Council resolution to accept 5% paycut

[OKCGUY3]

I see, so you really don't care about the City itself. I mean lets face it, if you don't care that P&F may suffer lay offs, which in turn effects the citizens and this City's image, then why would you really give a **** if anything improved at all through Maps3? Confusing to me. Either you care about the City whole heartedly or you don't.

[Mikemarsh51]

Metro you are some piece of work, are you going to check the voter rolls and find the name of the 30,000 or so who voted no on Maps3 and put their names on a list that says they are not allowed into any Maps3 projects?

[Mikemarsh51]

Metro, you say you are not a liberal. Well what is the name of the party that goes out of their way to stick it to someone who votes against them? Your rantings on here certainly suggest you are part of that group!

[Wambo36]

No, considering the FNP shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to MAPS. I'm actually surprised we're not hearing more "I told ya it'd come back to bite ya's."

So the upcoming layoffs are retribution from the city and not due to the budget concerns raised by the P & FF. Even knowing how our city officials work, I think that's a stretch. Your desire to get a pound of flesh speaks volumes.

[metro]

I didn't say that's how I personally felt, I think that is where you all are missing it, but I am surprised not more people are throwing it out, but agree with it or not, the FNP did shoot themselves in the foot. And to clarify NO I don't think the layoffs are retribution, but I think they lost some sympathy with city leaders and others. Fire and Police contracts should have NOTHING to do with MAPS 3, it's apples and oranges.

[kevinpate]

Metro, you say you are not a liberal. Well what is the name of the party that goes out of their way to stick it to someone who votes against them? Your rantings on here certainly suggest you are part of that group!

I'm not metro, but don't need to be on this point. It's a shifting target. Any peeps with the power, irrespective of their party, or even non-party, label are quite capable of striving to advance their agenda. It's neither an R thang, nor a D thang, not even a non-partisan. Good, baf, or indifferent, it's simply a power thang.

[Mikemarsh51]

Kevin, I do agree with you. Personally I do think the city is using this opportunity to reduce the cost of these departments using the economy as an excuse. I just does not make sense to me to not keep up with the growth in population. We still have 3 new stations to build. How do you do that when you are cutting manpower?

[Wambo36]

This one is either not addressed to me, or is not something I can answer as I am neither a mind reader or privy to the decisions of whoever in the city government released it.

Please. The fact that you are sitting upright, breathing and know how to use a keyboard shows you aren't dumb enough to mean this. You really can't figure out why the city would make a proposal to the FOP and when the offer is considered favorably by the FOP, all of a sudden it shows up in the news? If it was the citys proposal and acceptable by the FOP, why did it never come to pass? Could it be the fact that the city let the deadline pass so they wouldn't have to honor their proposal? Come on, you seem alot brighter than that. It doesn't take mind reading or inside info on the inner workings of the city to figure this one out. It's pretty straight forward. Pull your blinders off and broaden your view. Sometimes the simplest answer is as far as you need to go. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lies like a.....well you get the picture.

[David]

Please. The fact that you are sitting upright, breathing and know how to use a keyboard shows you aren't dumb enough to mean this. You really can't figure out why the city would make a proposal to the FOP and when the offer is considered favorably by the FOP, all of a sudden it shows up in the news? If it was the citys proposal and acceptable by the FOP, why did it never come to pass? Could it be the fact that the city let the deadline pass so they wouldn't have to honor their proposal? Come on, you seem alot brighter than that. It doesn't take mind reading or inside info on the inner workings of the city to figure this one out. It's pretty straight forward. Pull your blinders off and broaden your view. Sometimes the simplest answer is as far as you need to go. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lies like a.....well you get the picture.

Unless I am reading it wrong, that letter is a REVISED offer back to the city. It is not a blanket acceptance of the city's proposal that the city should also have accepted but didn't.

Do you happen to know what paragraph E of the previous offer from the city looked like? Or paragraph G?

[ljbab728]

ljbab728, that was directed towards metro, who was saying if Maps3 had failed there was going to be a mass yuppie exodus from OKC. My point was there is more to OKC than just Maps related items. All of which I had vigorusly supported. You should read more of these threads.

Mike, I promise you I read most of these threads and am aware of most of your previous posts. That doesn't change my statement. Perhaps your point just wasn't completely clear.

