UPDATE: Just watched the magnificent seven-minute report by KCET titled "Two sides of the same coin" on the Proposition 75 which showcased members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department (Shack: get 10-8 and stop posing) and AOCDS President Wayne Quint and staff (Heather does a mean 10-key!).
I think that the report presented both sides of the coin fairly and was an influential piece of journalism.
I feel sorry for Allan Mansoor! Poor guy is a well paid Deputy Sheriff with a nice pension and can't seem to part with $14.58 every two weeks to ensure that his association can do the political and lobbying activites necessary to insure his future livelihood.
Who cares if the horse is from a red state or a blue state, Allan? You bet on the one that will win the race; in our case the race is for salaries, benefits, fair representation and good laws that allow us to complete our mission and the administration of criminal justice. But, you need to take money to the track to bet on the race!
I would think that Allan would be a little more humble and appreciative of what hundreds of his Deputy Sheriff peers did for him with their PAC dues (ie: 3@50) before he left the private sector (he and his brothers once owned a gym) to join the government (in fact he has two government jobs) in order to feed his family. Many of those guys and gals didn't like the horse either; but they understood the race. Nice!
Note: Life & Times has the video and transcript of the program here.
Original post:
The KCET program Life & Times will broadcast a story on Proposition 75, the so-called "Paycheck Protection" initiative, which will prominently feature the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.
The program airs Wednesday night, November 2nd, at 6:30 PM on KCET, check your local listings for the correct channel on your dial.
Related link: Vote No on 75.
Briefing is over. Stay safe out there and watch KCET!
20 comments:
Can you believe this guy is the Mayor of Costa Mesa, yet he can't figure out WHERE his money will go if he OPT's out.
Perhaps I can help MISTER MAYOR.
You see how it works is, I will be more then happy to contribute more to PAC and PAC PLUS for myself as well as my fellow members who OPT out. And the benefits will help us ALL.
And you can walk into AOCDS, sign a piece of paper-one time only (not annually) and choose not to contribute and then you will be contributing more to the General Fund then I.
As you may know, MISTER MAYOR, the General Fund is the fund that goes to running the day to day operation of AOCDS.
Hey I just thought of two other things:
1) You will get a bigger tax break for your dues then I, because as you know I can not deduct politcal contributions.
2) You can quit the Association and still enjoy the same pay and benefits OCSD has to offer.
See it wan't so hard.
I just received two slate mailers today for the Yes on Prop 75 campaign. It was interesting to note that in these Yes on prop 75 slates there were paid slots for the Yes on D campaign.
Is OCFA and Joeker's union board that disorganized and politically inept in their greed campaign? Why, after fire whined and cryed foul about being forced to be a backdrop for the Governator, would the Yes on D campaign align themselves and pay for a political mailer with the Yes on Prop 75 campaign.
Obviously the OCFA and Joeker's strategy for a successful campaign on the greed measure is lacking any rationality. The Measure D greed campaign is flushing itself down the toilet quicker than you can say "Firehouse chili."
Fire can stand outside of grocery stores and pay petition signature collectors but when it comes to mounting any type of PR they have failed miserably.
NO ON D
NO ON 75
And let's not forget the loyal support Mansor has recieved from Martin Millard, who has written articles decrying racial mixing, saying inter-ethnic marriage will produce a "slimy mass of glop" and "the Tan Man.
Drag,
I’m far removed from decision making re: our campaign. However, as the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity, so I guess if we’re getting the Yes on D word out, that’s what really matters. Prop 75 is failing at the polls, so don’t get your panties in wad.
Are you suggesting we should be using Sheriff Corona’s political advisor? The Orange County Register has an interesting article out today how the Sheriff took money from an alleged mobster. Yeah, that’s a great political move.
Here’s my favorite part of the article:
“First elected in 1998, Carona has been slammed in recent years by criminal investigations into his command staff; sex allegations revealing a frat-boy atmosphere at sheriff's administrative offices; and a loss of credibility among his rank and file.”
What kinda operation are you guys running over there? And he’s the one that you, Green and Serge are willing to fall on your sword for?
Thank God we’re not taking advice from Corona’s camp. I hope you guys aren’t either!
oc fire storm: Am I missing something? I don't remember reading anything on this site from others defending Carona, only criticizing Hunt for not fighting on behalf of our members re Prop D. This does not have to be an either or situation, and I am still optimistic that after the propositions are dealt with, AOCDS will deal with the Sheriff with a vote of no confidence, which will encourage someone among the existing chiefs in Orange County to step to the plate and give everyone a real choice...PLEASE!!!
And for other OCSD members that want the replacement to come from within need to accept the hard truth that our department has not exactly promoted, mentored and developed leaders to carry us into the future.
