Doing away with Percinct # 3, 4

Can anyone confirm the rumour that the sheriff is going to close the 3rd and 4th precinct and combine the muster at the main office again. I understand through the grape vine that the 4th will close first because we own that building and then the 3rd when the lease runs out. This sounds like a good plan to me. This should make muster more interesting for sure. Any feelings or comments?

Yes he is closing the third and fourth pcts. I don't know when though. My question is where are the deputies going to go to do thier work on the computer (timesheets, MNI, etc...)?I'm sure the citizens are going to be extremely happy about that. I also heard that in the meeting in CID that it was mentioned again about charging deputies $25.00 a week for a take home car. Any truth to this?

Yes, the $25 per week for the cars was discussed, but the sheriff was firm that it is only an option at this point. He pointed to rising gas costs andthe fact that many pther agencies also charge a fee ranging from 10-25 per week for take-home priveliges. He said if you do not want to pay the fee, you could leave your cruiser at the office and drive your own car.

The idea about closing the precincts is a good one. He said the lease on the 3rd precinct alone is $37,000 per year, not including utlities. Deputies will just have to do their computer work at the main s.o. - I'm sure they have plans to install computers for that purpose.

Some of these ideas are not going to be pleasant, but they are better than cutting personnel.

The sheriff benefits by deputies driving marked cars to and from work. In addition to deputies being available for service the public sees the cruisers and assumes there are more people 10-8 protecting them. This makes people feel warm and fuzzy.

For only 25 bucks a week I can drive my POV and not have to stop for anything. My SO radio will be off and I will enjoy MY time. I can bang that cute little dispatcher or report taker I met since we started mustering at the main office and not be troubled with having to drop my cruiser off at the 42 first. Might even get freaky and do it in the back parking lot. Yeah baby!

The public sees fewer cruisers around town and perceives there is never a cop around, the shurf saves a few bucks and I get laid without my wife getting suspicious. Takes longer to get home now, you know. :wink: Sounds like a good plan to me.

Good old Ronnie Mac is really looking out for us.

What a dumb post to make.

For $25 you'l drive your own car, huh? Well lets do the math. i dont know where you live, but lets presume that you live 15 miles away from the pct.

15 miles each way= 30 miles per day. x 4 days a week = 120 miles. Lets say your car is an average one and you get 20 mpg. That's 6 gallons at 3.25 per gallon, or $19.50 per week. So for $5 more, you dont have to drive your own car, putting 6,240 miles per year on YOUR car, and if the cruiser breaks down, the garage comes to get it and fixes it for you.

Lets try to be realistic. The budget is being cut. The sheriff can cut people, or perks. I dont mind putting out a few bucks so people can keep their jobs.

As for banging the dispatchers, good luck with that one.

The sheriff has 30 million more that he had per year to play with in 2001 with the same number of deputies. If he would fire his army of useless directors and landrum staff he'd have 40 or 50 million more to play with per year. And he want's to stiff you for raises and charge you $25 a week for your cars. You guys are totally being lied to by McNesby.

The sheriff has 30 million more than 2001?

Im not sure if that is just an uneducated comment or an outright lie... but it is incorrect nontheless.

It's gone up 23 million since 2000. If you are from the Morgan camp and have drunk the kool-aid, you beleive the budget is 86 million. That's seven million more than reality (79 million) so they do beleive it's 30 million.

Regardless, it is a horrible decision to close down the precincts when there is so much other fat in salary dollars that can be cut.

What a dumb post to make.

For $25 you'l drive your own car, huh? Well lets do the math. i dont know where you live, but lets presume that you live 15 miles away from the pct.

15 miles each way= 30 miles per day. x 4 days a week = 120 miles. Lets say your car is an average one and you get 20 mpg. That's 6 gallons at 3.25 per gallon, or $19.50 per week. So for $5 more, you dont have to drive your own car, putting 6,240 miles per year on YOUR car, and if the cruiser breaks down, the garage comes to get it and fixes it for you.

Lets try to be realistic. The budget is being cut. The sheriff can cut people, or perks. I dont mind putting out a few bucks so people can keep their jobs.

As for banging the dispatchers, good luck with that one.