[MikeOKC]

Not to stir up trouble, but there seems to be an assumption that since Couch is City Manager that he will receive the same percentage cuts as "across the board" city employees. In private business many executives order "across the board" pay cuts that don't effect them because their contracts specifically prevent them from being effected by such cuts. I wouldn't rule it out in municipal government executive positions. There's a definitive answer to this, I just don't know what it is. But, I think it's premature to jump to the simplistic assumption that since Couch is City Manager he would receive the same cuts in salary.

Maybe that's something Bryan Dean on the City Hall beat at The Oklahoman could look into.

[andy157]

No, considering the FNP shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to MAPS. I'm actually surprised we're not hearing more "I told ya it'd come back to bite ya's."

So the lesson to be learned here for those who in the future may consider opposing City Hall is. If you do, you do so at your own risk, and for doing so, you should expect swift and certain retaliation.

[ljbab728]

So the lesson to be learned here for those who in the future may consider opposing City Hall is. If you do, you do so at your own risk, and for doing so, you should expect swift and certain retaliation.

Andy, I think the implication is more that you run the risk of losing public sympathy if future negotiations with the city don't go your way. That's not saying that the city is right or wrong. It's just a matter of the public's perception.

[Wambo36]

Mike, I promise you I read most of these threads and am aware of most of your previous posts. That doesn't change my statement. Perhaps your point just wasn't completely clear.

.oops. wrong quote.

[NikonNurse]

It's a little more complicated than that. OKC is at a make or break point with young professionals. If OKC had not passed MAPS 3, you would have seen many move away, probably including myself if I could convince the wife to move away from family. As many have complained in numerous threads on this site, it's bad enough knowingly waiting and trying to be a part of the process of OKC taking a few more decades before we reach major league amenities versus moving away if the yahoos can't cast a good enough vision and plan for the future and moving to a location who is decades ahead of OKC and live with the quality of life that so many want. Many young, single professionals simply would not have wanted to waste their lives hoping that a MAPS 3 would come again some day.

The city has grown with AND without MAPS. It hasnt grown soley because of MAPS. Young professionals have come in here and left with and WITHOUT maps. Not a good point. I think you are taking your own personal feelings here and applying them to OKC population as a whole.

[NikonNurse]

Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I am not a police officer nor do I play one on TV. I have no inside information on the dealings between the FOP and the city. But I don't think that's going to be necessary in this case.

David, read the whole document and not just the highlighted area. If you read the first paragragh, you'll notice that it is a response to a proposal from the city. These proposals are always kept inside the meeting room until they are agreed upon by both groups. Most of the proposals, put forth in negotiations, never see the light of day because they are dismissed by one or the other parties. That being said, I wonder why we don't see these proposals in the newspaper every year during negotiations? Maybe because that's not the way these things are, or ever have been, done. The problem is that Mr. Moore neglected to take into account who he was dealing with and the lengths they would go to to make the FOP look bad.

The deal, proposed by the city, apparently would have taken care of the primary concern of the FOP, in that it addressed the manpower problem that they have. If you read the rest of the document, it would also have taken care of the future manpower problems. These concerns were what I understood to be their primary problem with the MAPS election. Remove those concerns and it's not suprising that they remove their opposition to MAPS, is it?

Exactly. Good post.

[OSUFan]

The city has grown with AND without MAPS. It hasnt grown soley because of MAPS. Young professionals have come in here and left with and WITHOUT maps. Not a good point. I think you are taking your own personal feelings here and applying them to OKC population as a whole.

Sure the city, has grown with and without MAPS. However, it has down a lot more growing with it than without it.

[NikonNurse]

See SPOT Run version:

Police had a manpower study done 2-3 years ago that showed how SHORT we were, how outdated their equipment and buildings are. City didn't have money to add more. They remain short.

Then, City proposed to bring more things to the city to bring more "yuppies" in. More projects, more yuppies, need more police and fire protection.
City already very short by their own study and proposes something to add to their short supply and lack of money.

Police and fire say, "hey, wait a minute, shouldn't we do this first? we're dying here!!"

City makes police and fire look like jerks, by twisting statments and half truths, partial reporting.

Residing yuppies jump on city band wagon, continually bashing police and fire for wanting a raise.

Where does the story go south here for you?

[NikonNurse]

If the Fire and Police Depts are going to bring about layoffs, I think that we should start with the Fire and Police stations downtown. Most of the patrons whom are on this site have made claim that F and P are not needed downtown anyway. Careful what you wish for you just might get it.