Hey OC Fire.......remember it was Joeker and the other bozos in your union who endorsed Carona...he may not have won without your endorsement but in any case your union stuck your name to him. So be careful of the stones you throw in that glass house.....it can be easily turned around on your union and the Joeker.
As for Carona, he has definately made some poor decisions based on friendships and loyalty to those friends.....as for the allegations they are just that. In any kind of a lawsuit a person can claim anything without fear of slander as long as its contained in a legal document i.e. a civil lawsuit. If Carona did things illegal then it should be dealt with. However, tabloid reports do nothing for me. They may be good for Bill Hunts website but as for the truth.......well thats another story.
As for publicity....well if being on a slate with the Pro 75 folks is okay with you...well its okay by me too.
Bottom line is NO ON D and NO ON 75
By the way OC Fire.....you're not that far removed from the political decisions being made at OCFA.....your Authority's name and union dues are attached to those decisions.
If Carona did things illegal then it should be dealt with. However, tabloid reports do nothing for me.
Gee, when Greenhut or the Op Ed mentions something negative about my union or OCFA, they're right on, but when they talk about Corona's antics, they're a tabloid.
Pick a lane, Drag...and stay in it!
I believe Greenhut based his story on facts already in the public record....did he quote unproven stats?
Getting back on topic, I was surfing though the names of Pubilic Employee Union Members listed on the Pro Prop 75 web page and I learned AOCDS has two members on that page.
The First-MANSOOR. the Second is our newly elected Board Member-RIP VAN WINKLE (Bill McGovern), Way to go Willie! NOT!!!!!!
Sergeant:
I feel sorry for Allan Mansoor! Poor guy is a well paid Deputy Sheriff with a nice pension and can't seem to part with $14.58 every two weeks to ensure that his association can do the political and lobbying activites necessary to insure his future livelihood.
Why is the assumption that it's mutually exclusive to 1) want to voluntarily contribute one's own money to the PAC and at the same time 2) want to allow others to make that choice for themselves? Is it so much of a stretch to believe that there might be some union members who choose to be contributing members and also support allowing other members to make that choice for themselves? Or is it the contention that it's an established point of fact that every contributing union member (as in, 100%) also wants to disallow the choice of other union members?
Truth nothing but, etc.:
You can quit the Association and still enjoy the same pay and benefits OCSD has to offer.
But wouldn't quitting the Association mean he couldn't vote on Association leadership and union business like the collective bargaining agreement anymore, while still being constrained by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement? Doesn't sound like to me that he'd be "enjoying the same benefits" as members. Correct me if I'm wrong about non-members losing their vote, I honestly want to know for sure.
You are correct, a non-member can not vote for the Leadership and issues concerning the group.
That's the way it is with any privately funded group.
Any CONSTRAINTS that he must live with, can also be found in the Code of Ethics, Cannon of Ethics, RR's, PPM, OPM, SOP, Penal Code, US and Cal Constitutions, etc.
Remember.....Bill McGovern is on the board for one reason......to do Bill hunt's work with Brian Heaney....When Hunt disappears with Prop 75 and Measure D things will get back to normal.
Let me add, being a part of any group involves compromise...
We all learned that growing up, in Team Sports, Clubs, Marriage, Apartment Living, HOA's etc.
Any CONSTRAINTS that he must live with, can also be found in the Code of Ethics, Cannon of Ethics, RR's, PPM, OPM, SOP, Penal Code, US and Cal Constitutions, etc.
I have no idea what all those acronyms mean (and no idea what the Constitution has to do with employer-employee relations), but what I meant by "being constrained by" was that a fee payer is still subject to the terms of the contract agreed to by the union. If an employee wanted to keep his job, but negotiate with his employer on his own, separate from any of his colleagues, he couldn't do it. He couldn't rise in rank or pay any faster than what's mandated by the contract. So he's constrained by the contract (some would characterize that as "benefitting from the contract", so it's a matter of perspective) but he has no voice as to what's in the contract.
That's the way it is with any privately funded group.
But with privately-funded groups I can leave without losing my job.
Let me add, being a part of any group involves compromise...
We all learned that growing up, in Team Sports, Clubs, Marriage, Apartment Living, HOA's etc.
How is being forced into a lose-lose choice "compromise"? Either a) I'm a member of the union and political dues are taken or b) I'm not a member of the union but still pay union dues and am subject to the terms of the union contract, about which I have no voice. Where's the "compromise" there?
Honestly jt. I am a little confused as to what your point is-however if you are sincerely uninformed as to HOW AOCDS and OCSD operates or other LE agengies I will offer my sincere apology and I will address your "what ifs"
"If an employee wanted to keep his job, but negotiate with his employer on his own, separate from any of his colleagues, he couldn't do it. He couldn't rise in rank or pay any faster than what's mandated by the contract."
