Here are the facts.
While on patrol I found a vehicle park next to a fire hydrant. It was 2300 hrs. (the kids party was long over) and there were plenty of empty spot away from the hydrant including directly in front on the house, which I later learned the owner lived in. The plate on the vehicle was a police memorial plate that expired in 2004! I was unable to run the plate but I knew that there was no way an inspector would have not written up you or me if that vehicle had been parked in a police lot. I have stopped many vehicles in the past with some type of memorial plate (esp. those fire fighter plates) and after talking to the driver have found out they are not officers or firemen, just bought the plates to get a pass on their driving or parking violations. Never assume that just because a vehicle has a police memorial plate or a fire fighter plate that the driver is a cop or fireman. I took down the VIN of the vehicle and ran it. The computer was slow and as I waited for the information I wrote the ticket. After completing the ticket, I got out of the squad car and was putting it on the vehicle when a person appeared and stated that he knew the owner and that the owner was a police officer. Sorry, I’m not getting in the trick bag for you. The ticket had been written and I was not about to change it. I told the person that I had already written the ticket
I don’t knowingly write officers tickets, but I do write tickets and even if there is a memorial plate on the vehicle from 2004. By the way when the info on the vehicle came back the current plate was also expired.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
One more reason for true shift differential pay!
Night shift linked to cancer risk
By Mark Nichols
A startling medical report with great implications for law enforcement officers makes a strong case that people who work through the night or the "graveyard shift" have a higher risk of developing certain kinds of cancer. The findings are based on research that discovered higher rates of breast and prostate cancer among people who go to work when everyone else is home sleeping. The higher cancer rates don't prove working overnight can cause cancer - there may be other factors common among graveyard shift workers that raise their risk for cancer.
However, the findings are strong enough that next month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the cancer arm of the World Health Organization) will add overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen. Scientists suspect that overnight work is dangerous because it disrupts the circadian rhythm, the body's biological clock, according to Maria Cheng, a reporter with the Associated Press. The hormone melatonin, which can suppress tumor development, is normally produced at night. If the graveyard shift theory eventually proves correct, millions of people worldwide could be affected.
Experts estimate that nearly 20 per cent of the working population in developed countries work night shifts. Cheng reports that among the first to spot the night shift-cancer connection was Richard Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist and professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center. In 1987, Stevens published a paper suggesting a link between light at night and breast cancer. Back then, he was trying to figure out why breast cancer incidence suddenly shot up starting in the 1930s in industrialized societies, where nighttime work was considered a hallmark of progress.
Most scientists were bewildered by his proposal. But in recent years, several studies have found that women working at night over many years were indeed more prone to breast cancer. Also, animals that have their light-dark schedules switched develop more cancerous tumors and die earlier. Some research also suggests that men working at night may have a higher rate of prostate cancer. The studies mostly focused on nurses and airline crews and many scientists say more studies among other professions have to be conducted before the findings are considered conclusive.
There are many people out there who doubt the results. They point out that the "probable carcinogen" tag means that the link between overnight work and cancer is merely plausible and that the list of "known" carcinogens is huge and includes things like alcoholic beverages and birth control pills. Scientists believe having lower melatonin levels can raise the risk of developing cancer. Light shuts down melatonin production, so people working in artificial light at night may have lower melatonin levels. Melatonin can be taken as a supplement, but experts don't recommend it long-term, since that could ruin the body's ability to produce it naturally. Sleep deprivation may be another factor in cancer risk.
People who work at night are not usually able to completely reverse their day and night cycles. "Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," said Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who is not connected with the IARC analysis. "Not getting enough sleep makes your immune system vulnerable to attack, and less able to fight off potentially cancerous cells," he said. Confusing your body's natural rhythm can also lead to a breakdown of other essential tasks. "Timing is very important," Rea said.
Certain processes like cell division and DNA repair happen at regular times. Even worse than working an overnight shift is flipping between daytime and overnight work. List of known and probable carcinogens from IARC and National Toxicology Program listed on American Cancer Society website: http://tinyurl.com/2kl5ab. Or check out the International Agency for Research on Cancer's website at: http://www.iarc.fr.
