Police Shift Change Didn't Help

The mayor claims his shifting change of Anchorage Police Department patrol officers to a five-day workweek with eight-hour shifts from a four-day week with 10-hour shifts is responsible for the drop in crime. I went to the APD web page at www.ci.anchorage.ak.us/apd/ to check this out.

If the change to five eights on Sept. 1, 1994, put more cops on the street, one would expect to see fairly immediate results. But on APD's own crime statistics report you can see total crimes hardly changed from 1994 to 1995. In fact, the most serious violent crimes - homicide, robbery and rape - increased markedly. The best statistical measure should be traffic tickets, almost all of which are initiated by officers on the street at the time the violations occur. The traffic stats on APD's web page show the number of moving violations issued in 1995 is 2,395 fewer than were issued in 1994. This is good evidence that the officers were not on the street.

As an officer who worked in patrol during this period, I can tell you this shifting decision of the mayor's was one that caused less efficient use of manpower. The most noticeable effects were an increase in end-of-shift overtime and an increase in the time calls held waiting for an available officer.

Only in 1996, when the department finally started getting newly hired officers on line, did crime begin to fall.

Bob Glen
Anchorage

It is unfortunate that Mayor Mystrom feels compelled to cover up his own bad idea by trying to make the Anchorage Police Department look bad. If he had read through the union contract that the police have had since the 1970s, he would have known he was violating that contract by moving the police to five eights.

Now Mr. Mystrom would like everyone to believe that the five eight-hour shifts are what made the city's crime rate decrease. It is true that during those three years the crime rate did go down, but it is also true that during that time the police force has more than doubled.

Even more unfortunate, Mr. Mystrom's bad idea will cost taxpayers a bundle, and the only one to blame is the mayor. I can't speak for everyone, but I will definitely remember his bad idea when it is re-election time. I hope the people of this city place blame where it is due. The police here are among the best in the United States and deserve the compensation they have recently won in arbitration. I only wish we could pay them directly out of the mayor's wallet.

Janelle Mullen
Anchorage

Let the mayor pay for his own mistakes. He alone ripped off APD, if you call an average annual income of $50,000-plus a rip-off; the community had nothing to do with it. I fail to understand why Anchorage's most abused minority, the taxpayer, must flip the bill for the mayor's stupidity. Four million bucks is a lot of money per taxpayer. Let's not put it to a vote; the number of folks who pay for everyone else's public services have little chance at the polls.

What are we paying for, anyway? There's a better chance of an aardvark driving through my neighborhood than a police officer. Is it road maintenance? Someone did fill the potholes. Good job! We've been watching our potholes grow for years. Just when they were deep enough to slow traffic or swallow Toyotas, someone came along and "fixed" the only measure of traffic safety we had on the block. My advice to the good mayor is that he quit jerking the taxpayers around and keep his asphalt out of our potholes.

John Waychoff
Anchorage

Well, I see my property taxes are probably going up again. Mayor Mystrom lost his "political gamble" with the policemen's union to the tune of 4 million bucks. I guess I shouldn't get too excited; my taxes have gone up 100 bucks a year for 10 years straight. Why should I expect change?

After all, Mayor Rick was elected; he doesn't have to be a manager and know how to deal with people and trade unions. If he wants to sign away 22 years of past practice with the stroke of a pen, well, he is the man holding the pen. His job is to smile, shake hands, talk a good story and get votes. You don't get what you pay for; you pay for who you vote for.

I have a few words of advice for Mayor Rick I would like to share.

	1. Don't appeal the decision. It would just cost us more money.
	2. Clean out the city attorney's office. You are getting some really bad counsel from this crew.
	3. If you want to take a political gamble, use your own money.
	4. Enroll in a crash course in Management 101. (It may be too late for this.)

As for you folks in the police department, don't be too smug about winning this decision. Tougher times are coming, and your image is at stake. You don't deserve 4 million taxpayer dollars for hours you didn't work. You didn't get it the old-fashioned way. You didn't earn it.