So now your defending Mcnesby's stupid ideas, huh? It was sarcasm, sir.

My $25 denies him the perk of the public seeing more cruisers on the street and thinking he's doing a good job.
That's 120 miles X approximately 200 marked cars per week fewer that the public will see driving to and from work. Ever catch a call on your way to/from muster?

You're a fool if you don't realize how much take home cars benefit the admin. You don't think they let us have them all of these years just to be nice to us, do you?

Everyone please get this through your dense skulls, Mcnesby isn't going to layoff any cops!

And as for dispatchers and report takers, perhaps it is YOU who needs the luck. The rest of us either have, will or are.

3/4 Closing:
There are no positives moving the muster for 3 & 4 to main office (SO presence, public service, muster, etc.) and in fact the cost of having to drive to the main office may negate any savings in the first place.

Take Home Cars:
Charging for take home cars is effectively a pay cut for deputies of $1300 per year.

The bottom line:
To save money, McNesby can look at the many areas of excess he has in his spending. For example, the excessive admin staff with take home cars? Why do they need cars? More importantly, why are they needed? Cutting expenses is one thing but cutting expenses that directly affect the agency's capability to actually be an SO is wrong.

This logic of "spend the money on the mission first" has never applied or even occurred to McNesby. Deputies are a "mission first" expense. Take care of them first and foremost or you can't do your mission.

There is no denying that service has gone down while budget has gone up and the population has flatlined. If you don't see that than you never worked for anyone but McNesby as Sheriff.

As a vested Deputy at the department I can understand having to give a little due to budget restraints.HOWEVER, the department better have cut all they can first. Until the administration shows their willing to trim the fat, ie the bullshit positions, over inflated salaries, good ole boy perks for civilian employess, etc. , then forget it. A take home car was a hiring perk as I recall.

A lot of departments in south Florida charge $10-$20 dollars a pay period for the take home car priv. This would be a fair request by management at some point. But when you dont give your Deputy cost of living raises(asking was not a priorty) and we are struggling with gas prices and bills at home of our home. Not to mention we are $4 dollars an hour cheaper on off duty than our city brothers and the sheriff won't raise the rate because he doesnt want the businesses owners (votes) to have that burden.

Forget them. It's more of the "Let them eat cake" approach where the workers suffer and bare the burden so Camelot can live on for the chosen few.

I only hope the winds of change blow hard this year, after all, we have the DRT to clean up afterwords.......

A little light reading on the matter:



Take Home Cars
by: Bruce Mann & Douglas Goodman
Courtesy: Police Fleet Magazine

Assigning each officer an individual vehicle to use on and off shift is a contentious, disputed, oft-argued and emotionally charged issue. The real public policy issue should be: will the community be better off or not with an assigned vehicle program? While the issue can be stated quite simply, constructing an answer is difficult and problematic.

The answer depends on program finances, local political and community objectives, as well as the operational needs of the department. Many of the dollars involved can be measured with only moderate difficulty. However, calculating values of some benefits and costs is complex due to their indirect assessment or their subjective nature. Citizen perceptions of safety, the deterrent effect of police visibility, morale effects, and the value of alternative uses of funds all need to be considered in any assigned vehicle program evaluation.

An assigned vehicle program evaluation should start with a clear, comprehensive cost-benefit review. The review will provide an estimate of how large non-measurable benefits have to be, or how small the other costs can be, before the program would be justified. A cost-benefit study provides a benchmark around which the decision making process can proceed and alternative arguments can be framed.

This was the approach taken by the city of Tacoma, WA. Tacoma is a moderate sized urban area in a large metropolitan region. The city, at the time of the study, had a population of about 185,000. Some patrol officers lived in the city, many resided in the surrounding county (Pierce County has a population of about 500,000). The county is part of the three million people Puget Sound area where Seattle is the major urban center.

In part, the city felt we would bring objectivity, impose a rigorous professional approach, and provide an unbiased opinion. The city instructed us to design, implement and evaluate an assigned vehicle pilot project. At the time the study began in 1996, police services were delivered in a typical fashion— officers shared vehicles, the work schedule was four 10-hour shifts per week, with full time sectoral policing.

