Today I received a copy of a Memorandum dated August 16, 2011 from the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO to the North Miami Beach Police Officers Association, IUPA Local 6005. Turns out, this Memorandum was the speech that IUPA president Mike Pons read at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday night. This Memo categorically disputes that there is a budget shortfall in North Miami Beach and accuses City Manager Lyndon Bonner of playing a “shell game.” The Memo goes on to state that the City Manager is transferring “$10 million dollars from the City General Fund to outside City Accounts.” Whoever wrote this Memo made the same accusation twice in succeeding sentences as if by restating the exact same phrase more than once, two wrongs will make a right. It also makes the Memorandum longer, thereby giving the impression that the author of said Memo actually did the research and will appear to make it look as if he knows what he’s talking about. To make himself sound “intelligent,” the writer stated, with bold letters for emphasis, “As a result there should be virtually no decrease in the amount of revenue available for the general operations of the City and there should be no need for any substantial cuts in the budget of the Police Department.”
This is a mighty big claim, huh? If we are to believe the AFL-CIO, the City of North Miami Beach has money to burn and that the City Manager just wants to punish the police department by forcing it to make unnecessary cuts. And we all know that UNIONS are just so believable and trustworthy, don’t we? We know they only reason public UNIONS exist is for the benefit of their members, right? We know that public UNIONS have absolutely no ulterior motive than to make sure their members get a fair shake, right? Well, that’s just not so. Public UNIONS are in the business of “organizing” for one thing and one thing only – to exert power over everyone and everything around them.
An article in the National Review dated June 24, 2010, entitled Problems with Public Sector Unions, tells it like it is. The editors write, “Government employees’ unions already maintain a death grip on the finances of most state and local governments, and a remarkably bad piece of legislation — the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act — threatens to tighten that stranglehold, imposing the unionization of public-safety workers in the 21 states that currently do not extend that privilege…This bill is bad policy and bad politics. It is bad policy because government employees are overpaid and overpensioned, and wider unionization will make that worse. State and local governments already heave under the burden of their swollen payrolls, while the time-bomb of unfunded government-worker pension liabilities is set to blow a multitrillion-dollar hole in state and local budgets within a few years…The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act proposes to effect a similar transformation among police officers, firefighters, and other public-safety workers. Like teachers, the men and women who do this dangerous work are sympathetic and sometimes heroic figures — which is precisely why the rapacious union bosses choose to hide behind them. Lacking the evolutionary finesse that keeps most parasites from killing their host organisms, the American labor movement has driven the private firms that once employed its members offshore or into bankruptcy. Consequently, the only growth market remaining for the union movement is government: More union members today are employed by government than by the private sector. The union bosses, being neither blind nor stupid, see the advantages of sitting on both sides of the negotiating table, and their influence on politics has been predictably baleful. Unfortunately for those who would curtail their influence, they enjoy a steady stream of cash, expropriated from the paychecks of their members, and a ready supply of foot soldiers available for get-out-the-vote and rent-a-mob duties. “
Yeah, that about sums it up.
But, according to whatever anonymous entity at the AFL-CIO wrote the Memorandum to the NMB police UNION, the city is lying.
Wanting to make sure I was reading this Memo correctly, I sent it to two individuals who understand finances much better than I do. One of them is a person who actually worked for a UNION for an entire career, and knows how to decipher city budgets. The other is a general employee who is extremely intelligent and knows our budget inside out. Both of them came to the same conclusion that the UNION was full of crap. Rather than try to interpret and rewrite the analysis given to me, I decided to reprint it here in its entirety:
“In the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the Memorandum dated August 16, 2011, regarding the Budget hearings for 2012 he mentions that the City proposed a transfer of $10 million from the General Fund to an outside account. What the writer failed to recognize that money in, i.e. revenue, equates to money out, i.e. expenses. The new fund referred to fund 474 Garbage/Solid Waste Disposal shows revenue as $9,555,425 that revenue comes from sanitation fees, excess trash fees, lot clearing, Recycling-scrap metal, Trash Response Team fees, penalties-sanitation, charges for physical environment Totals, and Lease proceeds-sanitation fund capital lease totals. The expenses of $9,555,425 come from salaries full time and part time, overtime, cell phones, F.I.C.A., leave payouts, retirement general plan, retirement other plans, health insurance, group life insurance, Accidental death & dismemberment insurance, unemployment insurance, and what the city contributes to workers comp. (By the way the police employees have the same title benefits except their retirement costs to the taxpayers is $57,881.23 for each officer annually). In addition to the salary and benefits for the 33 employees in this new enterprise fund which by the way use to be part of Public Services in the General Fund (revenue and expenses) there are also expenses for doing business which hasn’t changed that is tipping fees for solid waste, repairs and maintenance to damaged property, uniform allowances, operating supplies e.g. tools, financed equipment, interest on purchases, as well as principal. This was explained in detail to the AFL-CIO/IUPA Police Union in detail August 16th following their 2nd Budget hearing. So in essence with money in/money out nothing was lost or gained from the general fund.
