Indy PD going back under Mayor and CCC! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Indy PD going back under Mayor and CCC!


Indy_Guy_77
02-01-2008, 06:50
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080201/LOCAL/802010412

A grim-faced Sheriff Frank Anderson stood with Mayor Greg Ballard on Thursday as they announced that the sheriff would relinquish control of the Police Department to the newly elected administration.

The agreement publicly ended a dispute that began when Ballard won election in November and promised to follow through on his campaign pledge to clarify the chain of command in public safety.

Thursday night, a City-County Council panel voted 6-2, mostly along party lines, to send to the full council a proposal returning control of the police to the mayor. The council is expected to vote on it Feb. 11. With Republicans holding a 16-13 edge on the council, the proposal is expected to pass.

The command changeover is scheduled for Feb. 29, at 12:01 a.m.
After a little more than a year in charge of the merged police force, the Democratic sheriff said he felt it best to "put politics aside," though his opinion that he should remain in charge had not changed.

In agreeing to end their public feud, Anderson avoided a political showdown that he could not have won in the Republican-controlled council. By announcing agreement before the panel hearing, Anderson avoided the possibility of police officers testifying about the department's problems and why many preferred to be under the mayor's authority.

"This will be good for morale," said William Owensby, the president of the city's police union, which opposed moving the police under the sheriff last year. "And I think it means a return to community policing. We've gotten away from that, and we want to get back to it."

Owensby said the officers have been so overwhelmed by the merger and responding to calls for help that they can do little proactive police work, which can reduce crime rather than just capture the criminals.

Ballard, the new Republican mayor, will control the 1,600 uniformed officers and other units of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.
Anderson, who is in his second and final term as sheriff, will be left with "significant input" on some matters, such as the appointment of a police chief, public safety director and the chief's executive staff.

In his constitutionally protected position, he also will continue to oversee jail operations, dispatch communications, a civil service division, City-County Building security and the sex and violent offender registry. Anderson, a former U.S. marshal, also will increase his role in apprehending fugitives.

Ballard campaigned last year in part on the notion that voters expected the mayor to be responsible for public safety. At a joint news conference Thursday afternoon at the Indianapolis Law Enforcement Academy, he promised a new level of coordination between the departments.

He said the mayor's office can command greater resources than the sheriff alone. He also said a massive emergency or terrorist event would require all public safety elements to be under the same roof.

"This is no coup d'etat," Ballard said. "This is a passing of the baton. We do this more effectively as teammates."

Thursday's announcement followed weeks of campaigning by Anderson to hold on to the reins. In news releases and in remarks to reporters, he repeatedly said he was the best-qualified person to run the department and was elected specifically for the task.

Ballard also agreed to end his pursuit of legislation in the General Assembly that would permanently place control of the police under the mayor.
Some Democrats at Thursday's council hearing still called for a public vote on who should be in charge. Mary Moriarty Adams questioned whether the change would cost the city money and why it was necessary.

"I heard no allegation that officers will perform better or different with the mayor in charge," Adams said. "In my opinion, this is a political power grab based on the makeup of the council."

Anderson became the department's leader last year when the Indianapolis Police and Marion County Sheriff's departments were merged. In pushing for the merger, then-Mayor Bart Peterson had proposed a power-sharing arrangement, but backed off after Anderson withheld his support unless he was given ultimate control.

Anderson's tenure was marked by low morale among police officers unhappy with the merger and a spike in crime that hit many urban areas across the country. The police union supported Ballard.

As a result of their agreement, Anderson has now ping-ponged from being sheriff of a 400-person suburban department to controlling the largest police force in Indiana to becoming the only sheriff in the state without a territory to protect.

At the news conference, Ballard's public safety director, Scott Newman, promised to dedicate more resources to the fugitive and warrant effort to fight crime and said that Anderson was the right person for the job.
Newman said the agreement was in the works for weeks and produced civil discussions and a thorough analysis of the best way to divide overlapping responsibilities. Newman said he met regularly with Anderson, his attorney Kevin Murray and his top deputy, Kerry Forestal.

The final negotiations were sped up to beat the hearing, Newman said. "If anger flared up at the meeting, it could cause wounds that would not be helpful," he said.

Newman said the slaying of two mothers and their children on Hovey Street in January became a catalyst to work together.

"In an odd way, Hovey Street brought us together," Newman said. "We got back to the roots in focusing on how to combat crime. It helped thaw the pipes of discussion."


Call Star reporter Brendan O'Shaughnessy at (317) 444-2751.

KSFreeman
02-01-2008, 07:16
Can we still call them GIMPS?:supergrin:

AFA1CY
02-01-2008, 08:42
"...also will increase his role in apprehending fugitives."

You mean he will have to do some (gasp) work? Maybe spend some of his gravy money on hiring people?

IPDBrad
02-01-2008, 09:40
Everyone knew this would happen, surprised he caved before a full council vote. Unfortunately, the damage has been done.

rhino465
02-01-2008, 12:01
None of this crap would have been necessary if Bartlet hadn't made another of his power plays and foolishly consolidated the two departments in the first place.

I'm no fan of the current sheriff, but shouldn't get his own officers back? I see why he shouldn't be in control of the Indianapolis PD, but to take his own people away from him diminishes another elected office, which is wrong.

alex_velociti
02-01-2008, 12:17
What direction do you think the Mayor will go in regards to hiring more LEOs?

I think it needs to be beefed up, especially in certain districts.

I'm still waiting for the 6th process schedule to come out so I can have something to look towards - but it probably won't come out until mid 2008.