By Mark Nichols
A startling medical report with great implications for law enforcement officers makes a strong case that people who work through the night or the "graveyard shift" have a higher risk of developing certain kinds of cancer. The findings are based on research that discovered higher rates of breast and prostate cancer among people who go to work when everyone else is home sleeping. The higher cancer rates don't prove working overnight can cause cancer - there may be other factors common among graveyard shift workers that raise their risk for cancer.
However, the findings are strong enough that next month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the cancer arm of the World Health Organization) will add overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen. Scientists suspect that overnight work is dangerous because it disrupts the circadian rhythm, the body's biological clock, according to Maria Cheng, a reporter with the Associated Press. The hormone melatonin, which can suppress tumor development, is normally produced at night. If the graveyard shift theory eventually proves correct, millions of people worldwide could be affected.
Experts estimate that nearly 20 per cent of the working population in developed countries work night shifts. Cheng reports that among the first to spot the night shift-cancer connection was Richard Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist and professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center. In 1987, Stevens published a paper suggesting a link between light at night and breast cancer. Back then, he was trying to figure out why breast cancer incidence suddenly shot up starting in the 1930s in industrialized societies, where nighttime work was considered a hallmark of progress.
Most scientists were bewildered by his proposal. But in recent years, several studies have found that women working at night over many years were indeed more prone to breast cancer. Also, animals that have their light-dark schedules switched develop more cancerous tumors and die earlier. Some research also suggests that men working at night may have a higher rate of prostate cancer. The studies mostly focused on nurses and airline crews and many scientists say more studies among other professions have to be conducted before the findings are considered conclusive.
There are many people out there who doubt the results. They point out that the "probable carcinogen" tag means that the link between overnight work and cancer is merely plausible and that the list of "known" carcinogens is huge and includes things like alcoholic beverages and birth control pills. Scientists believe having lower melatonin levels can raise the risk of developing cancer. Light shuts down melatonin production, so people working in artificial light at night may have lower melatonin levels. Melatonin can be taken as a supplement, but experts don't recommend it long-term, since that could ruin the body's ability to produce it naturally. Sleep deprivation may be another factor in cancer risk.
People who work at night are not usually able to completely reverse their day and night cycles. "Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," said Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who is not connected with the IARC analysis. "Not getting enough sleep makes your immune system vulnerable to attack, and less able to fight off potentially cancerous cells," he said. Confusing your body's natural rhythm can also lead to a breakdown of other essential tasks. "Timing is very important," Rea said.
Certain processes like cell division and DNA repair happen at regular times. Even worse than working an overnight shift is flipping between daytime and overnight work. List of known and probable carcinogens from IARC and National Toxicology Program listed on American Cancer Society website: http://tinyurl.com/2kl5ab. Or check out the International Agency for Research on Cancer's website at: http://www.iarc.fr.
Hey city what do you think?
On donning and doffing
By Mark Nichols
American Police Beat, February 2008
In a massive ruling for the nation's law enforcement officers, a court in San Francisco has ruled that a police uniform is not just a set of clothes, but an emblem of authority that conveys "special powers and deference in our society." And that means the officer should be paid for the time needed to put it on and take it off, according to U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.
Judge Patel ruled in favor of policein San Leandro, California who sued for about a half-hour per day of paid "donning and doffing" time, either as part of their shifts or as premium pay. The ruling "ensures that officers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work," Alison Berry Wilkinson, a lawyer for the officers, told Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Kathy Mount, attorney for the city of San Leandro, said Patel left room for the city to argue that the process takes so little time that it shouldn't be compensated. Mount said the city would argue that putting on and taking off uniforms and mandatory protective gear takes only ten minutes. San Leandro officers have estimated that they need 25 to 35 minutes a day to get their gear on and off.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last August in a similar case that police in Richmond, California did not have to be paid for time spent putting on and removing their uniforms, but that they might be entitled to compensation for time needed to attach safety equipment such as guns, holsters, handcuffs and helmets.
