2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements

To those in the know:

A former employee of the DBPD has been going around telling people in a public forum that he and 17 others (the "older" third of the force) took early retirements around 2008. He says this dropped the force from 51 to 33 officers.

He attributes this to there being "no money" (his words), despite public records showing that funding for law enforcement actually increased in the year in question.

He blames the supposed lack of money on a decrease in tax revenue because of the Save our Homes Amendment which he claims "doubled" (again, his words) the Florida Homestead Exemption, even though it only increased it from $50,000 to $75,000, and despite public records showing that overall tax revenues actually increased in the year in question.

I've heard all sorts of things about "buy outs" and new contracts and all sorts of things, as well as vacancies needing filled, spending freezes, etc., but what I haven't seen is anything from an official source, or even so much as a newspaper article detailing how a third of a major municipality's police department all retired at the same time.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

ask vincent c gray and swiggy what took place. the arena brothers might be able to answer some questions.

To those in the know:

A former employee of the DBPD has been going around telling people in a public forum that he and 17 others (the "older" third of the force) took early retirements around 2008. He says this dropped the force from 51 to 33 officers.

He attributes this to there being "no money" (his words), despite public records showing that funding for law enforcement actually increased in the year in question.

He blames the supposed lack of money on a decrease in tax revenue because of the Save our Homes Amendment which he claims "doubled" (again, his words) the Florida Homestead Exemption, even though it only increased it from $50,000 to $75,000, and despite public records showing that overall tax revenues actually increased in the year in question.

I've heard all sorts of things about "buy outs" and new contracts and all sorts of things, as well as vacancies needing filled, spending freezes, etc., but what I haven't seen is anything from an official source, or even so much as a newspaper article detailing how a third of a major municipality's police department all retired at the same time.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

No wonder you haven't seen a report of "how a third of a major municipality's police department" all retired. We don't carry 51 officers. We carry closer to 151 and if it went to 133 that's not even close to a decrease of 33% but closer to 10%. That's not news and as for 17 leaving the agency on "early retirement", it sounds like what the City offered those who had more than 18 years but less than 20 to buy them out so they would leave. 17 sounds like too many but there were a lot who took advantage of that "early retirement" option.

To those in the know:

A former employee of the DBPD has been going around telling people in a public forum that he and 17 others (the "older" third of the force) took early retirements around 2008. He says this dropped the force from 51 to 33 officers.

He attributes this to there being "no money" (his words), despite public records showing that funding for law enforcement actually increased in the year in question.

He blames the supposed lack of money on a decrease in tax revenue because of the Save our Homes Amendment which he claims "doubled" (again, his words) the Florida Homestead Exemption, even though it only increased it from $50,000 to $75,000, and despite public records showing that overall tax revenues actually increased in the year in question.

I've heard all sorts of things about "buy outs" and new contracts and all sorts of things, as well as vacancies needing filled, spending freezes, etc., but what I haven't seen is anything from an official source, or even so much as a newspaper article detailing how a third of a major municipality's police department all retired at the same time.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

"...despite public records showing that funding for law enforcement actually increased in the year in question." - That very well may be what happened to the PD budget, but not to the police officer salaries. Also, it's important to note that although the Save Our Homes Amendment increased from 50K to 75K, the affect on the City's budget is always a 1 full year behind and if you check the records, the mileage remained the same or decreased, also contributing to the overall wage concerns for all city employees.

[No wonder you haven't seen a report of "how a third of a major municipality's police department" all retired. We don't carry 51 officers. We carry closer to 151 and if it went to 133 that's not even close to a decrease of 33% but closer to 10%.

The "51 officers" figure is not mine. It came from the former officer who made the statement.


That's not news and as for 17 leaving the agency on "early retirement", it sounds like what the City offered those who had more than 18 years but less than 20 to buy them out so they would leave. 17 sounds like too many but there were a lot who took advantage of that "early retirement" option.

Indeed, 17 DOES sound like too many. Again, the statement was made by the former officer.

"...despite public records showing that funding for law enforcement actually increased in the year in question." - That very well may be what happened to the PD budget, but not to the police officer salaries.

