Wednesday, November 06, 2013

LIED TO AGAIN: CPD Spokesman Says District Is Down 107 Officers, Nearly 40 More Than Commander's "Honest" And "Frank" Assessment

Well, well, well. Once again we see that the community simply cannot trust what its police department says.

Credibility? Zilch. Through the floor. Rock bottom.

At a neighborhood CAPS meeting last month, 19th district police Commander Elias Voulgaris had a "frank" discussion with residents. Among the "honest" things he said is that our district has lost 69 police officers since March 2012.

This  morning, a CPD spokesman is quoted by DNAinfo as saying that the number of officers lost is not 69. It's 107.

That's closer to the truth. But, as CWB has repeated stated, the actual number of officers lost is still higher than that.

A Laugher
In the same DNAInfo article this morning, police spokesman Adam Collins says with a straight face that
while district 19 is down 24 percent in overall crime and has seen reductions in almost every crime category, there's more work to be done and we will continue our partnership with the community until we reach the ultimate goal of no crime.
Did ya catch that? According to the spokesman, manpower in the district is down 24% and crime is down 24%. Hey. Do you think there are at least 24% fewer crimes reported because there are 24% fewer police officers to make reports? We do.

And as for the police goal of reaching "no crime," the district is well on its way. As soon as the district dumps the remaining police officers, there will be no cops to file reports and zero crime reported. Success!

We Don't Like It When You Make Us Sound Greedy
Have you caught wind of the latest techniques being used to deflect community demands for a return to 2012 policing staffing levels?  The one where aldermen and police executives make it sound like we want more police? Here are some examples:

Police Commander Voulgaris in an email to 47th ward alderman Ameya Pawar's office:
Every community in the city would like to see more police officers. We are #6 as far as staffing so that means 16 other districts have less manpower than the 19th District.
Not more cops, commander. The same number we had a year ago. That's what we want. And as for us being #6 in staffing, well, how does our district population and unique policing needs rank compared to other districts?

Alderman Pawar's office staff in an email to concerned citizens last month:
Paying for additional officers in a way that does not risk further inflating our structural deficit is a very real challenge. 
Ahh-ahh-ahh. Not additional officers, alderman. The same number we used to have. We're not asking for MORE.

And 44th ward alderman Tom Tunney's most recent tune has been to go the generic route. In a CLTV interview posted yesterday:
There's never enough cops in our ward, period. And in our city.
 You're doing exactly what about the problem, Tom?

25 comments:

  1. Tunney is a big ass JOKE that needs to GO!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps we should ask the Guardian Angels to start escorting patrons to/from Tom's Ann Sather on Belmont. Would make for great TV and force Tunney to acknowledge that the neighborhood, particularly his stretch of Belmont, is unsafe. Once the tourists start staying away and it starts affecting his bottom line, watch how quick he comes around.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Come on, Tom has serious issues to contend with. Like yelling at cleaning staff of restaurants he doesn't even own on Belmont during evening rush hour. I saw him dressing down someone outside of Berlin a few days ago and storming off to his new office (lovely new sidewalk outside of there but no where else along that stretch, by the way). Maybe there was some legitimate grievance that our alderman had, but the optics were piss-poor, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know why anyone would believe a word the commander says. Does anyone really think he would tell the truth? He's a politician. That's why they made him a commander. And remember, he doesn't believe the stats. But I bet he would if they were favorable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as manpower I want to know how many are on the street. Office staff and secretaries don't count. The district is down from 6 tact teams to 3 now but I'm told there are still two tact secretaries sitting inside all day.

      Delete
    2. We've been told that every district has those two "inside" posts. One as secretary and the other as "intelligence officer." We've also been told that that's a bunch of hooey.

      Delete
    3. There is absoultly no such thing as an intelligence officer. That is a bunch of hooey. Now that is the truth.

      Delete
  5. Tunney is selling his Belmont properties. The captain is abandoning this sinking ship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thought this comment by Emanuel on crime and the police situation was ...ah .. umm .. interesting.

    "But Emanuel rejected that argument on both fronts.

    “The strategy is, two years running, a 23 percent reduction in overall crime. The strategy is a 24 percent reduction in shootings as well as in homicides. The strategy is to see a level of safety in Roseland like I have in Ravenswood. That’s the strategy,” the mayor said"

    http://www.suntimes.com/23577853-761/mayor-defends-136-mil-in-overtime-costs-for-police-fire.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. In Voulgaris' defense (hang me now from the nearest tree or lamppost!), he said the district was down 69 officers since he became the commander. The police spokesperson is saying 107 since the merger. Apples, meet oranges. Neither is lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not lying. Just not answering the question everyone has been asking. Misleading is a better word.

      Delete
    2. If I get my way, that number will be 70/108. Working in 019 has become unbearable. Morale is in the toilet.

      Delete
    3. No, actually, he was lying. He gave the same "69" number at the SELVN meeting last month. He said it was since the merger.

      Delete
  8. Tunney isn't going to do squat about any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I haven't seen any reduction in police presence!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I had as many bodyguards as Burke, I wouldn't be concerned about police presence either.

      Delete
  10. Tunney was at last night’s CAPS meeting. John Pfeifer the first Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Families and Support Services was there as well. John spoke about homeless services. Apparently the losers of the Crib lottery will finally be transported out of the neighborhood to another shelter and receive a warm place to stay. The transport of these LGBT youth though will be provided by Catholic Charities. We’ll see if the youth homeless accept this and if Catholic Charities can deliver services to LGBT youth in a non-judgmental, non-hostile manner. While this is something, it is not our 100 officers. John was asked about good neighbor client contracts and he said it was something his department strongly encourages. He doesn’t require it though and he should for users of the Crib. He is a gay man who lives in the neighborhood. Maybe he should be informed about any new problems with the Crib.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let's just transport the Crib out of the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pfeifer was an arrogant, condescending, dismissive liar at last night's meeting. He treated his questioners like misbehaving small children while whining that he didn't feel "respected." (that became the joke for the rest of the evening after the meeting -- "I don't feel respected...waaaahhhhhh!") If his goal was to reassure residents and bring around sympathy for his cause, he blew it! I left even more disgusted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider the source. Social workers like him can only continue to receive a paycheck while there are "troubled youths" needing their "services." No troubled youths = no paycheck. Therefore, he does not want the problem solved. He wants it to continue so he has job security.

      Delete
    2. He did blow it. I cannot understand how he and the representatives of the social agencies come to community meetings with those attitudes. It is a terrible, terrible approach and it seems to pervade every single one of them. They dont want to work WITH anyone. They just want to do whatever it is they do to get $$$$ and then they bail out of the hood when night falls.

      Delete
    3. The social workers have the politicians on their side, who are also on the take for the $$$$$. So they can be as arrogant and dismissive as they want.

      Delete
  13. People on here keep saying that everyone should "attend CAPS meetings," as if that accomplishes something. Yet the feedback after EVERY CAPS meeting is the same...disappointment by the attendees because the officials are lying, arrogant creeps with their own political/career agendas who really don't care about the neighborhood crime problems. They only care about covering their own asses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CAPS meetings are excellent opportunities to see if the person you elected takes your concerns seriously or if they are simply pumping out press releases with lip service and acting differently when it matters.

      Reclaiming our neighborhood from Street criminals is a process. Pay off the process is learning how our elected officials have been and continue to not address the problem and continue to do as they please.

      This problem will not be resolved next month or next week. CWB committed to telling this story for the long term.

      Delete
    2. There is another long and hot summer between now and the next election. Not to mentionanother police slashing budget process. Crime is an issue that officials ignore at their own peril.

      Delete