Injured cops video Shirley Franklin probably doesn’t want you to watch
May 26, 2009 at 2:48 pm by Andisheh Nouraee in NewsAJC Political Insider Jim Galloway posted a video this morning I suspect Mayor Shirley Franklin doesn’t want you to watch.
The video shows five men and women severely wounded while on duty as Atlanta police officers. Each claims the city is denying them medical benefits they need, and to which they are entitled.
Why do I assume Mayor Franklin doesn’t want you to watch it?
Simple.
Because she’s spent the last week dodging questions about the video’s subject matter.
During the same week, however, Franklin has somehow found the time to launch an administrative, legal and public relations assault against APD union leader Sgt. Scott Kreher, the man who presented the video the city council.
Admittedly, Kreher made himself an easy target.
While speaking to city council last week about Atlanta’s alleged poor treatment of police officers severely wounded while on duty, Kreher said he’s so frustrated with Mayor Franklin’s intransigence that he feels like hitting her on the head with a baseball bat.
It was an ugly figure of speech for which Kreher apologized. But Franklin won’t move on.
She has evidently decided to use Kreher’s slip-up to once-and-for-all silence Kreher; one of her most persistent and (until last week) effective critics.
First, Franklin told Fox 5 she interprets Kreher’s statement as a literal physical threat meant to intimidate her and her family, even though it clearly an ugly metaphor for extreme frustration. Franklin says she wants a local, state and, FEDERAL investigation into Kreher’s comment.
Strange. When Atlanta residents express their fear of actual crimes, the mayor mocks them with cherry-picked stats. Hurt Franklin’s feelings, however, and she’ll summon federal help.
But wait. There’s more.
On Saturday, Franklin’s APD toady Chief Richard Pennington suspended Kreher from active-duty pending a psychological examination. Using a mental health bureaucracy and the stigma of mental illness to destroy a political opponent is a time-honored political tactic — in Russia.
Why is Franklin bending over backward to destroy Kreher? My guess is that she’s desperately hoping you won’t pay attention to his message.
So watch the video.
And if you still feel like blaming someone for drawing attention away from the important issue of benefits for wounded cops, go ahead and blame Kreher or Franklin if you’d like.
But remember, Kreher distracted us by accident. Franklin is doing it on purpose.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Don’t let Mayor Shirley Franklin’s antics distract us from real problems facing our first responders. Kreher quickly apologized and admitted his error. When will Mayor Franklin admit her errors and shortcomings? When will she do the right thing for our injured officers?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
This “tit for tat” is getting out of control. These are two separate issues:
(1) The mayor, the insurance companies, the courts, (and all those involved with delaying medical approval/payment to these individuals), need to answer questions and be held accountable.
(2) On the other hand, Kreher does need to be fired. Two wrongs don’t make a right. He can’t go around acting as if what he said was a minor offense. It’s as if he and others are saying, “Well compared to Mayor Franklin’s misdeeds, Kreher didn’t really do anything.” As a police officer, he should know better. As a woman, that statement sent shivers down my spine.
I mean, d@mn: it would have been bad enough to say, “I’d like to smack her,” which is more akin to your description of “ugly figure of speech.” Oh no. He couldn’t stop there. He had to get all graphic – explaining how he would do it, and what he would use to do it. Kinda scary.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“He can’t go around acting as if what he said was a minor offense.”
Yet Franklin can go around acting as if what he said amounts to terroristic threats? The party with the bigger constituency needs to be the bigger person here. Franklin isn’t doing anyone any good by milking this story beyond its proper scope. You seem to be obsessed with Kreher’s patent mistake, but in the grand scheme of things that unfortunate Peter Principle Poster Child represents a rather small constituency. It’s not like he’s the mayor of a major American city who comes out of a hidey hole merely to whine about the word choice used by a particularly vocal opponent.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Can you explain how the mayor is milking the story? As I see it, she has given one interview and said she was filing a complaint. No press conferences, etc. That’s not milking.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Right. Franklin can’t help it if five days later WSB is showing her one-on-one describing how traumatized she and her family are.
Rosebud never got milked so much.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Dash Riptide:
Like I said before: these are two separate issues. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I understand what Mayor Franklin’s office is doing is wrong, but I also see his comment as threatening. No police officer should go around threatening a public official. At the very least it is irresponsible. I can see some very ignorant and sick individual saying “If he can say it, it’s okay to go ahead and do it.” If there is anyone that doesn’t understand this simple concept, hopefully they will learn his lesson. You just can’t go around threatening public officials with baseball bats. As someone who is sworn to “protect and serve,” he should definitely know better. Not to mention, his statement was not one that would elicit much confidence in his ability to think objectively in a high pressure situation, and actually stay true to his oath.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I speak redneck, so allow me to translate. Kreher did not threaten Franklin. You really need to let that go. What he did do, however, is to belittle the “little [black] lady.” He made it very clear that he has no respect for her whatsoever. Franklin knows full well that this is the true import of Kreher’s words, and she knows that he gave her some serious ammunition to neutralize him as an effective critic of her administration. That’s already a done deal. But because such disrespect angers her so much, Franklin has allowed herself to stray from merely seeking a legitimate reprimand to seeking heavy-handed revenge. She is hurting herself more than she is hurting Kreher at this point.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I would argue, Kreher is getting more milk out of this cow now. Websites, Facebook groups, online petitions, etc.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I see it more as Franklin experiencing a backlash more than Kreher receiving any sort of benefit. It’s not like Kreher is going to run for mayor or anything.