Breyer said police must be paid if they have to put on that equipment at the station. Putting on and taking off a uniform is not "integral and indispensable" to police work, the standard established by the Supreme Court in compensation cases, Breyer said.
But in her recent ruling in the San Leandro case, Patel said she disagreed with Breyer. A police uniform, along with safety gear, makes up an officer's survival suit, she said. It deters crime by letting everyone know the officer holds a law enforcement job, and it includes the equipment needed to catch criminals like badges, guns, night sticks and helmets, she said.
In making her decision, Patel cited past rulings that require employers to pay workers for the time they need to put on protective clothing in a battery plant and a silicon chip factory.
The suit was filed by Greg Lemmon, president of the San Leandro Police Officers Association, on behalf of the 54 patrol officers in the department. Attorney Wilkinson said all police departments specify the type of uniform officers must wear and the equipment they need to carry, but very few pay for their time.
Wilkinson said that Berkeley sets aside 20 minutes of each shift for uniform-related compensation and that the California Highway Patrol pays uniformed officers a 3.5 percent premium.
By Mark Nichols
American Police Beat, February 2008
In a massive ruling for the nation's law enforcement officers, a court in San Francisco has ruled that a police uniform is not just a set of clothes, but an emblem of authority that conveys "special powers and deference in our society." And that means the officer should be paid for the time needed to put it on and take it off, according to U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.
Judge Patel ruled in favor of policein San Leandro, California who sued for about a half-hour per day of paid "donning and doffing" time, either as part of their shifts or as premium pay. The ruling "ensures that officers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work," Alison Berry Wilkinson, a lawyer for the officers, told Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Kathy Mount, attorney for the city of San Leandro, said Patel left room for the city to argue that the process takes so little time that it shouldn't be compensated. Mount said the city would argue that putting on and taking off uniforms and mandatory protective gear takes only ten minutes. San Leandro officers have estimated that they need 25 to 35 minutes a day to get their gear on and off.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last August in a similar case that police in Richmond, California did not have to be paid for time spent putting on and removing their uniforms, but that they might be entitled to compensation for time needed to attach safety equipment such as guns, holsters, handcuffs and helmets.
Breyer said police must be paid if they have to put on that equipment at the station. Putting on and taking off a uniform is not "integral and indispensable" to police work, the standard established by the Supreme Court in compensation cases, Breyer said.
But in her recent ruling in the San Leandro case, Patel said she disagreed with Breyer. A police uniform, along with safety gear, makes up an officer's survival suit, she said. It deters crime by letting everyone know the officer holds a law enforcement job, and it includes the equipment needed to catch criminals like badges, guns, night sticks and helmets, she said.
In making her decision, Patel cited past rulings that require employers to pay workers for the time they need to put on protective clothing in a battery plant and a silicon chip factory.
The suit was filed by Greg Lemmon, president of the San Leandro Police Officers Association, on behalf of the 54 patrol officers in the department. Attorney Wilkinson said all police departments specify the type of uniform officers must wear and the equipment they need to carry, but very few pay for their time.
Wilkinson said that Berkeley sets aside 20 minutes of each shift for uniform-related compensation and that the California Highway Patrol pays uniformed officers a 3.5 percent premium.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Residency
Illinois State Law.
(5 ILCS 315/14) Sec.14
(i) In the case of peace officers, the arbitration decision shall be limited to wages, hours, and conditions of employment (which may include residency requirements in municipalities with a population under 1,000,000, but those residency requirements shall not allow residency outside of Illinois) and shall not include the following: i) residency requirements in municipalities with a population of at least 1,000,000;
MY STAND
I believe that by making this class difference in the law that separates Chicago police officers from every other police officer in this State, the State violates the equal protection clause for all that is guaranteed by both the State Constitution and Federal Constitution. What do you think? Should we spend the time and money to fight this? I believe we should. If elected I will fight for our rights to arbitrate residency.