Mitchell L. Rucker
Anchorage

Several police union members in recent letters to the editor stated that the change from a four-day, 10-hour shift to a five-day, eight-hour shift did not cause Anchorage's dramatic reduction in crime.

We don't disagree on that. It wasn't any single action that has caused Anchorage's crime rate to fall more than three times faster than the national average.

It was a number of actions: Creation of the Anchorage Crime Task Force, development of the Community Action Plan on Crime, the hiring of more officers, the institution of bicycle and foot patrols, the cleaning up of graffiti and junk cars, the establishment of the Parent Network program, the addition of police substations, institution of the Bridge Builders Program, creation of the Safe Streets Anti-Gang Task Force, establishment of the Sexual Assault Response team and reorganization of the Anchorage Police Department toward community policing.

We've got good citizen involvement, good police officers and good police leadership. Crime is going down. And that's the important thing. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue is: Should taxpayers pay more than three years' worth of back overtime to police officers because they had to work five days a week, eight hours per day?

I don't think so.

Mayor Rick Mystrom 
Municipality of Anchorage

In response to Mayor Rick Mystrom's believing that Anchorage taxpayers should not have to pay overtime to police officers for the shift change from four 10-hour days to five eights, I have to agree that the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay the bill. The mayor should pay it from his personal account. He is the one who violated the contract the city had with the Anchorage Police Department Employees Association. If he wanted to change them to five eight-hour days, then he should have made the change in the next contract. His arrogance is going to end up costing taxpayers for this. APD didn't break the contract, he did.

Each officer who worked that fifth day deserves the overtime. By contract it was his day off. The mayor can cover it up, put a spin on it or do whatever he wants. But he, not the officers of APD, was at fault here, and they deserve to be paid. The only question is who should pay: the mayor for his action or all of us for his action.

Rod Zieger
Anchorage

As a landlord I cannot raise rents without proper legal notice because the tenants have a binding Lease/Rental Agreement. It seems the police had a binding legal agreement with the city of Anchorage. Does that not mean that the mayor cannot change terms of the agreement without waiting for the contract to expire or be renegotiated?

We taxpayers would not owe non-earned back overtime to the police had the mayor not broken the agreement. They would have had to earn the overtime. Though I may agree with the five-day, 8-hour philosophy, there must also be adherence to any and all negotiated and agreed upon contracts. I guess we taxpayers have to bite the bullet and pay for the mayor's mistakes.

On the $4 million question, the issue is: "Was their contract arbitrarily and illegally broken?"

And no, I have nothing to do with the police or fire department. Election time is coming.

Michael Johnston
Anchorage

Rod Zieger (Letters, Oct. 15) should have read the editorial the Voice of the Times ran on Oct. 7 regarding the Anchorage Police Department contract. If he had, he could have read the quotation of the exact contract wording, which read "four ten-hour or five eight-hour days" (emphasis my own). To any manager in the private sector that wording indicates management has a choice. The difference here is that an arbitrator decided that custom rather than management choice was the contract interpretation.

Using a literal interpretation of the contract, I believe the mayor had the choice to change the hours. Apparently so did the mayor and his legal counsel. Essentially the arbitrator upheld the principle of "because that's the way it's always been done."

The same arbitrator who made a pretty capricious ruling, in my opinion, also decided that overtime pay was due. In no way should the mayor be held personally liable, and every citizen out to be outraged at this arbitrator's decision. The police have already changed back to four 10-hour days; this is twisting the knife in the wound and it comes out of all our pockets. I support the mayor's decision to contest the ruling.

Linda Baker 
Anchorage

In regard to Mayor Mystrom's chest-beating bluff to appeal Janet Gaunt's arbitration decision, we strongly resent his playing poker with our money, especially since he has proven to be a consistent loser!

