Greg Reeves - Lawman
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Hamilton University

Lexington, KY

#1 May 14, 2011
This is a note posted on Facebook by Tom Bell:
There has been a lot of talk lately about the police department in Georgetown. Most of the talk centers on the lack of a permanent building, the staffing levels and the morale. But it looks like the one thing missing is the truth. I guess the truth is always hard to take.
I read with great interest the article in the May 10th edition of the News-Graphic. That was really what pushed me to write this piece. While no one disagrees that the police should have one building to house the entire police department; how, what and where remain in dispute. I especially like the picture on the back page. According to the article,“At roll call, about 15 officers, some standing, gather in a hallway outside the office of the patrol lieutenant, the detective’s office and a room shared by two sergeants…” If you look at that picture, you can count 4 patrol officers and one patrol sergeant. You might also notice the chief, a captain and the sergeant who oversees evidence, training and fleet. How often are they present at roll call? There is one other person I’m not familiar with sitting down (Is it the reporter?). So where are the 15 officers? There are only 3 or 4 per shift anyway (unless it’s a Tuesday). Also remember that the shifts overlap. So while roll call is going on the off-going shift is still on the street. Usually (at least when I worked there) roll call was led by the off-going patrol sergeant, the off-going shift wasn’t present (usually). The only roll call at the Quality Drive location (where the picture was taken) is the 0700 roll call. The 1400 and 2200 roll calls are held at the Outlet Center location. Again let me restate that I believe the officers deserve one building.
In this article the chief says “there’s not a police officer here who will mind paying the extra money to make sure things get done right”. Really? I bet if you polled the patrol officers about what was most important to them a new building would be far down on the list. Pay raises, new vehicles and respect would be near the top of the list. Officers are paid (in part) to patrol the streets and be a presence to deter crime. With the advent of MDT’s (mobile data terminals) officers can do the bulk of their reports in their vehicles. In fact, I bet if you asked an officer he (or she) would say they that they don’t spend a lot of time in the station. A police car IS the office for a patrol officer. The thing is the chief doesn’t care what his line staff wants; he wants what HE wants.
As far as morale goes let’s talk about that. The chief is a past president of the Kentucky Chiefs of Police. The International Association of Chiefs of Police is another group that I am sure he is a member of or at least has heard of. This group has numerous resources available to law enforcement executives to help and guide them in their positions. In a guide available to chiefs for recruitment, retention and turnover the top 2 internal factors for turnover is salary and poor leadership. The number one internal factor affecting an employee’s decision to stay or leave a job is the relationship he or she has with his or her immediate supervisor. Add in inadequate feedback, dysfunctional organizational structures, inadequate recognition and lack of career growth it’s no wonder GPD can’t keep anybody.
Hamilton University

Lexington, KY

#2 May 14, 2011
Continued:

Does anybody ever wonder why the chief fought so hard against the management audit recommended by the past administration? The chief thinks that lack of a permanent building is a cause of low morale for the officers. Has anybody asked the officers? If you haven’t heard, the bulk of the line supervisors have filed a grievance against the chief. Are you sure that he is really speaking for the whole department? There should be an audit of the police department by experts to identify the issues and make recommendations. The only reason to vehemently object is because you have something to hide.

The last thing that has been talked about is staffing. According to the IACP,“In recent years, police agencies nationwide have experienced increasing levels of staff turnover and difficulty in recruiting new officers. The problem is compounded by experienced officers, who have been the core of their agencies’ operations for years, who are beginning to retire. Some agencies are finding they do not have enough seasoned officers to take their place. If agencies are not able to address this issue, a serious imbalance will form in many departments between the number of experienced officers and newer recruits. As a result, the average years of experience for patrol officers will drop significantly. Over time, agencies with higher turnover and less experienced officers will suffer a reduction in productivity and lower quality of service delivery.” I wonder how many officers have left in the last 3 years?

The other thing that was mentioned in the news article and in the mayor’s budget message was the “national standards” for staffing. If I recall it was 2.5 officers for every thousand in the population. So the chief is saying he should have 72 officers. Really? Really? Let me just quote the IACP and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).

First the IACP:“Ready-made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions. Accordingly, they have no place in the IACP methodology. Defining patrol staffing allocation and deployment requirements is a complex endeavor which requires consideration of an extensive series of factors and a sizable body of reliable, current data.”



ICMA says:“The use of officers per thousand for police or fire deployment is an ineffective performance measure. Instead, the determination should be made by what time is required to perform the given tasks on a daily, monthly, and seasonal basis and deploying the appropriate resources to manage the workload. Many chiefs will state that the officers per thousand is a "national standard." Police agencies routinely speak about:

•“Recommended officers per 1,000 population” or

•“National Standard” for staffing or

• Comparisons to other municipalities

There are no such standards. Nor are there “recommended numbers of officer per thousand”. It is not useful to make comparisons with other communities.