United States Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
(5 ILCS 315/14) Sec.14
(i) In the case of peace officers, the arbitration decision shall be limited to wages, hours, and conditions of employment (which may include residency requirements in municipalities with a population under 1,000,000, but those residency requirements shall not allow residency outside of Illinois) and shall not include the following: i) residency requirements in municipalities with a population of at least 1,000,000;
MY STAND
I believe that by making this class difference in the law that separates Chicago police officers from every other police officer in this State, the State violates the equal protection clause for all that is guaranteed by both the State Constitution and Federal Constitution. What do you think? Should we spend the time and money to fight this? I believe we should. If elected I will fight for our rights to arbitrate residency.
United States Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Not posted by SCC, so posted here.
Dear SCC,
First, this was no stunt. President Donahue is costing our membership hundreds of thousands of dollars of our membership moneys in fighting two lawsuits - that we know of. The reason that President Donahue was charged was solely because of the fact that he has failed to notify and to keep the Board of Directors aware of what is going on with a lawsuit (filed under Docket #: 05C7179 in the U.S. District Ct., of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) that should never have been filed. The FOP in-house attorneys can not represent the FOP because they are parties in some way to the lawsuit, either witnesses or respondents, and so the FOP had to hire a private law firm, which up to now has cost the FOP several hundred thousand dollars since December 2005.
If anyone would like to verify this information, maybe they should try and look at the books, or better yet, ask the FOP and President Donahue for a COMPETE ACCOUNTING of every dime that has been spent AND the number of hours that have been expended by the FOP staff and the FOP's own in-house attorneys. Imagine if the hours that were expended by our FOP staff and our FOP in-house attorneys in the defense of this lawsuit were utilized for the benefit of the members of the FOP. Right now, this lawsuit is solely being fought so that President Donahue and our members of the staff aren't embarrassed by the allegations of reckless & irresponsible conduct. The judge has already found more than enough reason to dismiss the motion by the FOP for summary judgment. This means that the judge feels that there is a case!
Now as far as the second lawsuit. This was a lawsuit that was brought because the FOP and President Donahue (improperly advised by Trustee (Sgt.) Majerczyk) decided to take the EXTRAORDINARY step to expel two members who had fought in the last election against Donahue & the CityWide team. Wow, imagine what kind of chilling effect that has on any dissent or, worse yet, keeps any member from running an election campaign against the FOP!?! Maybe that's why we are now down to the lowest number of candidates for all of the offices that we have ever had.
We all want to fight "Da Mayor" when he is wrong, but THEN we don't want to fight "Da Donahue" when he is wrong???? Come on, officers, that is crap! President Donahue has made more than a few dumb and or/ill-advised decisions and he and his staff needs to be held accountable for them. SCC, I will submit to you, the fact that the charges were brought up is "standing up" - it is "standing up" for the membership!
Now, SCC, as far as whether we wanted to be elected to office. The simple answer is "yes", since there is no doubt that more than a few of the current office holders are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. They have been, or now (if they are running in this election on the CityWide Team) completely beholden to President Donahue. I doubt seriously whether those particular members would know principle if it ever hit them in the face. They have surrendered their principles to President Donahue to keep their well-paid office staff spots, their committee memberships, or any of the other perks that each member has. For some of them they are doing this for $400 a month, for others they are doing this for TWICE the average officers' salary! It is sad that none of those particular members would not push for some of the answers, but it is SADDER that THEY DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO EVEN ASK THE QUESTIONS!!!
The only people that aren't being taken seriously are all of the members of the FOP. Why? Because the vast majority of us have refused to ask the tough questions or demanded the tough answers!!! Do you think the City doesn't notice this? Do you think the City doesn't take this into account when dealing with our EFFECTIVE President (sic)?
Now, just for your information, about the trial panels.
First, the charges against President Donahue were properly filed and have a basis in fact within the Constitution of the FOP.
