This post represents my personal opinions only.

The Trib Review has an article detailing the FOP’s battle with the Peduto administration regarding pay that suspended officers can receive.

Peduto spokesman Tim McNulty said the document was a “sidebar” pact negotiated before Peduto took office. He said the administration never agreed to the practice and that the mayor was unaware of it until this week when he ordered an end to the practice.

The union has vowed to fight Peduto’s order in arbitration.

“The former police contract expired on Dec. 31, 2014, and such sidebar agreements to that contract are no longer in effect,” McNulty said.

The FOP, however, produced a copy of the agreement signed Jan. 22, 2014, by union and police officials and an assistant city solicitor.

From a purely logical perspective, a police officer is not entitled to secondary assignments for which they receive extra pay unless they are officers in good standing. The ability to be eligible for secondary assignments is limited to an officer’s performance. It is a perk, not an entitlement. So any officer who is suspended, would not be in good standing, and therefor would not be eligible.

Does it make any sense that a supended officer can be paid for time that they do not work and for which they are not eligible?

The squabble may come down however to contractual details. The signed agreement appears to be dated just a few weeks after the mayor was sworn in and would have been the culmination of efforts and communications with the previous mayor. Thus Peduto is blaming Ravenstahl. None of the people who signed this would be deemed as “the Peduto administration.” In the few weeks after taking office, Peduto would not have had his own team fully in place and be aware of all the crap agreements that the previous administration had begun to set in place.

Some community activists have long argured that the full police contract, including sidebars should be available to the public for scrutiny, and this is an example as to why.

Secondary assignments are ones outside the officer’s regular duties. Businesses and other entities pay the officer’s salary plus an administrative fee to the City, and then the officers are paid from that money. In the case of Matakovich, he is being paid/expects to be paid money that no business is requesting or paying for. That means this overtime money is at the tax payer’s expense. We, the taxpayers are being required to pay a man for not doing a job that he is ineligible to do. It is our tax dollars wasted.

Personally, I’m disappointed in the FOP’s position on this. At a time when community/police relations are already troubled, one has to wonder how this will impact the way that the people of Pittsburgh see the police.

1. Are they public safety officers who serve the City of Pittsburgh residents, or are they free loaders getting paid for work they don’t do?
2. Is the profession of being a Pittsburgh police officer about serving the public, or is it about how much extra money an officer can make from extra work? What are our officer’s motivations for being officers?
3. Will the residents of Pittsburgh recognize that it is but a few officers who may work/ scam the system, or will this tarnish the reputation of all Pittsburgh police?
4. In terms of improving public safety in Pittsburgh, is the problem Pittsburgh Police, or is it the FOP which has too much power and makes outrageous demands such as paying people for secondary assignments they don’t actually do?
5. Are there other ways that the residents of Pittsburgh are being taken for a ride by the FOP?

For good policing to happen, especially community-based policing, officers need to have the residents on their side. There must be a good rapport and partnership with the residents. Will this squabble help or hinder that, and why does the FOP want to be seen as the entity willing to undermine public support for the police?