Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
I thought this article from Riverdale and Butler would illuminate the problem with having too many police on the force: the pendulum won't swing in the opposite direction... so, it's not a pendulum even when other budgets are.
Throw in some police activists to stir the fear-mongering pot, and the result is obvious.
"The mayor explained that Riverdale was approached by Butler to look into the idea, and he considered it worthy of exploration when an annual savings of about $650,000 was mentioned.
...
The mayor told the crowd its Police Department could be mandated to merge because Riverdale does not meet the standards to qualify for its own police force as defined by the FBI. Budesheim explained that a police department must have at least 2.7 officers per 1,000 residents, and it can have no less than 11 members on the force. Riverdale has an 18-member force with a population of 2,498, according to the 2000 census, meaning it has seven more officers than FBI standards dictate.
Residents expressed a variety of reasons why a merger would be a bad idea. One common theme was that they really liked their police force and they did not want to have their services taken away from them."
---------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Riverdale residents tell mayor and council to leave their police force alone
By Leslie Scott
(Suburban Trends)
http://www.northjersey.com/news/morri ... _police_departments_.html
Mayor William Budesheim got an earful of "no?s" and "how could you?" during the Aug. 16 Borough Council meeting.
Residents filled Borough Hall to tell the Riverdale Borough Council that no one wants to merge their police force with neighboring Butler?s Police Department.
Residents filled the council chambers to capacity after hearing news that the governing body would entertain a study to merge Riverdale?s Police Department with that of neighboring Butler?s.
Protests brought the proposal to a grinding halt that evening. Borough residents, as well as the entire Riverdale Police Department?s personnel, expressed complete disapproval of a merger.
That evening, the council was expected to discuss a feasibility study of the merger and agree to look further into the proposal. By the end of the discussion, however, the council members voted to pursue the proposal no further.
The mayor explained that Riverdale was approached by Butler to look into the idea, and he considered it worthy of exploration when an annual savings of about $650,000 was mentioned.
Budesheim added that he was also told there is a possibility that Riverdale?s Police Department could be mandated to merge if the state Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization and Consolidation Commission (LUARC) determines it to be necessary.
LUARC was formed in 2007 to encourage more efficient government and recommend changes that could include administrative streamlining of government functions. These changes could include the transfer of functions from one level of government to another or the establishment of regional services.
The mayor told the crowd its Police Department could be mandated to merge because Riverdale does not meet the standards to qualify for its own police force as defined by the FBI. Budesheim explained that a police department must have at least 2.7 officers per 1,000 residents, and it can have no less than 11 members on the force. Riverdale has an 18-member force with a population of 2,498, according to the 2000 census, meaning it has seven more officers than FBI standards dictate.
Residents expressed a variety of reasons why a merger would be a bad idea. One common theme was that they really liked their police force and they did not want to have their services taken away from them.
The proposed new police department would have been shared equally between the two towns. Borough resident Daniel Sciarra questioned how the merged police force could be shared equally shared when Butler has a much larger population than Riverdale. (According to the 2000 census, Butler has 7,420 residents.)
The borough?s Police Benevolence Association (PBA) released a three-page statement detailing why it was against the merger. It cited disapproval of how the police chief would be selected, discrepancies in the benefits currently offered to both departments, and questions about how the new department would handle both towns.
"Currently, Riverdale has a minimum of two patrol cars covering Riverdale at all times. You told us last week that this will not change with the merger. This new 27-man department will not allow this to remain. It will have a minimum staffing of three patrol cars on the road to cover both Riverdale and Butler, thus leaving patrol coverage in Riverdale short," the statement explained.
PBA President Patrolman Pat Harden said even if the merger was mandated, Butler?s Police Department would be the last one that they would want to merge with.
"I don?t even think you as a governing body should be entertaining this," said borough resident Marybeth Miller. "We don?t need this. We don?t want this. This doesn?t make any sense."
Although the mayor was interested in studying the merger proposal, he did say he was against the idea. Residents questioned how he could be truly against a merger if he defended the study.
Councilwoman Elaine Wetzel explained that the council would like to find out more information about a merger before coming to any conclusion.
Councilman Garrett Astarita said looking into the proposal would be proactive.
Yet ultimately, the council did drop the proposal.
Afterward, Riverdale Police Chief Tom Soules expressed relief and said that he appreciated the residents that came out in support of the Riverdale Police Department.
Posted on: 2010/8/19 16:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, cops did the same job and until recently didn't get anywhere near the lavish pay and benefits that they now receive. If you want to make an argument that cops today are so much better than the cops of a few decades ago due to their higher comp, I would like to hear it. Your proposed experiment of paying them (even) more has already been done.
