Art
************************************************************************************
To: Art Segal
From: John Musolf (a.k.a. JM)
Subject: Terry Parish’s LOVE blog comments
I feel I must respond to some of Terry Parish’s innuendo and suppositions he made on the LOVE Blog.
I hope you will publish this letter.
Terry Parish Comments:
Bill Garner seems to be making a liar out of himself. He claims that he is not going to micromanage the department heads but he is presenting an alternative budget tat no one but JM has seen mmmm wonder who the the brains behind this operation belong to.
Could it be that JM runs Latas and Garner. I think Latas is smater than that. Maybe I'm wrong we'll see.
Terry Parish needs to check his facts a little closer prior to calling Bill Garner a liar. Perhaps, Mr. Parish was never taught courtesy and civility.
He also implied that JM (that’s me) is running councilpersons Garner and Latas. I am not sure how councilperson Latas got into Mr. Parish’s sights. Maybe anyone that expresses any support for Mr. Garner is considered some type of conspirator. Looks like Paranoia is on the loose and running amuck in Oro Valley!
The Facts.
JM received a telephone call from Chief Danny Sharp on Friday, April 3, 2009. Chief Sharp asked JM if he would come in for a meeting on the police budget and share his thoughts. JM did have a meeting with Chief Sharp, the deputy chief, and his administrative services manager on Monday, April 6, 2009 at 100PM in the police building. JM did share the same thoughts with the police on the same alternative budget that Bill Garner presented in his slide show at the April 22, 2009 meeting.
Mmmm, wonder if JM is the brains behind the alternative budgets (Plans A and B) that Chief Sharp presented to the council on April 13, 2009 prior to April 22, 2009? Those JM brains sure get around! Sounds like a conspiracy of major proportions! Terry Parish may now want to call Chief Sharp a liar.
Terry Parish Comments:
A citizen with quite a reputation as an accountant. However as tonights presentation made clear not a all knowledgeable about law enforcement or how the town has chosen to define expenses.
He was identified in the meeting tonight. He is a nice well meaning individual but just not adept at figuring out what can be outsourced legally or cut from a police dept.
The presentation was actually pretty benign with disclaimers all over looked more like Garner was looking for a political blanket claiming to want to suddenly save jobs when he has consistently pressed to eliminate them immediately.
Mr. Parish feels that if someone does not have extensive law enforcement knowledge he is not qualified to be able to comment on the police budget items.
To quote Chief Sharp in his council communications of April 13, 2009 defining items in his budget:
“Field Supplies are things like batteries.”
“Non-capitalized equipment is items like cameras, small hand tools, and air conditioning units”.
“Miscellaneous other operating items are things like public relation items, break room supplies, bottled water, and towing charges for non-police vehicles."
What in-depth law enforcement knowledge does JM require to discuss batteries and bottled water budget items? I didn’t know those items require special police expertise that evidently Chief Sharp has and JM does not.
However, I will match 45+ years expertise in making,
reviewing, and auditing budgets.
Mr. Parish has stated that I am not adept at being able to figure out what can be legally outsourced from a police budget. In my discussions with Chief Sharp and Bill Garner’s slide presentation there is never any reference to outsourcing anything from the police department. What is Mr. Parish referring to? Maybe he has some special insight the rest of us do not have?
However, I do want to thank Mr. Parish for the compliment that “JM is a nice well meaning individual”. Compliments are always graciously accepted.
Incidentally, before anyone discussed any revisions to any budgets I appeared at a regular town council meeting in March 2009. One of the agenda items was a proposed Reduction In Force or layoff of town personnel possibly including police department personnel. At that meeting, for the dramatic effect of the home audience, I threw a copy of the Vista magazine to the floor and suggested the Vista elimination to potentially save jobs. I do not think there are any “sacred cows” in any department that cannot at least be discussed for potential savings.
Mr. Parish may have missed that meeting since he usually only steps forward to defend his favorite “sacred cow” (the police department) when it is threatened.
I have also evaluated other major Oro Valley department budgets and stand ready to assist in looking for savings in those areas (parks, building safety, etc). I am waiting for a phone call or email.
Thanks
John Musolf
27 comments:
Ain't I awful. Stand behind everything I said. Slight correction said I thought Latas was too smart for that. Also, regarding Garner lying , he did.
