If you need a reason to smile today, please check out the comments posted on the Miami Herald’s article, North Miami Beach puts the brakes on take-home police cars. Of course, the good humor was inspired by the laughable Michael Pons, president of the police UNION, IUPA, who is quoted as saying:
He said officers reporting for their shifts will now be required to transfer equipment such as laptops and safety gear to the city vehicle. He said at the start of each shift, each car needs to be checked for things like tire pressure and oil levels. Pons said the car swap takes about half an hour, time they could be spending responding to calls.
“Citizens should be upset police service is being affected by individuals who are anticipating savings at a cost of life,” said Pons, who says that detectives won’t be able to respond to crime scenes as soon as they’re called in. They would have to first check in at the station and pick up a city car.
Oh, puh-LEEZE! Judging by the public reaction to that lame statement (read the comments, Mikey!), Pons is greatly underestimating the intelligence of the taxpaying residents of North Miami Beach.
But, what really made my day was the latest column by fellow blogger, Bill Cooke (also one of the Miami New Times Top 10 Bloggers) of Random Pixels and Loose Talk. Bill gave me permission to reprint it in its entirety. ENJOY!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, February 06, 2012
And the Random Pixels award for the most asinine statement of the week….
…goes to Officer Michael Pons of the North Miami Beach Police Department.
Pons, is also the local representative for the International Union of Police Associations and he’s upset that his employer is taking away his take-home police vehicle which will require him to drive to work in his own car.
The new money-saving policy affects about 89 North Miami beach cops according to a Miami Herald story.
For about five years, Officer Michael Pons of the North Miami Beach Police Department drove the same patrol vehicle to work from his home in Broward.
He drove about 56,000 miles in that time.
Pons believes the city has it all wrong. He told the Herald…..
…Officers reporting for their shifts will now be required to transfer equipment such as laptops and safety gear to the city vehicle. He said at the start of each shift, each car needs to be checked for things like tire pressure and oil levels.
Really, Michael? You check your police car’s tire pressure and oil levels before the start of each shift? Cut the crap!
That is, quite possibly, the most asinine thing we’ve heard so far this year! You are a dumbass!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRICELESS!
Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”
Sometimes, when we try to make our point we go too far. If Mike Pons is guilty of this, so are you Steph.
There is a significant difference between eliminating take home cars and moving to pool cars. The latter cannot and will not save the City any money at all. This is merely another Lyndon-Bonner-passing-through OUR city and his egomaniacal damage machine.
So, go to a neighbors house and borrow their car. Without checking it whatsoever take it for a high speed cruise. Take a lot of corners too. Feel safe doing that? Great. Pin a badge on yourself, a gun and a target and get to work. Tomorrow you take a different neighbors car….no checking…just chase.
Like or Dislike:
13 
11
David, I never stated my opinion about take home cars, or pool cars for that matter. While I do think there might be a sizable savings by eliminating the take home cars, I’m still not sold on the pool car arrangement now that I have an understanding what this means. Mike Pons, on the other hand, is an ass clown. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Like or Dislike:
13 
6
Mr. Templer, you must either be representing the police officers or failed economics class if you cannot see how eliminating the take-home car program saves the City (taxpayers) any money.
Simple math will show you that if a police officer drives to and from Broward County an average of 20 miles each way, the annual cost of the 15 m.p.g. Crown Vics is about $2427 annually. multiply that by 90 take-home cars and the annual cost is over $218,400. Back out the $15 per ($70,200 annually) week the officers are paying and the net cost to the taxpayers is still over $148,200 annually. Add in the tires and oil changes required and the cost is back over $200,000 annually. Please show me the savings using your math.
i know you have trained the officers to recite the benefits of the take-home car such as they are immediately on-duty as soon as they hit the city limits and they can also stop and render assitance to anyone in need along the way, just as any good citizen does as well.
What you failed to include in that scenario is the additional liability the city the extra time and miles these cars are on the road. A public records request by one of the residents showed that take home cars are involved in numerous accidents outside the city due to the take-home program. It also appears to be dangerous to officers as well. A google search of police fatalities in Florida, including NMB, shows that there have been numerous fatalities involving police officers driving to or from their homes due to traffic accidents, many attributable to them. As an personal injury attorney, you more than anyone else should recognize just this fact alone should be cause to eliminate the take-home car program. But then again, since you are representing the police, you ignore that fact.
