New Haven Independent

posted by: notty on January 28, 2010  1:38pm

Is this head of the union guy kidding me. This system of hold down is anything but fair. This creates a buddy system and if a hold down officer doesn’t like another officer, the potential is there for other officers to not get extra duty work period. This creates conflict because The hold down officer will and in most cases look out for their buddies. Thanks Chief for your vision to move this department away from the corrupt mindset that obviously still exist iin Cavalieres mind and the mind of some officers. Great Job Chief, wish you would stay, but if you have to go, Can we keep Gillispie, most officers in new haven want to see you guys leave, so they can get back to business in the NHPD as usual.

posted by: you're system stinks on January 28, 2010  1:43pm

extra duty should always be giving to (silver shields) patrol officer first.. then offered to sergeants detectives… to see a Captain on a road job looks bad ....sorry I don’t see a DC or Chief working a road job !!!!

posted by: j on January 28, 2010  1:55pm

i like sgt. cavaliere’s suggestion that we have a happy “family” in new haven.

there should be no “familial” ties between public entities and the private businesses as the present arrangement allows.  his fascinating metaphor reveals precisely why a ‘cavalier’ attitude toward potential conflicts of interest is a problem that demands correction.

posted by: JP on January 28, 2010  2:10pm

I think hold downs are awful but come on its a union and people with seniority should get the first crack at extra duty work if they want it.

posted by: newhaventaxpayer on January 28, 2010  3:25pm

Hellooooooooooo

posted by: Come On! on January 28, 2010  3:33pm

Cavalliere doesn’t see a conflict with an officer getting paid by the person who owns the business he is supposed to be keeping an eye on? How does he keep a straight face?

posted by: Observer on January 28, 2010  3:35pm

JP: You would be right if this was city work, but its private work controlled by police officers.  Doesn’t something about that strike you as being wrong???

posted by: Sunday on January 28, 2010  4:26pm

Hold Downs should be eliminated. It should be by seniority only like other departments.

posted by: george daddio on January 28, 2010  4:34pm

I think the hold down jobs that they have should not be.The police think they can do whatever they want. I have seen many officers on road jobs either on the phone or looking the other way. Just because they are police they think they can do what they want.

posted by: East Rocker on January 28, 2010  6:04pm

Wow - I’ve never seen a topic where the response is so uunanimous.  Maybe the world where unions extort money from public entities (and thus the public) is losing popularity.

Now if someone would just tell Obama….

posted by: Jeff Hoffman on January 28, 2010  10:46pm

Let’s get a few things straight: 1.) Officers who work extra duty are not paid directly from the business owner; the owner pays the city and the city pays the officer (and the city receives a fee).  2.) The majority of businesses that hire officers are not bars.  Rather, they are grocery stores, drug stores, the housing authority, the airport, etc.  Currently, district supervisors select which officers work in many of these places.  Under the new system, supervisors lose this discretion, and officers are hired randomly from a central location. Instead of having a neighborhood officer come in on his/her day off to work a housing project on his/her beat area, random officers will be assigned with no consistency, and no connection to the neighborhood. 3.) If bar hold-downs are the problem, then get rid of them, and retain the rest, don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water. 4.) All transitory work, such as road construction, is already doled out equitably and centrally, so everyone has an opportunity to work extra 5.) Some businesses will no longer hire officers if they have no consistency of officers. This reduces the number of officers in the city at any given time, and drains officers from neighborhoods who will now have to respond to these businesses when they call the police. 6.) This change will cause labor unrest within the police department, and lower morale, which will influence productivity.  It’s much more complicated than an insulting sound-bite.

posted by: Big Jim on January 29, 2010  12:12am

I’ve seen the ‘hold-down’ system in action and I think it works.  As a guy who visits a bar now and then, I appreciate it when I see the same cop at the door.  He knows that I am friendly and I feel safe.  The cop knows who the trouble makers are and keeps them out. By having different people working, the creeps have an easier time entering. This system has been working for many, many years I understand.  If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Why spend extra city money trying to re-organize a system that is already organized. I don’t think the city has an extra nickel to throw away. Let’s use our heads, save money and let the police do the job they have been doing for years.  Thank you.

posted by: Mike P on January 29, 2010  12:19am

I agree with Mr Hoffman..Additionally, if the system is abolished, there should be a transition plan in place to avoid chaos the first month.  Imagine if all the business owners now have to call one number with one or two people staffing it.  Many jobs will go undone and the public’s safety will be jeopardized.

posted by: A.Tolnay on January 29, 2010  10:36am

WOW where do I start?? Hmmm. ok lets start here..when on-duty police officers respond to a bar or club, they should be attending to their police work, not “sourcing more work,” Lewis said. That Was the comment by the Chief ,I may not be the brightest or the best but it just seems to me that the Chief’s belief is that everytime an officer responds to an incident at a nightclub or restaurant that fiendishly serves liquor…we should be locking up the the sinister owners of these establishments…is that what you believe? because if its not then I think you need to give another interview and clear up to us officers what it is you expect our function to be other than the enforcement of prohibition.