In terms of what star athletes make; I also find it ridiculous that they can make 7 or 8 figures for playing a child's game. What you need to realize is that nobody is forcing anyone to pay $100+ for sports tickets or buy the stuff that these guys endorse. Those of us who find it silly can easily ignore it and it's no skin off our nose (or cost to us). To think otherwise is to believe that one's own values should determine others' economic choices in a dictatorial fashion. By contrast, public service employees live off of taxes, which are involuntarily taken from us. It's the combination of unsustainable comp & benefits and the coercive nature of this relationship that is causing so much anger. Quote:
Posted on: 2010/8/9 3:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Absolutely not true, unless you're 8 years old and 5 years is forever to you. See post #2 in the thread where I link to an NYPD site that lists pre-overtime pay at $91k after 5.5 years. You're either another victim of their "we're so underpaid" campaign or you're a part of it. Quote:
This is possibly the most asinine possible response with which to debate this issue. So, anyone physically unable to be a cop or firefighter due to age or health is denied the right to have an opinion on the pay and benefits of their public employee? So, if we feel corporate CEO's are overpaid too, we have no right to complain, we should all be trying to be CEO's? IF YOU'RE IN THE UNIFORM, YOU WORK FOR US!!! Sending the message "I've gotten over on the system, you should too or shut up" is the kind of attitude that gets people even more frustrated with our public employees.
Posted on: 2010/8/9 2:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
We all know who the real heroes are...
http://failblog.org/2010/07/22/pizza-sign-fail/
Posted on: 2010/8/8 17:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Wow, interesting thread this has become. One time a few years ago, this skank junkie broke in while I was home. I was totally terrified until a whole bunch of lazy, overpaid cops came and saved my little ass. The dispatcher was comforting and these cops caught him red handed and considering how dumb they are, I felt the handled everything very professionally. I imagine having been bored all day this was the most exciting thing that ever happened to them. Oh and once two women were (at different times) mugged on my corner. They got the guys, after a "sting" right in front of my stoop. so maybe that was the 2nd most exciting thing. As a child and sibling of FDNY employees, I asked them (without mentioning this thread) what the ratios are for the city. JC, while having better pay, is where it needs to be. Rather than complain, why not take the tests and reap the benefits of these jobs. Some of you seem to have lots of free time, and you could clearly raise the bar on the intelligence quota. Of course you'd have to be willing to get shot at and fight fires on occasion.
Posted on: 2010/8/7 3:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
My point with my maybes and possibles and such are because in thread after thread on this site i read people's complaints about public safety or the lack there of. I'm just saying that if we want to feel safe, and make a dent in the crime rates in this city, then paying the police well and providing good continuing training is not unreasonable.
And the police and teachers who make 90k have been doing it forever. I was making 40k managing Starbucks... the 8 friends of mine that went into teaching started around 24k a year. On top of teaching summer school and working second jobs through the summer to make ends meet, they still had to provide most classroom supplies out of pocket.
Posted on: 2010/8/7 2:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Over 30 cops are about to retire to beat Chrsitie's cap on payouts for unused sick and vacation time. It will be intetersting to see what the payouts will be. One is supposed to be a whopper.
Posted on: 2010/8/7 0:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Eh, if you are a great cop you are going to be working for the State Police or maybe the Rutgers PD or move on to federal level law enforcement. If you are a great cop, you aren't going to work in a somewhat risky place like Jersey City. You certainly aren't going to work some podunk municipality in the middle of the state.
Posted on: 2010/8/6 14:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Thank you. It's so frustrating that this has become the "third rail" issue by gangs of suburban carpetbaggers and their union bosses. But since I object to such obscene wages, I shold only be allowed to call an academic or a pastry chef when I need the cops. That's the punishment for insubordination.
Posted on: 2010/8/6 14:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
More misleading nonsense. I doubt you made $90k+ overtime + huge bennies and early retirement working at Starbuck. And those teachers, (if they work public schools) they get the summer off, they only work 180 days a year, and they still make as much as cops, they just can't retire as early. Oh, and those Ballplayers and actors, I agree they're ridiculously overpaid, but they're in a free market.
Posted on: 2010/8/6 14:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
See this thread.
Posted on: 2010/8/6 13:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think you're a bit over-loaded with conditions here: if/ maybe/ probably/ possibly... so, there's not much to say in response. But, I guess you think the police attract low-quality recruits, such that crime goes unenforced and then gets complained about? And cops need more money and benefits to uplift their morale, so they will do the job? I'm having trouble following your logic.