Like or Dislike:
12 
10
Actually Mr. White, news flash… You are wrong on all counts. I don’t represent the officers, the union or the PD. I never have. I didn’t write script for them or train them. I didn’t fail economics either. Rather, I have a well vested interest in the community in which I live, one in which I have invested my time, my sweat, my money, my family, etc… Need I go on, or will you merely resort to your thinly veiled attempt to trash lawyers, bodily injury lawyers, the judicial system, police officers…? I am used to it sir. Folks commonly turn to name calling, insults, assumptions and the like when they have run out of well grounded argument or run into bad facts.
I did not take issue with the elimination of take home cars. I took issue with the move towards pool cars. They are different issues completely.
As an aside, Mr. White, you are also wrong on the law. It is not the use of the car that creates the potential for liability. In fact, use of the car has little to nothing to do with municipal liability. Under the argument as you presented it, quite a different legal consequence occurs. I intend nothing other than the best of intentions when I offer to sit with you and explain the how and why of the law on these facts. No charge whatsoever. I would much rather you understand the law than recite it incorrectly in your writings.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
I’m not sure and I truly hate to bring this up, but didn’t we have an officer who was killed on their way home from work in a police vehicle and we pay for his family’s health insurance for the rest of their lives? Would we have done that if he was not in a police vehicle? Is this not a municipal liability?
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Hello Pearl. You are partially correct. “Oreo”, as he was known, was killed in a traffic accident while driving a City police car. However, I believe the basis for the benefits provided to his surviving family resulted from a factual finding that he was “on duty” at the time of the incident. I was not privy to the debate, if any, about why or whether he was “on duty”. Unless I misunderstood Mr. White, the suggestion was that an officer reporting for work is “on duty” when he or she enters the City municipal boundaries even if they are not in a City police car. If that is true then the City is liable for benefits to the injured officer and/or surviving family members, as well as to members of the public who may have been negligently injured by the officer. It is being “in the course and scope” of the employment that creates the liability, both in the public and private sectors. Being in a city owned vehicle does not change anything. Now, whether it is good policy to provide benefits to an injured officer or surviving family member is a debate for another day. Possibly some folks feel differently about this than they did on 9-11-01.
These issues, however, might be related to the take-home car debate. They do NOT relate to the “pool car” debate. To my knowledge, the officers have accepted the take home car result. Whether the take-home car benefit was a “cost” to the City I am not able to say. Mr. White claims it was. I know that an IRS ruling several years ago resulted in the take-home car being part of a compensation package for which those officers would pay federal tax. More recently there was a proposal to charge the officers a per mile fee for the use of the take-home car. Mr. Lyndon-Bonner-passing-through uses a City vehicle. It is take home designated. He pays a per mile fee I am told. I merely question why he allows himself to use a take home car subject to a per mile fee but he denies our officers the same privilege. I suspect I know the reason but it serves no purpose debating it here because none of us have the ability to affect Mr. Bonner directly. So, I save that stuff for my councilmembers.
None of this addresses the “pool car” issue. The use of pool cars will not save the City any money whatsoever and will necessarily result in a lowered level of service during shift changes. Mr. Lyndon-Bonner-passing-through is dead wrong on this issue just as he has been on several other past issues. I believe he is toying with the safety of our community for political purposes and I believe that is the same reason he summarily fired Chief Rafael Hernandez. I am not a flag waving Bonner supporter.
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
The answer to the question on whether a police officer is on or off duty, driving into work is that he is on duty according to state statute 440.092 (2) – For the purposes of this subsection and not withstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, an injury to a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), during the officer’s work period or while going to or coming from work in an official law enforcement vehicle, shall be presumed to be an injury arising out of and in the course of employment unless the injury occurred during a distinct deviation for a nonessential personal errand. If, however, the employer’s policy or the collective bargaining agreement that applies to the officer permits such deviations for nonessential errands, the injury shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment.
