SUPPORTALLYOURDEPUTIES

Shrinking Budgets

It is apparent that our legislators are going to roll back taxes or total cut property taxes. This creates a problem. The Sheriff proposed a contract in which we would not loose any benefits and we would keep our normal raise structure. I believe there were even a couple of extra items in the Sheriff’s contact that we don’t get now. I know…. I know…. We all want more… can you blame us? Has anyone else checked any of the other agencies’ forums? Some are talking about lay-offs and major difficulties in coming to contract. If things get as bad as some are saying, how are we going to move forward regarding GAP insurance? Are we going to continue getting the usual 5% yearly raises (which is pretty good considering)? Is the FOP going to continue passing the blame on the Sheriff? If you were the Sheriff would you give added benefits with the knowledge that a large amount of tax revenue might start to dry up. Would you then blame the Sheriff for not planning ahead when a mandatory hiring freeze or even worse lay-offs hit our agency due to lack of funds? I remember many of us saying that the county has gone through a “BOOM” and the county has plenty of extra money. I hope some of you have gone through some of the newer developments and even some of the older ones. There are a heck of a lot of brand new homes that remain empty and older homes are taking a long time to sell (for much less money than a year ago). Property values are going down and tax recourses for local governments are about to take a huge hit.

I know they’re some people that have identified some issues with this agency (obviously every agency has them,) but why are we making rash decisions and creating an overall feeling of negativity. The powers that be (FOP) need to be honest with the members and answer these questions:

1) Does the Sheriff’s contract proposal take any of our benefits, pay or anything away from us that we currently have?
2) If we continue with this impasse is there a possibility that we will loose our 5% raise this year (or next year)?
3) Have we continued to turn down a good first contract in order to build a case against this Sheriff?
4) Why is using the Sheriff’s Office email so important when we have our own personal email addresses?
5) If we are to be successful, why haven’t we been looking into House and Senate Bills (which are currently in the works) to see how we can assist with their passage/failure?

There are people in this agency that want to see what is best for us as a whole and we don’t all believe in everything the FOP is currently doing. We don’t want to be shunned by the Sheriff or by the FOP. So we will sit and wait until some logic and intelligence wins out; either way we will serve with distinction and respect for the position we hold, as well as the citizens we serve.

8)

It is amazing that you all of a sudden bring this up and try and spin the blame on the FOP. What is being asked for in the contract does not cost allot of money and is what the county gives other employees. We will be faced with these types of issues throughout our career and I have been faced with it during mine. They always find the money one way or another. Money is always hidden for emergencies and such.

The Sheriff's contract proposal did not address salary or other economical issues. You obviously are ill informed.

If you are so concerned, how about attending a meeting about the contract proposal?, Better yet get involved by contacting one of your bargaining representatives and volunteering some time or, at the very least, call them and ask questions so you do not look like an uninformed crud stirrer!

I am in no way trying to spin the blame on the FOP. The question is, if the Sheriff did not take anything away (from us) and has actually given us things in the new contract proposal, why not take it? We can work on the GAP and other items next contract. For a first contract it is reasonable. Just because we voted in the FOP, it does not mean that we are going to get many extra things in the first contract especially in these tumultuous times. I believe the Sheriff is not against us from getting GAP insurance (obviously not in this contract though).

I am not saying that there are no issues; but, I’m fine with knowing that the people we put in place are going to keep plugging along and get the GAP insurance and other benefits, again this is our first contract.

As far as the comment: “The Sheriff's contract proposal did not address salary or other economical issues. You obviously are ill informed”.

This is kind of funny because it proves a point….. Most people don’t know what the Sheriff’s contract proposal says. Remember receiving a call to go vote… did you know what you were voting down???? Did you read the Sheriff’s proposal? I have a strong suspicion that our normal raise is part of the deal or will be granted… Do you know? Ask yourself this question, Can you accuse the Sheriff of "Union Busting" if he keeps things status quo and gives us a little here and there?

I am not an uninformed crud stirrer. I am allowed to have my own opinion about “our” future. I am informed. The questions above are not only for you to answer they are for you to reflect on.
:wink:

Did you read the Sheriff’s proposal? I have a strong suspicion that our normal raise is part of the deal or will be granted… Do you know?