Among other statements being made by the officer in question was that "there was no money" and that they had to get rid of, in his words, the oldest top third of the force, or the majority of the bottom 2/3.


Also, it's important to note that although the Save Our Homes Amendment increased from 50K to 75K...

According to the officer in question, the homestead exemption "doubled". Obviously that isn't the case, but, again, it's what he is claiming.


the affect on the City's budget is always a 1 full year behind and if you check the records, the mileage remained the same or decreased, also contributing to the overall wage concerns for all city employees.

I examined several years of publicly available data for both the municipality of Delray Beach as well as greater Palm Beach County. There was no point in which either funding to the PD was significantly cut or that overall tax revenues decreased to the point that a third of the police department (his words) would have had to be let go to save the rest.

[quote=More Education]"...despite public records showing that funding for law enforcement actually increased in the year in question." - That very well may be what happened to the PD budget, but not to the police officer salaries.

Among other statements being made by the officer in question was that "there was no money" and that they had to get rid of, in his words, the oldest top third of the force, or the majority of the bottom 2/3.


Also, it's important to note that although the Save Our Homes Amendment increased from 50K to 75K...

According to the officer in question, the homestead exemption "doubled". Obviously that isn't the case, but, again, it's what he is claiming.


the affect on the City's budget is always a 1 full year behind and if you check the records, the mileage remained the same or decreased, also contributing to the overall wage concerns for all city employees.

I examined several years of publicly available data for both the municipality of Delray Beach as well as greater Palm Beach County. There was no point in which either funding to the PD was significantly cut or that overall tax revenues decreased to the point that a third of the police department (his words) would have had to be let go to save the rest.[/quote:30afkf60]

So, you found your answers and this thread is now dead.

Save our homes did in fact double the Homestead exemption which in turn took away 24 million dollars of lost state money which was approved by the voters in 2008 and took effect in 2009. Employees were in bought out with incentives to retire and positions were frozen. Nice try Mitch. No layoffs or forced retirements. If retirements were not taken by those eligible, then yes layoffs could have occurred per the HR directer at that time. The city has since recovered very well and positions are no longer frozen.

Save our homes did in fact double the Homestead exemption which in turn took away 24 million dollars of lost state money which was approved by the voters in 2008 and took effect in 2009. Employees were in bought out with incentives to retire and positions were frozen. Nice try Mitch. No layoffs or forced retirements. If retirements were not taken by those eligible, then yes layoffs could have occurred per the HR directer at that time. The city has since recovered very well and positions are no longer frozen.

It doesn't matter if 'Save Our Homes' doubled, tripled, quadrupled or not. The mere fact that the exemption 'increased at all' reduced available funds to government entities, like Delray Beach, that rely on property taxes to provide funding for services. Who cares what the amount is?

Add to the fiscal dilemma, a City Manager who did his best to make sure the mileage either remained the same or decreased for much of the period in question.

Save our homes did in fact double the Homestead exemption

50,000 x 2 = 100,000.

The "Save our Homes" Amendment, "Increases the homestead exemption by exempting the assessed value between $50,000 and $75,000".

http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Save_Our ... ry_2008%29 (http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Save_Our_Homes,_Amendment_1_%28January_200 8%29)

You either aren't very good at math or you're reading comprehension skills are lacking.

Or, like a true politician (despite failing to win), did you just not read the legislation you demonized?


which in turn took away 24 million dollars of lost state money which was approved by the voters in 2008 and took effect in 2009.

How could it have been responsible for your early retirement, along with 1/3 of the force (per you), in 2008 if it didn't take effect until 2009 and the effects, per a previous poster, wouldn't be felt until 2010?

The fact is that in the year you (and 17 other officers, your numbers) claim to have taken early retirement specifically because of this legislation, both funding for law enforcement as well as overall tax revenues increased.


Employees were in bought out with incentives to retire

???

An entire third of the police department?


Nice try Mitch.

Who is Mitch?


No layoffs or forced retirements.

According to you it was either the oldest 1/3 or the bottom 2/3. How is that not forced?


If retirements were not taken by those eligible, then yes layoffs could have occurred per the HR directer at that time.