The officer does not have to be in their municiplaity either. The second they enter the vehicle they are covered because officers are statutorily bound to take action.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
There you have it. Florida Statute.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
You made my point about the liability to the City of the take-home police cars. Now that they are not being driven home anymore, the liability issue has decreased substantially. as to the pool cars vs. individual assingned car, I cannot belive either the police union nor Mr. Templer are making such a big issue out of it. A police car on the job is just that, a police car on the job. There is not big difference in the cost of using either method. Sure there is more wear and tear on pool cars than individually assinged cars, but then there is the expense of having a much greater number of cars.
A good compromise would seem to me to assign one car to 3 police officers (1 per shift) thereby making the drivers accountable for their car use.
I am not sure why there is this deep hatred of the City manager who, in my opinion, was handed a real financial mess that the previous Mayor and Councils let occur. The police loved the previous administrations where basically the financial deals made with the police union made them very popular with the police. Unfortunately, its those very same deals that put us in the financial mess we are in and caused the layoffs of some employees.
Please tell me anywhere in the world where employees can retire at their highest pay, continue working as if they did not retire. Having their entire retirement checks going into an 8% interest bearing account that the City (taxpayers) has to subsidize, and essentially pay a retirment check on top of a retirement check. I undertsand some of these ¨retired¨employees have already accummulated over $500,000 in their Deferred Retirement accoutns and the city is paying them over $40,000 in interest on this money. That´s the cost of one city worker for each person who is in deferred retirement. This is costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars they should not be subsidizing this second retirement rate of return. Please tell me how that makes any sense? Mr. Templer, please tell me why you allowed deals like that to be made while you were on the city council? Would you rather cut this benefit back so that the city can reain the funds for employing employees or should the manager propose raising property taxes to pay for it? Please tell me how you would ¨fix¨the financial mess the city is in?..and also why you didn´t fix it when you were a Councilman and had the authority from the citizens to do it?
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Mr. White, even smart people get fooled. I don’t have any evidence that the pension votes that took place while I was a councilmember were those that “created” the problem today. What I do know is that NMB is just one of thousands of municpalities facing the same issue. Assuming I was on the council when the votes were cast, what is it that you think I should have done? The votes that I recall were 7-0.
You see, the decisions that were made at the time didn’t look that bad. Elected officials across the country didn’t see a financial catastrophe looming. While I can’t speak about you, I don’t recall anyone voicing opposition to the votes while I was on the Dais. I don’t recall anyone sending out a nationwide alert about the errors in our ways. The Monday morning quarterback is always the most valuable player.
By the same token, big banks and well established developers got clobbered. Big retailers got clobbered. Where was all of the genious about the errors of our ways? Blame is not a solution. Blame is living in the past.
Fear over the loss of control causes folks to do strange things. First, it creates anger. Anger begets blame. The blame is not necessarily hitting the right target and may be misguided altogether. Whether it applies to you or Stephanie or neither of you, angry bloggers often oversimplify things and hurl blame whereever it is easiest. This is not personal to you.
The current pension system with the current state of the economy clearly will not work. Adaptation to the changed financial picture is necessary. A two-tiered pension system is a good start. Dismantling the police department piece by piece, clearly an objective of Mr. Bonner, is a bad end. If the problems could be easily solved that way, we would surrender to UMSA, UMSA would surrender to the State and who would the State surrender to? These knee jerk reactions are not solutions. They are emotional, they are inciting and they make for great press….cause most folks would rather read about tragedy than success. It’s human nature. In comparision we feel better. Doesn’t really make us better. Makes us bitter.
Critical thinking involves more than raising questions. Identifying a problem and solving it are different animals.
I don’t know you. I do know that you have some marketable skills. You are clearly devoted. You are clearly passionate. You are clearly dependable. You are clearly consistent. Rather than bash in someone’s head for seemingly unpopular statements, let’s focus on the issue and see if it can be resolved in a way that furthers our overall purpose.
