I'd be interested in hearing Mr. Francis' take on DROP vesting? Is it or isn't it. I'd also like to hear his response to the fact that San Francisco just enacted a program similiar in many ways to SD DROP program for its police officers. I also note that today Mayor Sanders, while speaking on the Roger Hedgecock show stated DROP was not intented for City Management personnel. It was intended "line level" workers. HA! That's why Keith Enerson, Asst. Chief of Police in the late 90's and PRESIDENT of the SDCERS board had it enacted. Then, when the test period ended MANAGEMENT just ignored it. They saw the golden goose and weren't about to kill it.

Posted by RD | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 6:51 pm

What pathetic pandering by Francis. He's already sold his soul to try and get the supporters of the faux populist city attorney. He's already done a 180 with respect to Donna Frye. And now he's going to try to get the support of law enforcement by promising to keep the gravy train running for them, but not other city employees, who presumably do not influence us stupid voters. How embarrassing for him.

Posted by Oh, brother | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 6:54 pm

I really don't care what spin the San Diego Mayor, Council or City Attorney puts on the DROP benefit for city employees, the City is factually saving money by continuing to employ DROP participants. The City saves approximately 5% in retirement costs each pay period for every employee in the DROP. Sanders knows this, but just wants to make press news at the expense of city employees. Purchase of retirement "air-time" is a different issue, but the Council approved the purchases and employees participated. The truth of the matter is San Diego residents want "Premium Services," but are unwilling to pay for them. What happens then is things like the police test and psychological hiring standards being lowered to attract more officer candidates. Long term you get what you pay for. The standards have been lowered, and the psychologist changed to allow for the hiring of more officers. Cheap short-term.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 7:04 pm

Scott, why don't you do a little digging and educate yourself on the DROP. Start at the VERY BEGINING. DROP was intended for "Safety" members ONLY. This whole thing got out of hand and things started to come apart when GREED took over and people with power saw an opportunity. Throw in the lowering of the retirement age for "NON-Safety" members and we have a problem. I challenge you Scott to get the facts about DROP as it relates to "Safety" members and you may, if objective have a different opinion of DROP. The politics of this issue will not solve the problem. These are vested benefits and the mayor would be better served to work on corrections to the system affecting "non-vested" members. Reasonable changes can work without elimination and destruction of benefits.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 7:26 pm

OK, I'll take these two.....WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DROP PROGRAM? It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on this City. It is a scam that enriches over paid, over pensioned HS edcuated cops and FF's and bankrupts the rest of us........... WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE DROP PROGRAM FOR POLICE OFFICERS? The sooner it is terminated the sooner San Diego can get it's financial house in order. I say terminate the scam and go to war with the bottom feeder POA over it, no more gravy train for these HS educated freeloaders..

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 9:32 pm

If I'm not mistaken DROP is a vested benefit and cannot be taken away unilaterally just because the mayor and the city attorney say so. Wasn't that part of what Judge Barton said in his ruling against the city? I sure the mayor knows this and is just trying to use DROP for campaign purposes.

Posted by Joe | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 1:03 am

Ralph is correct re. the city saving money for employees in DROP. Would some journalist please publish the truth about DROP? Enough of the myths on DROP! I am a city retiree and was in DROP for a while. The city is now having to pay into the retirement fund for the person hired to replace me. The city didn't have to pay into this fund while I as a DROP employee was working.

Posted by Sunshine | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:04 am

Hey JohnnyVegas/Billy Bob why must you be such a pinhead? You were asked in the past to explain your rants against HS educated public workers. Why do you hate them so? Why do you have a hard on against SDPD and SDFD? You are consistently stuck on the "Welfare Queen" and HS/GED verbage, and wonder what the base for those comments are? Please discount these claims Villiage Idiot, or are you too self-absorbed to try to be civil. Bring it.

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:05 am

Steve Francis can talk like he's mayor, act like he's mayor...but at the end of the day...uhmmm, who cares?

