Comments on: Barrett Rightly upset over Police Pay in Jude Case

By: Deputy Insider

Deputy Insider — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:03:51 +0000

so mkelover…. what is YOUR position on this…other than blaming everyone for not changing the law?

By: Zach W.

Zach W. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:30:16 +0000

mkelover, I love how you’re so quick to go after Governor Doyle about not taking action, and then when I point out that the GOP hasn’t done anything about this for years, you fall back to “No politician would ever cross the MPAâ€¦thatâ€™s political suicide.”

You can’t have it both ways, because this is a problem both parties ignored, not just Democrats.

By: mkelover

mkelover — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:39:36 +0000

No politician would ever cross the MPA…that’s political suicide.

Until recent years there was never a huge clamoring for repealing the law.

By: Zach W.

Zach W. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:54:30 +0000

Granted, Doyle hasn’t talked much about the issue, but the fact remains he can’t repeal anything, since that’s the responsibility of the State Senate and Assembly, which up until the last election were both controlled by the Republican Party for a number of years. mkelover, the reality is the Republican Party’s had just as many opportunities – if not more – than Democrats to repeal the law, yet they’ve not done a darn thing about it.

In fact, I distinctly remember former Assembly Speaker Jon Gard effectively killing a bill that would have done away with that law. Coincidentally enough, Gard’s campaign received a $5,000 donation from the police union’s political action committee in June of 2005 for his congressional campaign, and then in 2006 the bill was killed. In fact, since 1993 the Milwaukee Police union has given Republicans nearly three times as much as it has given Democrats.

By: mkelover

mkelover — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:55:48 +0000

Still waiting Jim to correct his story so that it reads that the police pay benefit was enacted in 1980 and NOT during the Thompson administration. Additionally, Doyle has had more than one term to repeal it, or even make a big stink about it. I haven’t heard a peep out of him about this.

By: Deputy Insider

Deputy Insider — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:04:57 +0000

Jim, you knew I’d have to add something here. Deputies aren’t afforded this same benefit, do I wish I had it? Absolutely! In one sense it’s to protect the FAMILY of an officer that was terminated, maybe as retaliation, maybe for legit reasons, until the case can be reviewed by the review board. I think that PART of the law is OK. I know a boss, who I believe, would fire people daily just to hurt them financially. So in that sense, yes the law is ok. However, even I am a bit torqued off that these ex-cops are still being paid. I believe once you’ve been found guilty in a court of law, you give up your rights to protections afforded honest,working cops. Will this law change? Sure it will, how many cops have to be arrested or caught in some scandal before politicians disassociate themselves from the bad press? Every powerful bargaining party falls at some point.

By: Zach W.

Zach W. — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:34:25 +0000

To be fair, the law that you’re referring to came about in 1980, long before Tommy Thompson was first elected governor. Now granted, Lee Dreyfus was in the governor’s mansion at the time the law came about, but from what I’ve read the law came about in response to then-Milwaukee Police Chief Harold Breier. Do I think the law is bad? Absolutely, and I think lawmakers should repeal it, but realistically that’s not going to happen anytime soon, because no lawmaker really wants to cross the Milwaukee Police Association.

And to be honest, it’s a shame lawmakers can’t get the law repealed, because all those millions of dollars that have been paid out to fired officers could have been used for more productive purposes.