Wednesday, August 02, 2017

As Police Manpower Slips Away, Alderman Tunney Lies About Staffing Promise

Police manpower in the 19th District is slipping.

Alderman Tom "Tunocchio" Tunney | Artist's Rendering
Staffing levels are lower than local Alderman Tom Tunney promised us when he voted in favor of Chicago’s record-breaking property tax hike in exchange for a 35-officer increase during 2016.

So what is Tunney doing about it?

Lying, apparently.

In his latest newsletter, Tunney wrote that “while the number of officers in the 19th District is still higher than in January 2016 and higher than the commitment made by the Mayor in November of 2015, we will continue to work for the resources we need and deserve.”

The “commitment” he refers to is the 35 cops he says Rahm Emanuel promised to add to the 19th District. That commitment was made in October (not November) 2015 in exchange for Tunney’s property tax vote.

Here are Tunney’s exact words, sent in a statement on October 28, 2015:

“I have been assured that 35 additional police officers will be assigned to the 19th District in 2016…”

The 19th District began 2016 with 331 officers.

Adding 35 to that, the minimum staffing level needed for the mayor to meet his purported commitment is 366.

This month, the 19th District has 363 officers assigned to it. Tunney said so in his July 21 newsletter, and CWBChicago has been given identical staffing information directly from the Chicago Police Department.

363 is less than 366, leading us to conclude that—contrary to Tunney’s latest newsletter—manpower numbers here are NOT higher than the commitment made by the mayor.

We asked Tunney’s office to explain Tunney's apparently false statement. They continued the alderman's 14-month practice of not responding to us.
----------
Email      Facebook       Twitter       YouTube

31 comments:

  1. That Tun-occhio mugpuss is quite possibly the best thing that has ever appeared on here (running a very close second place would have to be little Robert Vacha's blond top hair). Damn!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Getting into a big hissy fit over a deficiency of three is not productive. I'm sure it will eventually get there, possibly with a re-assignment from desk duty or other. The way you and others have been mocking Tunney here, I can't blame him for ignoring you. I don't take his side and didn't vote for him lest you think I do. I'm an independent with conservative views on some issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. And they'll just vote for him again, or another incompetent "just because" they're this or that.

      Delete
    2. A deficiency of 3 IS a big deal when it comes to protecting our community. How can you say this article is unproductive? He voted in favor of a tax hike with the promise to increase "resources" (his word). The entire 19th district police force has to frequently respond to massive street fights around the Boystown bar scene, while the rest of the neighborhood remains unprotected. I'm not saying those extra 3 officers will be able to fight the remaining crimes outside of the Boystown area, but hey, it's something that we currently do not have available.
      Tunney's office doesn't respond because they are unable to provide adequate answers to crime-related questions. Not because CWB writes articles about him.

      Delete
    3. "Big hissy fit" Take a seat! 3 is a big deal.(hope you won't experience the shortage when being jacked up) It's the ever changing story which spill from the mouths of the pols. Promise them anything and everything to appease, than deliver not.

      Delete
  3. Oh boy......Tunney lies. Big fucking surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The bigger question is: why do intelligent people keep voting this piece of shit into office? I had no hope people would come to their senses, so I moved out of the city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet you keep reading this blog

      Delete
    2. If you moved out of the city then why don't you focus on your new community? This sort of "I'm moving/I moved" rant is tired. You can butt out now.

      Delete
  5. Thanks CWB for exposing this fraud for what he is.
    Let's keep voting for him granted Broadway is under construction the store fronts are dying a slow death and our property taxes skyrocketed. But hey he still getting 100K plus for doing exactly what. Jokes on us !

    ReplyDelete
  6. GUYS -- At least Tunney said something.
    At least he PRETENDED to give a minor league shit. Not that any of us believed it.

    But compare that with Jimmy 'No Really I AM Still Alive' Cappleman, and Michelle 'Nobody Stole My Phone' Smith. The goddam silent duo here. No statements. No CAPS meetings. No fake promises. Nothing. Zero. Couldn't be bothered to give 1/2 a crap between 'em. Pathetic.

    Only in Chicago do you actually get bonus points for lying to your constituents. Bloody parallel universe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tunneys is a LIE threw and threw I seen him in peets coffee taking a coffee before tonites caps meeting he was starting off into outer space like a nitwit probably conjuring up LIES to say at the caps meeting!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard to take someone serious who doesn't know the difference between "threw" and "through." Threw usage: I threw a ball. Why didn't you go in and ask him about the error?