Because of legislation that had yet to be passed, let alone take effect?


The city has since recovered very well and positions are no longer frozen.

Based on publicly available data, the city never actually suffered the financial losses you've claimed were created because of this legislation which you've cited as the cause of your early retirement.

It doesn't matter if 'Save Our Homes' doubled, tripled, quadrupled or not.

When an aspiring politician makes a claim that does not hold up under scrutiny, it does matter.


The mere fact that the exemption 'increased at all' reduced available funds to government entities, like Delray Beach, that rely on property taxes to provide funding for services.

Ah, so at a time when property values were falling, the number of property owners was falling and the means of already overburdened taxpayers to continue to fund the ever-increasing size and price of local government was in decline, your solution was to what, raise taxes?


Who cares what the amount is?

The already over-burdened taxpayers.


Add to the fiscal dilemma

What fiscal dilemma?

Please, take the publicly available financial data for Delray Beach and show me a "crisis".

When an aspiring politician makes a claim that does not hold up under scrutiny, it does matter.

This thread was about a former officer making statements. We now have submitted to this board that this is about a "former officer" who is an aspiring politician? Well Inquiring Mind, when has anything 'any' politician said, really mattered? Unless it promotes their agenda and regardless of their background, why do you think the comingling of facts with distortions designed to infer the truth is any different than any other politician, former cop or not? Truth is, I guess if you're an 'aspiring politician' you should be excellent at promoting 'the spin', huh? Better yet, as an aspiring politician you should know the facts, but lie instead. Maybe he/she is really being a better 'politician' than you think.

Ah, so at a time when property values were falling, the number of property owners was falling and the means of already overburdened taxpayers to continue to fund the ever-increasing size and price of local government was in decline, your solution was to what, raise taxes?

Ah...at no time did I ever say that 'raising taxes' was the solution. You sound like an aspiring politician, putting words in peoples mouth. In fact, I think the Former City Manager (DH) did a great job seeing to that...wouldn't you say? He kept a lid on costs. The 'ever-increasing size and price' of government is the cost of doing business and to provide quality services to it's citizens. Accepting the fiduciary responsibility of providing those 'quality services' while at the same time containing costs is a delicate yet very calculated balancing act. At some point in time...the citizens will pay for these 'calculations', either to support funding for quality services to return or, suffer from inferior services that will have obvious implications, but either way there will be consequences. Stakeholders will have to decide at what expense, to what extent and to what degree are the consequences acceptable. Multi-million dollar lawsuits from anything A-Z and under the sun hiring, training, retention, equipment failures, supervision...name it. What about the never ending labor disputes costing tax payers millions of dollars in an attorneys fees (yes, billable hours makes the right attorneys wealthy), poor response times, broken down and outdated equipment, lack of training and on-going education? Just peel back the onion and look underneath...Delray Beach is a mess, but not because of the hard working, loyal and dedicated employees.

Sorry to bust bubbles but there were a bunch of early retirement buyouts around that time. I though it was more like 15 city wide wit frozen positions through the recommendations made to Harden from a review board.

Sorry to bust bubbles

I'm just looking for factual information, sir. What I've heard just doesn't add up which is why I'm asking. If what you have to offer is factual then I thank you for it!


there were a bunch of early retirement buyouts around that time. I though it was more like 15 city wide wit frozen positions through the recommendations made to Harden from a review board.

A previous poster who stated that the actual size of the force is closer to 150 officers as opposed to the near fifty (as claimed by the officer in question) also stated that the aforementioned 17/18 seemed excessive, which was my original point.

Remember, the numbers that didn't add up weren't mine. I heard them from the officer in question.

Regardless if the exact number was 15 or 17 or something in that neighborhood, 15 or 17 out of 150-something is something entirely different than 18 out of 51 or, roughly, 1/3rd. It seems to me that if there was so severe a financial emergency as was suggested previously that the department had to make a choice over keeping the older 1/3 or the younger 2/3 of its force, that would have been something that made headlines in one of PBC's premier communities. It's further mind-boggling that these decisions, which would have been made sometime in 2007 or early 2008, were made before the legislation that the officer in question claims necessitated them was even passed and, according to a previous poster, would not have had an actual effect until 2010.

