Finally Illinois get's something right...well sort of...

The Illinois General Assembly passed Public Act 098-0650:  The no police quota act.  So on the plus side they can no longer have the list of tickets that they can say, "Why are you so far behind Ofc Brown?"  The correct answer is, "Because I am covering all his calls that he can't answer because he is always out pimping the public" but you say, "I will certainly try harder."  Then don't.

But of course with everything Illinois it can only look pleasing but never be substantive.  If you read the statute below you will see they still can evaluate us by, "Contact" and what are "Contacts"?  Interestingly they are only things that you gain by...traffic stopping people.  But its...better...hopefully the next bill will kill these..."Contacts" provision.

First the link to the statute...Public Act 098-0650

The Statute:

 
Public Act 098-0650

SB3411 Enrolled LRB098 18994 JLK 55614 b

    AN ACT concerning local government.

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

    Section 5. The Department of Natural Resources
(Conservation) Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois
is amended by adding Section 805-537 as follows:

    (20 ILCS 805/805-537 new)
    Sec. 805-537. Conservation Police Officer quotas
prohibited. The Department may not require a Conservation
Police Officer to issue a specific number of citations within a
designated period of time. This prohibition shall not affect
the conditions of any federal or State grants or funds awarded
to the Department and used to fund traffic enforcement
programs.
    The Department may not, for purposes of evaluating a
Conservation Police Officer's job performance, compare the
number of citations issued by the Conservation Police Officer
to the number of citations issued by any other Conservation
Police Officer who has similar job duties. Nothing in this
Section shall prohibit the Department from evaluating a
Conservation Police Officer based on the Conservation Police
Officer's points of contact. For the purposes of this Section,
"points of contact" means any quantifiable contact made in the
furtherance of the Conservation Police Officer's duties,
including, but not limited to, the number of traffic stops
completed, arrests, written warnings, and crime prevention
measures. Points of contact shall not include either the
issuance of citations or the number of citations issued by a
Conservation Police Officer.

    Section 10. The State Police Act is amended by adding
Section 24 as follows:

    (20 ILCS 2610/24 new)
    Sec. 24. State Police quotas prohibited. The Department may
not require a Department of State Police officer to issue a
specific number of citations within a designated period of
time. This prohibition shall not affect the conditions of any
federal or State grants or funds awarded to the Department and
used to fund traffic enforcement programs.
    The Department may not, for purposes of evaluating a
Department of State Police officer's job performance, compare
the number of citations issued by the Department of State
Police officer to the number of citations issued by any other
Department of State Police officer who has similar job duties.
Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the Department from
evaluating a Department of State Police officer based on the
Department of State Police officer's points of contact. For the
purposes of this Section, "points of contact" means any
quantifiable contact made in the furtherance of the Department
of State Police officer's duties, including, but not limited
to, the number of traffic stops completed, arrests, written
warnings, and crime prevention measures. Points of contact
shall not include either the issuance of citations or the
number of citations issued by a Department of State Police
officer.

    Section 15. The Counties Code is amended by adding Section
5-1136 as follows:

    (55 ILCS 5/5-1136 new)
    Sec. 5-1136. Quotas prohibited. A county may not require a
law enforcement officer to issue a specific number of citations
within a designated period of time. This prohibition shall not
affect the conditions of any federal or State grants or funds
awarded to the county and used to fund traffic enforcement
programs.
    A county may not, for purposes of evaluating a law
enforcement officer's job performance, compare the number of
citations issued by the law enforcement officer to the number
of citations issued by any other law enforcement officer who
has similar job duties. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit
a county from evaluating a law enforcement officer based on the
law enforcement officer's points of contact.
    For the purposes of this Section:
        (1) "Points of contact" means any quantifiable contact
    made in the furtherance of the law enforcement officer's
    duties, including, but not limited to, the number of
    traffic stops completed, arrests, written warnings, and
    crime prevention measures. Points of contact shall not
    include either the issuance of citations or the number of
    citations issued by a law enforcement officer.
        (2) "Law enforcement officer" includes any sheriff,
    undersheriff, deputy sheriff, county police officer, or
    other person employed by the county as a peace officer.
    A home rule unit may not establish requirements for or
assess the performance of law enforcement officers in a manner
inconsistent with this Section. This Section is a denial and
limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection
(g) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

    Section 20. The Illinois Municipal Code is amended by
adding Section 11-1-12 as follows:

    (65 ILCS 5/11-1-12 new)
    Sec. 11-1-12. Quotas prohibited. A municipality may not
require a police officer to issue a specific number of
citations within a designated period of time. This prohibition
shall not affect the conditions of any federal or State grants
or funds awarded to the municipality and used to fund traffic
enforcement programs.
    A municipality may not, for purposes of evaluating a police
officer's job performance, compare the number of citations
issued by the police officer to the number of citations issued
by any other police officer who has similar job duties. Nothing
in this Section shall prohibit a municipality from evaluating a
police officer based on the police officer's points of contact.
For the purposes of this Section, "points of contact" means any
quantifiable contact made in the furtherance of the police
officer's duties, including, but not limited to, the number of
traffic stops completed, arrests, written warnings, and crime
prevention measures. Points of contact shall not include either
the issuance of citations or the number of citations issued by
a police officer.
    This Section shall not apply to a municipality subject to
Section 10-1-18.1 of this Code with its own independent
inspector general and law enforcement review authority.
    A home rule municipality may not establish requirements for
or assess the performance of police officers in a manner
inconsistent with this Section. This Section is a denial and
limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection
(g) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.