Yes I do. I read the proposal....many times. No economic proposals were included. This includes your annual salary. He refused to address it.

Additionally, he DID NOT add anything to his proposal other than what you get now. Why should you agree to a contract when you were offered NOTHING, not even the raises you get now?

Please, do yourself and the rest of us a favor, READ the proposal. It sounds like you went through one of those infamous Bob White Brainwashing sessions. "You know, he really is a nice guy"

Get the facts, PLEASE!!!!!!

You seem to be in the know... So are you saying the Sheriff is not going to give us our normal raise? Why wouldn't we go to impasse over salary?

It would be very difficult for them to do anything with pay just because of the demands from surrounding counties. We are having enough issues keeping employees.

You are the one questioning the fact that union is trying to get you something you deserve and you are making it sound as though they are trying to screw you.

This union has asked for very little.

Remember the sheriff telling the reporters when he was trying to get elected that he would treat the members of the sheriff's office like family?
I do and I am wondering when DADDY is going to take care of his SONS and DAUGHTERS?

Insideout, you are full of $hit and you know it. You said you read the other forums and have read where other agencies are talking about layoffs. Give us a frikken break. You have absolutely ZERO to support any of the diarhea you are spouting so just do yourself a favor at work and keep your mantrap shut.

You want to see the contract proposal? go to the intranet website and look what he gave over the last 6 years. That is all he is willing to do and not a thing more! His very attitude he placed on FULL DSIPLAY with that $hit shows he does not give a dam about the welfare of his deputies, or the morale of the agency. His belief system is flawed to the point he must think that if he and his staff are happy, we must be happy. That flawed logic probably cost more of us marriages that we would ever know but none of the people in his loop have the balls to tell him when he is making a mistake and that has cost the last two sheriff's their jobs and it is quite possibly too late for this one.

The smart money says he is probably already a lame duck!

Insideout, you are full of $hit and you know it. You said you read the other forums and have read where other agencies are talking about layoffs. Give us a frikken break. You have absolutely ZERO to support any of the diarhea you are spouting so just do yourself a favor at work and keep your mantrap shut.

You want to see the contract proposal? go to the intranet website and look what he gave over the last 6 years. That is all he is willing to do and not a thing more! His very attitude he placed on FULL DSIPLAY with that $hit shows he does not give a dam about the welfare of his deputies, or the morale of the agency. His belief system is flawed to the point he must think that if he and his staff are happy, we must be happy. That flawed logic probably cost more of us marriages that we would ever know but none of the people in his loop have the balls to tell him when he is making a mistake and that has cost the last two sheriff's their jobs and it is quite possibly too late for this one.

The smart money says he is probably already a lame duck!

Do you think for one minute, that with the potential loss of tax revenue the S.O. might not be forced into a hiring freeze? I don't appreciate the vague threat, "just do yourself a favor at work and keep your mantrap shut". What did you mean by that? :shock:

Next, people are going to blame their acne, catching a common cold and high gas prices on the Sheriff. I don’t think that the Sheriff caused anyone’s divorce. I do believe if any of us have family issues the Sheriff’s Office will pay for some counseling. Unfortunately, the Sheriff won’t pay for a basic grammar course for us.

As for the quote: “You are the one questioning the fact that union is trying to get you something you deserve and you are making it sound as though they are trying to screw you.” I do not believe the Union is trying to do anything wrong. I believe that what we have isn’t that bad and to add a little at a time is fine with me. Rome wasn’t built in a day. To get Tampa like contracts is not going to happen right away. Yes, we didn’t ask for much extra than we already have. What happened to the Union protecting what we have and being a voice for what we would like or what we need? The current people in control of our direction are competent and are doing a great job. With the few mostly insignificant (minus GAP) things we have asked for, sends the signal that we don’t really have it that bad. We keep comparing the other county jobs that have GAP insurance and say that they get it after 30 years. What we don’t say is that we want it after 25 years. The average citizen is not going to realize that we are leaving little things out. I have yet to see an estimate of how much GAP would cost, but everyone jumps on the band wagon that it won’t cost that much. We deserve and need the GAP insurance and it should be an item that the Union asks for. I just don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bath water or cut our noses off to spite our faces. No matter who is Sheriff, he or she is not going to want to be threatened to do something that isn’t financially feasible or hasn’t been worked into the budget today. Some of the newer deputies don’t remember the times that we have gone without filling jobs, overtime (detectives) and holiday pay. How wise would it be to take from emergency funds to pay for an unbudgeted item such as GAP insurance? What happens when we get hit by a hurricane and the Sheriff (who wants to treat us like family) has spent the rainy day fund on GAP insurance? Try explaining that to the citizens of Pasco County.