When an aspiring politician makes a claim that does not hold up under scrutiny, it does matter.

This thread was about a former officer making statements. We now have submitted to this board that this is about a "former officer" who is an aspiring politician?

I hadn't intended to bring that up, but after he identified himself here it became relevant to the reason for my question.


Well Inquiring Mind, when has anything 'any' politician said, really mattered?

That's rather cynical, isn't it? IMO, it's that mindset that causes so many bad politicians to get elected.


Unless it promotes their agenda and regardless of their background, why do you think the comingling of facts with distortions designed to infer the truth is any different than any other politician, former cop or not?

In other circumstances it may not, but since the individual in question imagines himself to be a paragon of truthfulness and virtue, when in fact he's just a bloated blowhard..........


Truth is, I guess if you're an 'aspiring politician' you should be excellent at promoting 'the spin', huh? Better yet, as an aspiring politician you should know the facts, but lie instead.

As I'm sure you're aware, politicians in the 21st Century don't appear to be big on actually reading legislation. If they were, they'd know little details like just how much a certain exemption they're blaming for alleged revenue deficiencies (even though it can be illustrated from the city's publicly available financial records that both funding for LE increased at this time, as did overall tax revenue). Such was my point.


Maybe he/she is really being a better 'politician' than you think.

Seeing as how he came in third, I doubt it.

Also, when you're running for office on a platform of little more than, "I'm not the other guy", you need to have some sort of novelty attached to your name, or you need to be a celebrity. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger, who really brought nothing to the table other than, "I'm not Gray Davis". The individual in question, recently described in the media as "lacking both depth and warmth", is neither novel nor is he a celebrity.

He's also not, IMO, especially likeable.

You remember Night Court? Dan Fielding ran for office and his campaign manager used some overly-expository language like "positive perceptibility" or something along those lines which he clearly doesn't understand. Asked to explain what he means, the CM switches to plain English and says, "People don't like you."


Ah...at no time did I ever say that 'raising taxes' was the solution. You sound like an aspiring politician, putting words in peoples mouth.

I didn't say that you said it. I asked if you thought that was how this alleged revenue problem should have been solved.


In fact, I think the Former City Manager (DH) did a great job seeing to that...wouldn't you say?

And bravo for it.


He kept a lid on costs. The 'ever-increasing size and price' of government is the cost of doing business and to provide quality services to it's citizens.

Expense =/= quality.


Accepting the fiduciary responsibility of providing those 'quality services' while at the same time containing costs is a delicate yet very calculated balancing act.

No question about it. And, perhaps, cutting the size of the police force was the proper response. But was it the proper response a year or more before the legislation allegedly responsible for reducing revenues was even passed or its effects felt?


At some point in time...the citizens will pay for these 'calculations', either to support funding for quality services to return or, suffer from inferior services that will have obvious implications, but either way there will be consequences. Stakeholders will have to decide at what expense, to what extent and to what degree are the consequences acceptable. Multi-million dollar lawsuits from anything A-Z and under the sun hiring, training, retention, equipment failures, supervision...name it. What about the never ending labor disputes costing tax payers millions of dollars in an attorneys fees (yes, billable hours makes the right attorneys wealthy), poor response times, broken down and outdated equipment, lack of training and on-going education? Just peel back the onion and look underneath...

You make a lot of very good points and I agree with most of them, but I'm not sure they're relevant here.


Delray Beach is a mess, but not because of the hard working, loyal and dedicated employees.

I don't agree that DB is a mess.

[quote=Stay on Topic]When an aspiring politician makes a claim that does not hold up under scrutiny, it does matter.

This thread was about a former officer making statements. We now have submitted to this board that this is about a "former officer" who is an aspiring politician?

I hadn't intended to bring that up, but after he identified himself here it became relevant to the reason for my question.


Well Inquiring Mind, when has anything 'any' politician said, really mattered?

That's rather cynical, isn't it? IMO, it's that mindset that causes so many bad politicians to get elected.