Pool cars are a bad idea. That is my considered opinion. The issue that Mike Pons was speaking about was Pool Cars. It was NOT a take home car issue. We can sit and trash Mike or we can focus our attention on the red herring (take home cars) or we can focus on the Pool Car issue. We can’t do that if we are not taking the tanget to the pensions. Rather than be all over the map, I would like to see that the issue of Pool Cars – as mandated by Bonner-passing-through – gets addressed.
And, there is no HATRED of the Manager. I strongly disagree with his means. They are affecting me personally. I think my Council is babying him. I didn’t call him a “dumbass”. You called Mike Pons a “dumbass”. You published it. Putting someone else down in such a way leaves one to question your motives REGARDLESS of whether Pons tied his tongue before trying to speak.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Next to last paragraph should have read: We can’t do that if we are taking the tangent to the pension.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
For the record, I did not call Pons a “dumbass.” The picture and column above was a reprint of a column from a fellow blogger, Bill Cooke. However, now that you mention it, Pons is hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Steph, my apologies if it appeared I was addressing you with that. I was addressing Mr. White and I realize, of course, that you merely repub’ed what he put out there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Angry bloggers? Hmmm. Sorry, David. You obviously haven’t seen angry. At least not from this blogger. If you want to see angry, watch the videos of Mike Pons addressing the the council during budget season. Better yet, go back and watch Pons attacking the mayor on television posturing for the cameras. He’s one angry SOB. I’m just having fun writing about it. When I get angry, you’ll know about it. Not there yet.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
I’ld like to reiterate that the comments Pons is quoted for are not really related to “take home” car issues but are related to “pool car” issues. The entire discussion here, beginning with Mr. White’s blog, is misguided. I am not blaming Mr. White for that. It is just simple fact that the comments Mike Pons makes are related to the pool car issue.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Regardless of the topic, whenever Pons opens his mouth, he embarasses himself, the police department and the entire City of North Miami Beach. Pons is becoming the new Myron. He needs to be replaced by someone who will negotiate in good faith and bring some dignity back to the union and it’s membership. Until then he should STFU already.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
C’mon Steph. Stop it. I get it. You don’t like Mike. His presentation pisses you off. But Mike Pons is not screwing up our City. Lyndon-Bonner-passing-through is. The real issue remains the use of pool cars. It is very bad policy and LBPT is again betting against my services and my safety for political expediency.
Our friends and neighbors on the Council are doing a disservice to us by giving LBPT a hall pass as though he was a 16 year old favored son who is given the benefit of the doubt. Why? Why is he getting the benefit of the doubt? It’s wrong. We have 7 neighbors on that Dais that should be calling him out in public rather than having pleasant conversations with him behind closed doors.
“Lyndon, my dear, please don’t do that again. It is embarrassing”, says the official.
Lyndon replies with a sinister grin, “OK, between you and me, I’ll be more careful next time I do something bad. I’ll make sure I don’t get caught so you don’t look bad”
Are you FKM!!! Where is the strength in our leadership??
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
You are entitled to your own opinion, David. I am not talking about Lyndon Bonner. I am talking about Mike Pons. Don’t throw red herrings at me. The problem is Pons and the way he has run his UNION. That’s my opinion. If you don’t agree that’s fine. I won’t try to change your mind. You still won’t change my mind, either.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Love you Steph!
Still, I think the issue was Pool Cars, not Mike Pons.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
:-p
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Paul Ripa here, owner of Rippys Inc. DBA Paul’s Sub Shop.
Over the years at Rippys Market I had guns pointed at me or at my cashiers as I watched as we were being robbed by gunman. It was of course the NMB PD that responded. One night we had just closed. I was waiting at the front door with a few NMBCH teenagers I employeed. I was waiting for their parents to pick them up from work. It was just after closing time of 8pm. A NMB squad car came screaching up to a halt. The officer who I knew asked me if everything was OK. He then called me aside and told me that a report came in that robbers were on the way to Rippys with a MACHINE GUN to rob us! The next day I started closing at 6pm and ultimatley closed the store entirely as I grew weary of having to have a pistol holstered under my butcher coat. Who are you going to call when such things happen, NMB Parks and Recreation? I am in 100 % support of the NMB PD. I dont want bargain police officers like you can purchase at COSTCO cheaper by the gross. I say pay them well and give them the best equipment available to defend our city,our familes,our children,our homes,our businesses and themselves.