AOCDS has no control over any individual who thinks they can negotiate for there own contract. AOCDS does not negotiate promotions-how fast he rises in rank or pay.
Each individual employee, member or non member, will raise in rank on his individaul merits of Job Performance, Education, Military Experience and Senority. The department will open up promotions on an as needed basis. This is for the rank of Deputy Sheriff I-Deputy Sheriff II, Investigator, and Sargent. As for work assignments, again it is the individaul merits of the INDIVIDUAL that will get him there.
The ranks of LT, Capt, Assistant Sheriff is appointed by the Sheriff and after an Indvidiual "one-on-one Interview process with him. Theses issues are not in OUR CONTRACT.
PAY IS IN OUR CONTRACT-DEPUTY I, II, Investigator, and SGT.
"But with privately-funded groups I can leave without losing my job."
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said you one can quit. What I mean is one can choose not to be a member of AOCDS and still be a Deputy Sheriff for OCSD. He will enjoy the pay-medical-retirement. If he thinks he can get a better indvidual contract, there is nothing prohibitig him, at least negotiated with AOCDS, from attempting this on his own.
Being a member of AOCDS is not an OCSD requirement and not one single cent, from the non member's pay check will go into AOCDS' general fund or politcal action committe. I have worked with a few non members-(who happen to be fine Law Officers.) This answer also address your next question-and let me add the only contract terms a non member is subject to is our PAY SCALE. Now I know where Mansor works and how much he gets paid, he is a top step Deputy Sheriff II and considering his current and only work assignment he gets more pay then; patrol deputies and gang deputies (I suppose if he wanted to get less pay the department could do it).
"How is being forced into a lose-lose choice "compromise"? Either a) I'm a member of the union and political dues are taken or b) I'm not a member of the union but still pay union dues and am subject to the terms of the union contract, about which I have no voice. Where's the "compromise" there?"
As a member if THIS UNION, you can remain a member and if you choose not one cent of your dues will go to political causes.
If you choose not to be a member, you can KEEP YOUR JOB WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE-as a DEPUTY SHERIFF and not be forced to pay union dues.
I hope this helps you understand-forgive me if I am cynical that's one of the unfortunate personality traits us cops develop over ther years.
Nice try Jason, you are fishing in the wrong pond.
AOCDS has no control over any individual who thinks they can negotiate for there own contract.
...
What I mean is one can choose not to be a member of AOCDS and still be a Deputy Sheriff for OCSD. He will enjoy the pay-medical-retirement. If he thinks he can get a better indvidual contract, there is nothing prohibitig him, at least negotiated with AOCDS, from attempting this on his own.
Wow - this is certainly a different arrangement than any I've ever seen any other employee union use. I stand corrected, and that answer makes the second part of my questions (about lose-lose vs. compromise) a moot point. Thanks!
I hope this helps you understand-forgive me if I am cynical that's one of the unfortunate personality traits us cops develop over ther years.
Not at all - I appreciate the straightforward, clearly spoken answer to honest questions. People tend to get very fired up when things are taken very personally, and (especially in the anonymous world of the Web, where there's no non-verbal comms) tend to read motives into others' comments that just aren't there. I followed a link over here and thought I might get an honest, rational answer to something I've been trying to understand more clearly - those have been hard to come by elsewhere. Glad to see this was the right place to come!
pushin25years:
Nice try Jason, you are fishing in the wrong pond.
Then again...
JT, perhaps I owe you an apology. It appears from the very respectfull tone of your response you were not looking to bait anyone. Truth is correct, we cops can be very cynical, and I FELL VICTIM TO THAT.
Please except my sincere apology.
pushin25years:
JT, perhaps I owe you an apology. It appears from the very respectfull tone of your response you were not looking to bait anyone. Truth is correct, we cops can be very cynical, and I FELL VICTIM TO THAT.
Please except my sincere apology.
Done. It's a tough thing to parse a writer's intentions, especially on the Web where there's no tone of voice or facial expression. When the Web's anonymity seems to make the majority of people think they have license to be even bigger jerks than they usually are, then the calmer heads among us can sometimes be forgiven for assuming at first blush that any given writer is doing just that.
This has been a tough road to hoe for me to inform myself, since 1) every union's different (AOCDS, CTA, CSEA, etc.) and 2) it's such an emotional, politically-charged issue, it's hard to get straight, complete, no-nonsense, no-funny-business answers on questions like "is membership compulsory?" and "if not, what does an employee lose by opting not to be a member?" Truth stepped up and did that, and this semi-anonymous co-blogger appreciates it.
Post a Comment