The Midnight 4 [Archive] - LEO Affairs Forums

Unregistered

11-02-2016, 04:26 PM

The below quoted email is from OFFICER hstibag. Apparently bigfoot called out a sensitive little girl cop who cried to little scumeeboto. Who in turn cried and sent an email. Boohoohoo, says the little girl cop who cried like the beach he has exposed himself to be. What a little scumboy, can't wait to see who makes Sgt around here. If you gotta go cry to Officer hairballs, then you can't handle being in charge here in the tough alleys and streets. Rats love rats.

Ladies and gentlemen
While I normally shy away from writing long letters or e-mails please read this one thru
Today I was informed by Ofc.Floyd that he was approached by Ofc. Suarez about our boot stipend. He told her that the hold-up was an issue with the taxes, that the city manager was questioning, and without having all the facts in hand she immediately went to the on shift personnel (non-members included) and told them that the city manager was holding up our stipend. Of course as usual this began the whole PBA is better than the FOP arguments. When Ofc. Floyd told Ofc. Suarez she did not have to do that she stated “they have a right to know”. She is ABSOLUTELY correct they do, but if you are going to do this at least be accurate in the information which you put out. So I will address this now. The CORRECT information is as follows on 10/14/16 the city manager sent the following email to Joe Puleo.
-On another issue that has just reared its head over the new language dealing with footwear replacement.* Article 25.1 states in part, “Each employee will be provided, a total of $200 each October in order to purchase appropriate replacement footwear . . . . . . . “In the past, the officer would purchase the footwear first, submit a receipt and be reimbursed.* Now, however, the officer receives the $200 up front and there is no requirement to submit a receipt.* Now, it appears that IRS will look at this as a ‘benefit’ not a reimbursement which is taxable.* So, we have sent an inquiry* to our auditors to get an opinion and will go from there.* The question to you is what would you prefer – pay the $200 now as required by the contract in October or hold off on paying until we get an opinion on what this money represents.* If you hold off and it turns out that it is in fact a benefit, I would be willing to entertain an MOU modifying the article so that we would go back to the reimbursement method and they would get the entire amount as in the past.* What do you think, Frank?.
Joe replied that the city should just follow the contact and should the taxes become an issue the individual would handle themselves. So as you can see there was no attempt by the city to “screw” us out of our money nor was there any ill intent, and the issue is resolved. As to our increase if you would read the contract it specifically states that we get our increase on the second pay period of the month which means it comes in on this pay period and Joe already talked to finance and we will also be getting our stipend at the same time(11/03/16).
I would also address the whole internecine issues we have between unions but instead I will leave it with this we have enough problems with all of our differing personalities and likes and dislikes to continuously let this rear its ugly head at some point we are just going to have to accept that certain FOP and PBA people will not budge and move on from there.
And in closing recently we have heard many complaints about how the lodge is run and the things that have been done. I am not going to go into specifics Ie. Meeting times, endorsement process’, voting majorities, and the democratic process. I am outright stating that if you DO NOT show up to meetings to voice your complaints then you have no complaints. It is getting old that at EVERY SINGLE MEETING the same people show up, more to the point the same people who complain the most DO NOT show up. And for all who want to complain about meeting time