At Tuesday’s State of the City address, Mayor Ardis announced a new initiative to see what it would take to combine the City and County police departments. This prompted the Journal Star to gather a few basic facts about the two forces:
The city’s Police Department has 214 employees and operates on a $21 million budget; the Sheriff’s Department has roughly 200 employees and operates on a $13 million budget.
A difference of 14 employees and $8 million seemed surprisingly large to me. So I asked Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard and Peoria County Sheriff Mike McCoy why there is such a disparity.
The first thing Settingsgaard wanted to clear up was that he actually has 248 total employees — the 214 number was the total of “sworn officers.” Even with that said, though, he still felt that a comparison of the two forces is “more apples to oranges than it is apples to apples.”
“[W]ithout a close comparison of both of our agencies, to include operations, budgets, staff, contracts, etc., it is impossible to tell you all the reasons there is a legitimate difference in budget numbers beyond just salaries,” Settingsgaard explained.
I would argue that the Sheriff’s Office and the Peoria Police Department are more dissimilar then they are similar. Yes we both have traditional patrol and traditional law enforcement functions but there are many more facets of what we do that is very different from one another. I don’t speak for the Sheriff and I would be interested to hear his take on it, but I believe the jail and the Court house account for the majority of his staff and his Office’s workload. I would guess that the “policing” part of law enforcement is a smaller part of his overall operation. In my Department, traditional “policing” is the vast majority of what we do and 217 of my 248 people are sworn officers as a result. I would not be surprised if a much higher percentage of my people are sworn versus civilian than what you would find on the County side and sworn staff are more costly.
There are other vast differences in areas of responsibility from crime rates, to total population, to calls for service, to poverty/income levels, etc.
It is critical to understand that I don’t point out these differences to say that one entity is better than the other. For everything I could tell you that I have to do more of, the Sheriff could probably list just as many that his staff is responsible for that I am not. I can’t tell you how many thousands of prisoners I didn’t have to house or feed that the Sheriff did. My point is that the two organizations are very different and a simple comparison of cost per employee borders on meaningless without an understanding of how different an urban municipal police department is from a sheriff’s office, and without drilling down into the level of great detail needed to understand those differences, drawing meaningful conclusions is risky at best.
Sheriff McCoy agreed. “Trying to compare agencies, on a wide level, does not work out. Comparing period …does not work out. We each have some similar functions and we have some unique functions.”
In addition to basic patrol services for 648 square miles and having contracts with nine different communities for police and dispatch services, the Peoria County Sheriff’s Office operates the ONLY Jail in Peoria County, booking in 17,000 people each year. We also serve all the civil papers for the courts as well as provide security for the Peoria Airport.
Nevertheless, McCoy did allow this observation: “In my opinion, cost differences primarily relate to individual pay and benefit packages. Peoria City Officers are paid at a higher rate than Peoria County Deputies, all thru the pay grades. Compounded, these costs become staggering for both agencies.”
And this is why the Peoria police union is not too excited about the prospect of combining forces. The given reason for combining forces is to save money, and clearly no money is going to be saved by bringing both forces up to the same salary level as city officers.
According to another Journal Star report, “A starting police officer who completes a probationary period earns $51,994 annually; a sheriff’s deputy’s starting salary is $43,227.” And there are also different pension programs: “the city’s police pension program is governed through contribution limits set by the General Assembly; sheriff’s deputies are part of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF).”
Undoubtedly, there can be some savings by eliminating redundancies and finding new efficiencies by working together, but that’s not going to save enough money to get the City out of its structural deficit. When talks turn to salaries, the police union has already made it clear that they will fight to keep the salaries and benefits they’ve won. I don’t envy the Chief or the Sheriff as they take on this consolidation initiative.
I guess my question would be why start with the largest most difficult departments to merge? Is this a ploy by the mayor to say… “I tried to find cost savings but they didn’t work”? There are many other smaller departments that can merge a lot easier than the police. Human Resources and economic development seem to be a much better place to start. In addition, you will never see any merger between the city/county as long as the stakeholders (city/county employees) are responsible for making it happen. They have too many reasons to protect their own interest.