Art and Mary Sundt 
Eagle River

In the future, the mayor is advised to retain competent legal counsel in matters related to contract administration and interpretation. He is misinforming Linda Baker (Letters, Oct. 19) and the entire Anchorage community that management has the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally discontinue the established past practice of police employees working four 10-hour days. Furthermore, he's a sore loser, and stands to lose even more if he attempts to litigate this matter through the courts.

The wording in the contract reads, "Four 10-hour days or five eight-hour days." The facts in the case are not in dispute. The parties to the contract agreement have a long history of accepting four 10-hour days as the standard work week for police employees. In my opinion, this would constitute a binding past practice. The wording in the contract is not compulsory one way or the other. This means that Mystrom can eventually bargain with the police union for a "five-eights" work week. Ms. Baker is correct to state that management has that right. However, she does not go far enough. Management has the right subject to the provisions of the contract agreement. Most agreements I am aware of require management and the union to negotiate matters concerning wages, hours and conditions of employment.

In my opinion, the arbitrator ruled correctly. Mystrom's unilateral decision to change the police work week cost the municipality several million dollars. Thus, he should be held accountable and liable to the electorate.

Clinton R. Hodges II 
Anchorage

Obviously our employees have forgotten who they work for. Once again, state employees are blackmailing us with a strike threat while the Anchorage Police Department sues us for $4 million!

No "public servant" should be unionized, especially the police. They are already obscenely overpaid for what little crime they do solve, and have the nerve to sue you for more!

The situation is out of control. And we the people, who, by the way, sign those overbloated checks, should have a vote to dissolve all "public servants"' unions.

Brian Stanley
Anchorage

I am obligated to respond to Mr. Brian Stanley (Letters, Oct. 28) regarding public employees. I feel the need to educate Mr. Stanley in the area of collective bargaining.

The Anchorage Police Department's and state employees' unions are not suing, but have filed grievances per their bargaining agreements and have been upheld. This is the way disputes arising under collective bargained contracts are handled.

Please understand that every person has the right to belong to a bargaining unit if they so desire. They also can choose not to belong. That is everyone's right and no one can infringe on that right. Remember the reason behind unions and the adversities they overcame: sweatshops, company towns with stores, railroads, child labor - the list goes on.

We all sell our labor for a price, but those of us who do so under collective bargained agreements are proud and protective of those hard-fought wages and benefits we now have. If everyone was paid a livable wage that included benefits such as health and welfare and a pension plan, then we wouldn't have to look to our governments for help with medical and prescription drugs. Our elderly retirees on Social Security have been relegated to go to Canada or Mexico because the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive in the United States, as "60 Minutes" reported.

Union pride exists with a liveable wage and benefits for working men and women.

Raymond Smith, business representative
Painters and Allied Trades Union Local No. 1140 
Anchorage

My letter is in response to Brian Stanley's Oct. 28 letter, "Public servants shouldn't sue." My husband is a state employee, and I have yet to see one of those "overbloated checks" that Mr. Stanley allegedly "signs." I would characterize the checks as "anorexic" or even "anemic," but overbloated they are not!

If Mr. Stanley feels that all public servants are overpaid, I invite him to feed, clothe, educate and, on a rare occasion, entertain a family of four on these so-called overbloated checks!

Erin J. Knotek 
Moose Pass

The mayor ignored advice in 1994 when he violated the labor contract with the Anchorage Police Department and now he's ignoring advice again. I apologize for voting for him. Making decisions against the advice of the Assembly that affect the entire population is nothing short of dictatorship. The Assembly should have the power to override the may-dictat-or's poor decisions.

The issue with the cops is not about money, but the spin doctor has struck again. The issues are "collective bargaining" and "binding arbitration." When you are bound to a contract and you violate it, there are consequences. What the mayor really meant to say was, "I made a terrible mistake that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for and I can't accept that." Funny, jails are full of people who can't accept they did anything wrong. Those guys appeal, too.

Back to the money thing. A month ago he said each officer would get $20,000, now he's saying $20,000 to $30,000. If you divide $4 million by about 350 officers you'll get $11,500 per officer - nowhere near $20,000. Also, officers hired after the mayor's debacle of 1994 will receive less.