Second, the FOP Constitution in Article II, Section 4, specifically states that the trial panel be set for "not less" than 30 days. This is the operative wording - "not less"! President Donahue supposedly waived the "30" days, but he doesn't have the right to waive that time frame. It is set up that way to give due process to all parties. The charges were served on President Donahue on 15 Jan., the trial panel was then set for 31 Jan at 0900 hrs, and then quickly re-set for 31 Jan at 1300 hrs. Although the FOP Constitution does give the right to make reasonable requests for continuances, the first date MUST be NOT LESS than 30 days. The trial panel hearing was set for 31 Jan, President Donahue was served on 15 Jan. Do the math! This was an "improper" and illegal trial panel hearing under the FOP Constitution!
So to clear up any misrepresentations, I and Harold Brown did go to this improperly convened trial panel hearing and requested that there be a continuance for this and several other reasons. We were advised that Chairperson Majerczyk (a Sgt. & an attorney) decided that there was no merit in any point of our argument. However, even when he presented what he thought were the pertinent parts of the Constitution from the State and/or Grand Lodge, there was also a requirement of no less than 30 days, which he decided to completely ignore.
Since the trial panel hearing was improperly & illegal convened, we could not sign off on any other aspect of the trial panel hearing at that point. That includes the issue of signing the affidavit at the trial panel hearing. For either of us to have signed off on the affidavit at that point would have been recognizing the trial panel hearing as being legitimate and proper. We would not do so. Interestingly, the FOP Lodge No. 7 Constitution does not require a sworn affidavit. Even more interesting is the fact that at the time that when the FOP Board decided to charge Shawn Hallinan or Wayne Harej, this was done without a sworn affidavit. Finally, because the original trial panel hearing was improper and illegal, we did not go to the Board of Directors meeting. We would not give credence to an improper and illegal meeting. By their vote to dismiss the charges against President Donahue each board member that voted for the dismissal has acted improperly and in violation of the FOP Constitution.
If there is one thing that should not be happening, it is that the FOP Constitution should not be changed around at their or anyone’s pleasure. The FOP Constitution is in place to protect the members interest and also to protect the members from an arrogant leadership who have decided to trample on the FOP Constitution in their quest to keep their pockets filled.
Finally, one of the first comments was that I was "self-serving". At this point in our lives, Harold Brown and I don't need to run for office. Unlike our FOP officers, I don't need to misrepresent or lie to keep my "D-5" (captain's) pay coming. We did this because the FOP administration is completely wrong and by their actions have shown THEMSELVES to be completely self-serving - they are protecting their positions. They have FORGOTTEN what it is like to be a working police officer and they are scared of the implications of going back to doing a job that they were probably not good at anyway!
As a police detective in Areas Four & Five for nearly my entire police career, I worked hard for the truth in investigations and to be certain that proper charges were brought against the proper people.
As police officers and members of the FOP we deserve better. We deserve not to be lied to! If they are choosing to lie about or misrepresent this, do you honestly think that they are telling the truth about other things, INCLUDING CONTRACT ISSUES?
Officers, retirees, and other readers of SCC, this is the truth of why this has come about and what has happened. SCC, I guess we'll see if you have sacrificed your principles, as well, to retain any benefits that you receive from the FOP. More importantly, I guess we'll see if this even gets printed, or, if printed, gets edited.
My name is Al Jaglowski, I am running for 2nd Vice President and I am not posting this anonymously. FOP members - please choose any candidate OTHER than the CityWide Team. YOU DO DESERVE BETTER than what is currently in office.
Thanks,
Allen Jaglowski
First, this was no stunt. President Donahue is costing our membership hundreds of thousands of dollars of our membership moneys in fighting two lawsuits - that we know of. The reason that President Donahue was charged was solely because of the fact that he has failed to notify and to keep the Board of Directors aware of what is going on with a lawsuit (filed under Docket #: 05C7179 in the U.S. District Ct., of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) that should never have been filed. The FOP in-house attorneys can not represent the FOP because they are parties in some way to the lawsuit, either witnesses or respondents, and so the FOP had to hire a private law firm, which up to now has cost the FOP several hundred thousand dollars since December 2005.