The statement was that the City Manager has proposed a reduction of $2 million dollars in contributions to the General Fund from outside City Operations. In the 2011 budget the contributions from the Water Operational Fund was $9,234,000, Sewer Operational Fund $3,350,000, & Stormwater Utility $128,100 total $12,712,100 from the same funds the proposed contributions $8,204,000, $2,503,000, & $130,000 respectfully for a total of $10,837,000 a difference of $1,875,100.
Because of the General Funds generous contributions from the Utilities to close the General Fund Deficit for fiscal year 2012 our credit rating has been downgraded from AAA+ to AA+ by Fitch, Inc. which is not a good thing.
In paragraph 3 again, the writer is not taking into account money in (Revenue) money out (Expenses) which must equal for a balanced budget for each department, for the Water Operational Fund both in and out $35,861,407, Sewer Operational Fund $9,690,500, and Stormwater Utility $1,425,000. The General Funds budget in and out is proposed at $37,301,879. People have lost their jobs and their homes which affects the amounts coming in for water, electric, gas, etc. Home prices are down which affects revenue from real estate taxes.
Accounting 101 is a course given at most universities. I would suggest whoever wrote this Memorandum take a course or two.”
The employee I mentioned agreed with this assessment, and wrote:
“The irony is, that by transferring the fee-for-service departments into enterprise funds, the manager is actually trying to clear up the shell games of the past, and prevent the pouring of excess enterprise revenue back into the general fund to support the cops. Enterprise funds should re-invest their excess revenues into infrastructure (like water and wastewater infrastructure, and garbage and trash trucks). As you well know, the golden goose has been bled into barrenness. And other departments have made significant cuts over the last few years.
Your informed resident is absolutely correct. Every dollar of revenue transferred to “outside funds” is matched by expenses. The SW enterprise fund is self-sustaining. He/she is absolutely correct that the revenues and expenses transferred out balance each other out.
As you also know by now, the water and sewer funds have been bled dry by transfers to the general fund, resulting in low reserves and the subsequent credit downgrading. So, should the water plant blow up tomorrow, we may not be able to borrow enough money to rebuild it. But, who needs water? We have cops. Likewise, should we suffer a catastrophic failure in the wastewater system, we lack the reserves or the borrowing power to address it.
I don’t know about you, but I want water when I turn on the tap, and I want the crap to go down the toilet when I flush. I’m just sayin’.
The bottom line is, the enterprise funds (water, wastewater, building and sanitation) should not be used to fill holes in the general fund. But the cops have become used to this scenario, because it gives them what they want.”
I have to admit that much of this stuff is above my pay grade, but like any good “investigative reporter,” I ask questions from people who are more intelligent and more informed than I am to try to get to the truth. Believe me, the two people who examined the Memorandum and responded to me are infinitely more intelligent in financial matters than I am, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. We all have our place in life and at least I know my limitations. One thing I’m big on, though, is getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If anyone out there can rebut the facts as laid out above, go ahead. Make my day.
I’ll end this blog with a little blurb I read recently in a column entitled Blaska’s Blog exposes the big union lie (http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=34256) that I wish I had written myself:
“Can unions be relevant? The short answer is no. They had their chance. No force in America is more reactionary, more resistant to reform and change. Unions celebrate the triumph of the mediocre; the collectivization of stupidity. A union exists for the lowest common denominator. It abhors achievement, penalizes excellence, fights progress.”
Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”
If I heard correctly today’s pension reform meeting talked about the pension costs assigned to the officers not really being an accurate representation. Kind of sucks these wrong numbers are used to compute how much we make. Do you think anyone from the council will address this misinformation. Mayor seemed like he didn’t like the way it read. Is he a stand up guy?
