Impasse between IAFF Local 3118 and the City of Port Orange Fl

 

You are in the web site of Port Orange Area News

www.portorangeareanews.com

 

..... "Today, the dialogue is about the cost of total compensation package and how that package compares with not only other public sector employers but how does the package compare with the private sector." ...... May, 2010

--- Mr. Ken Parker, City Manager, Port Orange, Fl.

 

Attorneys for the City of Port Orange

"By law, such language is not permitted in a contract?"
Did you ever hear that before?

Caption by Hank Springer

Cartoon found in the Complete New Yorker Cartoons, pg. 397
see more cartoons at www.newyorker.com
see more cartoons at www.cartoonbank.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

=======================

Craig is wrong

  . . . . . . If I were to work to age 52, that would be 31 years of service and 93% of my salary...  He failed to mention that I, like most of my co-workers, started my career at 21 years old.

Has anyone pulled the statistics??  FF's live 15-17 years less than their "counterparts" in the private sector..  That's why our pension is considered HIGH RISK, we're not shredding paper for a living. . . .   

Beau Gardner

poanposted 5 13 10 at 856 pm

////////////// AND PREVIOUSLY ////////////////////////

Retire at 52 yrs. of age after working for 25 years?

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

received 5 12 10 at 358 pm

//////// Poan Hank replies ////////////

Thank you Craig for that information. If any one wants to see the entire pdf form that Craig sent me, let me know and I will e mail it to you. contact Hank

Yes the request from the NSB fire union is to be able to retire at the age of 52, after 25 years of service. I think that whenever the full length of time required by the contract is put in, is when the worker should be able to take advantage of it, if he/she so wants.

The people probably think otherwise. We must be vigilant
in these financial crises times, that we don't develop vigilant committees, or dictatorship like procedures, although it might be
popular. When the bail out money was dispersed to wall street, not surprisingly the senators involved did not worry about
contracts already in place, that had already provided for
lucrative bonuses to wall street workers. The State Attorney
in Conn. took it upon himself, to start proceedings against
any wall street worker, who according to his/her contract,
took the bonus rewards. The State Attorney, acting
in a popular atmosphere, was attempting to get those
Conn. workers to return their bonus pay, which they had
rightfully received according to a contract, that applied
to work done in New York City. TV personality took the
attorney general to task on his TV show. The AG was very surprised
that Glenn Beck was attacking his right to use the law
against the wall street workers, on something that was not criminal,
and had nothing to do with the State of Conn. Good for the wacky guy, Glenn Beck.

The citizens have a right to demand that the city stop
giving away the store. But I don't think they mean that
the fire union should not expect to negotiate and bargain,
fairly and in good faith. Wal Mart would have the police issue me a trespass warning, if I did what you suggested, outside their store. Wal Mart just provided bicycles and helmets to the kids who won in the police department's art contest, and recently Wal Mart
gave $2,000 to the city which will be partly used to dispose of
dirty needles within Port Orange. I don't think Wal Mart would
want me asking any questions outside its store, unless
they were sure the city of Port Orange authorized it.
If I asked citizens if they think it is ok for the city government
to accept such nice things from Wal Mart, I think the citizens
would decide in the affirmative. I see it differently. Does the fire department give out flu shots in Loews, Targets, or Home Depot?
I don't think so, and I guess I should find out why not.

Comparing Public
and Private Sector
Compensation over
20 Years

by the National Insitute on Retirement and Security

published April 2010

The analysis finds that:
. . . . . 􀁳􀀀Public and private workforces differ in important
ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require
much more education on average than those in
the private sector. Employees in state and local
sectors are twice as likely as their private sector
counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.
􀁳􀀀Wages and salaries of state and local employees are
lower than those for private sector workers with
comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education).
State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local
workers earn 12 percent less.
􀁳􀀀Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and
local employees have generally declined relative to
comparable private sector employees.
􀁳􀀀The pattern of declining relative compensation
remains true in most of the large states we
examined, although some state-level variation
exists.
􀁳􀀀Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of
employee compensation in the public sector.
􀁳􀀀State and local employees have lower total
compensation than their private sector counterparts.
On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower
for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local
workers, compared with comparable private sector
employees.
This recession calls for equal sacrifice, but longterm
patterns indicate that the average compensation
of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if
the goal is to compensate public and private workforces
in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for
reductions in average state and local wages
and benefits.. . . .

I intend to report more findings from this analysis. If you want to
read the complete pdf form, contact hank

--- hank, poanposted 5 12 10 at 622 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

..... "Today, the dialogue is about the cost of total compensation package and how that package compares with not only other public sector employers but how does the package compare with the private sector." ......

--- Mr. Ken Parker, City Manager, Port Orange, Fl.

 

///////////////////////

POAN Hank replies

 

////////////////////////

Received from Cathy McNa, Port Orange, Fl.

5 11 10 at 506 pm

After reading this B.S. from the City Manager I cannot in my wildest dreams figure out why he would even consider classifying the private sector with our firefighters and police officers.  Does this mean that anyone off of the street can become a firefighter or a police officer without any training?  If that is the case, Ken Parker has no clue as to his logic.  If he had his way he would just hire someone at minimum wage and let the citizens of Port Orange suffer.  I am sorry but his opinion is nothing less than a smoke screen and not welcome by me or any other citizen of Port Orange.  All right, this means that the City Manager and the Mayor should also be considered into this ridiculous private sector crap.  Let's do it the right way.  Take the City Managers and Mayors pay and see if they are equal to the private sector as well.  This is one of the most ridiculous attempts to cover his ass I have ever seen.  Better luck next time Mr. Parker.  You are WRONG and incapable of trying to appease the public with your useless and non welcome remarks I have ever seen.

Cathy McNa, Port Orange

Love, Cathy and the Pugs

/////////////////POAN HANK ADDS://////////////////////

I understand that the Mayor makes about $18,000 a year for his services as Mayor,

and the city council people, about $13,000 a year.

The City Manager I think is something close to and over $100,000. Just about all city mayors, council people and City Managers of the large cities in Volusia County make more than our city hall members.
Correct me if I am wrong. ---- hank, poanposted 5 11 10 at 852 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mr. Ken Parker, City Manager of Port Orange, Fl.

answers two questions from POAN Hank.

 

What exactly is a "sane salary" . . . .?

Received 5 9 10 at 403 pm

from Beau Gardner, Port Orange, Fl.