Effective Date: 1/1/2015

Proverbs 8:15  By me kings reign and rulers issue decrees that are just;

Some Public Pension Thoughts-from one who is going to receive one.

I have been following all the news concerning the efforts of pension reform throughout the Midwest (Wisconsin's attempting to end collective bargaining)( Indiana's attempt to do the same)(Illinois moving to end the pension process with current benefits locked in place and future investment in a 401k type program) and as is typical with the modern American press I am not hearing a number of facts/elements that need to be interjected into this national debate.  The only coverage seems to be in support of the idiotic vitriol from either the right or the left. Here is a quick bullet point list of elements that should be considered in this debate.

• For the City that I work for, the pension obligation for Police/Fire/Public Works/City Employees is the single biggest budget item. Last I checked over 35% of the cities tax base/operating capital is spent on pensions.

• All public pensions were negotiated in public and signed off by duly elected officials.  Every union contract is on file and obtainable by any citizen, further all pension provisions/benefits are also publicly disclosed.  There are no secretes here...where has everyone been for the last twenty years?  The public/tax payer was fully represented by the official they elected.

• The real problem with pensions is not their insolvency or undue burden on the taxpayer but rather on the total corruption of the politicians that did not fully fund them (right and left).  Had the proper payments been maintained, rather then used for other purposes, there would not been a pension problem right now at all.  I find it interesting that after years of political mismanagement and under payment into the funds the demonetization is not on the politicians that created the problem but rather on the workers that had the governments promise broken.  I keep hearing that we do not need to look into the past but rather reform them now.  Question:  if you cut my benefits now and have not fixed the funneling out of the funds in underpayment or misappropriations, are you not going to come back to me in ten years and ask for more? 

• Most, more than 90%, of all public employees pay into their pensions, in my case 9%.  That is 9% of my gross income, the average American saves less than 6% of their NET income.  (Link source of data http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm).  Bottom line?  I am paying much more for my retirement than you are.

• I do not get social security.  I am one of the lucky ones in that I do not have to pay into social security either but the vast majority of public pensions employees pay into the fund.  At retirement the Social Security benefit is subtracted from the pension payment and if the number is above zero than that is the social security benefit for the employee.  That number is never above zero.  So public pensions employees are paying an extra 7% for everyone else to have social security.

• The city I work for has on every contract claimed they are out of money and can not provide us with any percentage salary raise or increased benefits package.  Yet in the end they have always paid us and been in the black.  The city is attempting to lower our salaries and benefit packages and participate in a greater movement to lower all public pensions but it still has funds in the budget to pay for Christmas lights along our main street and fireworks on the fourth of July.  It is not an argument of lack of funds it truly is an argument of preference for the use of funds.  You want to convince us that you need to lower my quality of retirement permanently?  Then cut all discretionary spending and then show me your still in financial jeopardy, but as long as I go into the station and see coloring book handouts, newsletters, bicycle days, softball festivals and the like I know you really do still have money for my current pension.

• When I decided to pursue my current vocation as a Law Enforcement Officer one of the major decisions points was the guarantee retirement provision that the pension offered me.  I had a number of my college buddies call me when the economy was booming and offer me a job over at their company.  The suggestion, well statement, they kept saying was I was a fool to work for a stupid little salary when there was so much money to be made so quickly.  Later, when the wheels came off the economy and their investments had tanked and they were let go, my stupid little salary looked awesome.  Bottom line: in a good economy my job looks like crap in a bad economy my job looks golden.

• I have a master's degree, no discipline in my personnel file, I have never been successfully sued, I have given more money back to my department as a result of my job related actions than I have ever cost the department.  If plans continue to move forward where they would retire my pension and replace it going forward with a 401k program, I would have to re-evaluate my current employment.  Even right now in the private sector I could obtain employment in the private sector at a salary higher than my current one from my department.  But over all, however, with the pension in consideration it is a better situation for me if I stay.  The bottom line: do you want your Officer to be in that squad because he/she wants to be there and has passed by opportunities in the private sector or someone that had no where else to go.

• I have to admit I always found it un-democratic, in that when I joined the force I was forced to join our union, I did not have a choice.  If the union was such a good deal for the police employee wouldn't I just join because it was the smart thing to do, why was that decision taken away from me?

• Finally for this posting, one of the realizations that was made in the early modern era of Law Enforcement was that there is a indirect ratio between salary and corruption.  The higher the salary the less the corruption.  Conversely, the lower the salary the higher the corruption.  It is a little like the speed limit, in which the calculation is made for safety verses travel time.  If everyone drove at 5mph then few, if any crashes would be fatal but it would be faster to take a horse to get around town.  However if you go 200mph you get everywhere quick but most crashes would be fatal.  I have not seen this decision tree been discussed so far in this debate. 

Just some thoughts...probably will have a few more some time soon.  Gets you thinking when you starting imaging the future and you see your retirement home moving form San Diego and heading to Detroit.