He said in Council and to many others he was not going to micromanage a dept head. He is now trying to do just that by presenting an alternative budget. He also said he wasn't going to tell the Cheif what to cut from the budget. Well if he is not trying to do that he is putting on one hell of an act.
JM thanks for the integrity in recognizing my compliment best wishes to you and your efforts.
If we can cut the police budget without making Oro Valley less safe I am all for it. Spending for spendings sake is stupid.
Field supplies suggested to be cut also includes ammo and cops need batteries to see and be seen in the dark and to tape record bad guys etc. But hey maybe Obama will give us ammo (not) or the price of batteries will go down. you never know.
All,
There are so many people involved in this and so much back and forth with budget cutting ideas that I may have my facts confused at this point, however, if I am correct, and memory serves (and my memory isn't what it used to be) this is what I see:
(1) Chief Sharp presented an original budget that included eliminating the CAT squad and laying off 6 police officers with low seniority.
Terry Parish is AGAINST any police officers losing their jobs yet stands behind Chief Sharp 100%.
(2) Bill Garner presented an alternate budget that did not include eliminating any police positions, which is what Terry wanted (I think) but now Terry accuses Bill of micromanaging a dept. head.
So, Terry was FOR a budget that didn't include police lay-offs, until Bill Garner was also FOR it, so now Terry is AGAINST it.
Whew! I've had an easier time following "Who's on First?"
I don't understand. Is not the so called alternative budget a way to reduce expenses from accounts other than personnel? Is this not the point of "Polizei Uber Alles"
party, to save jobs?
If the above is true then Mr. Parish should praise Mr. Garner.
As is stated in the six thousand postings regarding this subject we do not want to RIF anyone, teacher, police, dog catcher whatever.
Even the "fair Share" party, of which I have the honor to represent, can see that the alternative budget proposal is better than a RIF.
All this carping makes me long for the day when the OVPD budget is in line with other jurisdictions with OV's demographics.
NW
Keep on posting TP as every comment you make just makes it easier for us to defeat you in case you ever try to run for re-election.
I've always extended the offer to meet our elected officials in person to hear their viewpoint. I took Al K. to lunch a couple of years ago, and even though I don't agree with him all of the time he is the real thing regardless of what people say about him. More power to him.
Just keep on posting TP as you are your own worst enemy.
No worries Turtle I'm not running never will. My beef with Garner is his dishonesty. The cheif was told to cut bodies he was allowed to choose which bodies.
Garner hid and said well I'm not going to micromanage and then voted to cut the bodies immediately.
He failed to win enough votes and the cheif presented a plan that JM might of helped with to cut the same amount of money but save the jobs.
Now Garner claims to want to save the same jobs he voted to eliminate and suddenly thinks he can cut I think he said around $2million from the budget. Anyone see a problem. He's looking for a political blanket to hide behind.
That is why I believe his presentation had all the disclaimers. I don't know if we could cut this but we should look at it (paraphrasing) permeated his presentation.
He was just covering his political butt. Why didn't he even want to study the possibility of an alternative prior to voting to lay off cops reducing our safety.
What happened that made him suddenly care about jobs and presumably our safety. Politics happened.
Just so everyone knows I don't have a problem with JM I think it great he takes such an interest in the town. Its just that no one person including myself can be right all the time but this blog treats everything he says as scripture and that is dangerouse no matter your skill analyzing a budget. Every job has intricacies that without the job experience an auditor or accountant can never really understand why spending specific dollars is necessary.
Quick example one suggestion was to reduce the training budget to zero. State law mandates annual training for all officers with no training budget how is that supposed to happen.
In Jm's defense I don't think he presented this as something that had to happen but should be looked at. That is part if the lack of experience I spoke too. Nothing to do with his skill. Have a great night all.
Thanks again JM
Terry---if ever the golden rule was applicable, it's now.
Heed some good advice. "Silence is golden."
Terry is right on this one whether you want to believe it or not. Garner voted to lay of the Officers after Carter ammended to layoff vote to include the police officers.
Why all of a sudden is he now in support of an alternative budget cut that would not include firing the officers? And why was this budget cut not proposed in the first place instead of the layoffs?
The Chief was told that the town was going with layoffs. He had no other option.