I would think that is crap considering a certain incident that happened downtown about 15 years ago.

[NikonNurse]

Sure the city, has grown with and without MAPS. However, it has down a lot more growing with it than without it.

Yes but without it...it still grew and people still came in.

[Wambo36]

Unless I am reading it wrong, that letter is a REVISED offer back to the city. It is not a blanket acceptance of the city's proposal that the city should also have accepted but didn't.

Do you happen to know what paragraph E of the previous offer from the city looked like? Or paragraph G?

But that that doesn't change the fact that the highlighted portion of the document, which seems to concern you greatly, is contingent upon both parties acceptance of the revised proposal. It doesn't matter to me what paragraphs E or G said previously since those aren't what they are offering to agree to. Like I said previously, the biggest mistake that I see here is that an experienced labor attorney like Jim Moore would put that in writing, so that it could be exploited, knowing the type of people he's dealing with.

This document was put out for one reason only, to draw attention to that highlighted paragraph and hope people jump to the same conclusion that you have. I know it doesn't matter to you, but this is completely contradictory to the rules both parties have observed for years. This wasn't a leaked document. It was put out by the city manager and should tell you something about his character and scruples.

This same flagrant disregard for the rules is why the city is pouring money down a hole in a court battle with the FF's as we speak. Their inability to observe and play by the rules. But hey, it's easy to go to court when it's the taxpayers money, not your own.

[David]

But that that doesn't change the fact that the highlighted portion of the document, which seems to concern you greatly, is contingent upon both parties acceptance of the revised proposal. It doesn't matter to me what paragraphs E or G said previously since those aren't what they are offering to agree to. Like I said previously, the biggest mistake that I see here is that an experienced labor attorney like Jim Moore would put that in writing, so that it could be exploited, knowing the type of people he's dealing with.

This document was put out for one reason only, to draw attention to that highlighted paragraph and hope people jump to the same conclusion that you have. I know it doesn't matter to you, but this is completely contradictory to the rules both parties have observed for years. This wasn't a leaked document. It was put out by the city manager and should tell you something about his character and scruples.

This same flagrant disregard for the rules is why the city is pouring money down a hole in a court battle with the FF's as we speak. Their inability to observe and play by the rules. But hey, it's easy to go to court when it's the taxpayers money, not your own.

This is starting to sound like a broken record, but lets try again. What concerns me greatly is that the FOP was willing to drop their opposition to Maps 3 based on the outcome of their negotiations with the City. That is what says to me that it was a bargaining point. All of this side discussion about who was willing to agree to what version of the proposal is completely beside that point.

However, the previous contents of paragraphs E and G should matter to you as those previous contents where what the city had last offered: "Second, the FOP revised paragraph E of your November 6, 2009, proposal as follows" and "Third, paragraph G of your proposal is revised as follows". You cannot reasonably make the argument that "If it was the citys proposal and acceptable by the FOP, why did it never come to pass? (your words)" if what the FOP sent back was different then the city's last proposal. The reason I asked about E & G in the city's previous offer in the first place was because I was wondering if you knew that it was similar enough to what the FOP sent back that your argument made sense. I am actually willing to believe you on this, even agree to it, as long as you can deal with the logical holes in your argument.

All that being said, I am also wondering whose idea the "The FOP is willing to get on board with MAPS 3" bit was in the first place. Does anyone (not just Wambo here) know?

[Wambo36]

All that being said, I am also wondering whose idea the "The FOP is willing to get on board with MAPS 3" bit was in the first place. Does anyone (not just Wambo here) know?

I hate to tell you this, but when it comes to FOP issues, I'm just speculating. When it comes to how the city deals with its employees and their unions I'm doing alot better than speculating. What are you basing your opinion on other than this document?

You said that this document is the reason you lost all sypmpathy towards the public safety unions. I'm just trying to show you that the document isn't all there is to know about the situation. IMO the city put the document out to garner the exact type of public opinion that it got from you. So at least in your case, apparently, mission accomplished.

[Mikemarsh51]

A wiser, older person mentioned that Mr. Couch might have done the interveiw with the Sentinel to see what the public opinion would be. Give this interview, wait a week and do some polling. Test the waters, so to speak.

[sgray]

See SPOT Run version:

Where does the story go south here for you?

NikonNurse, I like your See SPOT Run logic. Easy to read.