Posted on: 2010/8/6 9:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Yes there are cop that have crappy attitudes, yes there are cop that are just plain tools. There are also cops that do ti because they actually care, there are cops who are just really great people. They deal with crackheads, filthy losers, complete jerks, abused children, crazed animals, dangerous situations.... and on and on! These men and women risk their lives everyday doing things that none else would or could do. If i could be killed on the job at any time i don't think its unreasonable to get great benefits.
Seriously... how is it possible as Americans we are totally enthralled with idiots that drink and screw all day long and they get paid well for doing it on tv. A guy can bounce a ball and throw it into a basket and he get 20+ million a season. A woman can force herself to cry on cue and does it in a movie studio she get 8+ million for a few months of playing dress up. Yet when it comes to our police, fire, medics and teachers we get all uppity if they make enough to pay most of their bills. The people that keep us safe and healthy and educate our future leaders make little more than i did managing a Starbucks. I poured coffee and i made more that some if my teacher friends... they are educating your out of control brats and i make more pouring freaking coffee!!!!! Maybe if police departments could afford to pay enough to make quality people take the job, and if we compensate them enough to risk their lives, then there would probably be way less posts on here about crime in this city. Possibly if the police felt like they had something to work for you guys would have less to bitch about. I know i wouldn't want to help the people that bad mouth me all he time. I wouldn't be inspired to put my life on the line for the douchebags that say i should get paid less and cut my benefits while your at it. So... I'll die protecting you so my kids can grow up broke and one less parent... sounds fair. I just don't get it. 
Posted on: 2010/8/6 4:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
When was the last time you heard of someone bidding on a municipal policing contract? While it's technically not impossible (we've outsourced collections) it's politically unfeasible as well as a logistical nightmare. Can you imagine the winning bidder trying to get a police force installed and up and running with no continuity from the previous contractor? It would resemble what we've more or less failed at in Iraq. The basic problem is the uniformed services have a policy of never admitting they are fairly paid, because doing so would put that pay on the table during hard times when everyone has to tighten their belts. So they are always aggressively pushing for higher pay, and guilting us all about it like the OP, regardless of what they are actually being paid. That, added to the fact that their contract isn't a "market" decision but a political one, leaves them insulated from the reality everyone else faces. More than half of all union members now work for the public, and have the overwhelming majority of defined benefit pensions. Like congress getting a great public health plan they deny the rest of us, our employees are doing better than the rest of the workforce that pays them.
Posted on: 2010/8/6 2:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Why not?
Posted on: 2010/8/6 0:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
 |
Quote:
Couldn't agree with you more. Look, no one wants to hear that they are overpaid. Especially people who are dedicated to their jobs and do them well. Particularly when those jobs are as important as police officers and firemen. (I hesitated to use "firemen", but are there any women firefighters in Jersey City? If so, I apologize.) It is not the individual who is the problem, per se - rather, it's the system. The whole scale has gotten so obscenely out of whack. That doesn't make the pill easier to swallow if you are a great cop who busts his ass every day when you hear that your benefits and pension are going to be cut way back. It's unfortunate that these professions don't easily lend themselves to merit-based pay.
Posted on: 2010/8/5 23:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
"+1" to Jeebus and the intelligent discussion since that point.
My grandfather served in WWII and was a firefighter up to, I think, the level of deputy chief when he retired. I can saw with goddamn certainty that he never got these levels of compensation. To critique public pay for public employee unions, whether rank-and-file and especially for supervisory folks, is one of the most important facets of our political system right now. It is an active and unresolved issue which hampers the proper function of many other areas of government. To see it turned into third-rail gamesmanship is petty, and from that stems the resentment and the microscopic examination of the pay and compensation. The free market cannot place a value on public sector pay, and obviously the public sector is too easy to manipulate with voting-bloc threats and inflammatory language. We know that such race-based special interests disable our political system. Here, we have a similar problem. Let's all keep trying to stay on the level!
Posted on: 2010/8/5 23:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Understand
We're fighting a war We can't win They hate us-we hate them We can't win-no way
Posted on: 2010/8/3 13:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I hope that you will re-read my post as it was hardly an unqualified endorsement of cops. Rather, my point was that to do the job well one has to have those characteristics in the face of potentially violent individuals (this seemed obvious to me). Try having someone take a swing at you, pull a weapon, or spit in your face and think again about how you would respond; but I'm sure that happens to you (and other people in "most other careers") all the time.
