Curious... do you have the data to back this up? Are you stating the statistic in pure numbers or City employees per capita?

I don't recall what this City's population was in 2000. However, I would guess it was less than it is today. If thats true, then considering there were 999 Firefighters in 2000, and only 938 today, then it would seem were behind in both catagories.

Andy - thanks for actually having information available. Population in the 2000 census was 506,000; the current estimate is 555,000. If you go by a per capita number for Fire, then we were at 506.5 citizens per firefighter in 2000. In 2009, we're at 591.7 citizens per firefighter.

What are the police staff numbers? What about an argument that we can do less with more because we have new technologies/more efficiencies that allow us to do more with less?

One final line of questioning. Why didn't the IAFF and FOP bring this up months ago? Why wasn't a public campaign done after the Ford Center vote, when we knew Maps 3 would be next? Why fight now and make everyone get mud in their eye?

Those are fair questions. First, I can tell you this issue has been brought up, not months ago, years ago. I can't tell you why a public campaign was not launched after the F.C. vote. I wish I could. I wished they had. I do believe there has been a lesson learned here. In the future I don't think that option will be overlooked. Why now? I can only assume they had reached a breaking point. Desperate people sometimes take desperate actions. Police and Fire issues aside. I will still stand behind my beliefs that this MAPS plan is irresponsible. Thats of course only my opinion, and that is what my one vote will based upon.

Not going with the vote early, vote often, plan? j/k

If Fire and Police had been addressed previously, would you be voting for this, or do you think the whole program is ill-advised?

cafeboef, I think the above quote from Larry will answer your question.

As for your other question about why this is coming up now, we have been trying to get this problem fixed by the powers that be for years, to no avail. We have even offered solutions, when asked, only to be rebuffed at every turn. We have been told to wait, that they will get to us, for years on end. They have no intention of fixing the staffing issues on their own. Quite simply the time has come.

It looks to me like you do just fine. I've not experienced being "timed out" here so I'm not sure what you mean ... does your stuff get lost or something?

Anyway, you could type out your message in whatever text editor you use (MS Word, WordPerfect, whatever) and take all the time you want. Then, you could select all (Ctrl+A), and with everything selected copy to the clipboard (Ctrl+C) and here or wherever else you want to paste what you have copied, press Ctrl+V. Maybe that will help.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Sorry I should have addressed your first two questions. Didn't mean to skip right on by them. I can't speak to the Police staffing issues having never been one. It is true, new technologies and equipment have without doubt improved the efficiency level in the Fire Service. However, in the Fire Service, when saving lives and protecting personal property are at stake, time is criticle, and less manpower takes more of it.

I don't think it answers my question of what technology and other advances have done to make the City more efficient, which thereby reduces the need for as many employees.

Regardless, I agree with Andy: The whole debate may be necessary, but doing it now muddies the message. No one is going to win, politically, after this debate. Claims of "union this" and "business lobby that" are going to hurt the citizens in the end, no matter how the vote ends.

No I would not be voting for this. This latest turn of events had nothing to do with my opposition. Somewhere in all of this mess, I am on record in this forum voicing my opposition. First and foremost due to the Fairgrounds receiving a portion of this MAPS funding. I also oppose the ballot and the way in which it is drafted. In my opinion each of these projects should be required to pass or fail on their individual merit.

Thanks I will try that. Can't tell you how many times I've lost an hours worth of typing. I wish now I hadn't ditched typing back in Highschool, or English, or math...

Unless we start using computers or robots to put out fires, (those 2 don't mix with water at all),perform pre-hospital medical care, cut someone out of a mangled car, or one of many tasks that only manpower can perform, Technology has its limits in the Fire Service. Everything we do is task oriented and requires personnel.

cafebeouf, you started me thinking can the City do more with less? Have they been forced to do more with less? If so, who has been forced to do more with less? Does anyone have more? So I looked up the City's Employee numbers for the last 4 fiscal years. These can be found on the City's website. You may be shocked (I wasn't) to see what they reveal. Keep in mind that the City claims General Government (Management & Exec) expenditures are only 5% of the budget. Whereas Public Safety (P & F) eat up 65% of the City's General Fund.

FY/06-07
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,387
Police (Sworn) 1,029 of 4,387 23.5%
Fire (Uniformed) 948 of 4,387 21.6%
Management & Exec. 954 of 4,387 21.8%


FY/07-08
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,420
Police (Sworn) 1,033 of 4,420 23.4%
Fire (Uniformed) 948 of 4,420 21.4%
Management & Exec. 979 of 4,420 22.0%


FY/08-09
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,453
Police (Sworn) 1,035 of 4,453 23.2%
Fire (Uniformed) 951 of 4,453 21.4%
Management & Exec. 1,004 of 4,453 22.6%


FY/09-10
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,455
Police (Sworn) 1,038 of 4,455 23.3%
Fire (Uniformed) 950 of 4,455 21.3%
Management & Exec. 1,019 of 4,455 22.9%


Executive: (7)
City Manger (1)
City Auditor (1)
Municipal Atty (1)
Municipal Judge (4)

FY/06-07 – FY/09-10

Police +9 Down .02%
Fire +2 Down .03%
Mang. & Exec. +65 Up 1.01%

Management aren't they special

Amazing!

Facts...
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.c...S%20info-1.pdf

What about the rest of City employees? Let's see the whole picture... did Utilities go up or down at the same time?

Here you go

AFSCME (Non-Uniform)
FY/06-07 1,456 33.2%
FY/07-08 1,460 33.0%
FY/08-09 1,463 32.8%
FY/09-10 1,448 32.5%


FY/06-07 - FY/09-10 -8 Down .07%


I'm not sure what utilities has to do with any of this, but it wouldn't matter because I don't know

I think it proves that employees, other than Mgmt/Exec, are steady or slightly down across the board.