When the council reallized what laying off cops would do to their political careers, they quickly reallized that they needed to find an alternative and waaalaaa....as Terry says "politics happened". They changed their views on this one and, as you can see with Garner, he is pursuing another type of budget reduction and rallying to save the cops so he will come out in the end looking like a defender of Oro Valley.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy he finally woke up.
Art, are you going to tell me to shut up because you don't like what I'm saying like you did with Terry?
By the way, Who is JM? Why are there those that are idolizing him?
Does he work for the town or is he consulting?
Ahh one other thing I wanted to say. Our cops don't need training or bullets. Nothing happens in Oro Valley because of the affluent society that resides here. This combined with the geographic location keeps the crime away, not the cops.
LBC09--- Your ignorance of the facts really came to the forefront on your latest comment.
The same way, I do not need to speak for "JM"---I need not defend Bill Garner. Those that know the good things Bill has done during his less than 9 months in office, will not be influenced with the gibberish emanating from you two.
The only difference between you & Parish is that he identifies himself. You, on the other hand feel more secure hiding behind your anonymity.
Terry Parish,why comment at all? Do you think that the rest of us are so stupid that we can't understand the crux of the matter at hand? Your posts are the ones that are so out of kilter that they become senseless. One day someone is a liar (can't you use a term like 'mistaken' if you believe someone has not perceived the 'facts' as you do? A gentleman would do that!), the next day, caught in your usual nonsense, you twist that proffer around in order to cover your butt. Let's face it, Terry, not only are you a poor 'philosopher' but YOU can't even deliver sense out using simple
basics.
You have the audacity to blog here and knock one person after another, one effort after another. As I stated before and will state again, you are like an empty suit, all show and NO SUBSTANCE.
While others are trying to work out a difficult situation you just stand there and proclaim 'my way or the highway'. Big whoop for you, Terry!
lbco9, by your last sentence you just contradicted the 'meat' of the rest of your post; what gives?
Facts need to be argued with facts...I see none with your counters. Terry has presented facts. I presented facts but the only thing you counter with is that I stay anonymous and that Terry's posts are "are the ones that are so out of kilter that they become senseless."
Who's posts are senseless. The ones who point out fact or the ones that attack the people that present the fact?
One of the signs of a defeated person in a debate is when they start attacking the person and not the argument they bring forth.
My last sentence ( Ahh one other thing I wanted to say. Our cops don't need training or bullets. Nothing happens in Oro Valley because of the affluent society that resides here. This combined with the geographic location keeps the crime away, not the cops.) was sarcasm.
Facts, lbc09? Is the following an example of your sticking with the facts? You stated "the only thing you counter with is that I stay anonymous". Tell me, fact man (or whatever), when did I ever post proclamation? Aside from that, I deal in opinion, supposition, and probability based on research and my ability to understand things; I claim fact as fact when it is established that it most probably is. Also, if corrected, I will admit to a mistake or misperception. On the other hand, you present a menagerie of gruel, claim it as fact, and then have the audacity to infer that you are THE one who has knowledge? I think we can put your knowledge in a thimble and still have room left over.
LBC-09,
"One of the signs of a defeated person in a debate is when they start attacking the person and not the argument they bring forth."
That's right. Terry could not debate Garner's new budget because Terry AGREES with the new budget, so Terry attacked the person instead and called Garner a liar.
Terry,
"Garner hid and said well I'm not going to micromanage and then voted to cut the bodies immediately."
How is "voting" also "micromanaging?" Isn't it the council's JOB to vote on things?
Insert sarcasm here...
So what Garner really said, according to your logic, was, "I'm not going to vote" and then he voted. Wow. The lie that changed the entire landscape of Oro Valley for centuries to come. How can we ever trust him again?
Bottom line is that he did what you wanted him to do and STILL you attack him. Now if I had worked really hard to appease the "opposing team" to the extent that I had to put my original idea aside to do so, only to then be attacked by the opposing team for doing exactly what they begged me to do, well, I wouldn't be so gracious in the future. You know what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you? You don't get fed again for a loooooong time. Be careful with that gun, Terry. You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
"Now Garner claims to want to save the same jobs he voted to eliminate."
One of the marks of a great mind is someone who can CHANGE his mind!
If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?
---Maxine (Hallmark)
VC
Read my post, I don't agree with the presentation he made. The training issue is just one of many problems I have with it. However, I do agree that the cuts can be made in places that don't include taking cops off the street or making them less able to be safe.