It isn’t hard to imagine accepting the contract and moving on. I do understand trying to get everyone on the same page by unifying for a single cause. I just don’t agree with SOME of the things I see and hear regarding how we make our arguments to the public. Let’s try not to embarrass ourselves in attempt to embarrass someone else.

:idea:

I did notice that our new site did clarify the GAP issue with the Deputies vs. the other county workers. Thank you. 8)

OK, I see it now you are one of those that just wants to see yourself on line.

You make arguments for what? It appears you are not sure yourself.

The bottom line is the union is asking for a little that ends up being allot in the sense that it protects employees. The GAP insurance was being discussed prior to the union coming and now all of a sudden it is a no go?
Sounds like when it was first being discussed it had more political value. Now that the sheriff's ego has been busted because the employees have lost faith in his ability to be fair and look out for their well being for the long hall you expect the citizens and employees to trust your same old crap. Issue with tax dollars have been around since the beginning of taxes and we will face that till the end of times.

An outside arbitrator is being asked for considering the inability of this administration to demonstrate fairness and dish out discipline accordingly.
If the sheriff trust what he is doing is right then he would not have an issue with an outside impartial party reviewing his disciplinary decisions.

It baffles me how illinformed some of the supporters of the status quo are. First he makes reference to how some agencies are speaking about layoffs on this board. Then he changes to "hiring freeze." Make up your mind. You flip flop as bad as the administration does. As far as the couple "extra" items in the Sheriff's proposal we do not get now? Ummm, I read the proposal twice and didn't see anything in it that was new, or "extra" as you put it.

You do seem to be informed about the current tax crunch. But then again, it has been on every news channel every day how the entire state is being affected. However, if you ever went to a meeting, or checked on the union proposal, you would see the only thing that would have cost any money was the GAP insurance, and that was NOT a deal breaker. The Sheriff's desire to prevent us from being able to appeal discipline in a more fair setting and under binding terms was the big one.

The following questions were taken directly off of our new web site:
Why hasn't Sheriff White planned ahead?
Why doesn't Sheriff White want his Deputies to have job security?
Why doesn't Sheriff White want his Deputies to have adequate back-up?

1) Sheriff White has asked for many new deputies and other positions and has been denied… we blame that on the Sheriff for not asking for more than what we needed all along?
2) Sheriff White has given us the most job security of any other Sheriff in the last 20+ years… we just want more job security. How many people has he fired or demoted as opposed to past Sheriffs or Sheriffs in other counties? If he fires someone isn’t there a check and balance in place in which some members of the Union (and others) sit on a board that can overturn his ruling (which is binding). Why would you want to give away the right to load up that board with Union members (majority) in order to scrutinize the decision made by the Sheriff? I believe most people don’t understand the totality of what is being asked for.
3) To ask this question is to say he doesn’t care about us at all. If you feel that way, you must come up with the reasons why and not just be a follower of a made up statement.

Why are we allowing ourselves to create a battle with the Sheriff? Is it to give the Union a cause? I believe we have enough of a cause without creating a sense that the sky is falling… :roll:

1. WRONG ANSWER- BW gets his budget money for salaries, and uses those salary dollars where he sees fit. He CHOSE not to fill deputy slots, intead funding new unbudgeted positions for an analyst for Col Worch (who has since left) and another civilian spot. He could have used that money for two deputies, but chose not to.

2. WRONG ANSWER- He has only lost one case at the Appeals Board, becuase that is the only one that was taken there. You think you have job security? Ask the Sgts and Lt that were demoted what kind of appeals they had when they lost 10% of their pay, as well as their position.

