Monday, November 10, 2008

CONGRATS TO PRESIDENT PALLOHUSKY

Congratulations to President Pallohusky on a resounding victory for election to another term as President. 677 ballots were sent in, 7 were spoiled as either not signed or from retirees, etc. Leaving 670 (out of 1306 members) valid ballots cast. 17 Sgts did not vote in the Presidential election, leaving a total of 653 valid votes for President (exactly 50% turnout).

Results:

John Pallohusky: 473
Gerry Majerczyk: 180

Good luck to John and the old/new board in contract negotiations. I really have to start studying for that 2010/2011 Lts. test now (and take a handful of ibuprofen for that ass-kicking I just received).

Congratulations again to John.

--Gerry Majerczyk

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who won the director at large spots?

Anonymous said...

Are you just guessing when that is when the next Lt's test will be? I got to start practicing my oral skills.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to study as there will be No lt's test while J-flesh is here.

GerryMajerczyk@aol.com said...

To the first three posters:

I was only at the CPSA from 1000 to 1430 hours (even though I knew I lost handily at 1000 hours when I saw what the turnout was). I didn't stay for the counting of the directors (sorry).

Historically, the CPD "policy" is to give tests every three years. In reality, they tend to give them every four years (e.g. Sgts. tests in 1995?, 1998, 2002, 2006?. The most recent LT. test was in the fall of 2006, soooooo the next one should be either 2010 or 2011. You all know some clout heavy kid who made Sgt. in the interim who needs there to be a test for them to get made Lt. The city won't let the clout babies wait 6 years as a Sgt. before being made Lt. and then Cmdr. 2-3 years later. I hope there was someone REALLY heavy in my class so they'll give the test sooner rather than later.

Doesn't Supt. Weis' contract only run to Feb. 2011?

My only concern about studying is that the only way I make Lt. is off of a legit test. If they take it out of the testing process then I'll retire a Sgt.

--Gerry Majerczyk, 010th District

Anonymous said...

to Gerry M, IF you believe that the last lieutenants test was/is legit you've got bigger issues to deal with. There is NO diffference between those who get (or are assisted) having the answers to the test clearly given to them (or proctored in 1 case)and those you call the clout babies.

GerryMajerczyk@aol.com said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

to Gerry M, IF you believe that the last lieutenants test was/is legit you've got bigger issues to deal with. There is NO diffference between those who get (or are assisted) having the answers to the test clearly given to them (or proctored in 1 case)and those you call the clout babies.

Wed Nov 12, 06:09:00 AM
___________________________

Oh my God, NO! I certainly don't think the process was fair in the last test. I was just emphasizing how little influence I will have with the CPSA after losing by such a large margin, that I might as well move on. Of course it was rigged. And if you give people the questions and answers before retest, you get MORE than 30% "merit" promotions as the smarter of the clout babies can be high on the list by test score, leaving more 30% spots for the less intelligent of the clout babies. Even so, they still have to let a few legit people through, so they can defend against the lawsuits. It won't be as easy as a straight 70% off of a fair test, but it's the best chance I can get.

On the other hand, the CPSA indirectly aided the City by waiting until summer of 2008 to file their lawsuit, when they knew it was rigged in what, oh ...January? 2007? I wouldn't have waited that long. I was the first guy on the FOP negotiation team calling for us to go to arbitration in the fall of 2003 (when the contract was less than 5 months expired and it was obvious that the City was not negotiating in good faith).

These are things that must be acted on quickly, not left waiting for over a year. The longer you let that case wait to be filed, the more Lts. that get made under the rigged system before any possible remedy is put in place. Those guys will not be demoted back to Sgt., so they just take a space that a legit test taker should get, and make those people wait longer to make Lt. (if ever). I've met a few who are still Sgts. who should have been made off the old list. If the legal challenge had been done in a timely manner, these legit test takers might be Lts. by now (like they deserved to be).

With a 1 1/2 year wait from the fix to the lawsuit, there will probably be a new test before the case makes it to conclusion, and the city will have won simply by delay (even if the new test is totally legit).

As to those I "call the clout babies", we can call them anything you want,..."sons of supervisors", "those with the calling", or whatever creative name you can come up with. I just think "clout babies" is more all encompassing than "sons of supervisors" because it includes those whose clout is outside the department. The "baby" part comes from them not being able to make it on there own, like a grown-up. Of course, since I've used that term, I've just lost at least 30% of the vote, no matter what I do. One more reason to start studying.