If anyone would like to verify this information, maybe they should try and look at the books, or better yet, ask the FOP and President Donahue for a COMPETE ACCOUNTING of every dime that has been spent AND the number of hours that have been expended by the FOP staff and the FOP's own in-house attorneys. Imagine if the hours that were expended by our FOP staff and our FOP in-house attorneys in the defense of this lawsuit were utilized for the benefit of the members of the FOP. Right now, this lawsuit is solely being fought so that President Donahue and our members of the staff aren't embarrassed by the allegations of reckless & irresponsible conduct. The judge has already found more than enough reason to dismiss the motion by the FOP for summary judgment. This means that the judge feels that there is a case!
Now as far as the second lawsuit. This was a lawsuit that was brought because the FOP and President Donahue (improperly advised by Trustee (Sgt.) Majerczyk) decided to take the EXTRAORDINARY step to expel two members who had fought in the last election against Donahue & the CityWide team. Wow, imagine what kind of chilling effect that has on any dissent or, worse yet, keeps any member from running an election campaign against the FOP!?! Maybe that's why we are now down to the lowest number of candidates for all of the offices that we have ever had.
We all want to fight "Da Mayor" when he is wrong, but THEN we don't want to fight "Da Donahue" when he is wrong???? Come on, officers, that is crap! President Donahue has made more than a few dumb and or/ill-advised decisions and he and his staff needs to be held accountable for them. SCC, I will submit to you, the fact that the charges were brought up is "standing up" - it is "standing up" for the membership!
Now, SCC, as far as whether we wanted to be elected to office. The simple answer is "yes", since there is no doubt that more than a few of the current office holders are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. They have been, or now (if they are running in this election on the CityWide Team) completely beholden to President Donahue. I doubt seriously whether those particular members would know principle if it ever hit them in the face. They have surrendered their principles to President Donahue to keep their well-paid office staff spots, their committee memberships, or any of the other perks that each member has. For some of them they are doing this for $400 a month, for others they are doing this for TWICE the average officers' salary! It is sad that none of those particular members would not push for some of the answers, but it is SADDER that THEY DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO EVEN ASK THE QUESTIONS!!!
The only people that aren't being taken seriously are all of the members of the FOP. Why? Because the vast majority of us have refused to ask the tough questions or demanded the tough answers!!! Do you think the City doesn't notice this? Do you think the City doesn't take this into account when dealing with our EFFECTIVE President (sic)?
Now, just for your information, about the trial panels.
First, the charges against President Donahue were properly filed and have a basis in fact within the Constitution of the FOP.
Second, the FOP Constitution in Article II, Section 4, specifically states that the trial panel be set for "not less" than 30 days. This is the operative wording - "not less"! President Donahue supposedly waived the "30" days, but he doesn't have the right to waive that time frame. It is set up that way to give due process to all parties. The charges were served on President Donahue on 15 Jan., the trial panel was then set for 31 Jan at 0900 hrs, and then quickly re-set for 31 Jan at 1300 hrs. Although the FOP Constitution does give the right to make reasonable requests for continuances, the first date MUST be NOT LESS than 30 days. The trial panel hearing was set for 31 Jan, President Donahue was served on 15 Jan. Do the math! This was an "improper" and illegal trial panel hearing under the FOP Constitution!
So to clear up any misrepresentations, I and Harold Brown did go to this improperly convened trial panel hearing and requested that there be a continuance for this and several other reasons. We were advised that Chairperson Majerczyk (a Sgt. & an attorney) decided that there was no merit in any point of our argument. However, even when he presented what he thought were the pertinent parts of the Constitution from the State and/or Grand Lodge, there was also a requirement of no less than 30 days, which he decided to completely ignore.