Simply put, great letters of response both by the Chief of Police and Sheriff. Nuff said!!
well, there are differences. The Peoira Police are a professional police force, run by a professional policeman; the Sheriff’s dept. is a good old boy, nepotistic organization run by a political hack.
Last year we have had to call the Peoria Police Department on several different occasions for a variety of reasons. In every instance the response time and level of professionalism by the officers was outstanding. I know that doesn’t necessarily relate to the topic at hand, but I just felt this was an opportune time to point out how well I believe the Peoria Police Department is run. My only fear is that further cuts to the department will put the safety of our officers at risk. I hope the city exhausts ALL other avenues of cost savings before looking at this department again.
CJ,
If you are elected to the city council, it will be both our loss and gain. You consistently ask some of the most important questions around and provide some of best in-depth analysis. Not only that, you continue to root out the things many would otherwise be ignorant of.
The mayor also brought up about the fire departments. What about that issue? or is that a super hi voltage 3rd rail to bring up?
Left out was public works, county and city both provide and they now do joint projects. What savings could be found there? There is the City-County health department. The city dumped PAWS on the county.Could the city dump ESDA also?
Speaking of the law and such, what has ever happened to the Mary Davis case? Last I heard the trial had been postponed until January after she fired her attorney and hired a new one. Now unless something pops up tomorrow it appears another month has gone. Meanwhile Lyons is off staying busy trying to keep reformed General Parker from running for the D150 school board. Guess Lyons knows where and when justice must prevail for the good of the people!
Mary Davis appears in court again on March 18th and then the 28th for the 16 felony counts/criminal trial. Hopefully, she won’t try to postpone the inevitable AGAIN. The civil trial is set for July.
Yes, due process is a real pain in the ass when your lust for the lynching runs hot.
Non: Justice is not a lynching…Remember: she has been indicted for STEALING from CHILDREN. P.S. Innocent people don’t need TIME to prove their innocence.
Why doesn’t Ardis volunteer to resign and turn over his duties to the county?
According to Peoria County Administrator, Patrick Urich, there is no City/County Health Department. It’s name is the Peoria County Health Department. Why was the name never changed? Probably too costly and might confuse city users.
Yet Peoria County has very little say in the running of the department. Check it out.
“Non: Justice is not a lynching…Remember: she has been indicted for STEALING from CHILDREN. P.S. Innocent people don’t need TIME to prove their innocence.”
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Non: suffice to say: you are betting on the WRONG horse. BTW, do yourself a favor and educate yourself with FACTS….read the indictment, better yet, read the civil lawsuit, all of which can be found ONLINE. Believing a liar was your FIRST mistake.
And again.
“Yes, due process is a real pain in the ass when your lust for the lynching runs hot.”
ok, nontimendum, what was your point?
Mary Davis ISN’T getting due process? Her rights are being trampled on?
Or are we the people not getting due process?
Who is the injured party, in your mind?
I mean , this has been going on for more than 2 years…
Charlie, there is no use trying to explain “due process” to an MD supporter. She has them all convinced that SHE is the victim……
evidently victim equals thief in HER book.
…….and there’s no telling a JM supporter that she wasn’t guaranteed employment beyond year 1 if given notice.
Contract law: Funny, JM’s attorney is a constitution and employment contract lawyer. I believe she is in EXCELLENT hands….
Again, my advice to YOU is to READ the 16 felony indictments against Mary Davis and then read the Civil Lawsuit in it’s entirety.
oh, btw, I think MD has A lot to be afraid of……non timendum! I find it hard to believe that God is going to help her….thus your moniker
I mean , this has been going on for more than 2 years…
Yes, it has been going on for more than two years. Almost one of those years MD collected full salary compliments of D150 taxpayers, and now the rumor is she is drawing unemployment. She is also free to continue roaming about society, free to do whatever it is she does, which isn’t pretty. Meanwhile JM is still waiting to get her reputation back. Nontimendum you may be crying a river but its for the wrong person. I also like “in the know’s” comment about how long does it take to proclaim your innocence. If I was wrongfully accused katie bar the door to the courtroom.
