Tuesday March 11, 2014
Jump to content
The Opinion article in Friday, August 10, 2012 Roundup Edition:
Title> Sharpen The Tools Of Liberty
"Of course, there’s one added ingredient.That would be you folks — newspaper readers. You pay our salaries and through your support ensure that if we do our jobs right, we’ll make those requests, report those stories — and give you the information you need as citizens."
You claim above that you are providing a PUBLIC service, not just to those who purchase your newspaper, but to all citizens. Well, how do we know your telling us the truth or all of the facts on a particular story, no matter the subject at hand? Should your organization and it's employees not be subject to public scrutiny and the same standards of transparency that you impose on named individuals in your columns? Does the term local media hypocricy become the obvious answer?
If I were to present a "citizens" freedom of information act request with your newspaper for the personnel work evaluations and documented negative or discipline work history of the editor and reporters of the Roundup, you'll cough em up pronto? Will you print the documented negative stuff for the public's consumption? Or, maybe if I just verbaly asked, you'll anty them up on a, your my buddy basis, and publicly print them without a formal
request???..........................That's what I thought.......... Hypocricy..........................
Wake up, the newspaper is not supported by tax money. We have no right to ask them for anything about the reporters unless the story is about us personally and it still won't work. Been there, done that.
I don't think there is a citizens freedom of inforrmation act for privately owned companies.
Unless maybe you want to sue them. You wouldn't find much anyway as thier reporters do not use recorders for interviews. At least that is what I was told when something was written about me that was an out and out lie.
Yes Pat, I am aware of all that you say above. If the newspaper wants to claim they are provideing citizens with non biased factual information about others, then they should man up and subject themselve's to the same standards and scrutiny. I have never met any of the Sheriff candidates or know much about them. But the opinion article on them appears to be a selective hatchet job on some. Some of them have some negative comments from past supervisors, citizens so what? I have worked under some real jerk managers who went out of their way to taint or ruin careers because someone would not bend over and kiss their ring. In my experience, someone who claims to have actualy worked in Law Enforcement in the field for any substantial time is going to get a few citizen or administrative complaints deserved or not. Or, they are not doing any proactive work. Anyone who claims otherwise rode an inside desk job for the majority of their time or was brown noseing so much for promotions or cushy positions, they were given lap dog protection by their like minded superiors.
Don, I was going along with your argument until you made the last sentence the end of your argument.
I thought you were saying that people who do what they were hired to do, sometimes make enemies of those who don't agree with the rule. That I can agree with. Then you went about demeaning people who disagree with the rule and make them enemies of the system. That's judgemental and has no place in law enforcement.
The Sheriff of any county in any state has got to be the leader and policy enforcer of the written and intended laws of that County and State. They must direct their deputies to fullfill their oath of office without regard to personal acqaintance, political correctness, or influence. They must also be a book keeper and watch dog over the taxpayers money. In the end: However, the law is the law,
when it is believed to violated, a suspect is identified, they should be arrested and put before a Judge who has a totally different rule to follow.
I read what you say, but I don't understand some it or how it applies to my subject? Anyway, the point is about the double standard of the newspaper releasing personnel work history evaluations. Yes, in Arizona I know now that you can do that via State freedom of information request. In the rest of the real world, (City, County, State) that is not permissable unless it concerns a criminal matter with a public sector employee who has been convicted in a court trial. And I do not blindly believe what the print, TV, Radio media report as factual or that they report all of the pertinent facts. And that includes this paper. Frankly, if I only rely on the papers information about the Sheriff candidates, several are unqualified boobs, one walks on water and is the pre ordained chosen one, the others we know virtualy nothing about, and all are Gila Co. good ol' Boy bubbas who claim their family roots here a century ago. So, that makes them qualified? And in conclusion, Law Enforcement is nothing but making judgements, be you a beat cop or a Chief. Legal, administrative, and personal.
Seems others are concerned about reporting correct facts or all the facts> Response to Roundup article about Payson Police Benefits Aug 8, by Dan Klimut
This is absolutely ridiculous. Get your facts straight, As I will quote:
"Police officers and firefighters have among the best retirement plans in the state and many can retire at nearly full salary for life after 20 years on the job. They often collect those benefits at a relatively young age even if they get another job. Few workers in the private sector can start collecting pensions until they’re at least 62."
I was an officer in both the valley and here in payson for about 5 years. That was back during the time when the AZ public safety retirement system was 50% of your three highest years at 20 years of service. The absolute MAXIMUM a person could draw is 80% of their three highest years. The ONLY way someone can get 100% is if it is a death benefit for the surviving family if the officer/fire-fighter etc. was killed in the line of duty.
As it states on psprs.com under the link "summary of benefits" on the left side:
20 years of credited service: 50% of the average monthly benefit compensation for the first 20 years of creditedservice. A.R.S. §§ 38‐842(7) and 38‐845(A).
How is 50% even remotely close to the remark "Police officers and firefighters have among the best retirement plans in the state and many can retire at nearly full salary for life after 20 years on the job."
Oh and by the way, the AZ system requires each public safety member to pay about 9% out of their OWN PAYCHECK, in order to receive this "great" pension you write of. Many other retirement systems costs the member nothing and are 80-100%
Its amazing that you have this perception that cops/fire fighters have it easy/get great benefits. 1)medical benefits at most public safety departments are deplorable and expensive 2)these are people RISKING THEIR LIVES so you can sleep at night, watch TV or even perhaps write a very ignorantly written article about how great cops and firefighters have it in Arizona. Also- the pay is pretty deplorable for a non-supervisory employee.
Continued from above: Why is it that PS gets picked on when we will have military members that sit behind a desk for 20 years, never risk their life and they get a pension/medical etc? I am playing devils advocate here and support our military as well, but why cant people respect the PS field and realize it is woefully underpaid, overworked and DISRESPECTED in many ways including someone writing a stupid article such as this?
And to the main point of the article- we complain that we have to actually pay an INJURED PS employee that was injured SAVING someone? I mean, that is just outrageous to actually take care of the ones that take care of us!! That must be socialisim/communism or something!!!! Because my tax dollars pay their salaray!!! all 2-300 dollars that I pay each year!!
And in case you couldnt tell, that was sarcasm.
Come on people, get your facts straight and why dont you support public safety instead of bashing them?
Don: Thanks for refuting some ignorant statements by using facts. Also, I support your plea for support for public safety personnel. Not too different from teachers in a few respects.
Teachers don't put thier life on the line every day of work.
Of course police and firemen choose thier jobs as do teachers.
The fire personnel in Mesa could retire after 20 yrs. and go to work somewhere else then pay into SS and and draw retirement on it later on. Could not go to work for the FD after 30 yrs old. Don't know how they do it now.
I am not knocking it. My son worked for the Mesa Fire Dept. for about 14yrs, couldn't stand the politics and quit. Took his retirement money and went on to other things.
Think about it, go to work at the fire dept. at 20 retire at 40 and have another career.
Go into a classroom with 30 unruly kids.(:
Posting comments requires a free account