Paul Ripa, Rippys Inc.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
For too long we have had politicians sitting on the dais campaigning for police officers exorbitant pensions, salaries and benefits. What they were promised, were POLITICAL PROMISES. Face reality: All of the cities would go bankrupt before they could meet any of these unrealistic thresholds set. Others can bury their heads in the sand and tell others it really can happen. They are doing a dis-service to our nation.
We cannot afford many of the things we furnished these police officers with in the past, including take home cars. The only ones who should have take home cars are the dog handlers where they can transport the animal to and from home.
The country and the world is in a financial crisis due to GREED. What part of cut backs does the city police not understand? Stalling in their work and hoping crime can escalate to garner more of what we cannot afford, should be looked into and dealt with accordingly.
Our service men and women serving us overseas, give it their 110%. They did not promise us they would respond slower as the NMBPD did, and take 30 minutes to check air in their tire EVERY SHIFT. Yet they drive through hell and back on a daily basis, without any union fighting for them to dilly dally on the job.
I do not see hospitals giving their nurses and doctors take home cars. They save lives every day, yet they come to work ON TIME using their own vehicles and do their work diligently without issuing vile threats to the community.
Kindly,
Mubarak
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Don’t tell me. I know the army is not unionized. Imagine if they were…..
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
“Others can bury their heads in the sand and tell others it really can happen” actually should read, “Others can bury their heads in the sand and tell others it really can’t happen”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
Mr. Templer,
Unbelieveable response to the pension and DROP questions posed to you. You gave me three paragraphs of diatribe about superflous nothings. Instead of addressing the financial isses that are burdening our city that are really negatively impacting us, the best you can come up with is that the City Manager is dismantalling the police department by taking away the take home police cars and assigning the officers pool police cars. You sidestepped the real issue perfectly and instead of offering solutions like getting rid of the 8% DROP interest the citizens are having to pay, you go into name calling the City Manager for his attempts at bringing fiscal responsibility to the City. As far as not getting any notice from the citizens about the direction the city was headed in, i can recall watching on TV Council Meeting after Council Meeting in which members of the Civic Associ8ation and other individuals warned the councils, including the one you were on, that the day of reconing was coming and that the property tax bubble would soon burst and the city should live within its previous budgets. You nor other councilmembers only laughed at those people and made fun of them. Today, they can stand tall knowing they were right on the money with their assessments of the Citys bloated budgets and the giveaways that were implemented by former councils.
I was recently informed that the former City attorney changed the executive pension pln, while you were a councilmember, to include a lifetime pension amount for his car, his cell phone and expense allowance. This change is still in place and also allows the current city attorney and former city managers and clerks to collect this as well. Talk about excesses, why haven´t you gone after that money with your legal expertise?
For the record, I didnt call Mike Pons anything nor even have met the man to offer an opinion of him. The dumbass remark was from someone else.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Mr. White, you are again wrong.
Show me the video where the Civic Association specifically remarked to me about Police or General Employee pensions.
Second, the City Attorney’s pension was changed, I believe, AFTER I left office.
Third, it was in your blog that the photo of Officer Pons labeled a Dumbass was published and appeared.
Fourth, you again steer away from the original focus of the blog…that Mike Pons made asinine remarks as they relate to the use of POOL cars, not take home cars. This blog and this thread was never about the pension. You took the tangent to the pension to obscure the fact that you misunderstood Officer Pons comments and called him a dumbass over something you didn’t even understand.
Finally, I will decline your offer to volunteer me to use my legal skills. I work for a living. Like you, I suppose, I have a mortgage to pay, children to educate and feed, etc…. As importantly, an earlier comment by you was a hidden dig at my law practice and I would not follow that up with permitting you to give me away.
All of this effort, Mr. White, the back and forth, for what? Because you could not or would not acknowledge that you misunderstood the issue of pool cars? If I am wrong I am quite willing to acknowledge it. Bring the videos where the amendments were being considered by me and they were criticized by the public based on the sky falling. Still, that is an issue of pension and has NOTHING to do with the Officer Pons pool car comment.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Interesting.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0