Posted by Who cares | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:31 am

There is a cost to DROP that no one calculates in, and I have seen this in action with City of San Diego employees. First they try to get a promotion so they can retire out on a one year high, and then a certain number of them start working the minimum that they can get away with because supervisors almost never fire an employee who is in DROP (after all, they are going to retire out anyway). So bad managers, and slugs of employees, suck out five additional years of funds and leave the work to other employees, many of whom are getting disgusted and leaving City employment because they are tired of this disgraceful game, encouraged by the unions who will protect the slugs at all costs in order to gather votes and membership dues to fund, in one case, the Italiano family business. Deplorable.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:57 am

TheGunny=Welfare Queen upset I am railing against his scam. Tell you what freeloader, when you stop freeloading off the taxpayers I'll stop giving you a hard time-sound fair.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 9:04 am

When DROP was initiated, there were bogus statistics that attempted to show it was cost neutral. It was aimed at the beginning at giving police and fire even fatter benefits than they have now. It was police and fire that originated the DROP program by lobbying for it with the Council! They are the only City employees with organized unions/campaign organizations anyone cares about. If you don't think you live in a City that will let your roads, sewers, environment, beaches, etc. decay for the sake of the "Police and Fire support Joe Blow" political endorsements, guess again. It is time for the citizens to make DROP a campaign issue, period. The only way DROP will end is if the pollsters show that public negatives on DROP offset the benefits of police and fire union endorsements.

Posted by FredR | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 9:35 am

Billy Bob, why all the vitriole against people who did not achieve a higher-education degree? Is that supposed to be some sort of prerequisite to earning a decent living? I know people with Ph.Ds who can't problem-solve their way out of a paper bag, and people without even a GED who are brilliant and successful businesspeople. Furthermore, as someone whose grammar and syntax are sub-par for a second grader, you certainly have nerve.

Posted by An elitist named Billy Bob? | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 11:07 am

DROP has already ended for new hires. It is no longer available to them. And current city employees have to be eligible to retire before entering DROP, which means they can collect their retirement pay and go work somewhere else, just like Mayor Sanders did. Or experienced tenured city employees can elect to work up to 5 more years for the city in the DROP program, but stop accruing creditable service years. It is a win-win situation for the city and the employees, despite what the mayor and mayor wannabees say. It encourages good employees to continue working, and saves money for the city. Why would Sanders want to do away with it? Because DROP has been so misrepresented in the media that it has created a noose around his political neck. Sometimes politicians make bad decisions when facing reelection.

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 11:20 am

Cheeky, the welfare queen lie won't work here-we are all on to it. DROP is NOT a win-win, it is a win for the greedy employee and a major loss for everyone else. Do us all a fsvor-please put a cork in the hot air verbage.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 12:10 pm

I am still awaiting the reply from Johnny/Billy. What is your reasoning of the anti-FF/PD rantings? When are you going to back up your accusations?

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 12:10 pm

I see on another thread, you admit to being a PD? A former "Welfare Queen"???? Why are you turning on your brotherhood? Are we to assume that you were dismissed from your service under other than honorable terms? Come on former Welfare Queen, now what?

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 1:12 pm

"I guess what she's saying is that Francis would support getting rid of DROP but keeping it for cops and firefighters." DROP has already been "gotten rid of" for new employees, according to some other posts. What is she talking about then? Ralph wrote, "The truth of the matter is San Diego residents want "Premium Services," but are unwilling to pay for them" What's that got to do with DROP? How is giving DROP to city employees a premium service for taxpayers? That statement makes no sense. I don't want to pay taxes for DROP unless it saves the city money.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 1:44 pm

"I guess what she's saying is that Francis would support getting rid of DROP but keeping it for cops and firefighters." DROP has already been "gotten rid of" for new employees, according to some other posts. What is she talking about then? Ralph wrote, "The truth of the matter is San Diego residents want "Premium Services," but are unwilling to pay for them" What's that got to do with DROP? How is giving DROP to city employees a premium service for taxpayers? That statement makes no sense. I don't want to pay taxes for DROP unless it saves the city money.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 1:44 pm

"High School educated FREELOADERS" You are a rank bigot. You dare to call a Sailor who is not a pilot a freeloader. you dare to call a Marine who is not an officer a freeloader. a fireman, a policeman. Your secretary, your receptionist, all of your high school educated staff, FREELOADERS. The only reason you are who you are today is you mis-lead your supporters. You want the truth, your college educated employees are with the city because they are not educated enought to get a real lawyer job, like, District Attorney or real law firm. Tough when you are only educated enough to take prostitutes to trial. anything else is done by retained council.