Since the trial panel hearing was improperly & illegal convened, we could not sign off on any other aspect of the trial panel hearing at that point. That includes the issue of signing the affidavit at the trial panel hearing. For either of us to have signed off on the affidavit at that point would have been recognizing the trial panel hearing as being legitimate and proper. We would not do so. Interestingly, the FOP Lodge No. 7 Constitution does not require a sworn affidavit. Even more interesting is the fact that at the time that when the FOP Board decided to charge Shawn Hallinan or Wayne Harej, this was done without a sworn affidavit. Finally, because the original trial panel hearing was improper and illegal, we did not go to the Board of Directors meeting. We would not give credence to an improper and illegal meeting. By their vote to dismiss the charges against President Donahue each board member that voted for the dismissal has acted improperly and in violation of the FOP Constitution.
If there is one thing that should not be happening, it is that the FOP Constitution should not be changed around at their or anyone’s pleasure. The FOP Constitution is in place to protect the members interest and also to protect the members from an arrogant leadership who have decided to trample on the FOP Constitution in their quest to keep their pockets filled.
Finally, one of the first comments was that I was "self-serving". At this point in our lives, Harold Brown and I don't need to run for office. Unlike our FOP officers, I don't need to misrepresent or lie to keep my "D-5" (captain's) pay coming. We did this because the FOP administration is completely wrong and by their actions have shown THEMSELVES to be completely self-serving - they are protecting their positions. They have FORGOTTEN what it is like to be a working police officer and they are scared of the implications of going back to doing a job that they were probably not good at anyway!
As a police detective in Areas Four & Five for nearly my entire police career, I worked hard for the truth in investigations and to be certain that proper charges were brought against the proper people.
As police officers and members of the FOP we deserve better. We deserve not to be lied to! If they are choosing to lie about or misrepresent this, do you honestly think that they are telling the truth about other things, INCLUDING CONTRACT ISSUES?
Officers, retirees, and other readers of SCC, this is the truth of why this has come about and what has happened. SCC, I guess we'll see if you have sacrificed your principles, as well, to retain any benefits that you receive from the FOP. More importantly, I guess we'll see if this even gets printed, or, if printed, gets edited.
My name is Al Jaglowski, I am running for 2nd Vice President and I am not posting this anonymously. FOP members - please choose any candidate OTHER than the CityWide Team. YOU DO DESERVE BETTER than what is currently in office.
Thanks,
Allen Jaglowski
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Issues
Why vote for Kevin C. Jans and the INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change instead of Mark Donahue and the Citywide Team?
We will make the Lodge more visible to the public and be more aggressive in promoting the truth about the good we do as Chicago Police Officers. We will be there to get the truth out and challenge those that try to bring us down to the level of a street gang! You will be proud again to say that you are a Chicago Police Officer.
If you want promotions based on honest and fair testing, elect the INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change. As long as the current leadership controls access to the rank order list, promotions and spots will continue to be influenced by clout.
The Citywide Team has wasted more than $500,000 of your dues in a law suit filed against Lodge 7 over an illegal firing. The suit demonstrates just how arrogant the current leadership is and how little concern they have for those who don’t have an “in.”
The INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change will fight to make residency a mandatory issue for arbitration, without making concessions. You have a right to live where you wish and we will go to the courts to ensure that right, if necessary.
After five years on the job, you should be at the top pay rate like officers in many other departments. If you want to spend your free time with your family instead of working every waking moment at a side job, you need to vote for the INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change.
Detectives should be able to bid for open spots just like Patrolmen do. The INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change will make this a priority.
We will make the Lodge more visible to the public and be more aggressive in promoting the truth about the good we do as Chicago Police Officers. We will be there to get the truth out and challenge those that try to bring us down to the level of a street gang! You will be proud again to say that you are a Chicago Police Officer.
If you want promotions based on honest and fair testing, elect the INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change. As long as the current leadership controls access to the rank order list, promotions and spots will continue to be influenced by clout.
The Citywide Team has wasted more than $500,000 of your dues in a law suit filed against Lodge 7 over an illegal firing. The suit demonstrates just how arrogant the current leadership is and how little concern they have for those who don’t have an “in.”
The INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change will fight to make residency a mandatory issue for arbitration, without making concessions. You have a right to live where you wish and we will go to the courts to ensure that right, if necessary.
After five years on the job, you should be at the top pay rate like officers in many other departments. If you want to spend your free time with your family instead of working every waking moment at a side job, you need to vote for the INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change.
Detectives should be able to bid for open spots just like Patrolmen do. The INDEPENDENT Candidates for Change will make this a priority.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Why I’m Running
I am challenging Mark Donahue for the presidency of FOP Lodge #7 because I have lost my belief that he is properly leading the Lodge.
I believe the FOP needs a more active and outspoken leader. You and the public will see me defending our actions out on the streets, especially when we have to defend ourselves against assailants who attempt to kill us or cause us serious bodily harm.
I will lead in the fight to open up the promotion process by releasing the rank order list for promotions and advocating for on-site test results. You should be able to get your score immediately after testing for promotions. You should also be able to review the test questions and challenge those that you believe were incorrectly scored. If you wish to get a “merit” promotion, it will be a transparent process, as I will not hide “merit” promotions like the current Lodge leadership does.
I will request that the Board of Directors hire more attorneys for the purpose of financially protecting officers as individuals. There is great concern that those who sue police officers will start to come after their personal assets: house, car, bank accounts, pensions, anything of value. To prevent this, I will start a program to protect your assets. This is a benefit that the Lodge is able to provide you without any legislative action on the part of the city or state. It will start right after you elect me.
I will also start a suit against the state for the ability to have residence made a mandatory right of bargaining. As the state law stands, the Chicago Police Department is the only one that doesn’t have the right to make residency a mandatory issue for arbitration. Every other police department in the state does. This violates the Illinois State Constitution’s requirement of equal rights for all and I will not hesitate to litigate this matter. I will not make any concession with the City that will prevent us from exercising our rights to bring residency into arbitration.
These are just some of the issues for which I will fight, but the primary issue is visibility and access. You will be seeing me. I know that most police officers do not attend the General Meetings, so I will come to you. How many times have you seen Mark Donahue at your roll call in the last six years while he has been president of Lodge #7? You have my commitment to be open and available for you and to come to where you are.
Thank you for your vote,
Kevin C. Jans
I believe the FOP needs a more active and outspoken leader. You and the public will see me defending our actions out on the streets, especially when we have to defend ourselves against assailants who attempt to kill us or cause us serious bodily harm.
I will lead in the fight to open up the promotion process by releasing the rank order list for promotions and advocating for on-site test results. You should be able to get your score immediately after testing for promotions. You should also be able to review the test questions and challenge those that you believe were incorrectly scored. If you wish to get a “merit” promotion, it will be a transparent process, as I will not hide “merit” promotions like the current Lodge leadership does.
I will request that the Board of Directors hire more attorneys for the purpose of financially protecting officers as individuals. There is great concern that those who sue police officers will start to come after their personal assets: house, car, bank accounts, pensions, anything of value. To prevent this, I will start a program to protect your assets. This is a benefit that the Lodge is able to provide you without any legislative action on the part of the city or state. It will start right after you elect me.
I will also start a suit against the state for the ability to have residence made a mandatory right of bargaining. As the state law stands, the Chicago Police Department is the only one that doesn’t have the right to make residency a mandatory issue for arbitration. Every other police department in the state does. This violates the Illinois State Constitution’s requirement of equal rights for all and I will not hesitate to litigate this matter. I will not make any concession with the City that will prevent us from exercising our rights to bring residency into arbitration.
These are just some of the issues for which I will fight, but the primary issue is visibility and access. You will be seeing me. I know that most police officers do not attend the General Meetings, so I will come to you. How many times have you seen Mark Donahue at your roll call in the last six years while he has been president of Lodge #7? You have my commitment to be open and available for you and to come to where you are.
Thank you for your vote,
Kevin C. Jans
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