Nomibepo, I heard the same thing yesterday, that the pension/DROP figures need to be reconfigured. As I’ve stated many times, I’m no financial expert, so I couldn’t even begin to tell you what the problem is. I will tell you that the Mayor is a “stand up guy,” and if there are screwy numbers he will do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of it and fix it! I suspect, although I could be wrong, that the pension/DROP programs were engineered by outside “professionals” or actuaries and were accepted by the previous administration as gospel without questioning the figures. There are several on the council who did just that! I cannot comment on things that are beyond my scope, but I can tell you that several informed residents have already raised questions and they will not be satisfied until whatever is wrong is made right. I will absolutely vouch for the Mayor’s integrity. I have known him personally for over eight years and worked with him very closely on the board of the NMB Little League. He is a fair minded, reasonable and rational person. He is NOT a smarmy politician, but an honest and real human being, who would never compromise his principles. He would never tolerate deception of any kind. I know I sound like a broken record about George, but he is one of the few people that I trust implicitly or I would never have supported his run for office.
That being said, I will contact the Mayor and ask that he focus on this issue and not give up until all the facts are made clear so that everyone understands exactly what is going on. I will also contact several other council members who I believe I can count on to do the same.
That is correct that the numbers assigned to the pension cost of each officer is a mean average or best guess as to what the coming years contribution will be. It is an estimate of what the city’s contribution will be based upon the investments in the plan and how much they make. Based upon what the stock market has been doing for the past two months, the estimate for the amoutns for each police officer, and every other city employee for that matter, is probably low and will have to be revised upwards due to the losses in the investments. Unlike a 401k or 457 plan, the city has to make up any investment losses or any shortfall in the actuarial investment return, which in this case is 8%. If the investments don’t return an 8% rate of return, the city not only has to contribute to the pension of each police officer, it has to make up the difference in them not getting the 8%. The porblem with the DROP is that someone allowed the DROP funds o be co-mingled with pension funds so the DROP amounts also have to be compensated should there not be the 8% rate of return. Basically the city is responsible for maintaining the retruns on both the pension and the dROP accounts. Most other citys that have their own DROP’s have them managed by an outside pension plan that allows the participants to make their investment decisions and also makes them responsible for the risks tand returns they choose. This is just another reason why the DROP is a not a good deal for the citizens who have to pay for it, twice.
Bob White-
You wrote: (spelling not corrected)
“Most other citys that have their own DROP’s have them managed by an outside pension plan that allows the participants to make their investment decisions and also makes them responsible for the risks tand returns they choose. This is just another reason why the DROP is a not a good deal for the citizens who have to pay for it, twice.”
So if most cities do this instead of you saying that the DROP is a bad idea all together, why doesn’t NMB do what “most” cities do rather than eliminating the entire program? That way the citizens don’t have to pay for it at all. I think your statement that the DROP is not a good deal is countered by your statement of what most cities do. So you apparently agree that the DROP is fine for most cities, but it should be eliminated all together? Seems kind of confusing to me.
On another note….
It seems apparent from me that instead of trying to offer and implement solutions to the pension; certain people on the pension board spend the ENTIRE time trying to figure out a way to get former Chief Liozzo off the board. The reason this “trustee” wants Liozzo off the board is because currently the PD has 3 votes that override the cities two votes. I have news for that person- Chief Liozzo isn’t going anywhere- no matter what kind of “loophole” you try to find. Deal with the fact that LL is on the board and she is there to stay. Once you move past that point and accept that then perhaps the board can start working on a pension solution rather than spending 90% of the meeting trying to get rid of LL. It is no wonder pension “reform” isn’t going to happen anytime soon because this certain “trustee” isn’t concerned with reform but rather “how can I get LL out of her seat and put in a city puppet?”. Anyone watching yesterday’s pension board meeting can clearly see why nothing is getting done with “reform”. 90% of the meeting was one trustee trying (and failing miserably) to get LL off the board.
Let’s move past that Councilperson and instead of wasting time on fruitless efforts to oust LL why don’t you offer up some solutions? You never know, you might just offer up a solution that everyone can agree on that helps the city but still offers protection and stability for pension members.
Can you elaborate?