Posted by citizen | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 2:11 pm

13. An elitist named Billy Bob? wrote on February 8, 2008 11:07 AM: .....Furthermore, as someone whose grammar and syntax are sub-par for a second grader, you certainly have nerve....LOL....you guys are killing me!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 2:46 pm

Well Bill Bob Welfare Queen (former), I see that you cannot muster the courage, nor the intestinal fortitude to not only prove your points, but back them up. You had balls earlier, where are they now???

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 3:06 pm

"shawn1874" eluded that in Post#3 I was contradicting myself by saying DROP was saving money, while pointing out the fact that San Diego residents want "Premium Services," but don't want to pay for them. I was misunderstood. In the first part of my comments I said DROP is cost saving, and it is. I went on to describe San Diego residents as being basically unrealistic by wanting "Premium Services" while not being willing to pay the price. This is also true! The third part of my comments is that the standards are being lowered in the area of "psychological evaluations" of police candidates to try and fill the vacancies. True again. Also accepted now is the past use of hard drugs, which use to be a disqualifier. So being a former drug user, and also a "whacko" is now acceptable. You get what you pay for. Also 5 minute backgrounds.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 5:37 pm

I'd additionally like to inform all that some of the candidates are being hired by the Police Department prior to the completion of their limited background checks. The City is paying for the training of candidates in the academy who may be disqualified if they ever get around to completing their backgrounds. The misrepresentation by the City, and the Police Department, surrounding these facts are unconscionable. But hey, they're only cops with GED's and High School deplomas, so who cares. We need to promote tourism, so the hotels can hire minimum wage employees, while the profits go to corporate HQ. We need to fund another stadium for 10 events a year, and a Super Bowl every 12 years.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 5:54 pm

23. Ralph of San Diego wrote on February 8, 2008 5:37 PM: ........I went on to describe San Diego residents as being basically unrealistic by wanting "Premium Services" while not being willing to pay the price. ... Yes, we are so cheap in San Diego...... and we don't want our $200K per year HS educated cops to starve to death, now do we???????? Hey Ralph, get off the weflare queen gravy train and try earning your keep for a change-OK. And for the record, under POST requirements you cannot put ANY PD on the street without a clear psych evaluation..... Nice try at the Sky is Falling routine though (typcal PD scam), are you sure your name is not Jeff Jordon, Jim Duffy or Brian Marvel????

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:06 pm

Francis is playing the old political card of saying the opposite of what his opponent says because he isn’t smart enough to come up with ideas for himself. Jerry says up, Francis says down, Jerry says green, Francis says red, Jerry says truth, Francis says lair. Haven't we gotten pretty sick of Francis already before his failed election attempt even gets going?? Where is Bruvey?? I can’t wait for his CAFE posting and his socialist rhetoric.

Posted by Pie in the Face | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 10:29 pm

So BB, someone retires with a pension (say Military or Civil Service) Then they decide to work another job, are they scamming? People in DROP are retired. They collect their pension at a lower rate than they would have under the pre-DROP system. They paid for their pensions with their contributions and years of service. Then, the city rehires them to do their old jobs for a maximum of five years. They bring experience and are cheaper than hiring replacements. They are working! Here's the savings: In the old system I would've retired at 99% salary. Under the current system I retired at 81%. SDCERS saves a ton of money there. The city saves money because now they get productivity without paying for 5 years of pension contributions. That's how it works and that's why SF citizens voted 2:1 in favor of DROP. Hey Gunny, got shades?

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
February 9, 2008 3:45 pm

As to education: When benefits were secure and competitive, we would receive thousands of applications from people with 4-year and post-grad degrees. We never even advertised! Now we advertise and extend the application period and still get barely enough to fill for attrition. We now hire those we would've passed over before. And the most qualified see us as a stepping stone to a department that cares about their families. You get what you pay for!