3. WRONG ANSWER- It has been proven by the last six year that BW does not want there to be more deputies on the road. He places them in specialized units, COP, Motors, Ag, etc. The guys and gals on the road and in the jails are the one who need the help, not more fluff.

It is obvious you are looking at this disaster-in-the-making through rose (or maybe Bob White) colored glasses. Why don't you take some time, do some investigation, and find out the truth. This place is going down the toilet FAST.

1. WRONG ANSWER- BW gets his budget money for salaries, and uses those salary dollars where he sees fit. He CHOSE not to fill deputy slots, intead funding new unbudgeted positions for an analyst for Col Worch (who has since left) and another civilian spot. He could have used that money for two deputies, but chose not to.

2. WRONG ANSWER- He has only lost one case at the Appeals Board, becuase that is the only one that was taken there. You think you have job security? Ask the Sgts and Lt that were demoted what kind of appeals they had when they lost 10% of their pay, as well as their position.

3. WRONG ANSWER- It has been proven by the last six year that BW does not want there to be more deputies on the road. He places them in specialized units, COP, Motors, Ag, etc. The guys and gals on the road and in the jails are the one who need the help, not more fluff.

It is obvious you are looking at this disaster-in-the-making through rose (or maybe Bob White) colored glasses. Why don't you take some time, do some investigation, and find out the truth. This place is going down the toilet FAST.


1) Ok, so you point to two spots he could have filled with deputies and choose not to point out he asked for approximately 40-50 deputies that were denied. How many deputies do we have and how many do you think we need?

2) The Sheriff lost one case on the appeals board... Wow, that was the only case brought to the board. Why do we want the board to go away? Where is the logic? Was the person fired and then given his or her job back? Did he or she get back pay? Did he or she get his or her same position back? Was the victory held against him or her? Has the person been promoted yet? :lol:

3) COP, Motors, Ag, etc. all have a place in the agency and many of the members of the "specialized units" take calls and handle things on a continual basis that I hear many of us ask channel 1.... Is a COP, STOP, MOTOR, Ag. Unit available...? Most of us really like that when we have a STOP Deputy available when we stop a DUI suspect.

I'm not against the mission; I just believe we can get to where we need to be without the finger pointing and obvious intent to bash the Sheriff and the agency.

STOP was meant to read STEP....

Well thanks Bob for you input. Now count the day's...
I am in no way trying to spin the blame on the FOP. The question is, if the Sheriff did not take anything away (from us) and has actually given us things in the new contract proposal, why not take it? We can work on the GAP and other items next contract. For a first contract it is reasonable. Just because we voted in the FOP, it does not mean that we are going to get many extra things in the first contract especially in these tumultuous times. I believe the Sheriff is not against us from getting GAP insurance (obviously not in this contract though).

I am not saying that there are no issues; but, I’m fine with knowing that the people we put in place are going to keep plugging along and get the GAP insurance and other benefits, again this is our first contract.

As far as the comment: “The Sheriff's contract proposal did not address salary or other economical issues. You obviously are ill informed”.

This is kind of funny because it proves a point….. Most people don’t know what the Sheriff’s contract proposal says. Remember receiving a call to go vote… did you know what you were voting down???? Did you read the Sheriff’s proposal? I have a strong suspicion that our normal raise is part of the deal or will be granted… Do you know? Ask yourself this question, Can you accuse the Sheriff of "Union Busting" if he keeps things status quo and gives us a little here and there?

I am not an uninformed crud stirrer. I am allowed to have my own opinion about “our” future. I am informed. The questions above are not only for you to answer they are for you to reflect on.
:wink: :roll:

I am proud to be a law enforcement officer, however, I am disappointed and disgusted with the total mismanagement of our agency. Is it necessary to bash the Sheriff? What is it hurting? He has done nothing to boost the agency to the type it SHOULD and COULD be.

Let's face it. We need a new Sheriff. We need a leader who can turn things around. We need someone who can not only sweet talk the public, but has knowledge and experience to run the place as a law enforcement agency. This is not a playground to try out the "cool theories" you read about in a book by Sam Walton. This is a public business and one that is vitally important to the county. It needs to be run as one. This guy has not done that. He is oblivious to his surroundings. He does not want his feelings hurt. He thinks he is a rock star.

