A closer look into Chester County's only city.
posted by J.Miller at
This is going to be about layoffs. They already divided the city into half for the 2 codes officers that are going to be left. Instead of the division of 4 like it is now. Two will be getting laid off. Thats our wonderful coucil people that we have making the city even safer. We all need to be at the next meeting and show our support for them and who ever else is going to get the boot.
That's an old trick - to hold a public "emergency meeting" at the last second so that those who either want to attend or need to attend, can't due to prior committments, and others simply won't know about the meeting until it's too late.It probably will be about layoffs -they're going to claim that the Police Union wants too much money. The morale in the Police Dept. is so low, they should give them whatever they need to in order to keep them there - and to keep Coatesville safe.By the way, what does the asst. city manager do except take up space? Ask him a question, and he knows nothing about anything except how to cash his paycheck. Maybe if Harry would layoff some of his buddies, he'd have more money for those who do work.
They will give the police union everything it's asking for. That way they silence their critics.It's better than laying off cops, but is not in the best interest of the TOWN.Walker's administration will give the union EVERYTHING it wants, and the tax payers will be the victims of his eneptitude once again.Great job Bloc.
to Poster 1:00pm.It is an absurd comment to claim that giving the Police a good contract is bad for the City. What is bad for the City is the $100000 they are paying for the recreation employees. What is bad is the City council getting cell phones.What is bad is cutting the codes department and fire department.What is bad is firing all the previous city workers and replacing them with incompetent people with overpaid salaries.What is bad is the lack of development and lack of vision for the City.I only wish my WHOLE paycheck could go to the Police.
Is this another case where we won't know what's in the contract untill a month after its approved? How can the public comment when we don't know what the particulars are?I hope that the contract is fair. The officers have been working for too long a time without a contract. Makes you question why the city has waited so long and now calls an "emergency meeting". Why couldn't they wait until Monday night at their regular meeting? Is it because details the administration doesn't want public could become public before than?Why are there selected minutes posted on the web site? Since Feb. there have been no RDA minutes and only 2 council meetings have minutes. The planning committee? No minutes in 2007!IS THERE SOMETHING TO HIDE?WHAT IS THE PUBLIC NOT BEING TOLD?YES, We should have demanded answers from prior administrations. HOW IS THIS ADMINISTRATION DIFFERENT?They are not giving the community information that under law they "have a right to know"MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
2:36. I'm a big fan of our police dept. as well. And I agree with all of your points except for the fact that the administration has a duty to the TOWN, and by simply caving on every point the police union wanted, they have shown that they have zero negotiation skills. The city needs to be able to hire police in the future, keep a good sized dept., AND do it on a shoestring budget.They're neglecting their obligation to look at the big picture in every area you mentioned, but this contract is no exception.
Hmmm...before even knowing what the agreement is, City is already being accused of "tricks" "caving" "sneaky layoffs" etc. Shows the knee-jerk prejudgment and reflex condemnation of any Walker Admin. action by many on this blog
To respond to the last comment about the council being accused of "tricks" "caving" "sneaky layoffs," how is anyone supposed to think otherwise, when these "tricks" are the only thing that we see of the council? Until they show us any different, this is what they are forcing people to think.
I guess I will be the first one to say that it appears the City did the right thing here (based on what I've read on the DLN and the Chester County Reporter) and they were indeed watching out for the best interest of the City residents. Let keep the good decisions going!
It would have been nice if the article in the newspaper would have told the whole story. I sat there last night and got the information first hand. Yes the contract changes when senior police officers can retire but, over the life of the contract only 4 police officers' will be eligible for the early retirement. This was so stated by one of the police officers' in attendance. Once again, only part of the story gets printed.
The article clearly stated that only four officers would be able to retire under one of the provisions in the four-year contract. That provision allows officers in the union, at any age, to retire with 20 years of service. It is the "right sizing" committee mentioned in the contract that could open the door for more officers to leave early. And City Manager Harry Walker said after the meeting that there is no guarantee those positions would be filled after cops retired. The right sizing committee will determine that, he said.The article was intended to point out that the city is still looking at layoffs in all departments, and is still looking at the possibility of reducing the size of the police department. This comes at a time when local, state and county law enforcement officials believe the city needs more cops not fewer.
THINK ABOUT THIS, WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE CITY AND THE POLICE UNION WENT TO ARBITRATION WITH ALL THE NEW EMPLOYEES AND THEIR OUTRAGOUS SALARIES!! NOW WE KNOW WHY THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY MEETING. THE CITY DODGED A BULLET BY GIVING IN TO THE 20 AND OUT. THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THAT THE POLICE ASKED FOR THAT THEY DIDN'T GET. ASK HARRY AND ANDY AT THE NEXT MEETING.
Post a Comment
View my complete profile
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]