There is a lot going on behind the scenes in Oro Valley as it concerns the police force.
There are those that believe any tactics they use are acceptable.
We hope all our readers will read the Explorer article that is only "the tip of the iceberg."
We, as a community are very fortunate to have a person with the knowledge, demeanor and character that our Town Manager David Andrews displays. David is invaluable to us. The same can't be said about the excessively large police department.
For the cops to try and use any and all tactics in their feeble attempt to remove David is unconscionable.
Too bad, The Explorer couldn't report some of the other details that may come to light in the near future.
Read the article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/09/09/news/doc4aa6ee88eabcb543622432.txt
67 comments:
During the last police-LOVE blog fandango, did we not determine that Oro Valley is OVER staffed at the police department? The hiring freeze should continue until we are at normal staffing levels. It looks like the police unions(s)? have truly taken a page from the Jericho Arkansas police department. See post below. I hope no body gets shot.
The statement in 2004 by the OVPOA's parent organization speaks VOLUMES about the mentality of the police.
"This is a fundamental AZCOPS principle, we first try to work with you, if you refuse, we will take you out."
We will take you out??!!
Not, "We will work diligently to ensure that you are not re-elected."
Attitudes like this are precisely why they're labeled "bullies."
Or how about this line...
"The next VICTIMS of the AZCOPS broom will be..."
And they had the audacity to verbally attack Councilmember Gillaspie for commenting that he didn't want to see Oro Valley turn into a police state.
Well, if the holster fits...
"The unions make numerous claims against Andrews, accusing him of endangering public safety, not following town council direction, violating open meeting laws and retaliating against police."
Hmm, when police officers spend so much time whining and crybabying, how is it that they can accuse someone else of endangering public safety? When they can't understand why the hiring freeze applies to them, how can they accuse someone else of not following council direction? In what way were open meeting laws violated? And what exactly makes them think anyone is retaliating against them? What is the retaliation for? What did they do?
"The letter, and a second written by Oro Valley Police Officers Association president Chris Palic, followed an Aug. 13 staff meeting that Andrews called with police to discuss the recent employee buyout plan and the overall town budget situation.
"The meeting was intended to follow a similar format as previous sessions with other departments. What Andrews walked into, however, turned into an impromptu police union negotiation with a contingent from both police groups and numerous officers.
"That act has drawn the ire of some on the town council."
Kudos to those on the council who are irate. They should be.
"Police Chief Danny Sharp said that he was not involved in union activities, and stressed that state law precludes him from reprimanding or punishing officers for statements or action made on behalf of the unions."
So, let's get this straight. Police employees, on taxpayer time, turned an employee meeting into a union meeting, and their chief is so spineless that he claims he can't do anything about it????
"Police union leaders say they aren't after Andrews' job, they just want some longstanding issues resolved. That meeting, and a second on Aug. 24, did little to accomplish that."
"Over and over at the Aug. 13 meeting, officers questioned the town manager about filling the vacancy."
"Through continued talks with Chief Sharp, the manager agreed to move the reserve officer to full-time status. The decision was also predicated on the fact that another officer plans to retire early next year, making the hiring a cost-neutral proposition.
"Police also questioned Andrews about an open dispatcher position they wanted filled.
"According to town documents, Andrews had already intended to fill that position. An Aug. 7 memo Andrews sent to the town council discusses the savings reaped from the buyout plan, and identifies six positions deemed critical to fill, including planning and zoning director and the police dispatcher.
"Palic said the union has tried to make peace with Andrews.
"'We've extended the olive branch several times,' Palic said. 'We're not getting a lot of feedback.'"
Okay, let's see. You ambush your boss and secretly record him and still come up with nothing. You demand that a cop and a dispatcher get re-hired despite a council-mandated hiring freeze and you get it. Andrews calls the meetings with you to work this out. And YOU'RE NOT GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK??? What a bunch of crybabies!!
Garner is right. It's a leadership problem. And the chief should be held accountable.
One other point to ponder. We have an election coming up. The primary will be in March 2010.
PLEASE----Pay attention to which candidates are being supported by the police.
Barry Gillaspie got in trouble using the term, "police state."
I'll say it. If we don't want a police state, pay attention for which candidates deserve your vote. It will make a difference!
I will favor a candidate who wants to reduce the manpower and cost of the OVPD.
The attitude of the police union(s) (?) is not acceptable. They work for us. Freeze until OV is in allignment with other communities with the same demographics. After all the county knows we are rich, educated, elites. Hell, I do not even know why we need police at all.
Watanabe--- We probably do need the police, but certainly not in the numbers we have now.
As for the candidates, I can promise you, and everyone else, we will have two that will meet your criteria.
They both are of the same mind set as I, and very shortly, we will be extremely proud to endorse them.
I believe every like minded voter will be thrilled to have two quality gentlemen that will keep the interests of the people above all else. T
NW... You refer to "we" in your first sentence. Who are "we"? You refer to "normal" staffing levels. What in your opinion is "normal".
OVM...Frequently you cloud your point. Help me to see the relationship between, "police officers spend so much time whining and crybabying" and "they can accuse someone else of endangering public safety?
VC... I am very glad that you remember the AZCOPS actions and language of 2004. If you go back and read my letters in the Explorer regarding their threats you should be very clear on where I stand on their tactics. I was highly critical then and will restate my position. They owe this community an apology and until it is forthcoming we should not recognize their existence.
Art...As usual you need to crawl back under your rock. Every time you pop out of your hole your comments become more insignificant.
Cox---Your insignificance to this blog is well documented.You prove it with every asinine comment you make.
Your failure to comprehend what others say only proves you lack basic intelligence.