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
February 9, 2008 4:34 pm

Here's the deal. SDCERS has earned over 10% on average for the past 10 years.DROP recipients get 8%. SDCERS keeps the other 2%.Compounded quarterly, that's over $2.5 million/year extra that SDCERS earns.I've asked Billy Bob.I've asked Richard Rider.I've asked Don Bauder.I've asked Carl DeMaio.Not one of them can tell me in financial terms HOW DROP is a "scam".The best they can do is use value statements based in jealousy.Why?The truth is that DROP makes the retirement system money and saves the city money.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
February 10, 2008 1:30 pm

actually JF...the DROP has only been in place for 6 years and has yielded less than 7% returns since inception. The guarantee of 8% is absurd. Ask yourself where you can find an 8% zero risk investment anywhere else. And add in that its compounded quarterly. Let me ask you how many DROP participants maintain their pre-retirement edge and accountability . The ones I see embarrass me for the most part, Laughing as they're alrdy retired and really dont care anymore about thier respective agencies.. I think DROP is a lame program, I'd rather have the higher percentage or OT applied to high 1 yr.

Posted by DROP - kick | reply to this comment
February 10, 2008 11:20 pm

actually JF...the DROP has only been in place for 6 years and has yielded less than 7% returns since inception. The guarantee of 8% is absurd. Ask yourself where you can find an 8% zero risk investment anywhere else. And add in that its compounded quarterly. Let me ask you how many DROP participants maintain their pre-retirement edge and accountability . The ones I see embarrass me for the most part, Laughing as they're alrdy retired and really dont care anymore about thier respective agencies.. I think DROP is a lame program, I'd rather have the higher percentage or OT applied to high 1 yr.

Posted by DROP - kick | reply to this comment
February 10, 2008 11:20 pm

JF-you just got you fanny spanked by DROP-Kick.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 8:00 am

DROP was part of the 1996 agreement, MP1. If you take the earnings since inception (FY97) it has far outpaced the 8% paid out. FY02-05 were lean years, the system earned close to 8%; it balances over the long term. Do ALL the math Dk without cherry picking the time frame. The employees in DROP that are loads, were loads before; DROP didn't make them so and they embarass me, too. But to present that as an argument against DROP avoids the facts. Let's remember that the previous retirement benefits were more expensive for the city and SDCERS. Under the pre-DROP system, if I had stayed until aged 65 I'd be receiving 126%. One Captain stayed to 71 (147%). The cap is now 90%, which is enviable by any standard. And envy appears to be the motivating factor in so many negative posts.

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 9:25 am

Who Cares is way off the mark, must be someone workng for the Francis. Oh, Brother is right on as is Pie In The Face because Francis is a political puppet who will do or say anything to get elected. Special Interest, Special Interest, Special Interest, blah blah blah. Please get a new sound bit, that one is getting old. Francis could barely read his remarks when he annouced and has already spent the little political capital he made by paying people off. Francis is the the paper doll candidate who needs to rethink what he stands for. Populism is dead and never worked Francis my boy, join the real world and get off the kool-aid. Why not tell us about your ideas?? Iraq? Welfare? Immigration? AIDS? Bird flu? Terrorism? Where are you on these Francis?

Posted by Francis Francis | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 10:46 am

Francis Francis is right about Francis. He should have fired whoever was pulling the doll string attached to his back at that press conference. Either very poor delivery or Francis needs new batteries. Alas,a new mouse entered this cheese maze mayoral race that day. I can see the whiskers and the pink tail. Over at SDI Bruvy's on the hamster wheel, but he can't figure out what to do. Now Bruvy's at the water tube, getting hooked on nicotine. And the police want more cheese, eh? Francis says, "We'll give you cheese if you give us votes." And all you Obama/Clinton/Ron Paul fans posting on this site are content to argue cheddar, swiss or monterrey jack? Well we're getting socialist limburger and it stinks. Drop the DROP Program, the numbers will never work because the equation was wrong from the start.

Posted by Carmen Cham | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 11:24 am

Actually, DROP-kick, DROP has been around in San Diego since 1997. Math was never my strong suit, but that would make it more than 10 years old here, not six. What else in your argument is incorrect?