Unless…
May 27th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Dash Riptide:
It’s nice to see that you’re so fluent in “redneck.” (Cue eye roll).
Your post just proves another point I was trying to make in an earlier article.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Kreher apologized by explaining he was upset. Being upset and frustrated can’t be excuses for personal attacks in words or actions in civil society. Mama said, “Take responsibility for your action or mistake without qualification or excuse. It works everytime.” Generations have passed down this baisc approach and it works.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“Your post just proves another point I was trying to make in an earlier article.”
Well I certainly can’t argue with that.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Kreher has apologized. He has admitted his error. He is sorry. But what about the real story, that our first responders are getting screwed by the City? Where is the outrage about that problem? Where are the people apologizing for that grievous oversight? Forget about Kreher and his sin. Remember the people who put their lives on the line for us. Stand up for them!!
May 29th, 2009 at 6:30 am
As I see the two people arguing above, I think we are forgetting one important issue here, should’nt it be criminal to prevent injured people from getting the medicine they need when they need it to live comfortibly? Do you think it is fair that these individuals laid their life on the line so that people like you and me can walk down the street everyday? I think the statements were harsh by Kreher, but were not a direct threat against the safety of the mayor. So Dekalb Voter or Stephanie you have never said you wanted to kill someone or hurt someone, indirectly because they cut you off in a car or made you angry for another reason? Come on!!! Everyone knows that this is not a direct threat against the mayor by any means, he stated ” that would like to beat the mayor over the head with a bat to make her realize what is going on here”. Sounds like to me that she is so hard headed and dumb that she does not realize or care what is going on. No direct threat, no charge of terroristic threat there. She is pushing a non-issue.
Going back to the officers injured in the line duty. Okay you are paralyzed from the neck down and hurt all over and your mayor hires a workman’s comp company that halts all medication orders and makes these people live in pain for longer than they need to. That is down right criminal in itself and I think that on a humane aspect someone should pay the piper and lose their job or be put in jail.
One more thing all of you are worried about the mayor and her protection against this vicious officer. Okay get real who is more of a threat to Mayor Shirley Franklin Sgt. Kreher or her own daughter and son-in-law that were apart of one of the most violent notorious gangs Atlanta has ever seen? (BMF). Then again I am sure for the simple minded they are going to say she did not know about that!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 9:54 am
What the Sgt said was wrong but does not deserve the treatment he is getting. The mayor is using this to avoid her responsiblity.
How many of us have said comments that if taken litterly would have gotten us in trouble.
Franklin refused to comment about these hurt officers.. but she did find time to publish a statement about the Sgt.
She refused to call any of the hurt officers back.. but.. she can contact federal officers about filing a suit about the Sgt.
Franklin should just resign and the Sgt should be reinstated.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Well put “Cop Says”.
Thank you to the cops who put their lives on the line.
Franklin is just using this to avoid her responsbility. Maybe she should be brought up on criminal charges?
June 1st, 2009 at 10:18 am
I think the residents of the West End should ask for local, state, and federal investigations into Shirley Franklin’s comments about showing them “the Philadelphia side of me” last year during the firehouse closing. What does this mean? Should they fear for their lives and their community that Franklin may firebomb them?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4651126
How do we know if this was just a figure of speech? Veiled threats like these may have an chilling effect of terrorizing entire neighborhoods in our city.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
This is the tip of the iceberg. There is MUCH MORE going on with the Mayor’s office that has not hit the news.
It makes me wish Bill Campbell was back in office. Look for more “dirty water” regarding “watershed management”. The video tapes of City council regarding “WM” was a waste of time. Several people came forward with suggestions on how to save MILLIONS of Dollars. City Council leader…humm was she listening???…Well I won’t get started on this subject.
Ohhhh! before I forget. Wasn’t someone paid MILLIONS of dollars by Mayor Franklin’s office to pay for that HORRID Song “A.T.L.” ?? This song was to increase Tourist revenue for Atlanta. Your tax dollars in action.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
The Watershed Management audit had damning findings on the way contractors are unmanaged and essentially write their own ticket. If they go over budget by tens of millions, it’s up to them, etc. Not one media outlet covered the huge flaws in a multi-billion dollar program.