He is no better than the previous ones. He got a taste of fame and being in the public eye, and it all went to his head.

Now he needs to be like the previous ones, out of office after two terms.

1. WRONG ANSWER- BW gets his budget money for salaries, and uses those salary dollars where he sees fit. He CHOSE not to fill deputy slots, intead funding new unbudgeted positions for an analyst for Col Worch (who has since left) and another civilian spot. He could have used that money for two deputies, but chose not to.

2. WRONG ANSWER- He has only lost one case at the Appeals Board, becuase that is the only one that was taken there. You think you have job security? Ask the Sgts and Lt that were demoted what kind of appeals they had when they lost 10% of their pay, as well as their position.

3. WRONG ANSWER- It has been proven by the last six year that BW does not want there to be more deputies on the road. He places them in specialized units, COP, Motors, Ag, etc. The guys and gals on the road and in the jails are the one who need the help, not more fluff.

It is obvious you are looking at this disaster-in-the-making through rose (or maybe Bob White) colored glasses. Why don't you take some time, do some investigation, and find out the truth. This place is going down the toilet FAST.

Two civilians (if this happened) don’t even pay for one LE deputy. Have additional positions been added to Ag, CPT or Motors in the last several years? There are often two deputies in busy zones, that hasn't happened before on a regular basis, has it?

Why has only one person gone to the appeals board? Remember that Professional Standards investigations are sworn testimony and public record - nothing anonymous or unsubstantiated is used against anyone.

We are an agency in crisis. Sounds a bit unreasonable, right? It may be, but in reality, I think it's right on the money. InsideOut, you make some real great points. They sound very well thought out, but I think they may be slanted a little bit towards the administration. I don't know why that is, maybe you are involved with that side of the equation, or maybe you just want to believe what you've been told. As the Sheriff has said many times, do your own research and be sure you know what is involved with this process. With that, I agree. But, as any responsible person should do, ask yourself why things are the way they are. Did our agency get to this point because things are good? I'll admit, things here aren't terrible, but they need some tweaking. Our main issues, as a collective bargaining unit, seem to be the GAP insurance and grievance procedures. To me, the most critical issue is the grievance issue. I've only been here for 7 years. While that may not seem like much, if you change the perspective, I've been here nearly 1/3 of the required years to retire. The GAP insurance isn't critical to me today, but in another 7 years, it will become more pressing. What bothers me is the inability to go outside the agency for an unbiased third party's resolution to a punishment issue. I have experienced the wrath of supervisors who have no business doling out punishment and I've had to essentially live with the decisions made by him/her. I do not expect any contract will relieve the agency of irresponsible, unreasonable or vindictive supervisors. But, I would expect that if I feel the punishment is undue, I can appeal it to someone who won't necessary be on the Sheriff's payroll. The current system offers us just that and I, along with many others, would like to see a change.
In regards to pay: I've heard countless times how the union does not have the ability to force the Sheriff into paying us more money. I believe this to be true, but again, why wouldn't the Sheriff offer to put the current, and long standing practice of the 5% raises into the contract? It doesn't seem like that much of a problem. In previous posts, I noticed the veiled threats of losing unbudgeted items, like sick leave buy back. Why would any Sheriff constantly bring something like that up to his employees, if not for the sole intent of making you fear losing it?
Other issues which plague this agency and are not properly addressed: Manpower and manpower assignment. Someone said earlier that busy zones have two deputies. Great!! But, be real for a minute. While some zones have more generated calls than others, the zones in our county are pretty well balanced. They all get excessive calls for service, so common sense would dictate that all zones should have two deputies. That is the reality. Putting 2 cars in Adam 2 or Baker 6 only relieves that zone, while the other zones are humping. I don't understand and I doubt I ever will, why we need to have 2 STOP teams with approximately 14 or so deputies assigned to them. I remember a day when all deputies worked all the calls for service and didn't need a special unit for them. Aside from STEP, which takes specialized training and equipment that we all don't have, abolish the special units like STOP and decrease the others. I would say it appears our agency would like to have all the fluff of large agencies, but can't fill the main function of patrol. I'm tired of running 12 hours with 5 deputies doing the job 9 deputies should bear. These are the reasons our agency is in crisis.
A wise man once said, "these are the times that try men's souls". It is as true today as it was then. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better. I just hope it gets better sooner than later.