....AND THAT MEANS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START FIRING THESE INSANE PEOPLE.....

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

received 5 9 10 at 157 pm

From: Port Orange Images

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 1:23 PM

Subject: 2 questions for the city manager of port orange

may 9 2010 at  119 pm

From Port Orange Area News
www.portorangeareanews.com  
Hank Springer, Publisher/Editor
poimages@cfl.rr.com
386 852 3178

 

Two questions for the City Manager of Port Orange, Fl.

 

Sent to the City Council by POAN Hank

 

1. During the negotiating period with the fire union, were all city council members made aware
that the fire union offered to raise its members contribution to the pension plan, from 0.5% to 8.1%?

 

2. Did the city really negotiate with the fire union, or did it show a high handedness which
might now be the trend for the city to use with all people who come to them with problems
during these hard financial times?

 

See Hank's two questions and comments

on POAN's home page,

www.portorangeareanews.com

poanposted 5 8 10 at 118 pm

/////////////////////////////

POAN Hank responds to Craig E. Young

Craig, thank you for your thoughts.

As I understand public sentiment, even before we had the housing bubble burst,

many thought taxes were too high, and blamed the cost of civil servants' salaries

and pension benefits. If this is so, I don't think the civil servants union should be blamed,

but the blame belongs on city management. Besides wanting to have good, happy civil servants

work for a city administration, I wouldn't be surprised if one motive for keeping civil servants

happy with their contracts, is the reality that if only 3000 people vote in city elections

in the City of Port Orange, then city workers along with their friends and families,

might very well account for one third of the votes cast in the next city election.

If city civil servants are not happy, those up for reelection in the city council

may very well be voted out. Two council people are not running for reelection. The mayor has said

that he will not seek another term. (Is that correct?)

I do agree that city civil servant costs will have to change, just as our families

daily and weekly costs have to change to keep up with the new economical reality.

I get a civil servant pension, and I would be kind of ruffled, if I were told

that my pension now has to be cut, because wall street swindled us and the city

no longer receives the tax revenue from valued homes, and in addition,

we just discovered that you were getting too much of a pension to begin with.

Starting off new employees with reduced salaries and pension benefits, as the

special magistrate suggested, seems fair to me.

Perhaps, a gradual reduction in pension costs for those already in service,

might seem fair. It does to me, but I don't know if it would to the fire union.

An offer by the fire union to increase their contributions to the pension system,

0.5% to 8.1% is something that I can not ignore, and start wondering

why it wasn't feasible for this contract, at least as a start

for future years with those people already in civil service.

I agree that the city has to change its attitude of not giving away the store

as Craig probably believed when it comes to fire union contracts,

but as I have stated, I find it a little scary, for the city to take an

attitude that the fire personnel will now pay for the mistakes of wall street,

and for the mistakes of city councils in the past.

Craig, if you like, I'll give you the last word on this issue, but perhaps others won't.

--- hank, poanposted 5 9 10 at 340 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

IS FAIRNESS STILL IN PLAY DURING THESE FINANCIALLY HARD TIMES?

E mail to Ken Parker, City Manager of Port Orange, Fl.

cc to Port Orange City Council Members

sent 5 9 10 at 106 pm

Good Afternoon Mr. Parker.

I previously had asked if all city council members

had been advised during the negotiating period,

that the Fire Union was offering

to pay 8.6% into the pension plan, a significant increase

from the 0.5 % fire department members were

and now are contributing to

the pension plan. I understand that somewhere and

somehow, the city council decided to treat benefits for the

fire department as a whole package, in effect not giving

due to merit to any one line item consideration proposed by

the fire union. I would imagine that at sometime, perhaps during "shadow", closed to the public

council meetings, the city council members should have been advised of this significant

contribution to the pension proposal. Before I ask city council members to explain

their individual judgments regarding the fire union proposal, I would like to confirm with you,

that all city council members were positively advised at some point during negotiations,

of the fire union's generous offer

regarding the pension issue,

I understand that the special Magistrate suggested leaving the pension plan as it is for current employees but putting new employees in the reduced benefit plan . This is exactly what I felt
was a fair way to proceed to correct past pension mistakes by the City of Port Orange. I had indicated such on the POAN web site, before information about the Special Magistrate's decision had been made public.

Unless you can tell me differently, it appears to me that the city negotiated in a
way which might be labeled "not in good faith". The way it seem to me, is that the
city took a position which posited that no matter what priority concerns the fire union
might have, the city intended to ignore them and not bargain in good faith,
but to demand that the entire contract package meet the necessities of
correcting past benefit mistakes negotiated by the city.

The special magistrate happens to agree with what I
had always thought was fair in negotiations during these fiscally hard times,
and the special magistrate agreed with the Fire Union in these matters.

Unless I hear differently from you , Mr. Parker, or the city council members,
I see a picture of the city of Port Orange showing up for so called 'negotiations'
but having preconceived intentions of not giving merit to any specific suggestions, demands, or offerings from the fire union, and having secretly ordained, that the only contract that
will be signed by the city council, regardless of any special magistrate's decision, would be
one where the City wins on all its demands, regardless of the fire union's willingness
to negotiate and help try to alleviate some of the financial difficulties the city finds itself in.

It is easy for me to say that this kind of negotiations is "not in good faith", because
although I may be using a legal term, I am speaking as a citizen interested in
what is fair for all of us in these serious fiscal times. If the city can be unreasonable
with the fire union, it can be unreasonable with me as a home owner in the city of Port Orange.

I remember when a POAN reader wrote, and it was published here on the POAN
web site, something to the effect that criticized the elderly people living
in Crane Lakes, because their home revenue taxes were low,
and criticizing (I think this is correct)
the elderly living in trailer parks, because their homes do not provide much of a
tax revenue for the city. Many of the elderly in Port Orange, I think, come from
other states, and bring their life savings, which is deposited in the God Almighty
Banks in Port Orange, and spent in the many super duper department stores
within the city of Port Orange. But, if the city can negotiate with a fire union
and penalize the fire personnel, without fair consideration of their priority needs,
knowing that the city has more Supreme Court backed authority to use eminent domain
when the only argument needed is that the property seized would make more money
for the city, I see a trend developing in these kind of unreasonable negotiations with civil servant unions. I understand that it is popular, and I understand that it probably delivers immediate
relief for mistakes the city has made in the past. (If only the federal government had taken
the same approach with those institutions that were 'too big to fail'!)