Quote:
Posted on: 2010/8/3 3:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38 Last Login : 2012/7/18 2:23 From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
389
|
Quote:
Xerxes, Are you just referring to JCPD, JCFD and JCPD, or all uniformed services? It sounds like just JCPD. I still disagree with WIW that people can't stand uniformed services.
Posted on: 2010/8/3 0:50
|
|||
|
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This is why people can't stand the uniform services in Jersey City. Police and Fire have this arrogance, this sense of entitlement, while they bleed the City dry. And most don't live here. All they know is gimme gimme gimme, and whine when they don't get it. There are many captains and battalion chiefs on the Jersey City force who do NOTHING !!! I could not agree more. Highly paid lazy, arrogant, incompetent buffoons. I have lived several places. Never have I seen so many being paid so much to do so little. The only ones who stay awake a whole shift are those standing in BJ's collecting a second salary. And then to whine about being misunderstood? Dear lord, that's worthy of Officer Krupke! A standup comic once said it best: "What do you expect? that cop was the bully sitting next to you in homeroom...too dumb to get into college." (I wonder where they order their steroids and whether we taxpayers pick up the tab?)
Posted on: 2010/8/2 13:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38 Last Login : 2012/7/18 2:23 From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
389
|
Quote:
I could be wrong, but I believe the numbers do not include dispatchers and clerks. Dispatchers and clerks would not fall under PFRS (Police and Firemen's Retirement System) which all of the listed employees qualify under. Second, the JCFD has 550 uniformed and 50 civilian employees. The list cited only has 521, and adding up the numbers of personnel I have (372 FF, 132 Capt, 22 BC's, 5 Deputy's, 1 Chief, 1 Director) totals 533. I was looking for what is listed as JCFD initial salary somewhere online and I could not find it. If you have a source, could you pass it on? I'd like to see it as well. Or how did you discern where the FF pay starts. I appreciate that information. Regarding residency (source FDNY Examination Information): Residency Requirement: The New York Public Officers Law requires that any person employed as a Firefighter in the Fire Department of New York be a resident of the City of New York or of Nassau, Westchester, Suffolk, Orange, Rockland or Putnam Counties. Now, NJ as a whole does have the highest paid FF's in the nation (as of May 2009), averaging $71,810. The national average is $47,270. CA was second, WA was third, and NY was fourth on the list. So I'll retract my statement about not being that far off. I was thinking about not stating it that way when I originally posted it. I do wonder where JC actually lies and what is considered FF and not overhead. What would the actual savings be now and in the future? Cutting salaries by 20% for all would save $9.8M. What percent is this of the JC budget? Oh and just so everyone does know where my bias comes from, I am a firefighter though not for NJ.
Posted on: 2010/8/1 15:28
|
|||
|
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Quote:
In reality, JCFD is more than "not far off" from NYFD on pay. The numbers you quote for JCFD are for all employees - including dispatchers and clerks. These jobs pay much less than what FFs make. The range of salaries (not including OT, holidays, etc.) for FF's is $65,476 to $97,053. A NY FF has to work five years before he reaches the low end of the JC FF pay range and doesn't get within $20,000 of the high end unless he makes lieutenant. (And why doesn't NJ utilize lieutenants? Just about everywhere else does - we just make everyone a captain. The difference in pay you noted for NYFD is pretty typical of savings that can be realized by using lieutenats - real money when you have as many captains as JC does.) Salaries and ranges for other positions: Captain: $115,405 - $126,293 Battalion Chief: $135,467 - $137,844 Apparatus Chief: $135,467 Deputy Fire Chief: $155,173 Fire Chief: $156,550 Director: $141,472 Doesn't NY require FF's to live in the city? NYC has a considerably higher cost of living than JC. And maybe not on a given day, but overall - seems as though being a NYC FF has a higher level of risk associated with it than in JC (Density, high-rises, terrorism, massive subway system, etc.) Should JC FFs be paid anywhere near what NYFFs make, let alone more?
Posted on: 2010/8/1 13:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Everyone needs to take a hit due to the budgetary woes. Including the police and fire dept.