Bravo, Mr. Paine, Bravo!

Many times over that has been said and we still have the same issues. The sheriff said during campaigning that if he needed a kick in the pants to make him realize there was and issue or he was going down the wrong path then do it. Well I would say at this point he is a black and blue pulp.

In regards to pay: I've heard countless times how the union does not have the ability to force the Sheriff into paying us more money. I believe this to be true, but again, why wouldn't the Sheriff offer to put the current, and long standing practice of the 5% raises into the contract? It doesn't seem like that much of a problem. In previous posts, I noticed the veiled threats of losing unbudgeted items, like sick leave buy back. Why would any Sheriff constantly bring something like that up to his employees, if not for the sole intent of making you fear losing it?


http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBXP86ME0F.html

Tampa Braces To Slash Jobs, Nonprofit Funds
By ELLEN GEDALIUS The Tampa Tribune

Published: Apr 12, 2007


TAMPA - The city is preparing to cut funding to nonprofits, lay off employees, institute a hiring freeze and perhaps trim the police force as it braces for tens of millions of dollars in budget cuts.

The property tax changes proposed by the state Legislature threaten to slice money from the city budget. To prepare for that, Mayor Pam Iorio told her department heads Wednesday to hold spending to last year's levels, when the city collected $164 million from property taxes.

She also said she plans to reduce or eliminate the city's subsidies to nonprofit organizations, such as The Florida Orchestra and Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center.

Iorio said some city services would be cut, but provided no specifics. She said her department heads will come up with suggestions, which they will present to her for approval.

Yet even areas such as the police, fire, and parks and recreation departments will be pinched, said Bonnie Wise, the city's director of revenue and finance. Those departments generally are considered priorities to the city, and council members and mayors usually are reluctant to trim from those areas.

"There will be cuts to all areas of city government," Wise said. "It will include public safety; it will include parks and recreation; it will include administration."

Lawmakers Debate Tax Strategies
Iorio's move comes as legislators debate several property tax strategies in Tallahassee that could cut into the budgets of local governments.

"There seems to be a sentiment that local government has too much money," Iorio said. "But there are needs our citizens are asking for."

Of the state plans, the most dramatic was forwarded by House Republicans, who have passed a bill that rolls back local tax rates to 2000-01 levels, adjusted for inflation.

Other House proposals have been floated and could cost the city anywhere from $25 million to $49 million. Under those proposals, the owner of a $200,000 house could save about $200 to $300 on the city portion of the tax bill. Tampa residents also pay county, school board and other taxes.

The House GOP plan also proposes to ask voters county by county whether to eliminate all or portions of their local property taxes in exchange for an increase of up to 2½ cents in the state sales tax. That money then would be redistributed to local governments by the state.

The Senate is expected to release its property tax proposal today.

Gov. Charlie Crist has urged lawmakers to double the homestead exemption, which would knock another $25,000 off the value on which a home is taxed. That plan could cost the city $11 million.

Any compromise, if one can be reached in the remaining four weeks of the legislative session, likely would include a mandatory rollback of local rates and caps on how much taxes can grow in the future.

Some people think it's too early to figure out where to cut from local government budgets.

"It may be premature, until we have all the facts, all the information," Councilman Tom Scott said.

County Administrator Pat Bean said she's reviewing department budgets, but the county isn't prepared to freeze hiring or project cuts. She said it would be premature to make dire budget predictions because there's been "so little guidance" from lawmakers about what they plan to do.

But Iorio's administration is moving forward.

Layoffs are likely, Iorio said. No new programs will be funded, and no positions will be created.

Police Chief Stephen Hogue said budget cuts would mean fewer police officers on the streets. Personnel costs account for about 88 percent of his $122 million budget.

To cut $1 million from his budget, he would need to cut 10 or 11 positions.

"There's a real price to these cuts," Hogue said.

Nonprofits will feel it, too.