I hope I have clearly explained what I am thinking. Please enlighten me on your
perception of these problems. Are you, trying to resolve all past mistakes
on the backs of a selected few? It seems to me that financial and benefit mistakes
have been made by the city, and the most popular solution is to make the recipients
who got too use to benefiting from city council mistakes, pay the price. We have investors
in this city, I am one of them, and perhaps it would be fair for me not to encourage
penalizing those who have the benefits, and start correcting our city council mistakes,
with new employees coming into the system. The special magistrate seems to agree with me.

The city council does not like 'pot shots' taken at them, so I will not go
into at this time some of the other financial deals voted for by the city council,
which I think show a certain high handedness with little respect with what is fair
to the tax payers (investors) in the city.

I think it is good for someone like me to speak my mind. Yes, I would like to
get information from others about what they are thinking. If I am all wrong,
someone show me.

--- sincerely, Hank Springer

poanposted 5 9 10 at 104 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

During the contract negotiations, the fire union offered to pay 8.6% into the pension plan,

but the city turned down that offer

E mail questions to City Manager of Port Orange, Fl.

cc to all city council members

Sent 5 7 10

Good Morning Mr. Parker.

I have two questions to ask you, and would like you to respond to.

#1. In my weekly review of e mails to and from you, I have noticed that there are

some e mails to you, and from you, which seem not to be forwarded to city council members.

Are you prohibited from doing so by the Sunshine Law?. As a follow up,

if I send an e mail directed only to you, I suspect that City Council members

may not be advised of the nature and content of my thoughts or questions,

if you don't take it upon yourself to forward the e mail to the city council members.

Could you please shed some light on this aspect of information sharing

among city council members.

My second question concerns the fire union contract negotiations. I understand that

the public is not privy to consultation, thoughts and comments expressed in

the "Shadow" ? council meetings. But since details of the impasse between

the City and the Fire Dept. Union have been made public in the special

City Impasse council meeting ,

I think some details at this time can be released to the public

regarding the thoughts or factual considerations presented to the city council

members during the negotiation stages.

My question is this:

It is my understanding that city fire personnel were and are paying 0.5% into their pension

plan. During the contract negotiations, the fire union offered to pay 8.6% into the pension plan,

but the city turned down that offer. Is this true, and why was the offer turned down?

An increase of 8.1% into the pension plan, seems to me to be pretty close

to the 9 % decrease in overall city costs which the city council was and is trying

to achieve.

A sub part interest of mine in this component of the fire union negotiations

is: -- was each and every member of the city council made aware of this

substantial offer by the fire union to the city on the pension regarding fire personnel paying

more into the pension plan?

--- hank poanposted 5 7 10 at 1011 am

/////////////////////////////////

Reply from City Manager of Port Orange, Fl.

received 5 7 10 at 132 pm

poanposted 5 7 10 at 628 pm

//////////////////

POAN Hank replies back to the City Manager, Port Orange, Fl.

and copies sent to all council members.

Mr. Parker, thank you for the explanation about how e mails are distributed

among the council members. I conclude that although when I read the City Manager's

e mails, on a weekly basis, that although I might not see a forwarded e mail to

the city council members from the city manager, I can expect that a copy of

that e mail can be found in the hard copies of the "read" file

which is distributed to the council members, the same "read"

file I review on a weekly basis. That would explain for me that such information

is being shared with council members, in a hard paper copy. Thank you for

the explanation.

 

I do scan through the Ken Small's news references, and can see that

it provides very useful background information and references to articles,

for all those concerned with local governmental administrations.

From time to time on the POAN web site, I make reference to some news articles that Mr. Small

provides in full copies to city governmental agencies.

If I correctly understand your intent in the union negotiations with the fire departments,

and I think you have stated it at council meetings, you want to consider the whole

retirement package as a whole, in order to cut costs and lessen the impact

of soaring pension plans. Such a strategy seems to me, is like not discussing

line item budget issues for the worthiness of each item in the budget

but looking at the whole budget package, expecting a cost saving

as a total, regardless of priorities for line items.

It is understandable that many governmental agencies need to cut costs

because of the housing market swindle which produced a devaluation of homes,

and thus diminished the return of tax revenue for these homes. And I support the city

administration's efforts to cut spending by the city, by 9 percent.

However, in these almost crises times, I urge everyone to be on the watch

that in cost prevention strategies, fair play still be evident.

I would not like to be negotiating for myself, and find that my line item

concerns were being ignored, because my employer wanted to pick

his/her priorities for cuts, even though I might be agreeable to

negotiate with an attitude of helping my employer head towards the

total package downsizing, with perhaps a compromise on line item

priorities. Knowing a little about the benefits of civil service

employment, contrasted with free market reign of private enterprises,

I can understand a civil servant being vigilant to losing some benefits

which have been almost promised to him/her, as a reward for

becoming a civil servant, amid those years where others with

less valued pensions, made up the difference with sky rocketing

hour per hour pay, and perhaps untold overtime rewards.

In these hard financial times, it has been my opinion,

that civil servants need to understand that cuts have to be made

somewhere, but I have felt, that some benefits enjoyed,

should not be eliminated from present civil servant worker,

because the Federal Government and the fat cats in wall street,

have screwed up, have not paid or taken a loss for the screw up,

but have made it very easy for governmental agencies to

pick where they want to take away previously enjoyed benefits.

I don't think we have seen cuts in Wall Street,

and yet, right away, teachers, police and fire personnel,

have the spot light on them, seemingly saying that we have to

cut somewhere, and they are easy targets, and they have enjoyed

too many benefits in the past, so we will start with them.

My reply would be, that I understand that city administrators

are having hard financial times, like we all are, but let's face it,

they and my immediate family, and my extended family, know

that I did not go into an immensely profitable making occupation in

good times, because among my reasons, I preferred the security of the benefits, including

the pension, which comes from a civil service job. My attitude in

negotiating with my employer would be, let's work it out to cut

where we can, but I do not care to hinder my security benefits,

especially pension, when in many areas of business today,

there are no cuts in their profits or prices. In addition,

as a civil servant, the value of my home, not by my fault,

has depreciated, and that little nest egg to retire to Florida

or Ecuador some day, looks like it was wiped away by

the fat cats in Washington DC and wall street. So, I would say,

to my city administrators, somehow you feel a mistake was

made to extend to me a lucrative pension system, and now

you want to fix that mistake at a cost to me and my family.