Simple division and rules of averages will yield dollars per officer lower than the picture the may-dictat-or is painting for taxpayers. Figures don't lie, but liars will play with the figures.

One thing for sure, the taxpayers will shoulder the extra court costs and interest that his decision to appeal will incur. I, for one, will remember ALL of this if he decides to run for governor. Imagine where Alaska would be with a runaway governor!

Tyler Chavers 
Eagle River

Would somebody please explain why I have to pay overtime for police protection in excess of 32 hours per week when every other hourly worker in the world has to hit 40 hours before overtime kicks in? If I was one of these "public servants" I would have a hard time looking my neighbor in the eye, but, after all, this is the same company that sends a girl out by herself to slap cuffs on a known, hot-tempered karate instructor.

Marc Powell
Anchorage

Mayor Mystrom says it's not right to make the taxpayers pay the police officers for all the overtime that they worked. What is not right is that Mystrom wanted the officers to work overtime without pay! Those overtime hours were spent on keeping our city safe! Is he trying to say that working overtime to fight crime deserves no pay, or is he trying to hide the fact that maybe he made a mistake by changing their hours?

Which taxpayer is Mystrom going to ask to pay the police officer back? The one who got help from the police to find a lost child? The one who called 911 in the middle of the night to stop a burglar? Or the neighbor who called to get the gangs of the street?

We should spend less money on decorating our city and more on keeping it safe!

Mystrom is right about one thing. The taxpayers do not want to hand out more money. But he is the one who told the officers to work those hours. They were only doing what they were told. If he made a mistake by changing the officers' hours, then so be it! We all make mistakes, we live and learn, and sometimes we have to pay. This time, it's time to pay!

T.L. Warren 
Eagle River

Not many people like to wake up in the morning to news that we have a $4 million bill to face. Arbitrator Janet Gaunt ruled in favor of the Anchorage Police Department's employees' association. Then we hear reports that Mayor Rick Mystrom authorized and expended approximately $400,000 for legal fees to fight for the taxpayers' cause and lost. Now the mayor has decided to authorize expenditure of more taxpayer dollars to appeal the arbitrator's decision. It appears that the mayor on one hand is wanting us to believe he is most interested in saving (us the taxpayers) money and then on the other hand authorizes continued expenditures (taxpayer dollars) to appeal.

After reading through the arbitrator's opinion on the Web, one can see that the administration doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in overriding this opinion.

There are documents on this web site where the association requested negotiations with Mystrom's staff and was turned down in July. Options included providing compensation time in lieu of monetary compensation - the best for taxpayers, I might add. No compromise from the mayors' office! Meanwhile the administration continues to
stack up legal bills (taxpayer dollars).

In Thursday's Daily News the mayor indicated he wants all of us to know he is willing to negotiate with the employees' association while he pursues an appeal. It appears that the mayor has no intent to settle and will let this whole issue ride until he is out of office, leaving it to the new administration to clean up after him. Meanwhile more tax dollars are going to be spent to save us from a tax burden that Mystrom wants us to believe he is saving us from.
 

Thanks, Rick.

Ray Thomas 
Anchorage

Well, not only is the greed of our public servants at an all-time high, but we then also have the only local daily newspaper going along with the $4 million rip-off of the Anchorage taxpayer by the local police union. Here are the problems and several solutions.

The first problem is that outside arbitrators (always on the side of the unions) are brought in to resolve differences between the city and the unions. They always stick it to the taxpayers over the insatiable greed
of the local unions. In the future, hire only resident arbitrators who will reap what they sow in their property taxes.

Second, the police union is far too expensive for the service they give. My gawd, we even give them a free car. They say that freebie keeps crime down in the neighborhoods where they park their cars. I have lived in
Eagle River for 27 years and never have seen much crime, much less in the tacky, new, yuppie, upscale neighborhoods in the Valley. This is wrong, especially when you can't even get them to respond in a timely
manner in Eagle River (must be that high crime rate again). Outlaw public employee unions and pay them what they are worth.