Posted by Cobracat | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 12:00 pm

And futhermore, DROP participants are required to maintain all their training, are subject to the same annual Employee Performance Reviews and subject to the same discipline, up to and including termination. I realize that I'm paid very well and I show that appreciation by performing and going many extra miles. Lazy people don't like working for me. I have no qualms about hammering a behavior problem, DROP or no DROP. Consequently, I get really motivated people on my crews. It's been my experience that most of us share this attitude of service. I couldn't look my community in the face if I didn't know I'd given all I could, in spite of the politics that keep our wages frozen and benefits under threat. Someone who's called 911 doesn't care about politics so neither can I. I'd even hurt myself to save BBH, if he called.:)

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 12:56 pm

Drop-kick claims to know all these DROP participants who have no edge, who laugh and don't care anymore about their respective agencies...Agencies? No more edge? Where do you work that would qualify you to offer your view on the work ethic of so many people in these different "agencies" you speak of? Its clear you're trying to present yourself as an insider, but it is even more clear (along with your wrongful claim DROP has been around only 6 years, and the false earnings you reported) you are an outsider with an opinion based on fabrication.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 1:18 pm

37. Captain T wrote on February 11, 2008 12:56 PM: I'd even hurt myself to save BBH, if he called.:)..... We're going to have to start calling you Captain Pinnochio with another tall tale like that one.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 5:15 pm

39. Billy Bob Henry wrote on February 11, 2008 5:15 PM: "37. Captain T wrote on February 11, 2008 12:56 PM: I'd even hurt myself to save BBH, if he called.:)..... We're going to have to start calling you Captain Pinnochio with another tall tale like that one." try me

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 8:44 pm

what i do know is that eventually, most people call 911 or have it called for them. i haven't seen anybody ever ask about policy positions when helping the helpless. you'd get our very best; count on it.

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 8:50 pm

Hey BBH/Former Welfare Queen, for a busted out cop, you sure have all the answers. Hey why didn't you get picked up after the academy again??? Just for the record for all who read this thread, BBH/JohnnyVegas is nothing but a sour PD recruit who couldn't hack it and has an axe to grind. And oh yeah, as opposed to Capt T, I would not put my butt on the line for you.

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 1:39 pm

42. TheGunny wrote on February 12, 2008 1:39 PM: ..........BBH/Johnny is nothing but a sour PD recruit who couldn't hack it and has an axe to grind. And oh yeah, as opposed to Capt T, I would not put my butt on the line for you....OUCHIE OUCHIE, that hurt......LOL.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 4:29 pm

I asked who signed your "certificate" of completion for the purported academy you attended and have yet to see your reply. Funny you ignore the hard questions and gloss over your replies when confronted with facts that show over and over you are a liar. Who signed that so called "certificate of completion" you received when you attended the "Police Academy". Was it Commandant Lassard? Was your TO in the Academy Tackleberry? We will wait for your reply. Just the name on the bottom of the certificate is all we ask... we are not asking you to identify yourself because we all know mommy might get upset.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 8:42 pm

Hey Sparky, please post your SS #, home address and mothers maiden name. Funny, but I bet you will ignore the question. BTW Sparky-just in case you did not know this, there is more than one Police Academy in this state. Hope this helps.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 8:23 am

BBH you avoid the question on who signed your "Certificate" because you are a liar. The name on a certificate would only help you prove your story, nothing more. It would barely do that except it will lead a little more veracity to your ill fated story. The name on the bottom of my "Academy Certificate" dated 1979 is William B Kolender. What about you?

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 10:17 am

Yes Silly, there is more than one academy..39 to be exact. However, you stated you went to the SDPD academy with SDPD officers. There is only 1 SDPD academy. It is NOT only 18 weeks long, and it DOES provide a POST certificate upon completion. Why did you lie about attending the academy? What was the purpose, and what did it gain?