My thought would be that this is unfair, and that you should

start changing the pension awards to new people coming into

civil service, and not with me. My explanation sounds

reasonable and fair to me, and I think objective, since I am not

in such a position, due to the fortunes of lady time. Perhaps it is

not exactly what is going on with the Fire Department negotiations.

I have been following the negotiations a bit, and am hampered

by a lack of facility for figures and numbers. But I think

I am starting to appreciate a little unfairness that might be in play

in these negotiations. And the reason why I am taking my

small step onto the limb of financial understanding, is that

I am starting to discern a little unfairness dripping down from

Washington DC as a result of what I think probably should

be considered criminal matters regarding financial mistakes,

many of them which were intentional risks, with a knowing consequence,

that if the risks didn't play out right, the home owner investors, and

teachers and civil servants will pay the price, but not the CEOs,

wall street, and perhaps not the stock holders.

I remember going to a police labor seminar many years ago,

and it was taught, that there had been court upheld decisions,

that if even sergeants let officers off from work a little early for good work,

or arrest, or allowed certain officers to drive to or back from work in

departmental cars, that even if the procedure had not been authorized

by upper management, such practices were deemed to be union

benefits that could not arbitrarily be taken away. Perhaps

such labor/management principles have changed.

All in all, I am searching to see fairness, and reasonableness in these

financial hard times. I would say change the financial rewards

for new civil servants coming into the system, but not severly damage

the benefits of those who I venture to say were practically led

to believe that security and pensions benefits would be waiting them

through their civil service careers. In very few other occupations do

I see hard cuts being made. Yes, construction workers are out of work,

and I hope that they somehow saved the fantastic salaries they made

during the hey days of the building boom, and I would suspect they

knew that they were in a business to make money in good times,

but not to expect the security that civil servants thought they had.

I met a teacher recently, who told me that he had to take a $12,000 cut in pay.

(In my opinion because of the mistakes of Wall Street.)

I probably need more enlightenment on financial negotiations,

but I am starting to see a trend that I am afraid of.

How much more can we expect the people on the bottom to pay

for the mistakes of the people on top? This is probably poorly

stated, but that is what I am worried about.

more as this down spiral of hopes and benefits in this nation proceeds.

It has reached Port Orange. One good thing to look forward to

under the Obama health care plan, is free 15 minutes of health care,

every year. LOL?

--- hank poanposted 5 7 10 at 732 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Contract talks await decisions from state
Daytona Beach News-Journal
By KELLY CUCULIANSKY, STAFF WRITER PORT ORANGE -- Union negotiations between the city and public safety employees aren't getting any closer to a signed ...
See all stories on this topic

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You can see the video of the Impasse meeting : City of Port Orange and Fire Fighters' Union

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Port Orange firefighters face pay cuts Daytona Beach News-Journal By KELLY CUCULIANSKY , Staff writer PORT ORANGE -- City leaders are cutting firefighters' pay by 6 percent and reducing benefits as leaner tax times are ...

poanposted 3 20 10 at 1047 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

3 4 10 pt 2 citizens at impasse meeting

City of Port Orange and its Fire Department Union

Paul Poole

part 2 of two.

Video segment from POG TV, channel 199, Brighthouse.

Special impasse meeting with the Port Orange City Council

Impasse between city of Port Orange and the Fire Union

you can also see this video on you tube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc097e0jya4

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3 4 10 citizens at impasse meeting port orange

Cathy McNa and Ted Notfall

part 1 of two.

Video segment from POG TV, channel 199,

Special impasse meeting with the Port Orange City Council

Impasse between city of Port Orange and the Fire Union

 

you can also see this video on you tube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KP7ABSMTkk

--- AND -----

Received from Cathy McNa, on 3 10 10
 
After thinking about the Impasse Meeting with the City Council and the Mayor of Port Orange last week I truly believe that it was just a mask to cover up that their minds were already made up well before anyone came into the chambers.  I knew it as soon as I saw Ken Parker, City Manager sitting there with such a smug look on his face and bored out of his mind that we were wasting our time and energy even being there trying to save the Port Orange Fire Department and their benefits.  Then there was the chart of salaries put up for all to see.  What a joke that was.  Most fire departments work 48 hours per week, while Port Orange Firefighters work 56 hours per week and I don't believe this really includes extra training either.  That would be the difference in pay scales and that was not brought up until I did some checking myself and found this out on my own.  I will have to say that the Attorney for the City of Port Orange appeared to be more prepared and professional than the Attorney for the Fire Fighters Union and it looked to me as if he knew all the time he was just there wasting his time and was not at his finest. 
 
Looking at the crowd there were so many firefighters there to rally their Union and the people that spoke against the union really did talk for more than 3 minutes as that was announced before everyone spoke.  Just another little tidbit that kind of burned my b-hind.
 
They did not bring up the idea of charging for false fire alarms as they did and the regular council meeting and I really believe that with the economy the way it is we should implement it for revenue that has been lost due to falling property taxes. 
 
There is also the question that I forgot to bring up but really not relevant at that time.  Why does Port Orange have to spend so much money on fireworks when there are so many other places to take the children to see them?  Just another waste of taxpayers money and not being used for public safety. 
 
In ending Hank, I just want to say how disappointed I am in the Mayor and the City Council for the City of Port Orange for their total lack of responsibility to insure the safety and lives of all that live here.  Firefighters do not argue with dispatchers if they go into another city because the caller was unsure of their location like other agencies do.  They go in, triage, take care of business using all sides of precaution and safety of the people involved.  Then they leave like.....It's no big deal, we saved some lives and where we did it does not matter.  This cannot be said about any other agency in any City or State here in the United States.  I feel as if our firefighters are being treated as my brother got treated when he came back from Viet Nam......AN UNSUNG HERO.
 
Cathy McNa
Port Orange

poanposted 3 14 10 at 1134 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

NO WIN FOR PORT ORANGE FIRE UNION IAFF Local 3118 IN SPECIAL IMPASSE MEETING

3 4 10 pt 3 city attorneys in fire union impasse port orange fl

Video segment from POG TV, channel 199, Bright House Cable TV

 

you can also see this video on you tube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJVFyahR9a0

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Two video segments from the first 30 minutes initial opening remarks

by the attorney for the Fire Union.  Taken from the live video aired by

Brighthouse Channel 199 cable TV, POG TV.