Third, if the union insists on being paid for time never worked, an outright theft of $4 million from the taxpayer, I say that $4 million worth of cops be laid off. This way all of the tax-paying populace will not have their collective pockets picked. The downside is that those who operate coffee and doughnut shops may see a loss of business.

Mr. Mayor, stay the course, but go further and institute several of the aforementioned solutions.

Thomas B. Wood
Eagle River

* Editor's note: The arbitrator who ruled for the union in this case also ruled against the police in two earlier termination cases.

Bravo to Mayor Mystrom for going ahead with the appeal of the arbitrator's decision. He is apparently one of the few people within the community who understands the meaning of the word "or." "Or" implies there is a choice that may be made. If the police are upset about the change that was made to their work schedules, then perhaps they should take the matter up with their union officials who put the language in their last contract. It might be wise for the union officials and the arbitrator to take a class in remedial English as soon as possible so they can learn what "or" means.

John Kehr Jr.
Chugiak

I knew it. Now Mayor Mystrom's trying to blame the "binding" decision on the arbitrator - whom he agreed to, right? Now let's get to all of the facts. Go to the Internet and access www.alaska.net/~apdea; the
documents and facts are for all to see.

The bottom line is this: Rick Mystrom was either given bad advice from "his staffers" and/or he intentionally chose to ignore those who were telling him that hours and working conditions are mandatory subjects of
bargaining. I have gone on for too long thinking that he was acting on bad advice.

And remember, when you break a contract, there are usually consequences. That's pretty basic logic. It's also something the city implements (penalties) on a daily basis for those who hold contracts for goods and
services with the municipality who fail to honor those contracts.

Quit dragging this thing out for the next mayor to have to deal with. The "honorable" (it is in the title) thing to do is honor the contract and the binding award. Mystrom and his administration did agree to do that.

Paul Honeman
Anchorage

Let's see, we want to cap our property taxes at 10 mills, but we're going to pay our policemen overtime for working five days a week. Seems to me like Anchorage is losing its grip on reality.

Carey Cossaboom
Anchorage

Recently a citizen voiced pride in our mayor because the mayor apparently knew the meaning of the word "or" and encouraged the mayor to appeal the arbitrator's award tothe police union. If Mystrom really
understood this simple term, we wouldn't be in thismess now.

Consider the following: Let's say you are on a tight budget and have had the same mortgage loan for 22 years. The fine print on the contract says there are two ways to pay the loan: on the first of every month (12 payments a year), like you have done for more than two decades, or every other week, which in essence equals 13 payments a year.

The bank informs you that they are making an arbitrary change, putting you on the biweekly payment schedule. You tell them you can't afford the extra payment, you only get paid once a month, and your kids won't have Christmas. They tell you they don't care, everyone else gets paid weekly or biweekly, so you have nothing to complain about, and if you don't get with the program, they will charge you late fees and repossess your house when you fall behind.

What does "or" mean here? If you believe the Mystrom theory, it means that the bank can do as it pleases any time it wants, whether you like it or not. But the law says you can choose (in partnership with your bank) to change the way your mortgage payments are handled, but you can't have it crammed down your throat.

Mystrom violated a labor contract in much the same manner. Nobody in his or her right mind would continue to patronize this sort of bank, so who would want to work for a mayor like this?

Mark Hunstiger
Eagle River

Regarding Mystrom vs. police union: After reading the advertisement in the Daily News concerning the facts in this dispute, I still have questions. Under Mystrom's change, employees had to work on a day they didn't have to work otherwise. But they also didn't have to work the extra two hours a day they had been required to work before the change. Was overtime incurred under the four-10s work week? No. Was overtime incurred under the five-eights? No. So overtime is an issue.

Has the wronged party been made "whole" or has the wronged party profited by thecurrent ruling?

Food for thought. What do other taxpayers think?