Some of the Mgmt employees added were in the GO Bond Program, which was woefully understaffed and not delivering projects on time. Adding these employees actually helps Fire, because it actually got the new fire stations moving... behind, but imagine if the new people hadn't been hired.

Fair enough. Which employee's were added for the GO Bond Program? How many were needed and what was their title? What part of the GO Bond Program are they dealing with that a new hire was needed? What is the current status of the building of the fire stations? What phase of the process are they in with the added help? Planning or Breaking ground? Also, if they build 10 new fire stations who's gonna man them? I wondered if the new hires have figured that out. I don't think it's a "Fireman Included" purchase.

B.S. on execs an management getting projects done in time, Fire Stations for example. More like typical red tape. I know who is in charge of the fire stations being built on the fire department side. Hoops and Hurdles. 10 years just to break ground, some still havn't been started, come on.

I've completed pretty much a transcript of both press conferences and will start the final section (Analysis & Commentary) this afternoon. You can both listen to and now read verbatim (if I did my transcription accurately) of what both sides had to say last week. If you notice transcription errors, please let me know.

Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Doug, regardless of how you vote, I respect all the research and analysis that you have done. I also understand that you did meet with another poster personally and I hope that was productive. Fire has tryed several different avenues in concern while dealing with the city, but unfortunately the only one they understand is of the legal matter. We have had to force issues legally for years i. e. when we find out that they are spending/relocating funds illegally. My bottom line is that city services needs to grow in proportion with population and economic development and has not been the case for quite some time and we are out of bullets. The no oppostion was quite large before we came on board and this is an oppturtunity to possible gain some political power or at least get them to understand that the city has current needs that have been overlooked too long. With are for economic development and Maps and will be for another if it is done right.

Thanks, Golfer,

Yes, the meeting with another poster was very informative, and, as I said before, helped a great deal in "putting meat on the bones" of my already existing sympathy for the needs of and background associated with the unions' long-standing issues with the city, particularly the firefighters, and that includes a primer on what you mentioned, "spending/relocating funds illegally" and/or contrary to the spirit if not letter of the earlier sales tax. I fully agree with you that "city services" (which I take that as a code word for "police and fire" services) need to expand as the city's population grows. I'm 100% in favor of that happening, and I comprehend at least a little that the unions have been boxed into a corner by city actions that have previously occurred.

Where we differ, of course, is whether this is the time, place, and manner, for those issues to be addressed. I also disagree that the unions are "out of bullets." If public sentiment remains favorable to police and fire, I see it as totally plausible that a separate 1/4 cent (or whatever is appropriate) permanent sales tax would find favor with Oklahoma City voters, just as occurred before via the citizen led and successful 1989 sales tax election.

Good will is the key, I suppose, to such things happening and the unions may be risking that element in their opposition to MAPS 3, particularly in the manner in which such opposition has thus far been presented. Just guessing, but my impressions are: (a) The FOP is much more "in your face" than is the firefighters union, and not just today but over the past couple of decades; (b) the firefighters are likely more inclined to be reasonable in their bargaining and other positions than is the FOP. Only my impressions, not fact.

But, when you say, "With are for economic development and Maps and will be for another if it is done right," that can mean too many things to too many different groups of people. If Phil Sipe was accurately reported in the Journal Record article, below, he saw it as conceivable that the firefighters could do a 180 and support MAPS 3, if certain unspoken conditions were satisfied. So, if that be true, "if it is done right" could easily equal the MAPS 3 projects, as is, as long as the firefighter conditions are satisfied. Don't you think?

Credibility issues are involved. A November 11 Journal Record article reported,

So ... which is true? Is MAPS 3 is a bad plan, regardless of union issues, and it should be opposed regardless of union issues? Or is it wholly conceivable that the firefighters could do a 180-degree turnaround if staffing and/or other issues are satisfied, in which case it must be assumed that MAPS 3 is not necessarily a bad plan at all?

There is no dove-tail that I can see in the two positions just described.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Like you said, they're there for the work. As I said, the view is just a plus. But do you really think if their jobs moved elsewhere, how many would quit and be homeless just to live there?

A convention center is not the Rocky Mountains. There's nothing wrong with beautification, but a convention center is nothing, it's the furthest thing from the minds of citizens unless they make their money directly from it. It's for tourists. A single building isn't going to change anything in this city, it doesn't matter if it's built for conventions or by Devon.

I'm not against it, I'm arguing against the notion that these are all the only things and the city is being perfect with its proposals and if this proposal fails the city will fall back into the dark ages. I think people are greatly exaggerating what the affect would be if it failed. Both sides are exaggerating it, frankly.

Second, a convention center isn't an amenity. Most citizens will gain nothing if one is never built. Some will profit directly, most won't see any difference. A park may or may not be, depending on if its feasible for a person to go there. But is it a greater amenity than any park getting shut down because the city doesn't want to support it? And is it more important than feeling safe in your home?

I think that most everyone here would agree that David Thompson's comment about that is way beyond the pale, and is not well regarded by anyone other than him, so I'll leave your 1st point at that.

As the the convention center, I disagree. I am persuaded that a convention center can and does generate lots of money to the local economy. The only questions are (1) how much, and (2) is the amount worth the expense to put the city in a position to garner much larger conventions than we can presently attract? With a convention center smaller than Tulsa and Wichita, we are presumably missing out on convention revenue. That fact doesn't answer #2, but I'd suppose it's answer to be "yes."

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

The city's offer to the Firefighters, an actual city document not reported elsewhere on the internet, is available here:

Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate

The item also states what was proposed to the FOP, though less perfectly, as is explained in the article.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/