And before I get reamed out here for saying all "merit" promotions are undeserving, I admit that some "merit" promotions are true merit. My favorite merit promotion of all time was Dave Snethen to Sgt. That was a textbook, picture in the dictionary example of a true merit pick. If everything had been done properly all these years, he would have retired as the 2nd Deputy.

Gerry Majerczyk

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, the CPSA indirectly aided the City by waiting until summer of 2008 to file their lawsuit, when they knew it was rigged in what, oh ...January? 2007? I wouldn't have waited that long."

I don't know you Gerry but a guy who doesn't get his election materials out until after the ballots are out, well- I just don't see you as a guy who's on top of things. I sent in my ballot several days before I had anything in print about you or from you. I didn't see you at the last PBPA meeting before the election - which would have been a great time to be out there campaigning.

You lost the election on your own, with no help from anyone. Quit grandstanding about all that you would do. You couldn't convince anyone to vote for you the first time-you won't be able to now.

GerryMajerczyk@aol.com said...

"I didn't see you at the last PBPA meeting before the election - which would have been a great time to be out there campaigning....I sent in my ballot several days before I had anything in print about you or from you. "
-------------
I was there, I was the guy on duty. You know, full uniform, vest cover, gun belt, radio? Glad you showed up for the "free" pizza. If you went to any other meetings than that, you certainly would have recognized me.

I sent out 2 pieces of election material, one of which you should have gotten about a day or two after the ballots arrived. If you were on the medical or furlough, obviously you could have voted several days before I got it to you. No great loss, since you obviously wouldn't have considered what I had to say, anyway.

Unlike John, I didn't know the exact date the ballot would arrive, and couldn't send my stuff out in the mail with the ballots.

My second mailing was sent in response to John's second letter and his use of the website to spread scary rumors about me. It got to everyone in plenty of time for the exactly half of the membership who didn't cast a ballot at all to respond. But, I couldn't even piss them off enough for them to even bother to vote for John. That is very disappointing.

You: "You couldn't convince anyone to vote for you the first time-you won't be able to now."
Answer: Is there a SECOND ELECTION that I don't know about? Duh. Didn't I say that in my previous post? And since the election is over, it wouldn't really help right now, would it?Sir, if I have to explain every simple written sentence to you, I'm afraid I'm just going to have to give our exchange a big old 19P and move on.

Have a nice day.

--Gerry Majerczyk

GerryMajerczyk@aol.com said...

To Thu Nov 13, 07:07:00 PM:

It's goofiness like yours that made the old SecondCityCop.net website so time consuming for me to post on. I posted a lot on that website, but as soon as you post, some coward anonymous guy wants to rip you all the tiem, and then you have to respond or they use THAT against you. That's why I stay off SCC except to read. I really have better things to do than deal with silly people like you all the time. At least I get paid for that at work.

Gerry Majerczyk

SECOND CITY SARGE said...

This will be the last word on this subject. I can not understand why anyone is attacking a guy who sends a gracious note of congratulations to his opponent in this election.
I personally disagree with Gerry on the 10 hour day but I also have a problem with how the current administration has handled many other issues.
I congratulate John on his reelection and I congratulate Gerry on his his attempt to change the status quo.
Good luck to the both of you.

Anonymous said...

You are talking about a new LT test. What about the current Sgt. list. I'm a P.O. and about 130 on the current list. They have promoted only 94 off the list so far. By your math a new test is only 1 - 2 years away. Is the city actually going to waste more money on a new test in this economy. If anyone has some insight it would be greatly appreciated.

Anonymous said...

There are more "insiders" saying that lieutenants will go the way of the current Captains.. appointed by the city.

Legal affairs did a study on it a few years ago and believes it would fly.

The hell with being a lieutenant .. the money is nice however it's easier to wind up in federal court by approving those arrest reports.

Anonymous said...

A new Lt. test? I just want my real score on the last corrupted Lt. exam. Many of us had too much pride and self-respect to retake the corrupted oral portion.

Please keep in mind that this is an open blog
that can and is read by people other than Chicago Police Officers.