Results 1 to 10 of 19
-
05-30-2014, 04:04 PM #1
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?
-
06-05-2014, 05:02 AM #2
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
ask vincent c gray and swiggy what took place. the arena brothers might be able to answer some questions.
-
07-12-2014, 02:53 PM #3
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
Originally Posted by InquiringMind
-
07-12-2014, 03:04 PM #4
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
Originally Posted by InquiringMind
-
07-14-2014, 05:44 PM #5
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
[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.
-
07-14-2014, 05:51 PM #6
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
Originally Posted by More Education
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.
-
07-19-2014, 10:10 PM #7
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
Originally Posted by InquiringMind
So, you found your answers and this thread is now dead.
-
07-20-2014, 03:09 AM #8
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
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.
-
07-22-2014, 01:56 AM #9
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
Originally Posted by I know the truth
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.
-
07-22-2014, 02:07 PM #10
Re: 2008 DBPD Layoffs/Forced Retirements
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley, alias 'I know the truth'
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
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?
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley
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.
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley
An entire third of the police department?
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley
Originally Posted by Tom Whatley
Bookmarks