Police Association withdraws petition, gives new chief a chance
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
15 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS BUDGET, TAX RATE
The Victoria City Council adopted the 2011-12 budget on Tuesday by a 6-1 vote. Councilman David Hagan opposed the budget.
The council also approved a tax increase by adopting the 64.5 cent tax rate per $100 in property ...
- SHOW ALL »
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS BUDGET, TAX RATE
The Victoria City Council adopted the 2011-12 budget on Tuesday by a 6-1 vote. Councilman David Hagan opposed the budget.
The council also approved a tax increase by adopting the 64.5 cent tax rate per $100 in property values. So a person owning an appraised $100,000 home would pay $645 in taxes.
The Texas comptroller's office considers this a tax increase because the rate was above the effective rate, which would bring in the same amount of revenue as last year, of 63.5 cents per $100 in property values.
The Victoria Police Officers Association withdrew its petition requesting it be recognized as the bargaining agent for the city's 116 officers.
In response to the petition, signed by 104 officers, the Victoria City Council was scheduled to vote on a resolution Tuesday that would've arranged a "meet and confer" agreement with the association.
Under such an agreement, the city would not have been bound to come to any contractional agreement with the association, only to meet and discuss issues, said City Attorney Thomas Gwosdz.
Officer Jonathan Allen, the association's president, told the council that after speaking with the city's new police chief that he thought it was in the best interest to withdraw the petition.
He said after the meeting that he wanted to give Chief Jeff Craig a fair shot at addressing the officers' concerns.
In the council meeting, Allen said the main concern was employee retention. However, he wouldn't go into detail about what that meant.
As to whether the association may file another petition, Allen said after the meeting that the association wasn't currently discussing another petition.
He did say at the meeting that the petition was a long-term goal of the association and that it wasn't an effort to unionize.
He also noted that the petition caused quite a stir in the media.
Allen's move avoided a likely battle at the ballot box. Had the council rejected the resolution, the issue would've gone to the voters in May, when four council members are up for re-election.
Mayor Will Armstrong, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Polasek, and council members Joe Truman and Tom Halepaska had said they would oppose the resolution. Critics said a "meet and confer" agreement would increase city expenses and taxes.
Only Councilman David Hagan said he would support the resolution. He wanted to get around the filter of city management and directly hear officers' concerns.
Hagan also noted there was nothing binding under "meet and confer" agreements.
Armstrong said at the meeting that he was at a loss for words. He said the petition was withdrawn in good faith that the city and police department would work together.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
15 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
Not knowing how long this "organization" thing has been brewing may make my comment out of place here. If someone was stirring up problems just to cause the new chief a bunch of unneeded headaches that would sound to me like a lot of the stuff they scrape off a hen house floor. It's hard for anyone to take over an established crew unless everyone is dedicated to the goals of the project.
September 7, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.Funny or maybe ironic that Nuclear Willie, his red headed step child and Baker Tom all opposed this Association because it" would increase city expenses and taxes." yet they supported a tax increase as part of the 2012 budget.
September 7, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.Sounds like the VPOA and the new Chief have already established an open line of communication. That is a good thing. Chances are Chief Craig already new this was going to be an issue and has began work with city admin. to rectify the retention problems. My hats off to the new Chief and the VPOA.
September 7, 2011 at 8:38 a.m.Victoria has for many years had a top notch group of law enforcement. The police are now facing new, tough elements that were not there. It can be overwhelming. The police association had/have a good idea of sharing ideas with city leaders. City leaders, to my knowledge, are/were not opposed to the concept- I think they feared it could open a can of worms. You have rational, dedicated people on both sides of the issue. Let them work it out; instead of throwing stones at the people sorting this out. Armstrong rightfully said there is not much to comment on the subject as many details were unknown.
September 7, 2011 at 7 a.m.I personally appreciate the Advocate's concept of getting the news out on a timely basis. Any news agency that reports "breaking news" a reader should know to assume all details are not apparent at release time. Always been that way- again it is important to get the news out- followup reporting will correct issues as they unfold.
September 7, 2011 at 6:45 a.m.I support anything that leaves "Nuclear War" Willie at a loss for words.
September 6, 2011 at 9:18 p.m.Good decision officers. Please give the new chief and others in leadership roles the chance to work with you on your issues. Your efforts to make Victoria a safer place to live is appreciated. We know you guys have your hands full with the gangs, drugs, thugs, and some of the more normal citizens not always doing what is right.
September 6, 2011 at 8:51 p.m.Wow. When I first saw the "breaking news" and the reason given, it didn't sound right to skeptical little ol' me, and I suspected that somehow that couldn't have been the reason.
Thank you, Brian, for your apology and correction of the information. But I can't believe that what I read earlier even saw the light of day. How on EARTH could that have happened? Such questionable information SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, even online.
I believe the VicAd is sometimes in TOO big a hurry to get "breaking news" out before even the simplest facts have been checked. This does your readers and the public a grave disservice.
"Dewey defeats Truman", anyone?
September 6, 2011 at 7:54 p.m.To all readers who saw the first online edition of this story, I apologize. And I apologize to the Victoria Police Officers Association and called their president to apologize.
The error was mine and was due to misidentifying someone as a representative of the association.
Please accept my apologies. The error has been corrected as soon as possible.
September 6, 2011 at 7:26 p.m.If you're going to make up news, you might serve better as editors for The Weekly World News. I hear bat-boy was spotted recently with his pet chupacabra.
September 6, 2011 at 6:45 p.m.Wow. What a terribly inaccurate buy line. For any interested in the truth behind the matter, I recommend you watch tonight's council meeting on Channel 15 when it becomes available. I'm very disappointed in the Victoria Advocate.
September 6, 2011 at 6:20 p.m.Vic Ad, this an incredible load of garbage you have posted. The VPOA clearly stated in the meeting that they were withdrawing the petition to allow the new Police Chief a chance to resolve the issues within the department. You are making a habit of printing false stories. Public outcry was never mentioned by the VPOA.
September 6, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.Ouch. Major miscalculation on thier part. Wonder what the rank and file think of thier elected leadership now ?
Sorry guys. I support law enforcement and consider myself pro-police but now is not the time to push the taxpayer for better pay and benefits. The VPOA may have some valid points but the taxpayer is in no mood to hear public sector employees fussing.
September 6, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.