Non: Does this sound like anyone you know?
Definition of a Narcissist: A person who subtly manipulates the innocent for their own selfish motives and plays the victim role to others.
Obviously too subtle.
I do not know Davis. I have absolutely no interest in the case and know only what I have read here and in the PJS. I could not possibly be more indifferent to the outcome of the case.
Because of your interest in defining narcissist, I will help out by adding that it could be someone who believes that his (her?) individual judgment is a suitable substitute for DUE PROCESS.
Charlie actually got that, but disagreed with it as he fashioned the noose.
Non: and pigs fly……
I get it now… you don’t think the public has a right to express opinions about people who the judicial system is required to treat as PRESUMED “innocent until proven guilty”.
You DO understand, don’t you, (He asked condescendingly)that this presumption of innocence is just that… a presumption for the purposes of the offering of evidence in a court? It doesn’t mean the person should be stet free, or allowed to go on with their life as if nothing has happened. It doesn’t mean that the person can not be kept in prison or fired from their job for their behavior. It simply means that they are allowed to testify and present evidence in their defense without the presumption of guilt coloring their evidence.
This “presumption” of innocence is not required of the public. It certainly isn’t required of the victim or the prosecution.
Only a person standing still trying to balance a set of scales while blindfolded would consider Mary Davis “innocent” of anything. The evidence, the testimonies, the FACTS are overwhelming.
I just hope Hinton is still going to get his, and Broderick too! Is anyone in the know about that?
Snow: Everyone will eventually have to answer for their transgressions…..even Hinton and Broderick.
Now Charlie, Mary Davis may have a perfectly logical explanation as to why an entire year of cash records are missing, a school credit card which she said didn’t exist was used for personal expenses, that student addresses were falsified, and that Peoria Toyota was paid with student funds. She just has to remember what it was. Apparently her memory is failing.
I am positive she will come up with an outstanding explanation… mostly having to do with pointing the finger at someone else who is no longer involved… (see previous post by snow)
However… if you are waiting for God’s judgment, as In The Know apparently is referring to… he is notorious for his forgiving nature.
Hinton was a criminal? I haven’t heard that before. Please expand on your thoughts.
Thanks in advance.
He covered for Davis. Does that make him a criminal? We will find out. It does IMO make him unethical (along with a couple other reasons).
thanks.
Unethical does not equate to illegal. Hinton claims ignorance of Davis’ actions. If Davis had the “goods” on anyone, don’t you think she would have spilled her guts by now?
Never “spill” your dirt… always save it to use “later”… it is the threat that has power, not the actual dirt.
I can’t believe you would want to argue the minutiae of difference between unethical and illegal behavior… that’s just pitiful.
Charlie, I will remember your haughty pronouncements when the Lee Wenger case hits the spotlight. You know, the guy you immediately and staunchly defended against anyone who condemned his criminal behavior?
Non: Not that Charlie needs defending (he does quite well on his own), but REALLY, The Davis and Wenger situations are not even comparing apples to oranges….more like Rocks to apples.
well said nontimendum
If 150 and the police do not drop this ridiculous charge against Wenger (and they will), they they will face the biggest law suit since Terry Knapp. It will be the end of District 150. YAHOOO!! (and make no mistake… this lawsuit is the responsibility of 150.)
I will defend any innocent person from the brutality and intimidation of “the man”. I hate nothing more than bureaucrats trying to cover their asses by dumping their crap on others.
The difference between Davis and Wenger?? Davis was “the man”. Wenger is a Mensch.
nontimendum: you are a jackass. If I were Wenger I would sue you for libel. I am sure in your infinite wisdom you knew to write “alleged” criminal behavior… but in your blind anger at being told the truth you intentionally left it out… as if it would hurt me…
C.J., do you require a subpoena to release blogger information?
And 150… you can go back to licking your bosses boots.