Last year, the council voted to trim the city's property tax rate, sending Iorio back to develop a new budget plan. Iorio proposed reducing funding to nonprofit organizations, but the council rejected that plan.

No Choice On Nonprofit Cuts
Iorio said Wednesday she has no choice but to cut their subsidies.

"There's no way in the world you can justify cuts in our key departments and justify subsidies to our nonprofit agencies," Iorio said. "I regret it."

So does Leonard Stone, executive director of The Florida Orchestra. The orchestra received $400,000 this year from the city. He understands Iorio's position but says that a cut could mean the end of concerts in the park. "The city cutback would create a very big hurdle for us to overcome to continue them," Stone said.

The mayor will present her budget in August to the city council, which must approve a spending plan no later than September.

Reporters Jerome R. Stockfisch and Anthony McCartney contributed to this story. Reporter Ellen Gedalius can be reached at (813) 259-7679 or egedalius@tampatrib.com.


:(

To the guest who posted the very entertaining article from the newspaper: You are doing more harm than good. I can only assume your intent was to make some readers believe that law enforcement is in danger of taking a cut. Apply some common sense to the issue and let's reveal the truth. First, a leader of people, in this case Tampa mayor Iorio, would be foolish to cut jobs from TPD, especially in the patrol division. One can not justify the cuts when the safety of citizens is at stake. The real point of the article you posted is grossly political. Brief education in politics, read carefully. You have liberals and conservatives and somewhere I hear there are moderates. The notion of cutting property taxes is being proposed by a conservative, Governor Crist. The idea is being shunned by those who desire big government and high taxes, the liberals. FYI, both of the newspapers in the Tampa market, as is the case in 98% of the print media: They are liberal. The true intent of this article is to SCARE the readers into thinking the proposed property tax deletion is bad and OH MY GOD!!! Look Harriet, the Govenor is going to cost us POLICE OFFICERS!!!
Read past the scare tactics and get to the real root of the problem. If you are anti-anything, appeal to the people who vote. In most cases, scare them into thinking your way and like results will follow.
Good try, but not this time. Try again later.

Mr. Paine:

No harm was intended.

You are correct that it would be foolish to cut law enforcement, but it is the environment in which we live. Ignoring it or over reacting would be foolish. We should not expect the sky to fall or for it to rain money.

Sometimes we don't look beyond our own leader when things don't go the way we want, which is wrong on our part.

Anyone who believes that property taxes won't be cut is being naive. The bullet has left the barrel. It is now just a matter of how much damage it will do to county government when it hits the target.

Here is a sample of what the politicians are dealing with (this is printed in a very liberal newspaper):

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/16/North ... ir_u.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/16/Northpinellas/Property_taxes_stir_u.shtml)

Every dollar the legislature puts "in the pockets of the average Floridian" is a dollar less for the county – and it looks like they are talking big money.

Guest,

That is all just proposals right now. Just like they proposed homeowners insurance relief, and that all went out the window too.

If you have lived in this county for any period of time, which by your interest in politics I would suppose you had, you would know that this county is still growing, and law enforcement has always battled to get it's fair share of the pie to do what needs to be done.

Now ask yourself why Bob White has not done EVERYTHING he could to put more deputies on the street when the county had more money than it knew what to do with.

Answer: He is an unqualified patsy who was put into place by Republicans who wanted to unseat an incumbent Democrat. He lacks both the knowledge and testicular fortitude to run the agency the way it needs to be run.

Think the Democrats are looking to return the favor? :wink:

Did'nt the sheriff admit that for several years he has undercut his budget even though he needed more money and then when he asked for a big budget increase the county shot him down?

Sounds like an stupid strategy that bit him on the butt, and now it may be too late to make things right.

He should have been asking for what he needed for years instead of trying to play games. I have to admit that he is not exactly a forward thinking sheriff otherwise he would have seen the sky rocketing growth and requested the budget, and manpower that he needed instead of leading his trops to the slaughter and telling them to do more with less. People will only work like dogs so long until they get fed up and leave.

But wait I guess hind sight is not 20/20 either because as you can see he is not applying proper management strategy in utilizing the man power that he currently has either.