You constantly prove the axiom, "Ignorance is bliss." You certainly are blissful!
There is much more to this story than most of you know. Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter.
I can't wait for the other shoe.
PS. My background with law enforcement tells me that recording without permission/authorization is illegal. WIMEA if anyone cares.
You would think a police persons would be aware of such restrictions.
Watanabe--- In most jurisdictions, you'd be correct. Not in "The Grand Canyon State."
Not exactly, Art. Arizona is actually in the majority of states that permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.
The 12 (minority) states that require the consent of all parties to a conversation include California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Dan---Thanks for taking the time to "right the wrong."
My thought on the police taping the meeting without David's knowledge is this:
It was legally correct, but ethically & morally wrong, especially knowing their motives---which in essence was "entrapment."
Thank you. I should have stated that my background is federal. We could'nt go to Starbucks without executing six forms.
Though I agree with a lot of you on other issues, I must side with the police on this one. They have a dangerous job, yes that they signed up for, but they still are out there ready to put their lives on the line for anyone of us.
How many of you would be willing to do that?
I don't think their staffing should be reduced at all. As for the town manager, I do not know enough about his record to make a decision on him though I do see that he is receiving overwhelming support from the people chiming in here.
If he really did say what he said during the meeting with the police department (what the council tells him in public and private are opposite), then I see that he is just trying to pass the buck and cover his a@@. But maybe that is really what is happening and it is making his job extremely difficult. If this is true, maybe the council needs to be investigated???!!
As for the police recording the meeting. Good for them! It is far from entrapment.
I think that it's at least bordering on entrapment. When two people or two groups of people are having a discussion and only one person/group is aware that it's being recorded, then that person/group is going to be very careful about what they say or reveal which means that their end of the conversation is actually "staged." This is very unfair to the other person/group who is being candid in their end of the discussions. I think it's unethical but is definitely in line with the "character" of the OVPD.
SO, wherein lies the blame that the current miasma affecting Oro Valley should be assigned responsibility - OVPOA, FOP (the TWO unions that have their clenches on the OVPD), the OVPD itself, Police Chief Sharpe, the Town Manager, OR THE TOWN COUNCIL? Methinks it's the LATTER! Back when, during the 'formulation' of the Town budget, Council HAD the opportunity to put their collective feet down and give credence to the Town Manager and pertinent Staff and, with the exception of a few tweaks, given 'blessing' to that which the PROFESSIONALS had recommended. Instead, the waters were allowed to become muddy, issues became laden with special interests including, among other 'twists', the renunciation of a 'sunset clause written into a previously mandated utility tax, personal 'sensitivities', etc.; in short, emotions played where sanity should have prevailed AND, THE TOWN MANAGER, ALONG WITH STAFF, WAS NOT ONLY UNDERMINED BUT WAS BLINDSIDED AS WELL IN THE PROCESS BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
During the course of the budget process and it's final result, the opportunity to exercise, with a strong hand, the 'pecking order' of governance, was an opportunity sorely mishandled. How can this community now expect that one or more of the special interest groups that have saddled this Town with their own agendas now be expected to respect the Office of the Town Manager? After all, they (the OVPD, SAHBA, NPCCC, et al) have pretty much had their way with OV for some time now and if someone like the Town Manager gets in 'their' way, well, in the words of a locally embedded self-serving developer "so what".
The Town Manager and staff worked like the devil in bringing responsibility to the Town's financial reality during difficult economic times; this effort wasn't respected then and now we're seeing an inevitable result.
Welcome back Zev. Your astute comments have been sorely missed. An example is your above analysis.
Some may find fault, but "me thinks" you nailed it.
Thanks again for you insightful thoughts.
You guys make me sick.
You are the same people that say "I believe in the enforcement of our laws (but not the one that effect me)." If you dont like the law change it.
Speed limits come to mind. However most of you prefer to sit in your seats of privlidge and whimper about a bureaucrat being recorded.
I thought this blog claimed to be about open "transparent government."
Not!!! You will twist the truth complain when it it is documented and then try to crucufy the sayers of the truth.
I say you all are un-American, you are the enemy that will bitch about "slow response times or improprer citations when it suits you. Next you will complain and villify the speech that doesn't fit your agenda's criteria,
When it is all said and done the Bill Garners of the world will say we didn't have the documentation. However, then there is that pesky thing called a recording, uhoh time to start complaining again, about the LAW!!
If you agree with this post rest easy. These people have no real home or country they just like to bitch.
I haven't read this blog in several months and now I remember why, It's you are so intellectually dishonest.
Art you keep acting like a little Nazi trying to pacify your friends and silencing your critics.
You expressed very different values when speaking with me, do you need to hear the tape.
You expressed concern, you wanted all voices to be heard, and discussed. Have you changed your mind. Must the voices of the patriots be silenced. I await your venemous reply.
PS. Bill Garner is really good at these!!!! If nothing else you can delete my comments or ask him what to say.
Parish, as this is a blog site, op-eds are generally accepted as a form of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Calling [us] guys [sickening], claiming that those that post here are un-American, claiming that they are the "enemy", that they have no country, that Art [acts like a Nazi], may I state, Officer Parish, that YOUR post is the one that is sick, un-American, doesn't fit in with the values of this Country, and is Nazi-like in it's message. Relative to your claim of this stream being "intellectually dishonest", I will simply state that YOUR post is a mess of intellectual void, emotional stew, and is devoid of any kind of logistics that can result in any kind of a reliable conclusion YOU might think you have generated. It stinks! WELCOME BACK!?
By the way, Parish, Bill Garner won his election with a minimal amount of investment along with a sense of community and smarts; your 'friends' couldn't even buy you a seat.
I really don't know what Parish means when he speaks of documentation via the recording. There are only two quotes from David Andrews on the recording that the Explorer found to be worth printing:
First quote: "'Well, it's my decision to keep that position open,' Andrews said, adding 'that's based on the overall financial condition of the town.'"
Then we find that:
"Through continued talks with Chief Sharp, the manager agreed to move the reserve officer to full-time status. The decision was also predicated on the fact that another officer plans to retire early next year, making the hiring a cost-neutral proposition."
Hmm. That sounds like the town manager is managing the town in a fiscally responsible manner in accordance with the directions of the council. Good for him.
The second quote:
"'I'll be honest with you,' Andrews said at the Aug. 13 meeting, 'I mean all seven of them are my bosses, you know, but (what) they tell me privately and what they say in public are sometimes totally opposite of one another.'"
Hmm. That sounds like the town manager is managing the town in accordance with the directions of the council while being honest with his employees. Good for him.
Terry Parish--- Your comments are such that I probably shouldn't even dignify them with a response, but you are obviously not old enough, and certainly not mature enough and obviously not smart enough to comprehend what it means to refer to someone, as ---quoting you---" acting like a little Nazi ..." Perhaps you should spend a little time studying the Holocaust.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say to me
"You expressed very different values when speaking with me, do you need to hear the tape."
If you taped our conversation without my knowledge, so be it.
Get me the tape and I'll post whatever it contains fully, as there would not be anything I would have said ---in what I thought was private conversation, that I would not want heard publicly.
Your "off the wall rant" proves why the citizens voted you off the council after making the mistake of voting you in for one term.
Obviously, as a "law enforcement person," you do not have the disposition to deal with the public.
All I can say to you Mr. Parish, is "SHAME ON YOU!"
One last thing. Bill Garner dignifies the same seat on the council that you occupied during your tenure. Dignity is probably a word you don't fully understand.
Zev...Welcome back. Your initial post on this topic was a good one.
The problems we are facing with the PD stem from the budget. The Town Council (all members) should be ashamed of their performance when it comes to the current budget. They went from 'if it moves, fire it', to 'aw shucks let's just hug and let'em stay'; from 'cut,cut,cut' to 'let's all go to Washington, blow $10,000, and play for a few days'. None of them was consistent throughout the process. Their conduct caused a huge problem for David Andrews and the staff. THE MESSAGE was never clear. That created misunderstanding and mistrust.
I am not a fan of AZCOPS. I believe they are a tunnel visioned organization that is incapable of of looking at the big picture. Their rhetoric is frequently inflamatory. Our police department would be better served to divorce themselves from this group.
However, I do not believe that our police department personel have done anything wrong. Nor has their conduct deserved the ridicule that has been put forth by the blogmaster and those who likened them to the idiots in Arkansas. That post, on this blog, was the origin of the 'beat on the police' wave that many wish to ride.
I find it very interesting that Mr Segal made fun of a fire in Saddlebrooke that could have very well taken the lives of some of our brave firefighters. He then finds a path to ridicule our police department. There is a sickness to his consistency in attacking our first responders that is alarming and is testimony to his bitterness.
Some of the latter comments in this thread are disappointing.
Once again, Cox does not disappoint any who have come to expect the way he continues to denigrate.
Quite interesting, he finds fault with the the whole council.
Also quite interesting is the fact that although he tried, he never could get to that level.
No one should be surprised about what he says about me. That's his "MO."
The only difference this time is the fact that he doesn't denigrate Zev. This time Cox sees fit to patronize him.
What a phony!
Terry,
(1) Would YOU like to be recorded without your knowledge?
(2) Who "twisted the truth" and what exactly did they say?
(3) You accused ALL OF US of being "un-American" and "the enemy" to which I have two comments:
(a) Did you think I was un-American or the enemy when I defended YOU on this very blog against those who were attacking your personal life? Some of those people are friends of mine and I even stood up to THEM on this issue, and
(b) Name-calling is the last resort of the person who isn't capable of discussing the ISSUES.
(4) We all have a right to "bitch about...improper citations." There is more to my speeding ticket story than what I have posted on this blog. You want to talk about recordings? Well, I have "that pesky thing called a recording." It ain't pretty!
(5) You said, "I haven't read this blog in several months now." What made you start re-reading it NOW? Was it because another OVPD story appeared in the Explorer? Is law enforcement the only thing that concerns you?
(6) What do YOU think of the AZCOP statement that if you don't work with them, they will "take you out."
Terry,
Also just noticed that it was on SEPTEMBER 11TH when you left your post calling us all un-American and the enemy and calling Art a little Nazi.
Art... At some point in your miserable, petty little life you are going to realize that the fact that I was not elected to the Town Council is not a source of irritation to me.
I am proud of my accomplishments and happy that I can continue to POSITIVELY serve my community.
But to more important issues, please tell us why you feel the need to attack and ridicule our first responders. Rather that say the same thing for the 1001st time try a new approach and tell us what motivates you and triggers your venomous speech. Do you truly have a point to make?
LOVE!!!
Cox--You just can't comprehend that our readers are so much smarter than you.
They too know you are nothing but a phony loudmouth.
Your ignorance is portrayed by the asinine statement; "..tell us why you feel the need to attack and ridicule our first responders."
Everyone knows my issue has nothing to do with "first responders," but has everything to do with the total disdain some of these individuals show towards the citizens they are supposed to look out for.
"Looking out" has nothing to do with doubling our fire service rates, (GRFD) or threatening some council members and the Town Manager with retribution.(Police unions)
Your spin is nothing but BS, but who is surprised by that? Our readers know you well enough, that they see right through your phony facade.
Art...
"Everyone knows my issue has nothing to do with "first responders," but has everything to do with the total disdain some of these individuals show towards the citizens they are supposed to look out for."
Allow me to be so bold as to suggets that "everyone" doesn't know your issues. You make irrational comments and unfounded and often incorrect statements and you somehow believe that "everyone" knows your issues.
Please explain the following:
"everything to do with the total disdain some of these individuals show towards the citizens they are supposed to look out for."
Please explain to us what "disdain" they have shown. And why, in your opinion, would the actions of a few("some")taint the entire police and fire department.
Everyone will be anxiously awaiting your explanation.
Dan,
Where is the Arizona Statutes does it allow taping without consent?
Thanks
Native....I am not sure but my guess would be that it is allowed unless specifically prohibited.
Native Dancer--- Az Rev statute 13-3005 notes only the exceptions to taping without the other party's knowledge. Here is the statute.
13-3005. Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptions
A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either:
1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof.
2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion.
3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do.
B. Except as provided in sections 13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Native,
Both OVOT and Art are partially correct.
Under ARS § 13-3005, consent isn't required for the taping of a non-electronic communication (i.e. in-person conversation) by a person lacking a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.
The Arizona courts have clarified what a "reasonable expectation of privacy" constitutes, notably in Arizona v. Hauss (1984).
In every state, unless state statute says to the contrary, no individual has an expectation of privacy when conversing with any other individual. As previously discussed, 12 states have altered this common law, and consent of both parties is required.
Here, the Town Manager arguably lacked any such expectation of privacy in a meeting with law enforcement personnel. Therefore, the recording was not unlawful.
Dan
Dan,
So if I say at the beginning of a meeting, "I expect that this meeting is not being recorded" and it later turns out that it was still recorded without my knowledge, would the other party be guilty of a felony?
Or are we not allowed to have that "expectation" at all since it is legal to record a meeting without the other person's knowledge?
Isn't it interesting the way some people show up on this site just temporarily, just to launch into a rant and call us un-American, but they offer nothing concrete to back up their assertion, then when we challenge their comments, they abruptly disappear?
Terry, where did you go? Oh, I know, you don't have time to blog right now because you're studying for your final exam at the Sarah Palin School of Integrity where the main topics of study are name-calling and how to quit when the going gets tough! You called us all un-American, but Americans don't quit when the going gets tough. And Terry, you keep quitting.
I challenge you (and anyone else who thinks I'm un-American) to re-read my other posts on this thread (or any other one) and see if you can find any statement I made that makes me un-American.
Good luck with that!
You think you got tired of listening to me defend myself against an unwarranted speeding ticket...wait til you see what I can do to dismantle accusations that I'm un-American.
I'll start with this...
There was a crossword puzzle in the Sunday paper that focused on the Constitution and American History. It contained 54 questions. I answered 50 of them and left 4 of them blank. Of the 50 that I answered, I got all 50 of them correct.
Un-American?
Stay tuned for more. You made a big mistake questioning my patriotism!
VC....While I enjoy your sense of humor (Sarah Palin.. etc)I must warn you that you are violating the blog masta's rule about going 'national'. I think it went something like this..This isn't a forum to discuss national politics. It was some crap like that.
Keep it up and he is going to lash out at you like he did our policemen and firemen. Tread cautiously!!! :-)
While I vastly disagree with the majority of the people here....a great historical figure said something close to the following: "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". (may not be exact quote but the idea is the same).
Can anyone tell me which historical figure said this?
I completely agree with this quote and am quite disgusted with some of the bickering that I see here on both sides. We are all entitled to our own opinions and should embrace what others have to say in relation to the topic of the day. When one goes on to attack another, the topic is lost and we resort to petty insults that make us all look dumber.
Thinker,
I do remember the rule, but today I found myself having to choose between "going national" or "going postal." I went with the one that I thought would be the least offensive...
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
It's attributed to Voltaire.
Dan,Art, OVOT,
Thanks for the prompt feedback.
Dan, your case citation was 1984. I'm wondering if there are more recent cases which rule about such things. Courts seem to lean heavily on "arguable points" as reason to reopen a legal perspective. VC suggests a whole other potential area to explore.
From a collegial point of view, one of wanting to work collaboratively towards a goal, taping without his consent delivers a hostile message. I agree with VC, it feels like entrapment. You might say, Andrews was shaghai-ed by the posse.
Is someone going to the next town council meeting to request that the two (?) police unions apologize for their comments against Mr. A?
These orgizations need to be held accountable for their un-american comments i.e. the "take out" statement.
This was a legitimate post which was an opening for legitimate response. For the most part I found most of the opinions to be well within the realm of civility; yes, some were combative (as can be usually expected here) but, for the most part, the stream did consist of offering relative personal opinion, some bias, and, as well, an introduction to other topics which followed naturally as would be the case in the course of many a conversation. I did find one post however to be absolutely disgusting in nature and that was the viciously wild diatribe posted by Officer Terry Parish of the Pima County Sheriff's Department; this was a prime example of simply 'shooting from the hip' without even a glimmer of understanding from him as to how the relationship of his belligerence exemplifies a truly deviant mentality. Some might excuse that this individual is merely passionate about all things law enforcement; however, in OUR society, in OUR Country, OUR system of lawful order DEMANDS that those who are entrusted to maintain such law MUST allow that their self-control and clarity of thought MUST trump personal passion and, if such is otherwise, then not only is our claim to be a lawful society compromised, but the failed trustee of that 'lawful society' then becomes a serious danger to it.
Yes, 'languageborderculture09', we all do have that right to say what we think but, under certain 'terms and conditions', responsibility must be in order. Deputy Parish's societal obligation stemming from his profession falls under the category of one of those special 'terms and conditions' - as an officer of the law he has very specific responsibilities. His demeanor must NEVER include 'shoot from the hip' hate speech; for me that makes his kind of persona within his profession bit too scary. I cannot and will not "embrace" HIS less than reasoned 'opinion(s)'as being acceptable.
Bravo, Zev!
And Terry, are you familiar with the quote, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I am YOUR enemy (according to you.)
bin Laden is MY enemy.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Ergo, bin Laden is your friend.
Like I said, do not question my patriotism.
VC- To answer your question, no, the other party would not be guilty of a felony. In a meeting such as the one you mention, no individual in Arizona (or the 37 other states) has an expectation of such privacy. In our society, no individual has an expectation of privacy in the general course of dealing and interaction with other individuals.
Native- The Hauss case from 1984 is a landmark case in Arizona regarding this issue. With all due respect, a 25 year old case is but a youngster in the scheme of legal precedent and American jurisprudence. This is the current state of the law in Arizona, and the previously discussed state statute is the law on point.
The law comes in under what is known as “common law,” inherited from England to the United States, and is largely deeply rooted in history.
While you make good points on the law not promoting collaborative work in society (and 12 other states agree with your sentiment), if you proceed through life knowing that you don’t have an expectation of privacy in what you say outside your home/doctor’s office/attorney’s office, you will be ok. I’m making huge generalizations in this previous statement, but that is the general rule.
And unfortunately, what happened to the Town Manager does not satisfy the legal elements of entrapment.
Ladies and Gentlemen & Art.
Now I may not be the best person to post the following, in your opinion, but I think it need to be said.
Enough is enough.
I am as guilty as the next person, and I am guilty more often than some of you, of making negative comments towards others. I really try to limit that conduct to one person but from time to time I fail and am a tad caustic. God knows many of you have been equally caustic from time to time.
Let's move on to the next topic. I would suggest that if you have a beef with AZCOPS (and I would not hesitate to speak my piece about them, as I have) write a letter to AZCOPS.
Let's see how long that lasts.
If Mr. Cox is willing to show a change in attitude, I'm sure we'll all appreciate it. Time will tell.
As for the ongoing subject, I believe---paraphrasing Yogi Berra---"It will end when it ends."
Aside to Dan---- Thanks for your expertise. I, and I'm sure our readers, appreciate your contribution.
Dan,
Thank you for taking time to share your information.
What's that quote about "the more laws a society has, the weaker the society"...???
Maybe if the PD and Town gov, ie Manager worked more collaboratively, it would not be necessary to research points of law...there might be a basis of trust and good faith established.
Twisting the "buyout option" to translate as a means to disarm the PD is a sheer perversion of its intent...Enlightened businesses offer this option...why?..because if employees take charge of their job futures rather than being laid off, they recover and take charge of their futures better...less emotional damage to the employee and the employer who has to decide who to cut knowing there are children, mortgages, college tuitions, debt and aging parents to take care of...Only "enlightened" bosses recognize this as a plus for both, ie a win/win option...how sad that the officers unions interpreted it otherwise...how shortsighted...
If I were Andrews it would be hard for me to maintain my neutrality and feeling of collaboration, after being so treated. Wonder how that will alter his feelings in handling the Police in the future.
While I view him as a consummate professional, he is a human being with feelings...Police risked alienating and antagonizing him...wonder if their coaches anticipate the longterm damage they may have done.
Why would anyone who was telling the truth object to having that truth documented on tape? Seems to me that would eliminate anyone twisting what was said.
Artmarth seemed to agree and challenged Terry Parish to bring out his or her tape. Artmarth put on the appearance of one who told the truth and as a result was unafraid of a recording.
Why did the police representaives feel the need to tape the manager?
Has he lied to them or do they percieve he lied to them in the past? Seems to me there is distrust between the manager and the Town's employees.
Isn't it a managers job to foster trust between himself and the employees?
Entrapment requires that someone be put in a position to to do something illegal that they would not have done had they not been convinced to do so at the behest of the police. What did the manager do illegal? What did the police do to convince him to commit this illegal act?
Objective Thinker (and I'm new) seems pretty polite compared to many of you. Why is he treated with such spite?
It appears to me that this guy (or girl) Terry Parish is upset about the treatment of some of the bloggers. His points regarding silencing others are so obvious I'm suprised he waded in the verbal violence.
His point regarding the American virtues of "open and transparent government" and the impact recordings can have, makes sense to me.
He is correct, that many are complaining regarding the documented statements of a public official made as part of his official duties.
If the manager was buying drugs would you still think it was wrong to record him? If not then in your opinion should words be illegal before they are recorded how would that work? What if that recording proved that he was lying to you, the public in Oro Valley? Would the recording be wrong then?
I know that President Nixon sure wished that certain recordings didn't exist. The former governor of Illinois isn't real fond of them either.
So why are many of you upset about the recordings?
I see your points regarding the verbage used by the union but remember it's a union, thats what they do. Talk tough maintain membership and a steady revenue stream. Anybody ever heard of the Teamsters or the UAW or the AFLCIO. I checked and AZcops is part of the latter. Seems like standard union stuff to me.
Despite this our President seems to think alot of unions. He's trying to taylor healthcare to save them lots and lots of money.
I stay in Oro Valley frequently and enjoy the relative tranquil environment provided by the police.
Where does the term police state fit into the realities of this town? You guys don't even have traffic cameras on you stop lights.
I'm also not used to people being so bold as to sarcastically make remarks regarding their police officers being shot. Is this coarse behavior the norm here?
Nombe Watanbe seems to genuinely dislike police officers. I'm confused by his statements regarding his law enforcement experience. Doesn't he(or she) know that as long as one person in a conversation knows they are being recorded that the recording itself is legal?
I have never met a soldier that bets his life on his fellow soldiers that believed there were enough of them to be safe. Seems like police might be similiar, in that regard.
I find it disruptive to educational reading, the amount of legal misinformation on this blog. I guess not all bloggers care about the facts. I myself try to make sure that if I am going to use words like entrap, that I know and understand what they mean in the context I am using them. Are this sites bloggers just trying to best the other by being rude and insulting eachother, or is there an actual attempt to educate and discuss that has eluded me?
I'm curious after reading all the posts, the correct and incorrect information, the insults on all sides. the obvious attempts by some to silence at least Objective Thinker why did Cowgirl pick "Terry Parish" to be her enemy when his or her points regarding being un-American appear on the surface to be valid for many on this blog? He or she seems to have pointed out that he or she believes that many (who don't agree with his or her views) seem to advocate a less transparent government and a desire to silence their opposition. These things are at least in my opinion not American and were used by the Nazi regime.
Despite the accuracy of his or her point his or her statements, like many here, were rude, self serving, and not designed to help educate his or her fellow man. In fact he or she defeated his or her own arguments by being so coarse. Many of you do the same.
To Zev, Dan, Ezek, I enjoyed reading your posts. You seem honest in your attempts to ask question and provide information that is accurate. Thanks
John 3:16
Conservative--- Considering you know nothing about Oro Valley, you still seem quite capable of offering your insight.
You might have been a little more believable until you saw fit to follow up Mr. Parish with your eloquent comment:
"These things are at least in my opinion not American and were used by the Nazi regime."
You also may want to consider changing your pseudonym to "ULTRA Conservative."
Welcome to our blog!
Conservative,
Rationally stated opinions are a refreshing contribution. Welcome.
You compared Andrews' taping to recording done of a drug addict. Interesting comparison. By the example you used you have identified why so many bloggers are upset...there is an insinuation that Andrews is doing something wrong. NB: It is bloggers who recognize and complain about this hint of wrongdoing as a character slur for Mr. Andrews, not Andrews himself. He weathered the taping, took it in stride and has nothing to hide.
Your post suggests that you value "politeness" over feeling and passion. Because you closed with a Scriptural reference, I'm surprised that you did not put more emphasis on "truth".
You were, however,quick to criticize the lack of legal foundations in bloggers' postings. How did you acquire so much legal knowledge to sit in judgment on the backgrounds of all who blog here? What are your credentials that you can make such a sweeping generalization?
You hold the Town Manager responsible for the relationships in TOV's gov. Relationship implies more than one. I have to disagree with you and state that I think it is the responsibility of all parties to make any relationship work.
FYI There are traffic cameras here. Beware of the left turn from Oracle to River, Ina going east and La Cholla.The River/Oracle carries a $280 ticket and $50 class plus points on your license. Beware!
Conservative,
In response to your first post...
"Why would anyone who was telling the truth object to having that truth documented on tape? Seems to me that would eliminate anyone twisting what was said."
The problem I see here, which I alluded to in a prior post, is that the person/group who is AWARE that the meeting is being recorded will behave in a manner much different than they would behave if they knew they WERE NOT being recorded. That's why I said its "bordering" on entrapment, because they can MANIPULATE THE CONVERSATION to get the result they're looking for.
"Entrapment requires that someone be put in a position to to do something illegal that they would not have done had they not been convinced to do so at the behest of the police."
Yes it's not entrapment in the legal sense of the word, but it is MANIPULATIVE, which isn't so very different from entrapment, where an officer MANIPULATES a person into doing something that they wouldn't ordinarily do.
This recent behavior by the OVPD is just one example in a very long line of examples as to why so many citizens of this town are so fed up with them. But you said that you are new here (new to this blog or new to Oro Valley?) so you may not be aware of the history and as such you would not understand some of the comments that we make.
Victorian Cowgirl,
What an astute insight!
Kudos on articulating it so well.
Boy--where did this thread go off the track? I can't remember another posting that got as many responses or prompted such personal vitriol.
Facts are this: Every budget is made up of only two elements--people and things. In the case of cities, the public safety departments (police, fire) are usually the largest and consume the biggest percentage of the budget. Does this mean that the personnel think they run the cities? Perhaps they may THINK that, given their outsize proportion of the budget. And, because they put themselves in harm's way, they have unions that frequently negotiate from positions of power and influence different from unions that represent clerks or accountants.
As I wrote early on, there's another shoe that will drop relating to this subject. And, when it does, there will be a lot of crow to eat for many who posted here.
Conservative,
In response to your second post...
"Objective Thinker (and I'm new) seems pretty polite compared to many of you. Why is he treated with such spite?"
If you'd been reading this blog for the past 2 years, you would know that Thinker (by his own admission) is not always "polite" ESPECIALLY when compared to many of us. If you've read MY comments on this site for the past 2 years, you would know that 99% of them are civil and polite and that I only become caustic when I am accused of something that isn't true. You would also know that most of the "spite" associated with Thinker's comments comes from a long-standing rift between Art and Thinker, but they can speak for themselves as to that issue.
"It appears to me that this guy (or girl) Terry Parish is upset about the treatment of some of the bloggers."
Terry Parish is a "guy" who is a Deputy with the Pima County Sheriff's Office and was also an Oro Valley council member for 4 years. Because he is in law-enforcement, he ALWAYS sides with the police. He has a problem with objectivity in this regard. As he stated, he has not read this site for months (he quit blogging here when the "going got tough") but of course he returned the minute an unflattering OVPD story appeared in the local paper and he knew we'd be blogging about it. Notice that when we challenged his comments, he disappeared once again.
I agree with Terry about the virtues of "open and transparent government" and the impact recordings can have, but with one caveat. It's only open and transparent when ALL meetings are recorded, not just the ones where a particular person or group can manipulate the outcome! I'll bet the OVPD wouldn't come out smelling like a rose if ALL of their conversations were recorded without THEIR knowledge. It's hardly a level playing field when only SOME meetings are recorded and only SOME people are aware that those meetings are being recorded.
"If the manager was buying drugs would you still think it was wrong to record him?"
No I wouldn't because drug-dealing is illegal.
"So why are many of you upset about the recordings?"
Because Dave Andrews has NEVER shown any hint of impropriety and if the OVPD continues to badger him, he may just decide that this town isn't worth the aggravation (and he may be right) and he might quit.
"I stay in Oro Valley frequently and enjoy the relative tranquil environment provided by the police."
The tranquil environment here is not provided by the police. It's provided courtesy of the well-educated and civilized people who live here.
boobie-baby---- The original post says what it says---- "Oro Valley Police Unions Think They Run The Town."
It was only a few years ago when these same people threatened the then council, "If you don't work with us, we'll take you out."
Fortunately, before they were able to remove those offending words, it already reached the public domain.
What a great choice of words by those that took an oath to protect the citizens. "If you don't work with us, we'll take you out!"
More recently, this same group of police saw fit to run radio ads threatening some on the council that they (the union) felt were not being helpful.
Interesting, but it was these same council members that came up with a motion to save the six positions the chief of police was willing to lose with a cutback.
The latest episode concerning David Andrews, the Town Manager who serves THE PEOPLE of Oro Valley will class, dignity & dedication. David is a good man and should not have to face the wrath of these same police personnel.
That, boobie-baby is what this post is all about!!!
Conservative,
Further response to your second post...
"Where does the term police state fit into the realities of this town? You guys don't even have traffic cameras on you stop lights."
Whenever the police don't get their way, they show up in force, in uniform, with guns, at the next town council meeting where they take to the podium one by one and "dress-down" the council members one by one who dared to vote against them on any given issue. They think they own this town, hence, the suggestion that they were trying to turn Oro Valley into a "police-state" was once alluded to during a council meeting.
Oro Valley does have cameras installed at certain intersections/traffic lights. If memory serves, there is one at Tangerine and LaCanada for example.
"I'm also not used to people being so bold as to sarcastically make remarks regarding their police officers being shot. Is this coarse behavior the norm here?"
Nombe's comment, "I hope nobody gets shot" was in reference to the Jericho Police shooting a CITIZEN who dared to stand up to them IN COURT. He didn't state that we should shoot the OVPD.
"I have never met a soldier that bets his life on his fellow soldiers that believed there were enough of them to be safe. Seems like police might be similiar, in that regard."
So if there is "never enough of them to be safe" then no matter how many OVPD we have, won't they always claim that they need more?
"I find it disruptive to educational reading, the amount of legal misinformation on this blog."
Most of us do not have law degrees. We're just having a conversation with each other and tossing ideas around, and venting frustrations, but we're all very thankful when someone who DOES have information about the law decides to join in on the conversation.
"Is there an actual attempt to educate and discuss that has eluded me?"
On this particular post, we are all quite angry about the turn of events. We are venting that anger. But if you re-read the posts at the beginning of the thread, you will see that we were all venting that anger towards the OVPD and the police union, which was the topic of the article. Then Terry Parish chimed in with, "I say you all are un-American, you are the enemy..." yet you claim that it's the rest of us who were being rude.
If you take Art and Thinker's rivalry out of the equation and just look at what the rest of us said, you will see that it was Terry who opted to name-call and make preposterous accusations rather than submit something credible to the discussions.
"Why did Cowgirl pick "Terry Parish" to be her enemy when [Parish's] points regarding being un-American appear on the surface to be valid for many on this blog?"
I never said that Parish was my enemy. (Note that I did say that I have defended him on this site in the past.) It was Parish who said, "I say you all are un-American, you are the enemy..." He said that WE are ALL the ENEMY. Then you twisted that into it being ME who picked HIM to be MY enemy. And he made those comments on September 11th, yet you claim that HE is correct in calling US "un-American." Whew!
Perhaps you should ask Parish why HE picked ME to be his enemy when it was ME (and Zev) who defended him on this site many months ago when his personal life was being attacked.
I have visited the Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, the White House, Congress (where I sat in on a Senate hearing), the Vietnam War Memorial (where I cried even though I didn't personally know anyone who was killed in that war), Washington's home in Mount Vernon, the Smithsonian Institute, and Gettysburg.
I have written letters to my Senators, Congressmen, and Town Council Members. I have campaigned for people running for office both on the local and national levels. I have gone door-to-door distributing campaign fliers. I have worked the phone banks and stuffed envelopes at campaign headquarters.
I sponsored two poor children in foreign countries.
I have donated money to political campaigns and numerous charities.
Yes, the evidence is indisputable.
I am un-American.
I am the enemy.
Conservative.
Nombe is a full time supporter of the police. He just does not like to pay for OVERSTAFFING. He thinks
ezek resides in a krypton breathing realm because he wants MORE police.
He also thinks that recording someone without his authorization or a court order is a poor business practice. Legal or not.