Only officers working in special programs (K-9 or on-call, for example) had assigned vehicles. The project ended in November of 1997. We reviewed the literature on assigned vehicles, developed cost and benefit estimating methods, collected data, and evaluated the outcome.
Our literature review included 15 previously published, assigned vehicle studies. These studies ranged from small, semi-urban jurisdictions to geographically dispersed county sheriff offices to large metropolitan police departments. The arguments for take-home cars were consistent: improved morale, lower operating costs, higher capital expenditures, billboard effects, and better public perception of policing.

However, the empirical results (when reported) were often suspect. Controlled comparisons were not done, cost data focused on operating expenses, conclusions often used judgmental factors, and adjustments for geography, force size and local conditions were often absent. The studies were helpful in providing some comparative results, ideas for program design, and cautions about problems, but they did not offer conclusive evidence.

The pilot project used 30 newly purchased vehicles assigned to individual officers. All vehicles were 1996 Crown Victorias, outfitted with standard police equipment. The first assigned vehicle entered service in January of 1996 and the final one came online in November of that year. All entered service with minimal (delivery and test) mileage and no wear and tear. In addition, the city selected a sample of 46 fleet pool vehicles. Records for the pool and assigned vehicles were maintained by the city. Data included operating expenses, damage costs, mileage, capital outlays and financing. Our study compared the costs between the assigned and fleet pool vehicles.
Each officer with an assigned vehicle agreed to maintain a weekly log of activities. The log entries identified off-shift police related activities. We measured the amount, nature and origin of “off-duty” policing for the average officer with an assigned vehicle. The nature of the activities included responding to dispatch, stopping to assist citizens, and providing traffic control. Calls for off-duty assistance came from official radio communications, sightings by the off-duty officer, and direct citizen contact.

Officers with assigned vehicles also provided commuting information. We estimated the number of miles and amount of time vehicles were used for off-duty activities. We also obtained information from assigned vehicles and pool fleet officers about shift change time (paid patrol time lost to changeover) and preparation needs.

Since we knew the off-duty location of each assigned vehicle, we measured neighborhood perceptions of safety and policing. We selected four block areas around a sample of assigned vehicle locations and random locations elsewhere in the city. Pre- and post- program telephone surveys asked residents about neighborhood safety, personal concerns, police visibility, and how they felt the department was doing. We measured attitudinal changes, visibility effects and altered perceptions due to the presence of an off-duty police vehicle in the area.
Within the department, each officer with an assigned vehicle, and a sample of officers who did not get an assigned vehicle, completed pre- and post- program questionnaires. The questionnaire measured anticipated and actual problems and benefits from an assigned vehicle, lifestyle changes, interactions with neighbors, and the like. Thus, we tracked officer expectations versus the reality of “being on call” 24/7.

The final element was a statistical study relating crime rates, property values and vehicle assignment programs. We estimated the dollar benefit to homeowners and to local governments (through property tax collections) of crime rate changes due to having more vehicles on the streets more often. Our empirical model provided a link from vehicle programs to crime rates and property values.

Over our study period, assigned vehicles logged a total of 397 months of service. On average an assigned vehicle was on the road for 12,700 miles per year (2,500 miles for commuting and 10,200 on patrol service). The average pool fleet vehicle recorded an average of 22,400 miles per year (all for patrol).

City and department policy was to retire a vehicle after it accumulated 89,000 miles of use. Thus, an assigned car would be in service for 7.25 years while a pool vehicle would remain active for four years. For analytical convenience, we used an eight-year accounting period to compare costs and benefits for assigned and pool vehicles.

The total cost to purchase, equip and prepare a vehicle for patrol service was $33,875. Based on staffing levels in 1996, the department would require a 130-car assigned vehicle fleet compared to a 44-car pooled fleet. Over eight years, the assigned vehicle fleet capital and financing costs would total $6.5 million compared to $3.8 million for the pool fleet.
Since more cars are needed for the assigned vehicle program, even though they are replaced less often, the total principal and interest expense was 71% more. However, on a per vehicle basis, the associated costs of an assigned vehicle averaged less ($44,600) than a pool vehicle ($47,800).