IPDBrad
02-01-2008, 12:27
None of this crap would have been necessary if Bartlet hadn't made another of his power plays and foolishly consolidated the two departments in the first place.

I'm no fan of the current sheriff, but shouldn't get his own officers back? I see why he shouldn't be in control of the Indianapolis PD, but to take his own people away from him diminishes another elected office, which is wrong.


From the reports I have seen on the news, what should have happened with the merger has happened. His LE patrol/investigations is gone, all the functions he took care of prior to merger remain (those that are required by state constitution).

It would have been so much easier of a merge, and less expensive to simply have taken the patrol and investigations of the MCSD and place them into the IPD. But Bart and Frank had to play their political power struggle, and Frank and the council had to flip flop.

I can't ever imagine MCSD getting patrol/investigation back, nor will there be a de-merger.

I am surprised that he wasn't in favor of that all along. He dumps all of the liability of running LE, while retaining his money making areas of the jail, civil services, and his constitutional responsabilities.

biggl35
02-01-2008, 15:22
I know my opinion of this situation is not popular, but I still think that the Chief, Head honcho, Admiral, General, whatever you want to call it, needs to be an elected official OTHER than the Mayor and CCC. And since our state constitution requires the Sheriff to be elected, why not just use that position.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ballard and I can't stand Anderson, but I rather have somebody that was an LEO be in charge of the IMPD and not some politician.

MakeMineaP99
02-01-2008, 15:33
Anything has to be better than the current state of affairs...

sjstill
02-04-2008, 15:05
There is some chatter now about the SD uniforms - used to be the merit deputies wore a brown shirt and tan pants, while the special deputies wore all brown. Now I'm hearing the specials may be wearing the old merit uniforms.

Who knows.

Saw a buddy of mine at the academy for the Lateral Graduation, and he was proudly wearing a star tie-tack with his IMPD uniform.

usaf207cwf
02-04-2008, 17:51
I would like to say the uniforms don't matter, although I know better from my time in the AF when the leadership wanted us to look like the Russian Marines with some crappy blue on gray camo.

But I would rather have the money put into upgrading a weapons system or communications system instead of buying new uniforms.

Troops react to leadership, no matter what work that leader is doing or has done. I however suspect I am reacting to WHO the leader is (Frankie bling-bling) rather than WHAT the official position the leader has (sheriff).

I did hear on WIBC this morning that under the plan the sheriff will be resposible for chasing down the 25,000 people who have warrants issued for them in Marion county. Maybe getting some people under the sheriff (whoever he/she may be) and having tracking down arrest warrants 24/7 would go a long way to reducing crime around here. We may (MAY) be getting into a breakthrough way to reduce crime by making removing criminals (who are more likely to commit more crimes than "first timers") such a high priority. You never know if something is successful unitl you try it out.

IPDBrad
02-04-2008, 20:26
We may (MAY) be getting into a breakthrough way to reduce crime by making removing criminals (who are more likely to commit more crimes than "first timers") such a high priority. You never know if something is successful unitl you try it out.

Arresting those with warrants is a quick AND effective way to reduce crime. They are already known criminals with an inclination towards breaking the law.

HOWEVER, in a county where there is little retention of criminals in the jail, it is akin to a dog chasing its tail. It is one thing for a criminal to make bond (a constitutional right), it is another thing to have so many OR'ed as they are in Marion County.

An effective warrant program along with an effective jail system could impact crime quickly.

KSFreeman
02-07-2008, 06:50
25K warrants?

If they catch even 10% of that, where will the Sheriff put them???:shocked:

IPDBrad
02-07-2008, 09:44
25K warrants?

If they catch even 10% of that, where will the Sheriff put them???:shocked:

I was surprised that there were only 25k. A few years ago it was around 30k.

Upside is that number doesn't represent 25k people, due to people with multiple warrants.

With the current system in place I would guess at least half of those arrested would be OR'ed the same day to those warrants being driving warrants.

IPDBrad
02-07-2008, 09:48
Just playing with the calculator:


If no more warrants were issued and all those warrants were served in one year, that would require 68 arrests per day. Doesn't sound like alot, except that there are runs to take, reports to make, new warrants coming out, crashes, etc etc

Snowman92D
02-07-2008, 10:42
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080201/LOCAL/802010412The command changeover is scheduled for Feb. 29, at 12:01 a.m.
After a little more than a year in charge of the merged police force, the Democratic sheriff said he felt it best to "put politics aside,"...

You know...every time I hear Anderson say that, I damn-near go into convulsions. Politics is all that fool is about. I remember when he was a road deputy with Marion County years ago...and that was the last time he was anything near a professional LE officer. He's been a professional minority ever since and played the system well.

AFA1CY
02-07-2008, 16:43
Just playing with the calculator:


If no more warrants were issued and all those warrants were served in one year, that would require 68 arrests per day. Doesn't sound like alot, except that there are runs to take, reports to make, new warrants coming out, crashes, etc etc

And trying to find those 68 scumbags each day.

IMPD served a warrant at a house across the street the other day. As they were taking him away he was talking and joking with the arresting officers. :dunno:

jsx1043
02-07-2008, 16:52
Where do I sign up for the new MCSD warrant sevice unit? I can start immediately....:supergrin:

BTW, I was in US Uniform the other day and those guys said they were getting a lot of orders from MCSD to put specials in the Merit uniform. The SD admin is trying to contact to the old merit deputies to get their browns back.

pupcuss27
02-07-2008, 17:05
At least, No more Bart!

Mayor Ballard :welcome: