Staff: It's Deegan vs. Cruess, Deegan vs. Cruess, Deegan vs. Cruess... White: Oh, really?
Cheshire Police Union President Kerry Deegan is retiring. The NHRs Luther Turmelle offers his take on Deegan's retirement here. And the MRJs Jesse Buchanan also has a piece about Deegan's April 30 retirement.
Jesse asked me for my thoughts on the retirement:
Town Councilor Tim White said he didn't think Deegan's retirement would alleviate much of the tension within the department, rejecting the idea that the conflict was between Deegan and the chief.
"This is not about Deegan," White said. "It was the union that voted ... I believe (Deegan's retirement) will have very little impact."
FWIW, although staff angrily denied problems at the PD two years ago... there were acknowledged "concerns" by last summer.
And what were we told last summer and into the fall?
It's Deegan vs. Cruess. It's Deegan vs. Cruess. It's Deegan vs. Cruess!
So I guess everything is hunky-dory at the PD now. Right?
Unfortunately, that's not the case. And the Council should act to address the problems.
But the Council has no reporting relationship with the Police Chief or any officers. Rather, the Council has a reporting relationship with their boss. So I encourage the Council to deal with him and let him solve the problems at the PD.
Oh wait... he has had two years to do that and has failed to do so... most of the time denying any problems existed. He's had plenty of time to deal with this... and don't forget that he has a six-figure Personnel Director who has a job description that includes mediation.
It's time for the Council to address this situation in terms of the failures of the TM:
1) the failure to acknowledge the problem; and
2) the failure to mediate the problem.
Time for a change.
Tim White
26 comments:
a six-figure Personnel Director who has a job description that includes mediation.
And now that the council renewed his six-fugure pay, he's earning every dime of it, right?
48-0 against
Clearly there is significant blame to go around on this. It doesn't begin or end with the chief, the officer, the other staff or the town hall managers. As a group they have all failed miserably.
Reading the terms of the separation agreement made public by its publication on the RJ web site one has to wonder just what hasn't been made public too. The agreement states in part "...the town also agrees ...not ... to pursue any criminal complaints, in connection with any facts found during said investigation. ..."
This one statement should be of concern to residents.
1)Was there potential for criminal acts which could lead to criminal complaints? Why would such language be used if there was no possibility?
2)If so does this town have clear guidance concerning just how it then bargains with employed individuals who decide to strike up a deal on the way out before any criminal charges can be filed?
3)Just how many of these special deals with what could be loosely termed a free 'get-out-of-jail' pass has the town negotiated over the past 10 years?
"It doesn't begin or end with the chief"- unfortunately it does. As former military, the failings of a unit are the failing of leadership. This chief should be taking responsibility for all issues under his command.
I read the "study", it indicated that the issues were "complete meltdown" and indicated that the officers remain dedicated. That is a complement to the officers and thier immediate supervisors, not the chief. It appears that the chief needs to swallow his pride on this one. It is very hard to admit that "you" may be the issue, as self evaluation is always hard. The retirement of one mid level supervisor is not the answer the town appears to think it is, the problems will persist unless the chief is replaced. Leadership is the problem, or lack thereof.
1;07
The distinction with the military vs. civilian PDs is the absence of a union. This is a game changer especially when what we consider to be ordinary leadership instructions coming from the top somehow suddenly become isssues to be greived or bargained for and against by rank and file. This is too simple a description of all that besets the CPD caommand and rank and file but its a piece of it for sure.
issues and changes, with a union, must be negotiated. this has been the process for years. I dont recall issues with previous chiefs. i would imagine someone who came through the ranks would understand this better. Total meltdown does not equal ordinary issues..
"As former military, the failings of a unit are the failing of leadership."
As real world professional these types of situations sometimes have no clear cut beginning or ending. The military is too simplistic of a model to be working from for answers on a situation such as this.
It is clear that there are at least 50 or 60 individuals associated directly with this mess. You have the union membership and their vote along with their selected leader. You have the chief along with his bosses at town hall. Why single out the chief as leader when in fact the retired union boss was the leader of the workers? And why single out the chief when he reports to someone who was his boss?
Military models don't cut it in the world of unionized municipal work forces. Hope you have gotten some experience dealing with labor unions out here in the work-a-day world. If not maybe you should seek out some management types who deal day-to-day with labor union work practices which when taken to the limit yield places like down town Detroit. You know, where the city is now bull dozing whole abandoned neighborhoods in the hopes of restoring the land to farm use. Only a couple of decades ago the land was full of housing for people, many union members, working for what used to be the center of world wide auto production.
CT municipal labor unions and the legislature's Democrat super majority are steering CT to the same fate as Detroit. This town's sweetheart deals - - 49 year olds retiring at full benefits 16 years before normal retirement age along with low rent housing and teachers getting 14 or 15% pay hikes - - aren't doing anything to make tax payers, homeowners as well as business tax payers stick around to watch and pay for more of this ineptitude.
The fish stinks from the head.
Anonymous April 24, 2010 4:28 PM said...
"This town's sweetheart deals - - 49 year olds retiring at full benefits 16 years before normal retirement age along with low rent housing and teachers getting 14 or 15% pay hikes - - aren't doing anything to make tax payers, homeowners as well as business tax payers stick around to watch and pay for more of this ineptitude."
Despite what you think you know, the Town has never been known for being overly generous. There are many towns around us paying better salaries and benefits.
If you had any clue about police work and the resulting pensions for a career, you would know that this is a normal retirement. This individual just happened to start when he was 18. Does anyone really want to see 60-something police officers out on the street?
If this was a sweetheart deal, then you would see the Town giving pension credit for military service and being able to buy pension credit for previous police work - neither of which the Town does. You would find that probably more towns do this than not.
Who is getting 14-15% pay raises? You conveniently shade this your way by omitting the time period to which these numbers refer. Further, the numbers are incorrect - not every teacher gets the maximum percentage. Your statement implies that they do.
851 - kudos, you are correct that for police this is nor,al retirement age unless you include the higher than average heart related issues which are prevalent in law enforcement. That is is you don't take into consideration the suicide rate of police (2nd highest in nation) or divorce rate (highest in nation) due to the stress levels. They also have a much lower life expectancy than Joe Public. So sick of the police bashing in this town, move to bridgeport or hartford. Their pds don't provide half the services Cheshire does. Call them for a sick squirrel, vandalized mailbox, parking lot accident, or for a "man" selling magazines. You won't see an officer there, ever.
8:51 a.m., guessing from what you wrote you believe that towns should be allowing 49 year old employees to retire with full benefits at 49 years old. Throwing in special lease arrangements for a house should be included too along with gold plated medical coverage for the whole family.
Where else but in this town only for municipal employees is that kind of a deal available? Granted the payout for life will only be 68,000 per year. If the individual collects until say age 85 we are talking $2,448,000 before adding in the cost of the money (which over 36 years kind of adds up), health or hosing benefits etc.
In the best of times for the best of reasons, like the person reached age 65+ on the job, that kind of benefit is close to unsustainable. In the case of a disgruntled police department how many more of these sweet heart deals can the poor tax payer absorb before they all go bankrupt from out of control taxes?
And please don't insult people's intelligence either. Saying "you would know that this is a normal retirement" kind of misses a big point. Where is retirement at age 49 with a maxed out payout normal? Where? If this is normal for this town the town will surely be in bankruptcy quite soon.
Why does this town allow employees to retire with full benefits at age 49?
Anonymous April 25, 2010 11:10 AM said...
"guessing from what you wrote you believe that towns should be allowing 49 year old employees to retire with full benefits at 49 years old. Throwing in special lease arrangements for a house should be included too along with gold plated medical coverage for the whole family."
No, I meant that it was normal for anyone else there - he got nothing more, nothing less than anyone else who is retiring from CPD with the same amount of years on the job.
The pension is NOT $68K/yr. - it is 68% of the average of his three consecutive highest years. And the med benefits are for him & a spouse, not for a family.
You probably will still object to any of this, but at least get your facts CORRECT.
For a great many years, the public sector lagged far behind the private sector for pay and benefits. So in this case, would you like to trade jobs and be a police officer? The benefits are clearly the upside now. The downside is higher divorce rate, shorter life expectancy, higher rates of alcoholism and suicide. Not to mention working nights, weekends and holidays, rotating shifts and having to deal with the dregs of our society. And don't say nothing ever happens in Cheshire. We all know too well what happens in Cheshire - and all of it (crime) doesn't even make the newspapers!
11:10 AM - you are the ignorant, this is a normal police pension. Normal in that police officers CANT do the job at 60 plus years of age. It is too physically demanding. Where else but this town - Meriden, Greenwich, Hamden, Old Saybrook, etc etc etc. Each officer contributes a good percentage of every dollar EARNED to pay for such benefits. Benefits that the town evaluated, and agreed to because they were affordable, during negotiations. He and every officer at the PD have been paying toward these benefits for years. Each time a pension change is done, the town conducts an actuarial study to determine it is doable. In fact the police pension is the best funded, actually it was overfunded for years, without any contributions from the town. Tim is on the board, but he groups police with everyone else to raise fears. If the town even made small yearly contributions to take advantage of the market, and compounding, there would be even less of an issue.
He was not given a "sweetheart" deal. He was eligible to retire, with the same benefits, months ago. He wanted to stay longer, but someone wanted him out for some reason. He probably would have stayed for several more years in service to the Town.
deegan retired, 1 officer just put in papers to leave for florida pd, one awaiting word from another local pd
deegan retired, 1 officer just put in papers to leave for florida pd, one awaiting word from another local pd
12:09 "The benefits are clearly the upside now. The downside is higher divorce rate, shorter life expectancy, higher rates of alcoholism and suicide. Not to mention working nights, weekends and holidays, rotating shifts and having to deal with the dregs of our society."
The benefits, whatever they are need to be affordable. Just because some labor union and some group of municipal management employees negotiate a deal in a vacuum doesn't mean what comes out is affordable. These deals are ruining the very state and towns which have to pay for them. They are not affordable long term. The most recent retirement will most probably cost the town more for the retirement then the town actually paid for the individual's long 30 years of service in the first place.
Justifying out of control benefits to a group/class of workers because many of them are alcoholics and/or divorced seems a bit over the top in the best of cases. You are going to have everyone believing that the town PD is populated by a bunch of substance abusers.
Along those lines maybe the town should be providing one more expensive but important and yes, life saving benefit for the PD as well as town residents. Mandatory 100% annual random drug and alcohol testing as part of the fitness for duty requirements. Who could argue against mandatory drug/alcohol testing for work groups where alcoholism is a significant issue as you have professed?
It is surprising that the police labor union hasn't actually required the town to provide this benefit since it would actually benefit everyone. But recently they were too busy, the no confidence thing took up all their available time for many months and maybe even a couple of years - - -
there's plenty of blame to go around, but from an effective management perspective: "the buck stops here" with the town manager and his so-called personnel director (who receives $100K+ a year, which I'm at a loss to understand).
"there's plenty of blame to go around, but from an effective management perspective: "the buck stops here" with the town manager and his so-called personnel director (who receives $100K+ a year, which I'm at a loss to understand)."
You and me both...if this situation occurs in a public or even private corporation both of these positions would've been replaced a long time ago based on the facts presented so far.
We have a Town Manager incapable of leading people. I don't know about the personnel director but it seems that position is ineffective as well. Had this situation occurred in a public/private corporation these so-called leaders would've been replaced a long time ago.