 

 

you can also see this video on you tube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyIJcVAo_VI

///////////////////////////////////////////////

 

PORT ORANGE FIRE UNION ACCEPTS A WAGE FREEZE BUT ....

and "Shenanigans" are not permitted

a third video segment from the opening remarks of the attorney

for  the fire union, port orange, fl.

Taken from the live video aired by

Brighthouse Channel 199 cable TV, POG TV.

 

 

posted 2 25 10 at 514 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

posted 2 25 10 at 346 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Port Orange Firefighters Pension Plan;
$16 Million Dollars in Unfunded Pension Liabilities....and Counting.....

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.
2 25 10 at 12 16 PM

To understand the irresponsibility of our city's unfunded pension liabilities, remember that a firefighter's pension benefits should already be "paid-up" when he or she retires. In other words, our city should be setting aside enough money during a firefighter's career so that the cost of his or her total lifetime retirement benefits has been saved up by the time the employee retires.

But if the real costs had to be paid upfront, the taxpayers in this City would revolt. So instead, our elected officials cooked-up this scheme, where these costs are thrust upon the next generation of taxpayers.  The result is what we've got here in Port Orange today......an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

Now, how do we fix this Pension Plan?  Well, the taxpayers can either continue shoveling money into the Plan....( and we'll need to go out and buy a bigger shovel) Or we can decrease benefits, and/or increase the employees contribution....or pray that the DOW zooms past the 30,000 mark....( it'll take a pretty thick rug to pray that much)

ps

There was one other option discussed a few years ago by the City Council....(and I want to emphasize that it was a very short discussion, since nobody on the City Council was interested in it) ....And that was for the City to issue what are called pension obligation bonds; commonly referred to as POB's....Here's how they work...

The theory is to borrow money thru the issuance of Municipal Bonds, at a relatively low interest rate... for example, 4 percent.....and then invest the proceeds with the pension trust fund to earn a higher rate of return, such as 8 percent. And use that difference, called the "arbitrage" to fund the city's pension obligations.

To see the problem with this, just ask yourself this question: Would you borrow on the equity of your home and invest the money in capital markets, hoping for an 8 percent annual return?..... I THOUGHT SO...

Of course, there were some Cities, Counties and States that did issue POB's and now, they are even deeper in the hole then they were before, because the interest earnings on those bond proceeds were less than the interest cost of the bonds! So, if the City had done that, we'd be in even worse shape today....

And its also interesting to note that in most all of these cases above, Union officials supported the issuance of these POB's...because after all, the risk was all on the Taxpayers...and in the meantime, their members got to keep their benefits....

Another example of their favorite game...HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE....with the taxpayers always on the losing end....

[The upside to this is, people in Sates like New Jersey, New York, and Illinois and elsewhere, who are facing huge increases in property taxes to fund their underfunded public employee pension plans, will be streaming to Florida to get away from it all, unless of course, they find the same thing has happened here]

ref.

Unfunded Pension Liabilities; Firefighter's Pension Plan

*2002; $6,566,849

*2003; $13,089,555

*2004; $14,071,145

*2005; $14,843,18

*2006; $14,843,18

*2007; $14,377,103

2010; $16 Million (estimated)

(*Found on page 127, 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, City of Port Orange)

Please note the unfunded liability of the Plan nearly doubled between 2002-2003. This is when the City "enhanced" the benefits and reduced the employee contribution rate from 8 % to .5 %.

Do you think that was just a coincidence?

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

What color is that blue shirt you're wearing?

posted 2 25 10 at 335 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

Feb 25 2010 at 1057 am

 

 

THE CITY OF PORT ORANGE DID NOT UNDERFUND THE PENSION PLAN..

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

Received 2 24 10
Posted 2 25 10

--- from Craig E. Young, posted 2 25 10 at 1011 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

make your case but omit other data that actually shows the truth. So here is the rest of the data for the years Craig Young uses in his post. -- Joe Meeske

Received from Joe Meeske, 2 24 10

 

The following information was sent to you by Craig Young:

“There are many municipalities that saw the writing on the wall, and knew the market would eventually level out, and planned ahead..." (SEE BELOW)

 

If you look back, you'll notice over the years,.

For Example:

1997......106 percent

2000......103 percent

2002......107 percent

 

(Found on page 99,  2003 City of Port Orange Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CAFR)

 

This directly contradicts the Unions primary objection(s) that,  #1.) The Plan was Underfunded years ago,  and/or #2.) "That the City didn't contribute in years past, or put in the absolute bare minimum that was required by the state", as Mr. Gardner contends.”

-Craig Young

-- Joe Meeske adds: ---

This is the manipulation of data I have seen time and time again. Give out a number that appears to make your case but omit other data that actually shows the truth. So here is the rest of the data for the years Craig Young uses in his post.

1997.... 106%.... city contribution in terms of dollars and cents $83,000 and as a percentage of payroll..... 4%

2000...  103%... city contribution in terms of dollars and cents..... $18,000.... and as a percentage of payroll... 

.08%...less than 1% of payroll

2003  107%.....  city contribution in dollars and cents... $364,581.... and a a percentage of payroll... 11%

It is clear that the city had a free ride for 20 yrs by paying on average 4% of payroll. But in individual years, picked by Craig Young not me, you can see that contribution can be significantly less. 

It is obvious now that 2003 should have been a wake up call that maybe the 20 yr free ride might be catching up with the city but instead they lowered member contributions from 8% to .05%. This was not asked for by the union but given to the firefighters in the interest of parity. So thank you Mr Young for allowing me to clarify some of the fuzzy math you post daily...

Joe Meeske

posted 2 24 2010 at 802 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

From Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.
received 2 22 10 at 1:30 PM
posted 2 22 10 at 247 pm

-- from Craig E. Young

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

start charging business's and residents for their false fire alarms. 

Received from Cathy McNa, Port Orange, Fl.
Received 2 22 10 at 443 pm
Posted 2 22 10 at 533 PM

..... deletion .....  Just last night E12, E73 and E75 responded to nb I-95 near the 259 milemarker for a horrific vehicle accident.  Did they know when they were dispatched what they were going to discover when they got there?  No!!!  It is my understanding that the vehicle rolled over several times killing the 24 year old female driver.  How many people can take a job like that day in and day out without having proper training and fortitude to adjust to such awful occurrances. 
 