We compared operating costs for fuel, tires and routine maintenance. The annual per vehicle operating cost under the assigned vehicle program was $28,100 compared to a pool program average cost of $81,700, due to 62% fuel cost savings, 76% less for tire replacement, and a 66% reduction in routine maintenance. Over the eight-year period, then, the operating cost for a fully assigned vehicle fleet would total $4.1 million and the cost for a full pool fleet would be $5.2 million— an eight-year savings of 21% in total.

The most significant cost reduction for the assigned vehicles was due to lower accident and damage repair costs. A pool vehicle averaged $8,400 while an assigned vehicle required only $1,375 per year. Over an eight-year period, a full assigned vehicle fleet would generate a total of $179,000 in accident and damage repair work compared to $365,000 for a full fleet of pool cars.

In total, it costs less to operate an average assigned vehicle unit each year than it does to keep a pool vehicle on patrol; $29,500 versus $90,100. This per vehicle savings does not translate into an equivalent proportional total cost savings since there are almost three times as many assigned vehicles as pool vehicles in the fleet. Nonetheless, over eight years an assigned vehicle fleet will reduce operating costs by a total of $1.3 million dollars.
On a total cost basis over eight years the full assigned vehicle fleet will be more expensive than the pooled fleet. The $2.7 million in additional capital expenses exceeds the $1.3 million reduction in operational costs. As a result an assigned vehicle fleet will add $175,000 to the department’s annual budget.

Further benefits the city would receive with a full assigned vehicle fleet were also examined. These benefits are the result of officers spending more effective time on patrol and a positive impact from increased property tax revenue.

To begin a shift, officers reported for roll call, then went to their cars and started patrol. Since officers with assigned vehicles already have their cars “ready-to-go,” they spent an average of four minutes preparing for patrol. Officers with pool vehicles after roll call required 25 minutes, on average, to get a vehicle, inspect it, put their equipment in the car, and stow personal effects.
Thus, officers with assigned vehicles averaged 20 more minutes per shift than officers who had to obtain and prepare pool vehicles. Assuming half as much change time saved when going off patrol and given regular shift scheduling, an officer with an assigned vehicle is on the street 58 more hours per year than an officer with a pool car.

Furthermore, officers with assigned vehicles were also on the street during their commutes. Although not on duty, their presence on the street served as a deterrent to criminal activity. Also, they sometimes responded to calls for assistance. Given the geographic location of the officers, the average commute time in the city was 90 hours per year, or about nine 10-hour shifts at no additional cost to the city.

Off-duty officers with assigned vehicles were visible, approached by citizens for aid, responded to dispatch calls, and voluntarily intervened when appropriate. That is, the officers provided police services at no additional cost. On average, an officer with an assigned vehicle was involved in 24 off-duty incident responses per year. The average amount of time devoted to an off-duty incident response was approximately 20 minutes.

Based on the average amount of departmental response activity and time, the off-duty activity is equivalent to each officer providing an additional one-half of a shift per year, at no cost. Given the total amount of extra time provided by officers with assigned vehicles and the city’s cost per officer, over eight years this amounts to $3.4 million worth of additional police services, or roughly $3,300 per car per year. This additional benefit value more than offsets the negative budgetary impact for an assigned vehicle fleet structure.

Converting from a pool fleet to a complete assigned vehicle configuration generates a positive net benefit to the department of $2 million over the eight-year budgetary cycle ($3.4 million of additional services less the $1.4 million additional departmental expenditure).

An increased and more visible police presence reduces crime through both deterrence and detection. Lower crime rates benefit citizens, not just with improved levels of safety and security, but also with increased property values. Any increased property value provides a benefit to the city; one not captured directly by the police department, through increased general fund revenues to fund additional programs. These estimated impacts are calculated using a standard statistical model.

It was estimated that with an assigned vehicle fleet nonviolent property crime fell by 1,305 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants using mid-sized urban areas as the sample base. We also estimated that for each one percent reduction in nonviolent crime, property value increases by about $1,100. This means for Tacoma using 1996 values, an assigned vehicle fleet would have reduced nonviolent crime by 3.1% annually. Based on the city’s 1996 tax rate this would generate $530,000 of increased general fund revenues per year.