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 3:54 pm

I never stated I went to the SDPD academy-ever. Please provide the link to this so called post I made. Doesn't exist.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 7:41 pm

No links to any posts exist as far as I know. However, I'm sure most regular posters can recall you stating quite clearly that you attended the academy with SDPD officers, how you outperformed them all academically, how you had affirmative action minorities in your academy, and how numerous classmates were hired only because their close relatives were already on the SDPD. You even stated you went on numerous SDPD ridealongs as part of your academy training. "Spanked again," as you would say.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 11:09 am

I never said I attended the academy with SDPD. Ever. I never said I outperformed any classmates academically. I never said I had AA recruits in my academy (although I have said minorities get hired from lawsuit consent decrees, which is 100% true-but I have never said that was wrong, in fact I said it was because of the failure to hire minorities because of cronyism and nepostism). And yes, there are NUMEROUS PD and FD hires that are hired for one reason, and one reason only, they have family/friends that pulled strings for them, saw it first hand on NUMEROUS occassions (look to Jim Duffy for confirmation). I have been on numerous ride alongs, but none with SDPD, but ride alongs are not a part of academy training, and if you graduated an academy you would know that. So D, looks like you're spanked again. Hope this helps.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 7:56 pm

There is a misconception here. I did not have ANY firefighters kids in my SDFD academy, I had a diverse background of recruits, to include individuals with COLLEGE degrees, military, and with no fire background at all. I did not have any hookups or anyone pulling strings to get on the job. This was the reward of many years of hard work and my own personal merits. I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that Affirmative Action was struck down in the State of California with the passing of Prop 134.

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 19, 2008 8:52 am

More instructive than the name calling would be for someone with direct experience with SDFD to read some of the articles about the debacle up in Oakland where there was clear evidence of nepotism and describe what SD does to avoid those abuses. THAT would be beneficial and enlightening.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
February 19, 2008 1:53 pm

51. TheGunny wrote on February 19, 2008 8:52 AM: I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that Affirmative Action was struck down in the State of California with the passing of Prop 134..... ... WELL, let me correct you. CA law cannot strike down federal lawsuit consent decrees, which virtually EVERY single public PD and FD agancy in this state has been subject to at some point during the last 40 years-including San Diego. Hope this helps Gunny, let me know if you need me to point out any more of your falsehoods.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 19, 2008 2:01 pm

OK, WHEN did the consent decree against the SDFD expire?When was it enacted?

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
February 19, 2008 5:57 pm

JF-you know as well as anyone that SDFD was forced into a legal consent decree in the past, because of nepotism and cronyism (which goes on to this day). When was it and is it still in effect-I believe it was in the late 70's and lasted thru the 80's-don't know for sure-but that is a fact. What I said is that EVERY major PD and FD in this states has been under a LEGAL ORDER following decades of nepotism and cronyism-and that is 100% true and you know it-and you know SDFD was under such an order at sometime in the last 40 years.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 7:40 am

BBH, thank you for the clarity on that, but let me point out your shortfall for a moment. In the upcoming academy, there are NO firefighters children, a well diverse batch of cantidates, and are all well deserving of their appointment to the academy. To CMR, yes we all saw the nightmare that Oakland FD created that sunday morning.The list of recruits that were "selected" that day was overturned, chiefs were released, and the hiring process was revised shortly after.

Posted by TheGunny | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 1:35 pm

Billy is taking a beating in this thread.

Posted by Steve | reply to this comment
February 20, 2008 4:33 pm

BBH, so you're saying that the SDFD has NOT been under a consent decree for at least 20 years.Want to provide case law?How does that relate to current hiring practices?Even back then, there was one child of a firefighter in my class of almost 40 people.Ever see a store/company/dump truck, etc. with XXX and Sons on the side?Ever hear the phrase family business?I know of several children of San Diego firefighters who haven't been able to get hired even after years of trying.If you can't make the cut, you can't make the cut.Aren't you getting a little worked up about nothing?Sounds like you're just bitter about something.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 10:34 am

57. Steve wrote on February 20, 2008 4:33 PM: "Billy is taking a beating in this thread.......... errrrr...OK...More like I am dishing out some serious welfare queen smack down.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 21, 2008 7:49 pm

why don't you all comment on why the Undersheriff and Sheriff are driving around brand new Dodge Chargers??? These guys love to flece San Diegans......

Posted by A. Barba | reply to this comment
April 12, 2008 11:16 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.