by Dennis Sexton

The specifics are escaping me, but I believe there’s a show (or segment of a show) called "Point-Counterpoint". Bear with me while I give it a try.

"Shocked is an understatement when I saw the latest offer from the police union. It's way out of line. It's not the direction we should be going. If there's any direction we should be going it is a smaller pension rather than increasing it."

So said City Councilman Jim Vokal via the various news media outlets as part of the coordinated smear campaign by those previously expected to retain the confidentiality of the negotiations regarding our union contract with the city.

"(City Councilman) Chuck Sigerson said that the police union's offer does little – if anything – to roll back the lucrative police pensions."

A pair of interesting comments when 15 minutes of simple math – I consider the ability to add, subtract and multiply to be simple tasks – would have enlightened the councilmen to the fact that the union proposal would have reduced the current pension shortfall by about one-third. A shortfall for which the City Council is partly responsible; and it appears they are unwilling to acknowledge their role in the creation of the deficit and instead pin the blame solely on the police. I mean, why not make us look bad when there’s room on the bandwagon?

"I just shake my head," says Sigerson. "There are very few people out there watching this television show that get 99 percent pensions or 82 percent pensions."

There are also very few people who put 14.5% of each of their paychecks toward their pension; who are required to attend court or other job-related activities on their off-days, away from family and at the expense of additional child care and other stresses; who drive at break-neck speed (placing themselves in danger) in order to protect others from dire and dangerous situations; who run toward the bad guys and gunshots when everyone else runs away. And there must be very few people out there who can figure out that a pension benefit of 99 percent of a police officer’s base pay (let’s say $60,000) is a significant reduction when compared to a benefit based on 75 percent of a police officer’s "high-year" salary (we’ll go with $90,000). Raise your hand if you can answer this – Which is less: $59,400 or $67,500? (Looks like a savings of $8100 to me.)

"I can't imagine a contract like this would pass (the City Council)," Sigerson said. "There's no effort to solve the city's pension problem. How could they come in and show this to us with a straight face?"

So, if an $8000 savings is not effort, then…I guess I need to expand my "imagination". Or make some goofy, non-straight face. Then again, I’m so utterly confused by the councilmen’s statements at this point that I probably do have an interesting look on my face.

"The public understands this now and they're going to lose the public relations war," says Vokal.

What exactly do they understand because I’m quite certain that they’re completely unaware that they’ve been badly misinformed? I consider the end of that quote to be a very telling statement. Wag that dog when you want to steer public sentiment away from the truth, right? Spin, twist, and don’t let facts get in the way when they fail to suit your purpose and agenda. I happen to believe that there was never any intention on the part of the city council to keep these negotiations civil and confidential in nature for its duration and any proposal brought forth by the union would have been summarily rejected regardless of the concessions we made. I am proud that we were honorable in our efforts, but of course something like honor is a tenet by which those of us in blue practice every day. Lest I forget though, that "there are very few people out there" like us, willing to do what we do to try and keep this city safe.

Speaking of money (and in reference to my editorial last month), where is the money that was saved by the city due to our being understaffed for the past six years? Has anybody seen it? As we’ve been short anywhere from 23 to 74 officers at any point during that time, I’m curious to know to where the dollars have disappeared. (That budgeted and allotted money for authorized officers would have to be somewhere, right?) New officers have a starting pay in the neighborhood of $36,000, but of course their total benefit is much more (as we’re always reminded during benefit enrollment time). For the sake of easy math, let’s say each new officer receives another $24,000 in various benefits for a total annual compensation of $60,000. So, over the past six years there has been a cost savings each year of anywhere from $1.3-$4.4 million dollars (times six years and that’s $7.8-$26.4 million dollars). That could be a good question for the city council – then again, math doesn’t appear to be their strong suit.

Just one last thing for those so willing to spread misinformation for their own benefit…be sure to hold your "esses" when you speak, that’s what a snake sounds like when it talks.

We don’t have ‘em all, so be safe out there, huh!

Quality Design and Hosting