One surprising finding came from the neighborhood survey results. The use of assigned vehicles had virtually no impact on resident and citizen perceptions about policing, crime rates, size of the department, or feelings of safety. As expected, only in areas near the homes of officers with assigned vehicles did the percentage of neighbors who reported seeing police vehicles increase.
The reputed “billboard effect,” an increased sense of safety and security when people see more police vehicles, was not reflected in our survey results. Nonetheless, most respondents reacted favorably to having cars on the street and in their neighborhoods.

The survey results of officers clearly indicated a positive morale improvement for individuals with assigned vehicles. These officers appreciated having their own “offices on wheels,” the convenience of an individual car, the support from the department and city, and identified very few problems. A pre-program apprehension of being “hassled” about minor matters while off-duty proved to be unsupported. Similarly the pre-program fear of off-duty vehicle vandalism failed to materialize. Finally, most officers voluntarily provided some off-duty maintenance, care and attention to their vehicles.

In summary, shifting from a complete pool vehicle fleet program to a complete assigned vehicle one is costly. The additional net cost and budgetary impact on the public safety department results from the increased capital and financing cost of procuring (three times) more cars. This added cost is partially offset by reduced operating, maintenance and repair expenses. If the assigned vehicles are in service more than twice as long as pool vehicles, the operating savings could be large enough to offset the added costs.

The use of assigned vehicles does generate significant police service benefits; primarily by increasing the effective time officers are on patrol. The value of this extra time can be substantial enough to more than offset the net budgetary cost. More policing also leads to a reduction of crime, producing benefits to the citizens and the general government budget.

Although public perceptions about the effectiveness and visibility of officers were little changed and “billboard effects” were not observed, a longer time frame might change this outcome. Initial concerns about off-duty inconvenience, vehicle vandalism, loss of overtime, and personal costs proved to be incorrect. Finally, an intangible, but positive, effect of the program was the boost to officer morale.

A cautionary observation is worth noting. We found it was important to tailor our methods, procedures and analysis to the particular circumstances of Tacoma. We think our general results would be transferable to other medium sized urban places located within a larger metropolitan region. However, the specific results would not necessarily be the same in a different place at a different time.

Local geography, departmental regulations and policies, cost conditions, crime patterns, and housing market circumstances play important roles in this type of analysis. While caution must be exercised when applying our conclusions and results to other jurisdictions, we believe our comprehensive approach and methods offer guidance and shed new light in this highly debated policy area.

Bruce Mann, Ph.D., and Douglas Goodman, Ph.D., are both Professors of Economics at the University of Puget Sound. Both are active in consulting and research. They may be reached at mann@ups.edu and goodman@ups.edu, respectively.

Can anyone tell me houch of a vehicle allowance our accountant Steve Stephens gets a month? I have heard $500.00. What about the rest of the upper admin staff and our attorney?

The Sheriff said the $25 a week idea was taken from an agency in south Florida..............how about he also take the pay scale from the same agency then charge us the $25 a week. If he decides to charge for the cars he's going to have a riot on his hands. He critical of Lowman's million dollar admin and now he has a three million dollar admin........He had better cut the fat before cutting our benefits including a take home car.

$3 million dollar admin? Yeah right! That is without benfeits or any other perk they may get. Try closer to $4 million when all is said and done. I also like how McNesby said his admin staff consisted of 4 people. We are all on his staff he said in his little BS meeting. Trying to nip that in the bud before the poitics begins I guess.

The Tacoma study was to see if they wanted to go to take home cars. The benefits were greater officer 10-8 time and greater morale. The negatives were the start up costs but they are offset by the benefits and the life of the cars being longer. Don't have to be a Phd to figure this out.

However, Escambia already has take home cars. To charge for them will be a blow to what little morale is left.

McNesby wants to save money and he determined he can reduce deputy pay $1300 by charging for the cars. NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT IS LESS PAY FOR DEPUTIES. My guess is he will not do this now because of the backlash he may receive. However, the fact he even considered this option speaks volumes for how he feels about what should be considered the agency's greatest asset!!!!!!

I agree with the poster above that if there was nothing else to cut, then that might be one thing. But there is a ton to cut. Who gets a $500 car allowance? Who gets a take home car that is not a deputy??? What do all these "admin" people do?