I don't like the process it took to get Garner on track. His current path however correct in my view contradicts everything he has said in the past. I don't like to see people apparently void of conviction even when I agree with parts of their new view.
Wow, Terry, is that last post of yours slip-sliding around or what?
VC, excellent analysis!
lbc09, it appears that your post, immediately above your last one, mixes Art's statements and mine together as if we were one person. Is this an example of how lucid you are? Is this how YOU present facts? LOL!
VC,
Love Maxine.
All,
Lots of Maxine sayings that could apply to blogs and forums everywhere..
"Everyone is entitled to MY opinion"
"I believe that nothing ever gets so bad that I can't make it a little worse"
I don't believe in mud-slinging, Rock-slinging, however, is another story"
Above is intended for fun only
Nothing more.
Without beating the old dead horse, I think everybody has some valid points but it is not what is said it's how it's said that seems to flame the board.
Everybody brings something to the table, some just have better table manners.
Agree that a lot of everything that goes on is "politics"
Seemingly the council is being influenced by voter opinion/feedback and they are taking that into consideration.
This is a part of politics, that's a good thing, right?
About some not having specific knowledge of police requirements/needs that are specific to their function. Yup I agree it is different, but discussion is helping others to understand the reason(s) for higher expenditures.
I also hope that from now on, every budget is discussed in depth and costs are cut if possible.
Just my thoughts.
Coyote
Thanks for helping put it all in perspective.
Terry,
It seems to me that you decided that you don't like Bill Garner so now you have to find reasons to justify your dislike for him. Therefore, even when he does something that you yourself would have done, instead of being grateful, you start focusing on minutia and grasping at anything you can to "prove" that he's whatever your preconceived notions decided that he was.
So now he's a liar and a micromanager.
To me, a micromanager is someone who hovers over their staff and nitpicks every little thing that they do, telling them precisely how to do every aspect of their job. That's not what Bill did. He didn't micromanage, he collaborated with others and offered a solution to a huge problem.
Micromanage...
Webster's Dictionary: to manage with great or excessive control, or attention to details.
Dictionary.com: to manage or control with excessive attention to minor details.
Encarta online: to control a person or a situation by paying extreme attention to small details.
Terry, in looking at what Bill has done, you're not looking at the big picture (ie. you just might get what you wanted). Instead, you're "paying extreme attention to small details."
Could it be? You are what you despise?
I'm really not trying to be mean although I'm sure it's coming across that way. I'm just trying to guide you to the bigger picture.
Terry P., VC, Art, Zev,...all those who posted here:
Who cares about the interpersonal squabbles? The end result is far more important to me.
If JM sat down with the police chief and put together a plan to keep our town safe and save jobs I couldn't be anything but pleased.
Kudo's to BG for working with Sharp, JM and the rest of the council.
The issues we face are so much more important than bickering personalities.
Plese! Resist the impulse to attack each other and pay attention to the important things that affect each of us everyday.
Deacon, you are not only well versed but remain calm, cool, and collected and that is good! Unfortunately when some attempt to browbeat others, serve up menageries of misinformation, and put themselves out there as THE experts when simple logistics are not even a part of their vocabulary, then reactionary posts do come into play. While perhaps this type of emotion does little to progress an agenda, it certainly does color up the 'dialogue' and at least helps to reveal 'what' (who) you are dealing with.
Deacon,
I agree with you and your statement, "Who cares about the interpersonal squabbles? The end result is far more important to me."
That was the point I was making when I told Terry, "I"m just trying to guide you to the bigger picture."
He seems more focused on his "interpersonal squabbles" with Garner, and inasmuch, he has overlooked the "end result."
LBC09
In answer to your question:
By the way, Who is JM? Why are there those that are idolizing him?
Does he work for the town or is he consulting?
Sorry if I disappoint you LBC09, but I am a plain old retired guy who likes to get involved with my community, government and schools. I don't work for the town. Chief Sharp called me to ask my opinion on his budget. I did it for free. Also, I don't get any consulting fees either since I am happily retired. I attend TOV council meetings and various other committee meetings as an interested citizen should.
At 72 years of age I didn't realize I could still be idolized. Makes one feel young again!
Have a good day.
John Musolf
Post a Comment