I have an great idea and I won't have enough time to bring this up at the council meeting but it would be in the City of Port Orange's best interest to start charging business's and residents for their false fire alarms.  This money could be used for the pension plan for the firefighters and help eliminate having to send 2 engines, a ladder and a Battallion Chief to false alarms.  To put it in to prospective, a fire alarm goes off at Home Depot in the heart of town so that takes E73, Ladder73, E75, and E72.  E74 near Waters Edge would be brought to West Port plaza for coverage.  While everyone is responding to this so called fire alarm there is a horrific accident at Dunlawton and Nova Rd.  The response time would be greatly diminished by everyone trying to get to a building on fire.  Valuable time has been wasted on faulty equipment, lack of maintenance downright negligence.  The first engine on scene establishes Home Depot Command and finds that it was a false alarm so the rest of the engines are detoured to the accident.  The first engine on scene then has to wait for a keyholder to reset the fire alarm and meanwhile a 911 call comes in reference to a heart attack right behind Home Depot.  The engine CANNOT leave until the alarm has been reset and only then to have to come back later finding out it was defective.  I did some research in Florida and it appears that there is NO logical reason for the City of Port Orange to start charging fees for each and every alarm that is false.  It would be a step plan as shown in the chart below.
 
BUSINESS ALARM:       $50.00 first alarm   $75.00 second alarm same day  $500.00 for each additional alarm during that day or up to a month after to make sure they maintain their alarm system.
 
HOMEOWNER ALARM:     Same as business because you send out the same amount of manpower and apparatus to both fires.
 
This would bring in a lot of revenue for the City and really needs to be addressed.
 
Cathy McNa, Port Orange


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the City has indeed contributed 100 percent, or more than 100 percent of the required contribution to the Fire firefighter's Pension Plan.

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.
Received 849 pm , 2 21 10
Posted 953 PM, 2 21 10

 

Retirement Contributions

Received from Craig E. Young,

Received 2 21 10 at 840 pm
Posted 2 21 10 at 943 Pm

 

The City Manager's Budget Memo, dated, JULY 7, 2004

--- from Craig E. Young

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There needs to be NO names attached to fire personnel salaries.

Beau is right! -- Hank

Received from Beau Gardner, 2 21 10 at 650 PM
Posted 2 21 10 at 708 pm

 

Reserves

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange,

Received at 5:17 pm, 2 21 10
posted 617 pm , 2 21 10

RE: "The city manager has received the ONLY raise I can remember in recent history. And his raise was retroactive

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

received 502 pm 2 21 10

posted 612 PM 2 21 10

I understand that our info is public, but I am requesting that any info in reference to my salary (or any of our ff's PERSONAL) salary, not be posted like that

Received from Beau Gardner, 2 21 10 at 1208 pm
posted 2 21 10 at 1256 pm

--- from Craig E. Young

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

The question asked of the council member is to ask if they would give the proper weight to any magistrates decision on any issue. 

from Joe Meeske

Received Feb 20 2010

posted 2 21 10

 

Hank,

Received Feb 20 2010

posted 2 21 10

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

--- from Craig E. Young

Received 2 20 10
posted 2 21 10

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

the second rendition of the Truth According to Mr. Meeske

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

received 2 20 10

posted 2 21 10 at 1104 am

---- from Craig E. Young

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

received 2 20 10 at 757 PM

 

Nevermind the fact that our CM recenty got a 2.5% raise... Retroactive back to Oct 2008... RETROACTIVE!! 

Beau Gardner

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Format for the special impasse meeting of Feb. 25, 2010

8 issues not resolved in the impasse issue.

Taken from an e mail by the City Manager of Port Orange to

City Council Members. Feb. 12, 2010

1. Union representatives and activities.

2. Bereavement Leave

3. Wages

4. Retirement Plan

5. Education Leave

6. Specialty in education incentive pay.

7. Tuition reimbursements

8. Health and Safety

Hearing on the impasse issue to be held Thursday, Feb. 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers, Port Orange City Hall.

I hope to watch the session, take notes and report, and to eventually post video segments from the session. The complete video session will be posted on the city's web site, but that usually takes about 3 or more week to happen.

On Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010, I hope to post on the POAN web site, the entire memo
of the City Manager to the City Council, explaining the position sides of the city and the fire union.

-- hank, posted 2 20 10 at 802 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Everyone is saying "no raises" for the FF's.... We haven't gotten a raise since before Oct 2008.

Received from Beau Gardner

Feb. 20 2010 at 7:37 Pm

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

It is evident to me that the safety of you and every other citizen in Port Orange is of no importance

Received from Cathy McNa, Port Orange, Fl.

Feb. 20 2010 at 733 pm

Dear Mr. Weinberg,
 
I am suffering more than anyone could even imagine with fighting cancer and not even having enough money to pay for my co-pays and I support the fire department and I carry a phone with me at all times because if I fall I cannot get up on my own.  I would have to rely on the fire department to help me.  It is evident to me that the safety of you and every other citizen in Port Orange is of no importance.  I agree the Mayor and the City Council should take more than a 10% cut across the board because quite frankly, I cannot think of one thing that they have done for all of us since they were supposedly elected.  Why is the old Port Orange Police Department on Dunlawton and Victoria Gardens vacant except for 6 people on a shift in dispatch?  Our money is grossly being mismanaged and being used to give tax breaks to new businesses, which by the way, we need like a hole in the head.  What is your priority here Mr. Weinberg?  My priority is the safety for each and every citizen of Port Orange and if the fire department needs more money, give it to them.  It is not like it is coming out of your pocket like the new Police Station and all this other construction is.  I would much rather feel safe and secure than have a bunch of shops on every corner.l
 
Cathy McNa, Port Orange

--- POAN HANK ADDS -----

I think the City of Port Orange pays the mayor about $13,000 a year for his services as mayor, and city council members receive about $8,000 a year for their services.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

--- hank, posted 2 20 10 at 739 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

received Feb. 20 2010 at 5:15 PM

posted Feb 20 2010 at 731 PM

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

The city council made no promises to the union when it comes to this impasse.

Received from Joe Meeske

Feb 20 2010 at 342 pm

Hank,

No raises!