Nombe, who served in BOTH Viet Nam and Iraq, (shows his age) does not want to see anyone shot. Thank you VC for pointing out the Jerico reference - which was indeed obscure to anyone who is new to the blog.
Full Disclosure: Nombe also wondered if Oro Valley needed any police at all. This was a reference to the county official who stated for the record that we here in OV were rich, elite and over educated. It was a jest and indeed obscure unless you scroll down to the libary postings.
Lesson learned: Write like this is your first post, do not assume that all bloggers follow all postings.
Finally, Conservative, my law enforcement background is esoteric. I was never a police person. I did mention it was Federal and, yes I am fully aware of the "reasonable expectation of privacy rule". Now, I am not aware of the nature of the fateful meeting. If it was a official meeting with no members of the public allowed to participate then would it not, ipso facto, be a private meeting, and indeed would there not be a reasonable expectation of privacy at this meeting?
And now for a word from the beloved Warren Zevon:
"send lawyers, guns and money the Sh@@ has hit the fan"
Good night- NW
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We would like to express our sincere admiration for David Andrews. We can recall that during the past four years when we have had neighborhood issues of great importance to us, he was very helpful in trying to resolve the problem or reach a better understanding.
In addition, we wish to go on record that we are NOT overjoyed with several of our experiences with the Police Department. We have had untrue statements made in written reports, and we feel that in several instances, our wishes have been ignored.
It is our understanding that there is growing pressure from OVPD to cause problems for Mr. Andrews. I would seem highly counterproductive to allow a department which has caused distress for some citizens to demean the reputation of a TOV employee who has performed in an exemplary manner.
We are hopeful you will consider our thoughts and experiences.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is a copy of an email we sent to all the Council Members and the Mayor.
WE SUGGEST THAT OTHERS DO THE SAME!
Art--
Why are you yelling? The !!! is the equivalent of shouting.
We all hear you quite well.
boobie-baby---- I'm so glad my three exclamation points got your attention.
I'm sure you heard the story of the man that hit his donkey over the head with a 2x4 and was taken to task for this deed. the man's explanation was that the donkey wouldn't listen and that was his way of getting the donkey's attention.
In that sense, three explanation points should not raise the ire of too many people.
Nombe,
Loved your Warren Zevon quote. Leave it to you to always say something to crack me up on a day when I'm sitting here spitting bullets.
And thanks for offering that you served in Vietnam and Iraq. Parish certainly owes you an apology for his comments and Conservative owes you an apology for agreeing with him.
Ferlin,
Excellent letter to the Council. Well-said and very civil. I hope you sent a copy to Andrews.
Parish and Conservative,
Since Terry picked 9/11 to call us all the enemy, I should add that on the 1-year anniversary of 9/11, my husband and I attended a Memorial Service for the victims. One month later, we drove 5 hours to NYC to visit ground zero.
But of course none of this matters. Apparently,the only thing that determines if one is a true American or not is whether or not they agree with Terry Parish on any given topic.
Lots of emotion, some presumptions, some facts, some fiction, some politicking, some rationality, some insanity - 'Conservative', in Oro Valley we have it all, just like in 'real life'. Oro Valley as a Town was established in 1974, prompted by identity, born of love, and, at times, corrupted by greed. And, of course, nothing is as it was back when. Yes, most of us 'landed' here for different reasons - jobs, retirement, opportunity, freedom from what we ascribed to be the 'city life', etc. And, I would say that we all came with a common expectation of living within an environment of peace, tranquility, culture, and the advantages that is afforded by the natural beauty of our surroundings. Remember how, when you were young, your father used to say [when I was a kid]..., and how you recall your own path in life, and now, how you might perceive our current youth as being 'out of touch' - and, all of that sometimes makes you a little bit angry?
As an example of reflection versus reality, when I first visited Oro Valley about 8 years ago (by accident), Oracle Road was a 2 lane road, there were no walls intruding on the natural view of the Catalina base, there was no 'ordinary' shopping center with a big box anchor, there were no monolithic buildings intruding on the rolling terrain, it was as dark on the ground as it was in the sky, and we (my wife and myself) LOVED IT and moved here four years ago! We loved it so much that we didn't want it to change, but, change does come - some of it we perceive to be not so good, some we perceive to be okay, some might be necessary, some is excellent, and hopefully, in the future, some of it could be superb.
Now, given that, our citizens, individually or collectively, may critique what is good and what is not so good (for themselves) and, the politics involved may provide for some contentious debate and emotional expression; it also can induce some nonsense. Overall, I think that this site does provide for an outlet in order that we may learn, that we may explore, that we may emote, that we, at least, may converse and convey and, too, that we may vent. I would say that not too many Towns have this kind of opportunity and regardless of some of the negatives it is thus that I believe this site is an incredible plus.
As a guest or as a new resident, welcome to Oro Valley. And just as a side note and with a touch of jest, you just might ditch the moniker you have chosen for your posts as it provides for a big target on your back that could detract from the apolitical emphasis relative to this site. ENJOY!
On the left column of our blog, there is a link under "Comments on Our Postings", entilted: "Click Here To Read Our Terms Of Use."
When you click on this, you will receive a downloaded .pdf file that details our terms of use.
One of the paragraphs reads as follows:
"We expect and encourage heated, robust debate, but comments should be civil and
free of threat. Comments should not be “personal attacks” and should be limited to
the topic of the original posting. The LOVE Blog is not the place for personal attacks or
private conversations of any type."
I would urge us all to be mindful and respectful on each other regardless of how "offensive" we may feel another blogger's opinions are.
Post a Comment