Also, to consider doing this because a S. Florida agency does this is comparing apples and oranges. A trooper I know went to BSO and started at over $50k a year. $25.00 means less to him and he lives outside of Broward where it is affordable and he makes a ton in side jobs.

In Escambia, what is going on?

The budget has increased 23 million in 8 years.

The population has increased .77 percent in 8 years (something like 2400 people)

Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the deputies on the street have decreased.

Were is all the money??? What is it being spent on???

There will be a march at the steps of the main office before long. It will consist of all of the pissed off deputies who are getting screwed. Ahh...never mind, I forgot, the ones that b*tch are the same ones planting signs for mcnesby. That away boys..keep looking out for yourselves....

The budget has increased 23 million in 8 years.

The population has increased .77 percent in 8 years (something like 2400 people)

Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the deputies on the street have decreased.

Show me the money! What are you spending it on?

Has the tax watch report come out yet?

I guess we will find out soon enough where all the money went...


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Robert Weissert
February 4, 2008 Director of Communications
850-222-5052, ext. 18

Florida TaxWatch Releases Preliminary Results of its
Analysis of Escambia County’s Tax and Spending Practices

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida TaxWatch Center for Local Government Studies presented the preliminary results of its analysis of Escambia County’s revenues and expenditures today. The study was requested and funded by a group of Escambia County citizens who were concerned about escalating property taxes and the need for fiscal responsibility and integrity.

This analysis was based upon (1) Escambia County’s historical spending practices and (2) a comparison of three comparable counties and the 67-county average for the State of Florida.

The key highlights of the analysis are as follows:

Escambia County’s operating millage rate was the highest of the three comparable counties –
Leon, Manatee, and Marion counties;

Taxable property value in Escambia County doubled between fiscal years 1999 and 2006 as millage rates remained unchanged during those years – essentially doubling the county’s property taxes;

Population growth has been minimal since 1999 in Escambia County;
Total revenues and expenditures per person increased more than the 67-county average, exceeding amounts necessary for inflation adjustments.

Florida TaxWatch offers its analysis to assist the county in budget adjustments necessary to implement Amendment 1, now part of the Florida Constitution following its recent passage on January 29th. According to Escambia County officials, Amendment 1 is expected to reduce county tax revenues by approximately $11 million.

Florida TaxWatch is scheduled to release its final report on Escambia County on March 31, 2008.

# # #

Florida TaxWatch is a statewide, non-profit, non-partisan research institute that over its 29 year history has become widely recognized as the watchdog of citizens’ hard-earned tax dollars. Its mission is to provide the citizens of Florida and public officials with high quality, independent research and education on government revenues, expenditures, taxation, public policies and programs and to increase the productivity and accountability of Florida state and local government. Its support comes from homeowners and retirees, small and large businesses, philanthropic foundations, and professional associations. On the web at www.FloridaTaxWatch.org (http://www.FloridaTaxWatch.org).

My God, I hope PPD admin does not hear about charging for take home cars. They just took a log of how many miles we drive to work from our homes a couple weeks ago.

They have mentioned taking away take home cars to those that live outside Escambia county. We also just received a memo stating that our uniforms that are not class A, although they are issued and worn in different divisions, that we will have to file 10-99's for.

They also cut our education benefits, we no longer receive assistance for college. They are about to cut civilian positions and trying not to cut sworn officers. W are also merging some divisons together and hope through attrition they dont fire any uniformed officers. Im still waiting to see what the hell else is about to happen, something new each day i come in.

Well guys...there is no positive to any of us this....we're ****ed :lol:

we are only ****ed because our leaders are letting us get ****ed....

Leaders? We don't have leaders, we have managers. Leaders would refer to leadership, which I know the county lacks. Leadership inspires men, the only thing I am inspired to do is vote in a new Sheriff.

me too. a new sheriff named larry scapecchi.

My God, I hope PPD admin does not hear about charging for take home cars. They just took a log of how many miles we drive to work from our homes a couple weeks ago.

They have mentioned taking away take home cars to those that live outside Escambia county. We also just received a memo stating that our uniforms that are not class A, although they are issued and worn in different divisions, that we will have to file 10-99's for.