Received from Karl Weinberg, Port Orange, Fl.

received 2 20 10 at 2:51 PM

No raises! Let them cut back like the rest of us. While we are at it, do away with the Pensions and let them have 401k's so they can put "their" money into the 401k's with the City giving $.50 on the dollar for the first 5%. We should not be giving any raises to municipal employees at this time. Matter of fact all municipal employees including mayors and council people should be cut 10% across the board! I have too live on a budget, why not the municipal employees? CUT THE SPENDING NOW!

posted 2 20 10 at 713 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In the following commentary please accept my correction on my statement

about the taxes on my little home. I meant to write

that I thought only about $25,000 of my home investment

is taxable. My home is assessed at $77,000 and I receive

a homestead deduction of $25,000 so I guess I pay taxes

on $52,000. I think that is correct. --- hank

posted 2 21 10 at 734 pm

 

E MAIL SENT TO POAN REJECTED BY HANK

I received an e mail from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

on Feb 20 2010 at 1215 pm.

The e mail finds fault with Cathy McNa's reasoning as to

why Firefighters deserve a raise. You can read Cathy comments,

down below on this web page.

I have decided not to publish Mr. Young's e mail,

because I find his arguments in this instance,

not adding anything worth while to the impasse issue before us.

 

The fact that Cathy lives in Crane Lakes, and the fact that Mr Young

does not think her taxes are high enough,

and that she does not pay her fair share of taxes, only befuddles the impasse issue,

and runs astray of what in my opinion we should be talking about.

Actually we should be discussing the 7 areas of contentions between the city and the

fire union. I hope to post them tomorrow.

But perhaps in Mr. Young's mind, even my opinion does not count,

because, the taxes on my unit in Summer Trees I think

comes to about $25,000 for my home, which is the figure used by Mr. Young

in his attempt to negate Cathy McNa's opinion.

Yes, I would agree that is what is called "cheap living" in Port Orange,

but I do not accept that such a fact negates anyone's opinion.

According to Mr. Young, we need to consider the source

from which an opinion comes from, and if that were so,

no argument or rationale from the fire union

would cut muster with Mr. Young.

Am I to agree that the fire union should not receive benefits out

of this contract negotiation, because some citizens don't live

in costly homes?

Therefore, I reject Mr. Young's e mail for publication.

--- hank, posted 2 20 10 at 654 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Mr. Meeske's comments were out of line

Received from Craig E. Young, 2 19 10

-- from Craig E. Young

posted on POAN web site 2 20 10 at 122 pm

/////////// AND POAN HANK COMMENTS '''''''''

1. I do not think Mr. Meeske's reporting what he believes city council candidates had promised, was out of line.

2. It seems not yet verified and proven that city council members made such promises,
and which city council member might have done so.

3. Despite any promises that might have been made by city council members, any decision that might be made by council members regarding this union impasse,
would still have to undergo the scrutiny and investigation of motives and reasons for
their decisions, to mount any legal challenge against their decisions. I am not a lawyer, but that would seem reasonable to me.

4. It is not improbable that City Council members will not vote favorably for union concerns. Mr. Craig's challenge of their prospective votes seems a little premature
and weak to me. Also, what kind of a challenge can be launched, if city council members
grant some union demands, and deny others?

5. The City Manager has referred Craig E. Young's accusations to the city attorney,
but I have no reason to believe that she would have a need to intervene at this time,in this matter between Mr. Young and Mr. Meese. However, if accusations get out of hand, or if Mr. Young proceeds to bring some kind of legal challenge to any decision made by the city council members, the city attorney would of course be involved, and be prepared by having followed the statements by Mr. Young and Mr. Meeske.

6. I did not know that the city council should conduct itself as " a fair and impartial third party" in this matter. Where did this quote come from?

-- hank springer, 2 20 10 at 137 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Received from Joe Meeske, 2 19 10

Referring to an article in the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Public-sector-unions-bleed-taxpayers-to-help-Dems-83652517.html#ixzz0fwt8LavJ
which Craig E. Young has offered to us,
(see below on this web page.)
Mr. Meeske impunes the Washington Examiner as being "a respected news organization".

 

Well Mr Young sure does post a lot of propaganda.. and thank you for that pseudo-journalistic article from such a respected news organization….

The Washington Examiner is a free daily newspaper with a conservative viewpoint published in Springfield, Virginia, and distributed around Washington, D.C. and its suburbs. It is owned by Denver businessman Philip Anschutz.
The newspaper was formerly distributed only in the suburbs of Washington, under the titles of Montgomery Journal, Prince George's Journal, and Northern Virginia Journal. Anschutz purchased their parent company, Journal Newspapers Inc., in October 2004. On February 1, 2005, the paper's name changed to the Washington Examiner, and it adopted a logo and format similar to that of another newspaper owned by Anschutz, the San Francisco Examiner.[1] The Examiner's parent company, Clarity Media Group, also owns the conservative opinion magazine, The Weekly Standard.[2]
And the owner of this right wing slanted free ultra conservative news paper…..

Often identified as "Christian billionaire Phil Anschutz"[21], he is a Republican donor who supported George W. Bush's administration. He has been an active patron of a number of religious and conservative causes:

• Helped fund Colorado's 1992 Amendment 2, a ballot initiative designed to overturn local and state laws that prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation but was invalidated by Romer v. Evans after it passed.[22]
• Helped fund the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington that promotes intelligent design and criticizes evolution. [23]
• Supported the Parents Television Council, a group that protests against television indecency.[23] .
• Financed The Foundation for a Better Life.
• In 2009 Anschutz purchased the conservative American opinion magazine The Weekly Standard from Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.[24]

And the conservative author of the article….

Michael Barone (born 1944 in Highland Park, Michigan) is an American political analyst, pundit and journalist. He is best known for being the principal author of The Almanac of American Politics, a reference work concerning US governors and federal politicians, and published biennially by National Journal. Barone is also a regular commentator on United States elections and political trends for the Fox News Channel. In April 2009, Barone joined the Washington Examiner, leaving his position of 18 years at US News and World Report[1]. He is based at the American Enterprise Institute as a resident fellow[2].
On November 11, 2008, Barone said  Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the Republicans' vice presidential nominee, because "she did not abort her Down syndrome baby." Barone was speaking at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago to the 121st annual meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

..... POAN deletion here....

I think its safe to say EVERYTHING Craig Young posts is propagandist. This article would be like me going to an ultra liberal publication and posting favorable articles. Mr Young pleas post something “Fair and Balanced” as they say on Fake News Channel…

--- from Joe Meeske,

posted on POAN web site, 2 20 10 at 105 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

posted on POAN web site, 2 20 10 at 1127 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Received from Cathy McNa, Port Orange, Fl.