Frank, I don’t watch or attend the pension board meetings, so I can’t comment on what you were talking about that a “trustee” was trying to get rid of Chief Loizzo. What I have heard through the grapevine is that with three out of five people on the board also being recipients of the pensions, that it appears to be a conflict of interest since the board most likely would not vote for any meaningful reform that would affect their own circumstances. Can you comment about that? If you disagree, please explain. Thanks!
Yes I can comment.
The pension board by-laws, rules whatever state that the “trustees” can also be plan members. We won’t know how they will vote because no reforms have even been offered! It is bad to assume that they won’t vote for reforms simply because they are members; the reforms should be common sense though and not completely shredding the pension as is.
I’m sure if the “deck was stacked” the other way you wouldn’t have a problem with it because it would suit your wishes and those of the outnumbered trustees. I’m sure if it were up to them the pension would be shredded and destroyed. And again, for those members with less than 6 months to go before they are eligible to enter the pension is it fair to “move the goalposts” now? I still have not heard any suggestions on what would happen to those members who have the chance to enter the pension within 6 months. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Frank, from what I’ve been told by a couple council members, the pension reviews will not happen until after the budget is finalized and passed. Apparently, this is an issue that needs the full attention of all parties involved, including council, pension board, pension recipients, etc., and it cannot be tackled while the budget is being processed. I thought that this was strange because I was under the assumption that pensions are a part of the budget, but I was advised that they are two separate issues. I assume this is the reason no reforms have been offered yet.
As for potential reforms, let me state again that first of all, I’m not knowledgeable enough about pensions and what reforms are needed. But, I will tell you that common sense dictates to me that we cannot continue to pay out 8% interest on pension contributions because this is an unrealistic rate in today’s economy. Banks are still only receiving about 4.5% on mortgages (although I heard this will be on the rise very soon), so how can the city pay out interest nearly double what banks are earning? That just doesn’t make sense. I also feel that the defined benefit plan is (and I really am starting to hate this word) unsustainable. Those who currently have contracts with the city obviously should expect to receive the funds promised to them. Contracts must be honored. As for your question about “moving the goalposts” for people who are expected to enter the pension within six months, I’m not sure what you mean by “enter the pension.” I thought all employees and the city started contributing to their pensions when they were hired, or shortly afterward (I assume there is a probation period for new hires?), so when you say “enter the pension,” I’m unclear what you mean. Please explain.
SALARY $76,995
CELL $600
FICA $5,944
RETIREMENT – POLICE PLAN $55,629
So the above,which is from the budget,is wrong? The retirement portion on the budget, which is attached to a name of a police officer as if they are directly benefiting, is just a percentage of what needs to be paid into the pension plan for the budget year. This includes those retired and already collecting? Instead of doing a separate section or line item for Pension FY2012, they decide to attach to the officers still working? This makes it seem like its double. The plan is paying 200+ members but there is only 100 members how do you figure that line item could be a fair representation? Have you seen any other cities that do their budgets like this? Can apportionment play into this at all?
IMO the drops were a gamble. I thought I heard the average rate of return averaged out to about 8% over the years when you figure in the high years when the city was making over 8% return. If the market stays like this I’m sure that won’t be for long. I wonder if the market hadn’t tanked and the city was making 11% and 12% every year they would have given that money back to the officers….NOT!
Scary to think they paid 10 months actual to Unemployment insurance at 68k (we have two months left) and next budget they have budgeted $520k…that’s half a million dollars. That’s a whole lot of layoffs!!
Mrs. Kienzle, did you find out from your source about the COLA? Can you confirm if the police officers receive yearly COLAs? You will find that the only raises we receive are in negotiated contracts. We haven’t had raises just like the rest. I think your info might have gotten mixed with the pension COLA but I think it would be fair to clarify it.
I asked about the COLA, and I think I was told that no increases have been given for the past three years. Now I can’t remember who told me this, but I’m going to ask a few more people who might know so I can confirm this. I’ll get back to you when I find out more. Thanks for reminding me.
Let me clarify the “entering the pension” comment.
Upon employment at the PD an officer does “join” the pension and contributes approximately 11.1% every week towards that pension. After 10 years of employment that officer is “vested; meaning they could essentially retire at 10 years with a partial pension that they would begin receiving up reaching the age of 52 I believe.