Now I can respect that in California you cant even work at a supermarket that sells liquor..well I think LAWMAKERS OUGHTA SHUT THEM DOWN TOO..but if were going to use other states as examples there a little town just south of us called NEW YORK CITY where officers in an effort to supplement their inadequate incomes (sorry taxpayers I know you all think were overpaid..go talk to your govt. about their salaries)but they all work in different capacities to earn extra income. so given all the conspiracy theories that have recently evolved In this city, there is something to be said about New York City’s administration for recognizing that fact and allowing them to do so.

And as for the Tax payers that feel they have a right to dictate everything we do..here’s a news flash..WE all pay taxes TOO and believe me even though when our forefathers thought this stuff up it was the general idea, we as taxpayers dont have a real voice…sad but true. Let’s all get over it your getting your money’s worth here in New Haven because the cops here do excellent work. If the taxpayers feel they can do a better job then climb aboard I’ll personally help you study for the entrance exam. Annnndddd do your research ladies and gentleman why dont you go check to see where the majority of taxes in CT. get distributed to…maybe you’ll be surprised.

Now getting back to Chief Lewis I understand that he’s leaving and I will say that he has absolutely improved this department and its operations and I’m certain many officers are greatful for his efforts..that said..He has said repeatedly that he doesnt know about these holdwons and hasn’t seen anything like this but has also in the same article been quoted at his firm belief that they don’t work and shouldn’t be in place..simply stated Chief youve done a tremendous service here but as your getting ready to leave this city as well as the state altogether, remember the rest of us are staying here and will remain here and your statements are only going to negatively effect us and create the same “turmoil” for the new Chief that you had to step into when you arrived here. I wish you luck in your future endeavors and again a Thank You for your service here.

posted by: Anon resident on January 30, 2010  12:11am

Hoffman and Tolnay you hit it right on the nose. If they get rid of hold downs can cops moonlight? Because it seems many people are jealous and want his hold down system gone. I don’t think The Welfare office sells Liquor so why does that hold down have to go or the flea market hold down or the airport. I like sseeingthe same cop at these places.

posted by: end it now on January 30, 2010  1:14am

the whole system of hold-downs smacks of ‘mafia’-style shakedowns…i believe many business-owners were and are coerced in paying foe extra-duty officers. just the term ‘extra-duty’ would make you think there is a premium attached, as in overtime dollars—-this ain’t cheap straight-time wages, people. why would any business pay a cop $50+ an hour, when they can employ a muscle-head with a cell-phone for $20??? think about it? it’s a shake-down. and the road-construction jobs? same thing…why are cops needed, when a trained flag-man will do? they never even bust passing vehicles for stupid stuff like expired plates or talkin on the phone…these jobs are nothing more than extortion-equivalent shakedowns. end it.

posted by: citysavior on January 30, 2010  11:26am

as a city resident my police officer friends told me that the department is in total moral breakdown due to this mess. I believe that some officers who are making over 20 thousand over the salary and now are not going to make that money. where do you think the extra money will come from to make that up? does this now send other officers into corruption? the city is again making decision now that will cost us tax payers later. This chief is leaving. He did a good job on some things but listening to ranks under asst.chief before he moves forward because he has never seen this type of system seems a little bit crazy. I hope that the city realizes that the chief is now a lame duck and is trying to control a sinking ship. Tolnay and Hoffman are right why cant the city bring the two of them in and work this issue out.

posted by: sam on January 31, 2010  3:49am

With lewis going Feb 26 right cavaliere no problem.

posted by: Consti2amend on February 6, 2010  5:35pm

I personally believe the OT pay for *GOVERNMENT SECTOR* should NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETIREMENT!!
They may work for a few years on “extra duty”.  Then, after retiring at 45 years(or whatever) of age, collect for 30 or MORE years, on a “PADDED PENSION” from all of the OT!

You can’t get that in the private sector, why should they be allowed to get it in the Government sector?
This IS clearly a waste of TAXPAYER MONEY!!  This “PADDING” for retirement MUST STOP!  It is bleeding the taxpayers in ALL COMUNITIES!

Also, if their “sick pay” is carried over, at what rate is it payed out when they retire?  Is it payed out at the CURRENT PAY RATE?  This IS stealing, plain and simple!
IF the Government workers have a “short/long term disability” clause in their contracts, then this *carry over of sick time*, is another form of stealing from the taxpayers!  As one would ONLY have to use the “minimum” number of days on *sick time*, to wait for the short/long term disability to take affect!

Also, in the private sector, vacation days cannot be carried over!  Some others, just a “portion” of what they get (i.e. not carry over more than the same number of weeks they get per year, some, only half of what they get/year).  This “carry over” cannot equal 1 1/2 OR 2 times their yearly vacation time.

The current system is ruining the city/town government’s tax rates!  We are FORCED into paying for the PADDING!! Try that in PRIVATE SECTOR, and you would be fired!  Then you would have NO RETIREMENT benefits!

Government workers, looking over OTHER government worker’s CONTRACTS, HAS GOT TO STOP!  Who will be responsible for watching out for the TAXPAYERS!?!?

An out side entity should do the “bargaining” for us!

posted by: Consti2amend on February 6, 2010  5:41pm

“...That’s a ridiculous unsubstantiated theory,” Cavaliere said. “It’s a lie…”

It’s a theory, it is NEITHER true NOR false, right NOR wrong!

SO IT CANNOT LIE!

Besides,
Liars figure, BUT figures DON’T LIE!!