      Delete
  8. So little integrity in politics. Lie lie lie and ignore the facts is the playbook. Look at Rahm and his latest budget. Little Tommy was given his job by the machine not the people. And look what we get. A liar. And a very poor deal maker.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps all the people defending Tunney on here should consider how many R A P' S are in district 19 on a daily basis this last few months. Do these same people realize at all that when a "RAP" is in effect, for hours upon hours, that means NO police are available when they call 9-1-1. NO ONE is coming to help you, the manpower in 19 is depleted. Thank Tunney for using your property taxes, soda pop tax, sales tax, city sticker fees, money paid at parking meters, red light tickets, bottled water tax, and plastic bag taxes wisely cause NO ONE is coming to help you when dialing 9-1-1 when there are RAP'S. They are stealing your tax payer money and not even providing basic 9-1-1 police emergency services. RAP'S are equivalent to NO POLICE. Yeah, that's a guy I want to defend who doesn't give 2 shits about you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not that no Police service it is delayed Police service depending on severity of the crime. Yes it's still a crap show I understand but it is not that no one will be there ever

      Delete
    2. Probably about the same number of RAPS as there are in 017, 016, 014 and 012.

      Delete
  10. Someone needs to ask how many of those 363 are detailed OUT of the district. I'll bet there are at least 15-20. Then ask how many are on extended medical or injury on duty. Another half dozen. You can be sure that the total number of available police in 19 is far less than 363.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is pretty much how it is in every district.

      Delete
    2. listen to a scanner 460050 and you can hear almost every day every hour there are like 3 police working the streets district 19 and more so many many times you hear the dispatcher over and over saying "is any body going to take that call"? We have no lake front police any more.

      Delete
  11. You are getting what you voted for and voted for and voted for keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The man won his last election with something like 77% of the vote. Tunney knows he can just ignore every detractor and cakewalk to re-election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With less that 5% voter turnout, giving him even more incentive to not give a shit. Why should he? Residents don't. And those who do vote only care about that D that follows a candidate's name.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps he won his last election with 77% because the 'alternative' candidate wasn't really what you'd call a viable option.
      That might have something to do with it.

      Delete
  13. Tunney, a liar? < snork snork >

    ReplyDelete
  14. 2:04 am nailed it. The biggest public safety disaster ever! This is why citizens must step up and take responsibility for their own protection. See to it that you obtain the right tools to protect yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tunney's an idiot, but I'm not going to whine over 3 officers.

    The better question is out of the officers in 019 - how many of them are available for duty on any given 24 hour period? I'm assuming with vacation/medical/detailed/other, it's not anywhere close to that number. Subtract the number of people who don't leave the station. That's the number I want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I know that citywide we have had hundreds of police officers retire since the beginning of the year in order to keep their health care coverage because I am one of them (as was the head of Rahm's detail!).

    Fact is, there are not enough police officers to keep manpower at the same levels they were at the beginning of the year even with the PPOs coming out of the academy. Don't believe Rahm when he says differently. 19 is simply one of many examples of this.

    I worked in a district (12) that was merged and has diverse areas like 19. Guess what, we NEVER got increased manpower promised by our eight aldermen. That district is down probably 35% from its merger. So even though I live in 19, I can't blame Tunney for the drop or for what is probably a staffer's error in his newsletter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".....I can't blame Tunney...."
      Officer, I'll agree with you that Rahm's lies are clear, obvious and continuous.
      BUT, Tunney and Cappleman and Smith are just paid Rahm stooges. That's how it is. Look at the voting records.
      Tunney promised something he knew he wouldn't / couldn't deliver. Yeah, he's to blame for that. Absolutely.

      Delete
  17. YIKES, that Pinocchio-Tunney nose is going to give me a nightmares. Remember when he said he would be "all up in our butts" (a couple of years back?) Sure hope it isn't with that frightening pinochio-nose!! 😱

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousAug 3, 2017, 2:49:00 PM

    Hard to take someone serious who doesn't know the difference between "threw" and "through." Threw usage: I threw a ball. Why didn't you go in and ask him about the error?



    Is that the best you have Tunocchio?

    ReplyDelete