If the officers stays and works a full 20 years that officer can now enter the DROP (Differed Retirement Option Program) program meaning they remain employed at their current pay but they start getting their pension monies; those monies are put in a fund. So the officer who does a full 20 years and enters the DROP remains employed and the pension monies go into the DROP. That officer also no longer contributes monies to the pension after entering the DROP. That officer can remain in the DROP for 8 years max. Upon completion of the 8 years that officer must now retire and cease employment with the City.
The exception is that the City allows employees (not just PD employees but all city employees) to buy back up to 4 years of service. Meaning that as long as that employee can pay whatever the amount is for 4 years they could technically “retire” after working physically 16 years. That employee could enter the DROP after 16 years of service if they bought the 4 years of time. Or the employee would choose to cease employment with the City and move on and begin collecting their pension instead of entering the DROP.
Hope that clears things up.
Good morning My Sweet Love Ms Kienzle….
I am responding to you on this blog since it’s the freshest and latest article you have written.
While I still have a crush on you, I am disappointed with the way that you have of responding to comments from residents or police officers who have a different point of view from your way of thinking. Yes, this is your blog, yet you are not being very objective. You seem to hand pick what comment you respond to, yet you don’t put much effort when an officer or resident makes a valid point about a particular topic. In the previous blog, Officer Anderson made several valid points in a very well written letter, and you stated that you would be responding later on in the day to his email since you were busy at work, yet you never did. Could it be because you couldn’t give him an answer to justify or contradict his points. You responded to the same STP’s (same three people) thoughout the day, yet you didnt get back to the Anderson email. It seems that the only comments posted after Officer Anderson’s were comments about the “nut job” who wrote about your vehicle overturning. While it is unfortunate that we have crazy people out there who would think that way, I would have liked to hear your points of views / wisdom to the Karl Anderson letter.
On another note, I would also like to read your views about the “Financial Urgency” that the City was proposing to do, yet they took it off the table several months ago for no apparent reason. You stated that you would be “digging” for answers as to why they took it off the table, yet we are still waiting for your “investigative reporting” on this issue. Could it be that if they declare Financial Urgency they would have to open up their “transparent” books, and then maybe the real thruth would come out about the financial situation of the City? I’m just saying!!! (See, I stole your saying…:))
Hope there is no hard feelings between us. I am still in love with you, and I hope to be able to see you at the next Council Meeting, with your hair loose…. 🙂
By the way, STOPTHEMADNESS is not that funny. You are encouraging him to continue writing his one-liners and he’s bombing, big time.
I agree RickTicky, stop the madness has some good responses but humor is not one of them. Damn! We can’t even agree about whast funny and whats not.
Lightin’ up Francis. You are taking these comments way to serious. This is in G-D’s hands. Do you laugh at the circus?
If any of you HOMOS touch my stuff…I’ll kill you.
I think you’re funny, Madness. No matter how serious the situation, there’s always room for a laugh!
That was a very good movie. Can you name it? If you do, I will let you car pool into work with me. We will eat June bugs on our way in to save money. Another good movie line. Name it-and begin!
It’s only funny until someone gets hurt. Then it’s hilarious!
RickyTicky, thanks for writing. Truth is I have been meaning to get back to Officer Anderson because responding to his comments will take a lot more thought and consideration than responding to one liners. Truth is, I also forgot again until you just reminded me. It has been a very bad week for me, what with the freaking migraine that still won’t go away (no comments from anyone about Karma, okay?), and I didn’t want to give Officer Anderson some throw away answers. I am working on a small project for a client at this moment, but as soon as I’m done I will go to his comments and respond in full. I hope you will forgive me for being an airhead.
Regarding the “financial urgency,” I was told this: The City Manager decided to pull it from the agenda because he wanted to give the departments more time to come up with budget proposals without having to resort to an official state of “urgency.” I was also told that this is still an option, but he will only request that the council vote on this as a last resort. He does not take such a declaration lightly and at this time he feels there is still room for negotiations.
I hope this answers your question. If not, I’ll try to dig some more, but this is all I’m getting so far.
