefryers are arrogant and self-centered! Screw you. Who the hell is looking out for the taxpayer? Both the unions and city make me sick! You don’t realize how good you have it. I hope all of you get canned without you precious retirement benefits!
And by the way, the city government certainly isn’t looking out for you. They are manipulating you into padding their careers so they can skip on to the next position and blame the fallout for their bad decisions on whomever follows them. I can’t believe how easily the masses are controlled in San Jose.
Oh, and the unions are?
.
Let’s see, the unions’ campaign just as hard if not harder than the politicians to place their “puppets” on the city council. City government or city unions, makes no difference to me, you both screw the taxpayer. And by the way, the last time I got pulled over, the cop let me go
I’m just one of many being controlled by the city’s evil conspiracy to screw the cops and fire fryers!
The biggest issue with the POA is their hired lawyer who states proudly he does not represent the membership but only represents the board… My guess is he is paid with all the members dues. Get a good lawyer first dump that lazy tool.
Then things will change.
The POA’s part-time $100,000+ “general counsel” has lost it on several semi-public (i.e. POA meetings) and private occasions (i.e. POA board meetings) – San Francisco PD pays him an additional $100,000+. It appears he cannot handle answering detailed questions from the people who pay his salary. My guess is that he had to many ” gravy train” years (i.e. having the economic numbers on his side during contract negotiations). Now that he has to not only; get in the trenches to save what the gravy train years brought but also justify his actions/advise. I think the old saying applys here: If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen!
Here is something we also should investigate: It is clear that in paying for political and charitable dinners with
his own check and then reimbusing himself with taxpayer money, Chuck Reed
has put self above service. It will come as a major shock to these
community groups that the donation they recieved from “Chuck Reed” is
actually a donation from the taxpayers of San Jose.
Second,
is giving taxpayer money to political organizations
considered stealing?
Chuck is a lawyer, so I will assume he can parse a
legal answer to that
question. But it will be tortured logic and it
certainly won’t pass the
smell test. If it is not illegal, it ought
to be.
If Chuck Reed wrote any of these donations off on his tax forms and then sought reimbursement by the city, than he has not just been unethical – he has committed a crime.
* Some suggested the grand jury should investigate Reed’s reimbursements. Those alone might rise to the level of illegal conduct. Donations to political campaigns are illegal when reimbursed by the city.
You can’t steal something, give it back, and expect to be forgiven.
REED… can you explain this?
Mr. Smoke:
What entity would have to request a grand jury investigation? I wouldn’t think any Tom, Dick or Harry could ask for this. Do they take these matters up on their own?
I agree with you. However, the RDA needs to be investigated a well because those political contributions are linked.