They also cut our education benefits, we no longer receive assistance for college. They are about to cut civilian positions and trying not to cut sworn officers. W are also merging some divisons together and hope through attrition they dont fire any uniformed officers. Im still waiting to see what the hell else is about to happen, something new each day i come in.

Well guys...there is no positive to any of us this....we're ****ed :lol:

We dont have to worry about him taking cars away from those who live outside Escambia County. If he did, Smith would have to be the first to give up his car.

i am sure they would write a clause in the new policy that made hypocrites exempt.

Speaking of hypocrites with take home cars, God's word says:

Matthew 6:5
When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

Luke 18:11
The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."

PS: I understand the frustration of the posts above as the hypocrites wastefully spend [amoung other vices] and then try to save money by taking from the cops while keeping themselves intact. However, you can make your point much better without lowering yourself to the level of those you speak about -- in other words, no need to drop the F-Bomb.

[DDG]

F-Bomb!

aw, you sunk my battleship.

i am sure they would write a clause in the new policy that made hypocrites exempt.

that is F-Bomb'ing funny.

So I hear the 3rd & 4th are gone.

Off duty deputies should have to pay for the use of the County Owned Car they are using to make money when not working regular duty.

Example is a Deputy living in Molino working off-duty gig on the beach.

Drives 25 miles to his off-duty gig.

Idles his vehicle with A/C on High all day.

Burns a full tank of gas..... 15 gallons at 3 bucks a gallon.

45 Bucks the Taxpayers pay for gas while this guy makes money on the side.

Now if only 10 Deputies are doing this twice per week you have 900 bucks per week. This is a very conservative estimate.

THERE IS YOUR COST SAVINGS .......... WHY SHOULD TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY YOUR GAS BILL TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THE SIDE? THIS IS A DISGRACE!!!!

Off duty deputies should have to pay for the use of the County Owned Car they are using to make money when not working regular duty.

Example is a Deputy living in Molino working off-duty gig on the beach.

Drives 25 miles to his off-duty gig.

Idles his vehicle with A/C on High all day.

Burns a full tank of gas..... 15 gallons at 3 bucks a gallon.

45 Bucks the Taxpayers pay for gas while this guy makes money on the side.

Now if only 10 Deputies are doing this twice per week you have 900 bucks per week. This is a very conservative estimate.

THERE IS YOUR COST SAVINGS .......... WHY SHOULD TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY YOUR GAS BILL TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THE SIDE? THIS IS A DISGRACE!!!!

BS! It is a service to the community or business. The sheriff should pick up the costs or pass them on. When you work a s15, you answer calls whereever you are so you are just working overtime.

The sheriff benefits by deputies driving marked cars to and from work. In addition to deputies being available for service the public sees the cruisers and assumes there are more people 10-8 protecting them. This makes people feel warm and fuzzy.

For only 25 bucks a week I can drive my POV and not have to stop for anything. My SO radio will be off and I will enjoy MY time. I can bang that cute little dispatcher or report taker I met since we started mustering at the main office and not be troubled with having to drop my cruiser off at the 42 first. Might even get freaky and do it in the back parking lot. Yeah baby!

The public sees fewer cruisers around town and perceives there is never a cop around, the shurf saves a few bucks and I get laid without my wife getting suspicious. Takes longer to get home now, you know. :wink: Sounds like a good plan to me.

Good old Ronnie Mac is really looking out for us.


Ummmmmm WTF??????? :!:

DITTO......a badge doesn't impress everyone!!!!

[quote]For only 25 bucks a week I can drive my POV and not have to stop for anything. My SO radio will be off and I will enjoy MY time. I can bang that cute little dispatcher or report taker I met since we started mustering at the main office and not be troubled with having to drop my cruiser off at the 42 first. Might even get freaky and do it in the back parking lot. Yeah baby!

The public sees fewer cruisers around town and perceives there is never a cop around, the shurf saves a few bucks and I get laid without my wife getting suspicious. Takes longer to get home now, you know. Sounds like a good plan to me.[quote]

UMMMMM.......HUH? Someone sounds awfully sure of himself :wink:

Yea seriously, since when did having a marked cruiser stop someone from banging in the parking lost?

*lot