I think STOPTHEMADNESS is funny, but that’s just me. Let me tell you, I am not having fun with all this pension and union stuff at all! I’d much rather be sleuthing around for campaign finance violations and taking pictures of street furniture campaign signs. I’d also rather be poking fun at idiots and their bloviating ways. All this serious stuff, and having to try to understand the budget is no fun at all. Feeling like public enemy number one (even if that’s an exaggeration in my own mind) is no fun at all, either. The tension is taking its toll on me, so anyone who can inject some humor, any humor, at this point is a major stress relief for me. I can’t even imagine the stress some of the council people are going through because they are having to learn all this stuff (at least the ones who are paying attention), and then make some incredibly tough and important decisions. I also can’t imagine the stress of employees who are worried about losing their jobs. I’m not kidding myself – the tension I’m feeling is NOTHING compared to everyone else, but it’s still no fun. I want this to be over with as much as all of you do.
The trustees in the board are supposed to make decisions good for the pension fund, not for an individual member. If your argument is that Loizzo or anyone on the board would vote for something because it benefited them, could the same be said for a council person/trustee. They constantly make comments such as I have to put my “pension hat on”. If they have an agenda as a councilperson such as “pension reform” are we to trust that the decisions they are making on the pension board are not influenced by their position as a council member?
Very good point NoMiBePO. If Councilwoman Speigel had her way on the Pension Board, she would strip the pension completely. And not that there is anything wrong with whatever she does, yet she is a Councilwoman first, and a Pension member as an afterthought. She is looking out for the best interests of the City, not the people collecting the pension. Just saying…..
Stef, I thank you for your information, discussions, debates, and humor, making a terrible situation a little lighter to digest.
I was appalled to hear the interim police chief, Larry Gomer saying at the second NMBPD budget workshop, the pensions of 223 retired police officers are all wrapped up in 88 working officers pensions reflected in the budget. If this is so, I do apologize to those officers I was saying was having unbelievable unsustainable pensions of $56,000.00. SO I did some computations and discovered this may not be so either.
Mr. Gomer said 89% of the PD budget is allocated to salaries, pensions, and perks. He may not have used the word perks, but hope you get the meaning. The other 11% is for the daily operation expenses, such as ammunition etc.
89% of $22 million is $19.6 million. If we compute 88 working officers + 223 retired officers = 311, and $56,000.00 x 88 = $4.9 million, then there is a difference of $14.7 million.
I do have my doubts only $4.9 million is allocated to pensions. This works out to approximately $15,750.00 for each of 311 officers/retiree officer.
Last year the police budget was almost $20 million of which $11.3 million was allocated to pensions and $8.7 to salaries and operational expenses.
$11.3 million (last year) – $4.9 million (this year) = $6.4 million difference.
I think we are being taken for granted. Wool is being pulled over our eyes. The sham and shell games continue.
Maybe the $56,000.00 is probably what an officer is getting after all. In the case of the sergeants, $77,000.00. This would be realistically unsustainable if this is so, and these boys and girls will not be receiving a pension. This is a broken promise the city cannot keep.
One sergeant told me we may be compelled to sell our water plant to pay them, according to their lawyers.
We will now be awaiting the finance department to come up with the names of the 223 retirees what they are actually getting, the 88 officers, what they are entitled to, and what we will have to pay those in the DROP. Probably the $22 million is underestimated, even after taking away the $3.9 million that it was reduced by.
Corrections: “$8.7 to salaries and operational expenses” meaning to say $8.7 million.
Kazan, I also heard about that miscalculation about the pensions. I’ve been waiting fir more detailed information but I’m away from my computer until later this afternoon. The pension amounts that people were quoting sounded high to me. Now it appears they were not correct. Good thing so many people are paying attention now or it may have slipped through the cracks like in previous years.
I do not want to jump ahead, but I think what we saw is exactly it. It is unfortunate we have been played for many years with cover ups, false numbers and shenanigans.
We would hope the finance team, who ever they be, come clean. We should be having a list of each retired employee, both from the general as well as the PD, and how much they are receiving in pensions. Also, the current employees, how much they are entitled to exactly. With this information, we can access the situation much better. What we have been receiving is fuzzy math. Unfortunately, the pd accused the manager of using fuzzy math as well. But the CM is only as good as to what his support staff provides him. We are just beginning to warm up.
The movie is Stripes…boom chakalaka boom chakalaka boom! Sorry, the June bug reference is lost on me. But I’ll still be expecting you to pick me up at 7:30 Monday morning. 🙂