Feb 19 2010

the firefighters are not the bad guys
 
First of all, the firefighters are not the bad guys here trying to eat up the citizens of Port Orange and their money.  How much is it worth to save your loved one?  We as citizens of Port Orange need to stand behind our firefighters and let them know how much we appreciate their dedication to each and every one of us.  Quite frankly, I don't believe that they are paid nearly enough for what they do each and every day of their lives.  Even while off duty they put their lives on the line to save someone's life.  THE FIREFIGHTERS UNION DOES NOT owe anyone an apology for asking what is rightfully theirs.  Think about how much it cost for the new Police Department on Clyde Morris Blvd. and what each one of will be paying for years.  It is a drop in the bucket what we owe to the dedicated firefighters of Port Orange.  Why is the fire department always made out to be the bad guys here at the City Council meetings?  When in all actuality it is the City Manager and his staff that have to think it is needed to blame someone for their spending so why not blame the one's that save our lives, put their lives in danger every single time they go to an accident scene or a fire.  It is beyond me why we have to fear for our lives at the hands of the City Council.
 
Cathy McNa, Port Orange, Fl

posted 2 20 10

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Feb 18 2010 at 1008 pm

-- Craig E. Young

posted 2 19 10 at 1140 am

If you want to see the attached PDF file ask me to send it to you by e mail.

- hank

and added by Craig E. Young, 2 18 10 at 1010 PM

posted 2 19 10 at 1147 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Forwarded to us by Craig E. Young

Received 2 18 10 at 1106 pm

Public-sector unions bleed taxpayers

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
February 7, 2010

posted 2 19 10 at 1149 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

great example of the collusive nature of the relationship between the Firefighters Union here in Port Orange......and our elected city officials.

Received from Craig E. Young, Feb 18 2010 at 1048 pm

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Craig Young owes both the firefighters and the city council an apology!!

Received 2 18 10 at 8:37 PM

Hank,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

IS POTP IN THE DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL,

MR. CRAIG E. YOUNG?

 

A POAN reader has advised POAN that there are references to Mr. Craig E. Young

indicating that Mr. Young writes on the Daytona Beach News-Journal blog page,

using the blog name of POTP. I have reason to believe that POTP does put

blog entries in the news-journal that have origins coming from Mr. Young.

Recently,

In one blog entry, there is published a list of past court matters

and it is implied that such past court issues apply to POTP.

I do not know if such court issues as listed are a true history

of POTP's past legal problems.

POAN's editorial stance on issues of possible credibility implications regarding

people who offer commentary for publication on the POAN web site is this:

Understanding that my editorial position does not appy to any one particular person,

but if there were a person who has had credibility or legal problems in the past,

it does not per se mean that opinions offered relating to present issues

are worthless or null and void because of some past possible difficulties.

It is my hope that opinions can be inspected for its worth, examing the facts

therein, regardless of any past history or name tag which might be

placed on the writer.

In the particular instance of commentary and opions coming to us from

Mr. Craig E. Young, I have found most of his statements to contain facts that can

be evaluated and researched, and practically all of the time, Mr. Young

gives references and links that support his commentaries.

I had considered Mr. Young' s recent statements about fraud and a
> felony being committed, and decided to not delete them, since they were statements
> not aimed at any one person, but did have implications to perhaps union strategy
> and perhaps unfullfilable promises by persons who were campaigning for a council
> seat in the city of Port Orange.  Mr. Young's statements I think are
> somewhat applicable to the current circumstances, since Mr. Meeske did make
> reference to the candidates for city council keeping their word in accepting the
> Magistrates opinion regarding this impasse. I personally do not see any fraud or
> felony elements with the information available to me, existing in this
> impasse.

I hope that my editorial position on these issues is clear and sound.

--- hank, posted 2 18 10 and finished composing at 6:12 PM

---- AND PREVIOUSLY -----

Received from Joe Meeske, Feb 18 2010 at 1:04 PM

posted same date at 546 Pm

Response to Craig Young

---------- AND PREVIOUSLY -----------

 

Received from Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl.

response to Joe Meeske's comments of Feb. 17, 2010

Received from Mr. Young, 2 17 10

posted 2 18 10

see Mr. Meeske's comments after this section.

POAN'S EDITOR DELTIONS SIGNIFIED BY . . . . . .

deletion here .............

• Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties. 

• A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly conflict conspire to commit Fraud upon another person; a pact between two people to deceive a court with the purpose of obtaining something that they would not be able to get through legitimate judicial channels

//////////////////////

--- AND PREVIOUSLY FROM MR. MEESE ------

Received from Joe Meeske

Feb. 17, 2010

RESPONSE TO COMMENTARY BY Craig E. Young,

which appears on this web page, following this section.

 

I see Mr Young has commented on the magistrates recommendations and I have to say he is correct on some of what he says. Mr Young is correct that the state of Florida does not have binding arbitration. While the magistrates recommendations hold no “legal weight”, as Mr Young puts it, they represent to the council the best judgement of the situation by a neutral 3rd party.

I think Mr Young is wrong when he says the council can just “ignore” the recommendations. The magistrate is brought in to review ALL of the facts from both sides and make recommendations that would in his eyes be the best way to resolve the issue. By ignoring the magistrates recommendations would mean the council would be failing to perform its duties to the citizens. While the law gives no weight to the magistrates recommendations the council should weigh them heavily. Since it can be said that both the city and the union have a bias the magistrate does not. 

Regardless of what Mr Young says this actually is a big win for the firefighters. A neutral party looked at all the facts and found that the firefighters were right. Thats a WIN!!!!

Just because the council can do whatever they want does not mean it is ok to do the wrong thing. 

One more point..... Its important to note the ALL members of the Port Orange city council were interviewed by the union when they ran for office. Each were asked that if a situation ever got to the point of having to go before a Special Magistrate would they support the recommendations made. EVERYONE OF THE COUNCIL SAID THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE!!!!!

It will be interesting to see if the city council lives up to their word. 

posted 2 17 10

 

----- AND PREVIOUSLY FROM MR. YOUNG ------;

 

SPECIAL MAGISTRATES OPINION ABOUT IMPASSE BETWEEN CITY OF PORT ORANGE AND THE DIRE DEPT. UNION

Received from Craig E. Young,
Jan 26 2010

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Jan. 25, 2010