Posted on: 2010/8/1 4:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38 Last Login : 2012/7/18 2:23 From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
389
|
Quote:
People hate the JCFD because they actually do their job and are good at it? I don't see the people rallying up against the JCFD. Could you provide some actual facts rather than making a factless generalization? Quote:
I'm sure that the salaries of fire and police are what is bleeding this city dry. Rampant corruption and mismanagement of our taxpayers dollars in all other circles of the JC government have nothing to do with it. Lowering the salaries and benefits of fire and police will solve the fiscal crisis that this city faces. Quote:
I don't know how many JCFD employees actually live outside of the city. Please provide some facts. Along those lines, could you specify which captains and BC's do nothing? Quote:
Looking at FDNY's base salaries and comparing them to JCFD's base salaries, JCFD is not that far off. FDNY (source FDNY Salaries and Benefits) FF Starting $39,370 FF after 1 year $41,311 FF after 2 years $44,995 FF after 3 years $49,494 FF after 4 years $54,556 FF after 5 years $76,488 Lieutenant $94,300 Captain $108,244 BC $140,945 The above is not including OT, holiday, etc. I don't have salaries for division chiefs, deputy chiefs, etc. JCFD (source NJ 2010 Active Public Employee Payroll) 2 and 3 year employees $57,588 4 and 5 year employees $72,100-$76,544 I don't know what positions each person fills, but just going by numbers, I'll say that the first 4 pages are probably overhead (captains and up). The last salary on page 4 is $92,032. I don't know how much more OT, holiday, etc add to each position. Look, I'm not saying this city doesn't need change in the way business is conducted, but there are probably a lot of ways to stop this city's fiscal hemorrhaging than just saying fire and police need to get paid less. Should their salaries and benefits be untouchable during a fiscal crisis? I'm not saying that either. Why is Superintendent Epps making $254K+? Our poorly performing schools certainly don't warrant that. Why don't we look at poorly performing agencies with high paid positions and start there. Let's start where the people are not getting their money's worth.
Posted on: 2010/8/1 4:18
|
|||
|
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
Quote:
This is why people can't stand the uniform services in Jersey City. Police and Fire have this arrogance, this sense of entitlement, while they bleed the City dry. And most don't live here. All they know is gimme gimme gimme, and whine when they don't get it. There are many captains and battalion chiefs on the Jersey City force who do NOTHING !!! The one possible good side of all these Police and Fire retirements is that the new guys will make less. Hopefully the City will get leadership that won't give away the store to Police and Fire. FULOP 2013 !!!!
Posted on: 2010/8/1 1:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38 Last Login : 2012/7/18 2:23 From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
389
|
Quote:
He does not need to get out of that car and start walking that beat. He is assigned to be in that car. Walking beat cops are assigned to walk, and bike cops are assigned to ride bikes, and cops in cars are assigned to be in their cars. I've actually seen cops walking and biking along Jersey Ave before, though admittedly not so much this year.
Posted on: 2010/7/31 22:14
|
|||
|
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38 Last Login : 2012/7/18 2:23 From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
389
|
Quote:
The numbers from a Feb 25, 2010 article (nj.com: JCFD losing firefighters) indicates there are 372 ff's, 132 captains, 17 battalion chiefs (actually 22 BC's now), and 5 deputy chiefs. Captains are the overhead personnel that run the engine/ladder company. Right now there is about 3:1 ratio of firefighters to captains (actually 2.82:1 for you sticklers). Span of control should be 1 supervisor to every 3 to 7 personnel, with the ideal being 5. Now let's remove some of those captains because they actual work as assistants to BC's and DC's and some to the arson squad and you probably get closer to 3. If you give each BC and DC an assistant, then span of control is 3.54:1. For the amount of resources JCFD has, there needs to be about 400 FF's and 100 captains. That being said there are an adequate number of captains. And for those that think this is at the high end and we can cut here, I will say that the more overhead managing on the fireground when it comes to larger incidents, the better. There are 22 BC's. There are four battalions in JC and each requires a BC obviously as well as a safety officer for the shift. That equals 5 BC's. JCFD runs on four shifts, so each shift needs 5 BC's totalling 20. Looks like JCFD is just about on the mark there as well. I don't know what the DC's do, but I'll guess operations, training, communication, prevention, and investigations. Looks like JCFD may be on the mark there as well. Are their retirement packages nice? Probably. Should the city do a better job managing money rather than doing who knows what with the ungodly taxes we pay. Yes. I firmly believe that JCFD does a spectacular job and they deserve the pay and benefits they get. They show up when called, they are good at their jobs, and they are pleasant about it. I don't think any of these three items can be applied to any other agency or department in JC.
Posted on: 2010/7/31 21:52
|
|||
|
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
You don't pay people more so they don't engage in fraud. You do your best to hire ethical people who wouldn't engage in fraud in the first place.
Posted on: 2010/7/31 18:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vilification of public safety
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Quote:
... because that methodology has worked so well on Wall Street.
Posted on: 2010/7/31 16:41
|
|||
|
||||