In this economy, there are many highly qualified leaders that would love to step into either one of these two roles. What is the TC waiting for?
This Town Council better wake up and start assessing whether or not Milone should continue as Town Manager. It seems all but one TC member is afraid of Milone. Why? What does Milone have on them that's preventing them from seeing and speaking the obvious truth?
Oh, and by the way, it's now 5 months after the election and despite a botched and humiliating consultant review of the CPD...the CPD issues persist and there's no clear plan on how to move forward from here.
Silence, playing dumb, hiding behind confidentiality and hiding your heads in the sand, is obviously not solving this problem. What is the TC waiting for? What is the plan folks?
How is it that Tim knew about issues in the PD a year ago and the TM didn't address them at that time?
I recall, and Tim could probably get the exact time and date that he mentioned it, tat he brought t up before the council and was told that the TC shouldn't be involved in those personnel isues.
Now, a year later, we are in this mess.
Tim is right, by Deegan leaving, things are not going to get any better at the PD.
Who knows if things will even get better if Cruess leaves??
If the TM doesn't get more involved in that situation, we are going to hve a lot more issues going on.
Cruess should be gone as well.
"Cruess should be gone as well.
April 26, 2010 12:17 PM"
Too bad nobody in town staff, politics, or government has any power against him. He can only leave on his own decision. He has the only position in town that cannot be fired without court approval.
I recall, and Tim could probably get the exact time and date that he mentioned it, tat he brought t up before the council and was told that the TC shouldn't be involved in those personnel isues.
Now, a year later, we are in this mess."
Yes, what was that Democrat TC member's name? He got trampled in the last election. For the life of me I can't remember his name but he made a very big stink about it and lectured the Republicans on the TC at the time.
Anonymous April 26, 2010 12:54 PM said...
"Too bad nobody in town staff, politics, or government has any power against him (police chief). He can only leave on his own decision. He has the only position in town that cannot be fired without court approval."
Not exactly correct. Read this from the Connecticut General Statutes. Basically it says that a chief is entitled to due process and may appeal a termination to the court. This statute came about so that a chief wasn't removed arbitrarily any time the mayor, council or party in power changed.
Sec. 7-278. Hearing prior to dismissal of municipal police head. Just cause requirement. Appeal. No active head of any police department of any town, city or borough shall be dismissed unless there is a showing of just cause by the authority having the power of dismissal and such person has been given notice in writing of the specific grounds for such dismissal and an opportunity to be heard in his own defense, personally or by counsel, at a public hearing before such authority. Such public hearing, unless otherwise specified by charter, shall be held not less than five nor more than ten days after such notice. Any person so dismissed may appeal within thirty days following such dismissal to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town, city or borough is located. Service shall be made as in civil process. Said court shall review the record of such hearing, and, if it appears upon the hearing upon the appeal that testimony is necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal, it may take evidence or appoint a referee or a committee to take such evidence as it directs and report the same to the court with his or its findings of fact, which report shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court, upon such appeal, and after a hearing thereon, may affirm the action of such authority, or may set the same aside if it finds that such authority acted illegally or arbitrarily, or in the abuse of its discretion, with bad faith, malice, or without just cause.
Here was 1 post from April of 2009.
Tim seemed to have knowledge that soemthing was up.
Southington Police Vote No Confidence
Love the comments by DeVylder in that one.
Where was Milone last April? Was he looking into it?
Does anyone know about the pension for the police department? Correct me if I am wrong, but is the union self supporting in the pension? Don't they contribute a % of there pay towards retirement? What does the town contribute? medical? up to what age and are families included.
If they are self supporting-they are getting off cheap?
10:35 p.m. unless the union believes that police can commit robbery in order to fund their pensions it is us, the tax payers who pay for all of it. The money comes from government taxes, either local, state or federal. All the funding of the pensions begins as tax dollars. Any claims that it comes from something else would be like claiming someone had invented a perpetual motion machine that really works.
Post a Comment