I don’t want to make any predictions about what will happen in the Wenger case. I don’t know what the punishment is for trying to control a 6-foot tall and misbehaving girl without actually causing or even trying to cause physical harm. Had school personnel or security done the same thing, there would be no punishment, but Lee unfortunately didn’t have the authority. On the scale of things, Lee’s actions seem rather mild compared to much behavior that warrants legal action. I certainly am curious as to how the young lady is handling herself at school–has she made a complete turnaround to become a model student? Also, I want to know if the central administration is protecting the girl from consequences from current behavior if it hasn’t improved. I hope teachers are keeping from good records of that behavior. This is not a case that District 150 can afford to use as an example of how its discipline problems are handled. Lee has considerable public support.
To compare his situation to Mary Davis is more than an absurdity.
“Lee unfortunately didn’t have the authority.”
Just to correct this one statement, Sharon, Lee, as an adult, definitely had not only the right, but the LEGAL responsibility to control that minor 14 year old’s behavior in a public place. But failing to act when he could act, he becomes liable for anything she might do, including damaging property and or hurting others or herself.
Lee definitely DID have the authority.
… and under the same court decisions that protect “good samaritans” in their efforts to help strangers, Lee’s efforts are legally protected as well.
I don’t know the legal grounds, but, Charlie, I certainly hope you are right.
“Non: Not that Charlie needs defending (he does quite well on his own), but REALLY, The Davis and Wenger situations are not even comparing apples to oranges….more like Rocks to apples.”
In the context of my point, the only difference is who is rushing to judgment. Apparently it’s only okay with Charlie when it’s Charlie.
“nontimendum: you are a jackass. If I were Wenger I would sue you for libel. I am sure in your infinite wisdom you knew to write “alleged” criminal behavior… but in your blind anger at being told the truth you intentionally left it out… as if it would hurt me…”
And you intentionally didn’t put “alleged” in front of jackass. Clearly libel, for among the many things I may be, most of which I readily admit, a jackass is not one.
You nicely attempt to deflect the point, which is your glaring hypocrisy (alleged, seeming, ostensible, apparent, reputed, in my opinion based on the record here, etc.)
There is nothing “alleged” about your donkeyness. There is no trial, no need to hear evidence on the matter. Perhaps you should bone up on the law before you start outhouse lawyering.
You want to sue me for libel, go ahead. I am more than willing to use truth as my defense.
CJ – have you been busy lately, or have you changed your approach to “policing” the blog? (an unfortunate necessity at times). You used to regularly delete comments like calling people a jackass, idiot or buffoon.
Charlie: “Perhaps you should bone up on the law before you start outhouse lawyering.” Interesting comment from someone who also said:
“If you read the legal statute on battery, you will see that Lee actually had an OBLIGATION to step in and keep this 14 year old from hurting herself or another.”
Well, here’s what the statute says on battery:
(720 ILCS 5/12?3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12?3)
Sec. 12?3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
(b) Sentence.
Battery is a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P. A. 77?2638.)
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=17800000&SeqEnd=25000000
That’s it – the entire statute on the offense of “battery”. Where’s that “obligation” to step in?
Jon,
The ‘obligation’ to step in need not be written in the statute. Criminal law is filled with obligations ascribing legal duties to all of us based upon the consensus of our elected officials [judges, etc] as to what they believe is morally appropriate.
There are a number of ‘avenues’ the courts have utilized to impose a criminal duty to act.
“There are a number of ‘avenues’ the courts have utilized to impose a criminal duty to act.”
Agreed – but those avenues do not come from the statute on battery, as Charlie claimed. Also, those avenues are more the exception rather than the rule. There could be a different statutory obligation, or a contractual obligation, for example.
And any “consensus of elected officials (judges)” with respect to a CRIMINAL duty to act must be based upon some statute (an interpretation of a particular statute) and when it comes to battery – there just isn’t one. (notwithstanding the fact that someone accused of battery could claim self-defense – but that is entirely different than being charged with a criminal failure to act)
Oops, Charlie’s hormones are raging again!
Jon, I think CJ must be pretty busy these days as anything seems to go here these days.
The jackass comment doesn’t offend me. I enjoy his passion, no matter how misguided. Besides, namecalling is the last refuge of a losing argument. Charlie still relapses into kcdad occasionally if you push the wrong (right?) button.
“Besides, namecalling is the last refuge of a losing argument.”
Very good point.