Unless it promotes their agenda and regardless of their background, why do you think the comingling of facts with distortions designed to infer the truth is any different than any other politician, former cop or not?

In other circumstances it may not, but since the individual in question imagines himself to be a paragon of truthfulness and virtue, when in fact he's just a bloated blowhard..........


Truth is, I guess if you're an 'aspiring politician' you should be excellent at promoting 'the spin', huh? Better yet, as an aspiring politician you should know the facts, but lie instead.

As I'm sure you're aware, politicians in the 21st Century don't appear to be big on actually reading legislation. If they were, they'd know little details like just how much a certain exemption they're blaming for alleged revenue deficiencies (even though it can be illustrated from the city's publicly available financial records that both funding for LE increased at this time, as did overall tax revenue). Such was my point.


Maybe he/she is really being a better 'politician' than you think.

Seeing as how he came in third, I doubt it.

Also, when you're running for office on a platform of little more than, "I'm not the other guy", you need to have some sort of novelty attached to your name, or you need to be a celebrity. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger, who really brought nothing to the table other than, "I'm not Gray Davis". The individual in question, recently described in the media as "lacking both depth and warmth", is neither novel nor is he a celebrity.

He's also not, IMO, especially likeable.

You remember Night Court? Dan Fielding ran for office and his campaign manager used some overly-expository language like "positive perceptibility" or something along those lines which he clearly doesn't understand. Asked to explain what he means, the CM switches to plain English and says, "People don't like you."


Ah...at no time did I ever say that 'raising taxes' was the solution. You sound like an aspiring politician, putting words in peoples mouth.

I didn't say that you said it. I asked if you thought that was how this alleged revenue problem should have been solved.


In fact, I think the Former City Manager (DH) did a great job seeing to that...wouldn't you say?

And bravo for it.


He kept a lid on costs. The 'ever-increasing size and price' of government is the cost of doing business and to provide quality services to it's citizens.

Expense =/= quality.


Accepting the fiduciary responsibility of providing those 'quality services' while at the same time containing costs is a delicate yet very calculated balancing act.

No question about it. And, perhaps, cutting the size of the police force was the proper response. But was it the proper response a year or more before the legislation allegedly responsible for reducing revenues was even passed or its effects felt?


At some point in time...the citizens will pay for these 'calculations', either to support funding for quality services to return or, suffer from inferior services that will have obvious implications, but either way there will be consequences. Stakeholders will have to decide at what expense, to what extent and to what degree are the consequences acceptable. Multi-million dollar lawsuits from anything A-Z and under the sun hiring, training, retention, equipment failures, supervision...name it. What about the never ending labor disputes costing tax payers millions of dollars in an attorneys fees (yes, billable hours makes the right attorneys wealthy), poor response times, broken down and outdated equipment, lack of training and on-going education? Just peel back the onion and look underneath...

You make a lot of very good points and I agree with most of them, but I'm not sure they're relevant here.


Delray Beach is a mess, but not because of the hard working, loyal and dedicated employees.

I don't agree that DB is a mess.[/quote:31kxvkns]

Inquiring Minds. You sound like a wind bag *****. Like I stated on a previous post that got deleted. You want Whatley, step up with a conduct number and I'll give you more 43 that your pen can handled. Set up a meet, and if you're serious, I will go on record all day long. I have several copy of filing packets that are just an appetizer that would send would send several of over past and present delray ***** police officers to jail. Including my very sergeant combo of swiggy and brady. Thats just the water to be served at dinner.

Inquiring Minds. You sound like a wind bag *****. Like I stated on a previous post that got deleted. You want Whatley, step up with a conduct number and I'll give you more 43 that your pen can handled. Set up a meet, and if you're serious, I will go on record all day long. I have several copy of filing packets that are just an appetizer that would send would send several of over past and present delray ***** police officers to jail. Including my very sergeant combo of swiggy and brady. Thats just the water to be served at dinner.

Got anything to say in response to the subject?

[Unregistered]

Got anything to say in response to the subject?

If you have anything, why haven't you done anything about it. You're just another lying fool.

[Unregistered]

If you have anything, why haven't you done anything about it. You're just another lying fool.

Where's the "lie", tough guy?