I wonder sadly if hush money is the way the AJC and CL are staying afloat in these awful times for print.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:30 am
The only friends we really have in the Federal Government is the EPA because of the ridiculous pace we are trying to satisfy a consent order that was given 10 years ago and to my knowledge has not been modified.
Of course we do so without federal or state assistance.
What damming findings are you speaking of? I didn’t find that but I didn’t read the entire audit.
As far as Sgt. Kreher goes I have now met him and seen the overwhelming support he has received from his fellow officers and the public. He was being asked to Speak on behalf of a decimated police force and disabled officers who have been neglected by the administration.
I hope the public considers that we have asked these officers to risk their lives to protect us and we show them that IF they are to get injured in the line of Duty they will be forgotten and every medical need will be fought for months before being approved just before heading to trial.
Very few people in this City have a job like that. Let’s not punish the person, any further, that did the right thing and apologized for letting his emotions get the best of him on a sensitive issue in a Public Forum. How many people get fired for their first speaking gaffe in 17 years on the job? Nobody who posts here is held to that standard.
His comments, and the fact that the Mayor wasn’t present, do not constitute a legal threat. Poorly chosen words yes but not worth loosing a 17 year veteran of Atlanta’s shrinking Police Force.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Hey Shirley,
Could this have been a consideration? Oops! I forgot you really could care less about the riffed employees and their families. L.A. City Council approves early retirement plan despite opposition
The proposal also calls for postponing raises for thousands of workers to balance the budget without layoffs or closing City Hall twice a month. But one union threatens a court challenge.
By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston
5:42 PM PDT, June 26, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to move ahead with a plan to give early retirement to 2,400 employees while postponing raises for thousands of others, hoping to balance the budget without laying off workers or closing City Hall two days a month.
The council unanimously forwarded the proposal to the Coalition of L.A. City Unions for a ratification vote by its 22,000 members, saying that it would free up much-needed money over the next two years.
“We can’t afford not to do it,” Councilwoman Janice Hahn said after a closed-door meeting that lasted nearly four hours.
Before the council even cast its vote, a representative of another union said his members probably would file a court challenge to the early retirement proposal, a copy of which has not been released by city officials.
“The [plan] that they’re proposing is not legal,” said Bob Aquino, executive director of the Engineers and Architects Assn., which represents roughly 7,800 city workers and is not part of the coalition.
He accused the council of excluding some unions from its early retirement talks. And he warned that the council has not been provided with a legally required actuarial study that would spell out the long-term cost of the plan to the city’s pension system, which is projected to consume an increasingly large share of the city budget over the next five years.
The proposed labor pact sent to the council Friday applies to civilian workers, including those who provide such services as trash pickup, park maintenance and library operations. Negotiations are still under way for police officers, firefighters and other unions.
Aquino’s warning echoed comments made two days ago by Gary Toebben, president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Toebben called on the mayor and the council to release the information showing the five-year impact of the early retirement plan.”It is important that this information now be shared with the citizens of Los Angeles,” he said.
Coalition representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement after the vote that the union pact would save more than $500 million over the next two years by delaying raises and reducing the size of the workforce.
Villaraigosa insisted that workers would cover the “net cost” of the early retirements, sparing the pension system from a new burden.
Under the plan, workers hired before 1983 would see their pension contribution hiked to 6% from a range of 2% to 4%. Other city employees would see their contributions increase from 6% of their pay to 6.75% in July 2011.
Council members said they would receive an updated actuarial study within two weeks, in time for a final, public vote on the labor pact.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who voted for the early retirement concept, said he was reserving final judgment until he sees the long-term cost of the union agreement.
“The council has a vote later to decide whether [to] accept it or not,” he said.
Early retirement also will require a vote from members of the city’s primary pension fund, the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System.
Councilman Richard Alarcon said the plan would be less painful for the public than a furlough plan, which would force workers to take 26 unpaid days off in the coming year.
“We’re doing our best to save city services,” he said.
The proposed agreement with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions is designed to dramatically reduce the possibility of layoffs and avoid furloughs, which would force the city to shut some city offices every other Friday.
Under the proposal, the coalition’s 22,000 members would not receive raises for two years. Once that period is over, however, those workers would receive six raises between July 2011 and January 2014 — the equivalent of an 18.8% raise — plus two extra cash payouts.
To reduce the city’s payroll costs, the city would offer early retirement to workers who are as many as five years away from being eligible for retirement. To entice them to leave, the city would offer some workers cash payouts and enough years of service to qualify for retirement ahead of schedule.
City officials have been increasingly anxious about the rising costs of retirement benefits at its two pension systems — one covering public safety workers, the other for civilian employees.
A May report from the city’s top financial advisor warned that the city’s required pension contribution — money that would otherwise be used to pay for basic services — could jump from approximately $660 million next year to more than $1.6 billion by 2013-14.
That increase “far exceeds any projected revenue growth” and is not sustainable, acting City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna wrote.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
enjoy
June 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
school
June 26th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Thanks Creative Loafing for the above post…