Barbara Wells
Chugiak

Re "A Deal's a Deal, Mayor Mystrom," the Anchorage Police Association published this full-page ad (Page A-5, Nov. 17) loathing Mayor Rick Mystrom for recklessly disregarding agreements made with the police force. The association continued on to say, "As police officers, we know the importance of living by rules. And we've seen what happens when people refuse to live by the same rules that govern everyone else."

It seems that the association is unhappy that Mystrom wanted to unilaterally change agreements with the police department without its consent. The association would have us believe it is not so much the money they want, but the principle of law and order to be respected.

The association had no qualms when the mayor violated the municipal charter and forced police protection upon the people that live on Hillside. Hillsiders would never have voted to be annexed to the city without the guarantee in the charter that no services would be forced upon us without our approval.

Many of us on Hillside had our property taxes almost doubled for "protection" that we voted against at least three times.

It seems that the association is only concerned about the rule of law when it pertains to more funds to them. I find it rather ironic that the Anchorage police would have an expectation that a contract signed on behalf of the municipality was worthy of observance.

David Paul Biesemeyer 
Anchorage 

Regardless of how reasonable Mayor Rick Mystrom's requirement for the police to work a five-day, eight-hours-per-day week seems to be, I've finally been convinced the attempt was not well thought out and we should pay them off. I resent it, but, as has been stated by the Anchorage Police Department Employees Association, a deal is a deal.

What this has done however is bring to the surface a deal that should have never been made in the first place. It's been said that the issue is not the money. Personally I think the issue is a bunch of so-called public servants who like having a three-day weekend.

Who wouldn't? Not to mention a free car to commute with and go to the store with and some outstanding benefits to boot. Also, for those of you who have short memories, cops have been well represented in the Top 10 income bracket, which this paper has publicized, along with IBEW lineman, all making well in excess of $100,000.

I can't blame the APDEA for cutting the best deal it could for its members. It's human nature to want the most you can get, but this is beginning to get ridiculous. I sure don't make this kind of money, get a free car and not even close on the benefits. Nor does anyone I know to my knowledge. It's beginning to look like the public is serving the public servants, not the other way around.

The people to be mad at are those who cut this deal in the first place. If you don't like it, see that you take an interest the next time it comes around. Things like this happen when the public doesn't pay attention or vote. Don't fault Mystrom for anything but well intended misjudgment.

William T. (Bill) Ahrens 
Eagle River 

Something is wrong when a person, whom many of us would not even want as a next-door neighbor, is put and kept in a job that historically has been the most respected position in the entire world. Those of us who study the Bible have seen it coming. You Darwin folks might consider looking at the most published book in the world, from the viewpoint of "what if it is true?"

We have our own mixed-up situations right here in Anchorage, also. Something is wrong when the boss cannot dictate the work schedule for his employees, especially when it is a historically routine schedule. To compound the "Alice in Wonderland" effect, we bring in a nobody from nowhere to look at the situation and declare that the boss cannot change the employees' schedule, at least not without the approval of an association of dubious merit. Then she proclaims the poor employees who had to work five eight-hour shifts a week must be paid a sum greater than many individuals' annual income. And all the sophomores said "yes."

The need and justification for employee unions is questionable. Although they played a heroic role in the workplace of the past, their role now seems to have evolved into a system of coercion that equalizes the worthless employee and the outstanding employee while making nonproductive administrators of the employees association wealthy. Inefficiency and ineptness are rewarded with more money and promotions.

My analogy to our current situation is the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." I try to avoid cliches, but it appears the tail is wagging the dog.

Dwight M. White 
Anchorage 

I've followed the letters to the editor on the topic of the police workweek arbitration with some interest as I'm a member of the aggrieved group - yes, an Anchorage Police Department officer.

The letters seem to divide themselves into two groups: those that support contractual commitment and binding arbitration, and those who support Mayor Rick Mystrom's viewpoint, regardless of the facts.

Our society is a group of diverse and often opposing points of view, but in order to intelligently oppose a point of view, one should first understand the pure, hard facts of an issue, not just follow Mayor Mystrom's characterizations blindly.

Fact: The Municipality of Anchorage and the police union have agreed to submit disagreements to binding arbitration.

Fact: The arbitrator is chosen from a pool of approved and qualified arbitrators.

Fact: The municipality lost and is being required to compensate the affected employees, not for "time not worked" but for failure to negotiate on a matter of pay and benefits and then making a unilateral change in working conditions.

No one likes paying a debt incurred through bad judgment, but fair is fair. If the city had won a monetary award against the police union, Mayor Mystrom would want his money now! But the fact is, he used bad judgment, the city lost, and the mayor refused to negotiate even after it was clear he would lose.

Now, the mayor is running up a bigger bill, which he will walk away from and leave for the next mayor to deal with and the residents of Anchorage to pay, all because of poor judgment, a failure to live up to contractual obligations and a stupendous ego. The citizens of this city deserve better.

John P. O'Brien 
Anchorage

To all of the folks who think the police officers are trying to get paid for overtime they didn't work. It's not overtime. It's a punitive resolution to a contract violation, designedwith the intent to deter further violations.
Some kind of formula had to be used to figure out how much to pay each police officer affected by the change to five-eights from four-10s. The arbitrator could have awarded a flat rate, which might have been a more equitable solution, but decided to base it on something other than a number pulled from a that. I have a feeling that no matter what amount was decided on or how it was arrived at, somebody would complain about it.

The officers made a nonmonetary resolution offer before the arbitrator's ruling, but the city refused it. If it bothers you that the city now has to pay for its violation, get mad at Mystrom, not the cops. 

Speaking of the police officers, I have heard that during one of the many investigations of officer John Foraker's handling of the accident involving Dr. Won Chung's wife that a high-ranking officer at APD drove out to the intersection where the accident had happened months before and saw that the traffic light was green in the direction Mrs. Chung was driving. That must be the new evidence that swung this case. 

It speaks highly of the officers at APD that several of them have spoken out in support of officer Foraker's decision not to write a citation, even though the person that they feel has been wronged is cooling his heels in
jail. Decisions of right or wrong should not be based on someone's status or position in the community. 

Barry Johnson 
Anchorage

The recent decision by the mayor to challenge the arbitrator's "binding" decision in favor of the Anchorage Police Department Employees Association is just one more in a long list of expensive moves that our current mayor has made. Do some research and you will see his perpetual need to disregard court and arbitrators' decisions during his terms as mayor. The number of taxpayers' dollars needlessly spent on counterproductive lawsuits will amaze you. 

Obviously the term "binding arbitration" is foreign to this administration. Not only that, he has repeatedly ignored the capable advice of the professionals he has selected to serve with him. Maybe it is time for the assembly to step forward and evaluate this constant desire for him to win at all costs - our costs.

I've also been present when he or his legal eagles have walked out of meetings when it was the opposition's turn to speak. There are always two sides to every issue if you are open-minded enough to listen, but that seems to be a difficult concept for this administration. I commend the mayor for making this city a beautiful place to live, but I wish he'd turn some of those energies to finding real solutions that serve the citizens, not his ego.

Douglas Bohac
Anchorage

I have been in law enforcement most of my adult life and believe strongly in the American system of justice. The American concept of justice is that it is blind and affects all levels of our society equally. When the law is not applied equally it perverts the system and invites anarchy. Wealth, race, social status, political connections, etc., should not affect how justice is applied in our society.

When a police officer investigates an accident and any of the participants are unhappy, the investigation can be reviewed for thoroughness, integrity and accuracy. The officer had his report reviewed by a supervisor and a city attorney and his investigation was validated and a recommendation was made by the prosecutor not to issue a citation to any participants. It was a he-said, she-said situation best resolved in a civil court.

Some time later a citation was issued, apparently due to the political influence of a spouse of one of the participants. In 1998 almost 44,000 citations were issued by the Anchorage Police Department. I would like to know how many traffic accident investigations were reversed at a level above sergeant? I am curious to know how many citations were issued against the advice of the city attorney? I am concerned how the morale of the public and police department will be affected by an apparent slander of a good officer's investigation and reversal based on political motivations!

This incident shows a trend in actions that question the integrity and ethics of the administration that generates the perversion of a simple traffic accident, that tries to silence the voice of its employees and that feels a commitment to binding arbitration is only binding if it wins. Situational ethics should not be a part of the administration and application of law in Anchorage or anywhere else.

John Bilyeu 
Anchorage

Boy, am I sick of hearing the bickering between the police union and the mayor. If the officers lost no money, they should be willing to donate the punitive damages to worthwhile charities, maybe even those purported to reduce crime. And the mayor, not the city, should be penalized (but only within his ability to pay, not millions) if he unilaterally broke the contract. The taxpayers did no wrong, yet are being forced to pay for someone else's "wrongdoing." That is wrong! Of course, the lawyers on whom the mayor relied should be fined heavily for legal malpractice.

If the police officers howl, then they really are in it for the money, rather than the principle. And nobody should ever donate to one of their fund-raisers again. Let's see where the truth lies, instead of all this posturing. 

Dan Kosterman
Eagle River

Let's take a look at some facts regarding the current arbitrator's ruling awarding as much as $4 million to police department employees.

1) We have some excellent police officers in Anchorage.

2) The crime rate in Anchorage has plummeted in recent years.

3) Everyone - police officers, administrators and the mayor and his staff – has worked hard to accomplish this.

4) Many people agree that the change to five eight-hour shifts for police officers in 1994 also contributed to a more efficient staffing plan.

5) Police officers did not want to switch off their four 10-hour shift schedule.

6) The mayor and police chief firmly believed the switch to the five-eights plan was within the scope of the existing contract. 

7) Because the police labor contract was ambiguous, an arbitrator has ruled otherwise.

8) Police officers have already been paid in full for the hours they worked.

Now let's look at some other facts:

1) The Anchorage Police Department's payroll has increased an average of nearly $1 million per year since 1994. 

2) When all wages and benefits are considered, Anchorage police officers are among the best compensated in the country. 

Nobody has been harmed here. Everyone's been paid for the work they did. Let's stop squabbling over an issue that is likely to detract from the esteem most people hold for our police officers. Let's not nail the local taxpayers with another $4 million bill. Let's all just get on with the good work we have come to expect from the police department and the administration.

Eric Britten
Anchorage

I live in Eagle River. On our street there is an Anchorage School District teacher who makes $59,000 a year. There is an APD officer making $75,000 a year, five more APD officers making $50,000 to $65,000 a year, and a firefighter who just got his second year raise to $55,000 a year, plus overtime.

My house payment has gone from $1,080 to $1,301 from October 1994 to June 1999 because of city taxes. And those taxes will keep going up when the state cuts all funding in two years.

I became a police officer in Live Oak, Texas, in 1993. Starting wages were $18,995. Live Oak is surrounded by San Antonio. Because I was young and worked hard, the chief was going to get me on the San Antonio Police Department. Starting pay was $35,000 plusovertime. I didn't want to go. I was happy where I was. We lived modestly. I stayed there for the people I was hired to protect and serve, not "rip off." If you can't live on $50,000 a year and don't want to serve the people and kids of Anchorage, then you need to move.

For the teachers it comes down to the math. I make $16 a hour and my wife makes $14 an hour. We, and the people of Anchorage, can't afford them. I respect these people for being teachers, police officers and firefighters, and for having college degrees. But the money is not there to give them. Our current mayor is costing us more and more money every day as he cheats the police out the money they are owed.

If I had the money I would give to them, but I don't. I'm thankful for the job they do. I wouldn't want their job, and they probably would not want mine. I thank them again for the job they do!

Tom Leonard
Eagle River