So the bottom line is that the chief is misleading the mayor, the council and the community. If a group was allowed to come in and do an audit and get honest answers from staff, you would be amazed at the recommendations. Public safety is a necessity for any community and ours is no exception. But there needs to be transparency and accountability within the police department and I think it is painfully clear that at least one member is promoting his own agenda. I was amazed at the resources available from these two organizations (IACP and ICMA) for police management. Maybe the chief needs to spend less time buying degrees online and more time accessing the resources available to him and his command staff to make the police department a better place to work.
Mutt

United States

#3 May 16, 2011
Lawman??? HA!
Hamilton University

Waco, KY

#4 May 16, 2011
Continued:

Does anybody ever wonder why the chief fought so hard against the management audit recommended by the past administration? The chief thinks that lack of a permanent building is a cause of low morale for the officers. Has anybody asked the officers? If you haven’t heard, the bulk of the line supervisors have filed a grievance against the chief. Are you sure that he is really speaking for the whole department? There should be an audit of the police department by experts to identify the issues and make recommendations. The only reason to vehemently object is because you have something to hide.

The last thing that has been talked about is staffing. According to the IACP,“In recent years, police agencies nationwide have experienced increasing levels of staff turnover and difficulty in recruiting new officers. The problem is compounded by experienced officers, who have been the core of their agencies’ operations for years, who are beginning to retire. Some agencies are finding they do not have enough seasoned officers to take their place. If agencies are not able to address this issue, a serious imbalance will form in many departments between the number of experienced officers and newer recruits. As a result, the average years of experience for patrol officers will drop significantly. Over time, agencies with higher turnover and less experienced officers will suffer a reduction in productivity and lower quality of service delivery.” I wonder how many officers have left in the last 3 years?

The other thing that was mentioned in the news article and in the mayor’s budget message was the “national standards” for staffing. If I recall it was 2.5 officers for every thousand in the population. So the chief is saying he should have 72 officers. Really? Really? Let me just quote the IACP and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).

First the IACP:“Ready-made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions. Accordingly, they have no place in the IACP methodology. Defining patrol staffing allocation and deployment requirements is a complex endeavor which requires consideration of an extensive series of factors and a sizable body of reliable, current data.”

ICMA says:“The use of officers per thousand for police or fire deployment is an ineffective performance measure. Instead, the determination should be made by what time is required to perform the given tasks on a daily, monthly, and seasonal basis and deploying the appropriate resources to manage the workload. Many chiefs will state that the officers per thousand is a "national standard." Police agencies routinely speak about:

•“Recommended officers per 1,000 population” or

•“National Standard” for staffing or

• Comparisons to other municipalities

There are no such standards. Nor are there “recommended numbers of officer per thousand”. It is not useful to make comparisons with other communities.

So the bottom line is that the chief is misleading the mayor, the council and the community. If a group was allowed to come in and do an audit and get honest answers from staff, you would be amazed at the recommendations. Public safety is a necessity for any community and ours is no exception. But there needs to be transparency and accountability within the police department and I think it is painfully clear that at least one member is promoting his own agenda. I was amazed at the resources available from these two organizations (IACP and ICMA) for police management. Maybe the chief needs to spend less time buying degrees online and more time accessing the resources available to him and his command staff to make the police department a better place to work.
Dweezil Zappa

Georgetown, KY

#5 May 25, 2011
Egomaniac - not bad for a local guy with a HS diploma - a thief with a badge.
sgt

Georgetown, KY

#6 May 25, 2011
I always wondered how Reeves could afford a $500.000+ house on his salary. I smell poo poo...I know his wife got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and wiggled her way out of it. If it would have been anybody else they would still be in jail. Reeves should be investigated.
Dweezil Zappa wrote:
Egomaniac - not bad for a local guy with a HS diploma - a thief with a badge.
sgt

Georgetown, KY

#7 May 25, 2011
Greg Reeves reminds me of Barney Fife. He and Scott Starnes are a joke and a waste of taxpayers money! LOL...
Mutt wrote:
Lawman??? HA!
Master of the Art

Lexington, KY

#8 Jun 2, 2011
Dweezil Zappa wrote:
Egomaniac - not bad for a local guy with a HS diploma - a thief with a badge.
He and Brad Penn crawled out from under the same rock.
Truth

Nicholasville, KY

#9 Jun 2, 2011
"Does anybody ever wonder why the chief fought so hard against the management audit recommended by the past administration?"

Hey Tom, he never fought against a "management audit", because a "management audit" was never proposed. Remember, is was a "time management audit" (as if they were wasting time) and he never fought against it. The reason it never went further is because your buddy, the previous idiot mayor had lied to council and then tried to misrepresent it to council. If they actually had trusted her she could have gotten it done. She had already signed the contract for the audit for $10,000.00. By the way at $150.00 per hour from the north side of Cincy with travel time, how complete do you think that audit would have been? And yes she can do that......IF IT'S IN THE BUDGET!! Guess what? It wasnt. If that council had any nuts they would have held her accountable for it becuase thats ILLEGAL!
If there was anything that he should have been fired for, then why in the hell didnt she get it done? I'll answer that for you.... THERE'S NOT! Hell he even made you several hundred thousand dollars. You should be thanking him!
Tom Bell

Hueysville, KY

#10 Jun 4, 2011
Well it’s nice to see that the Kool-aid still flows free at the GPD, even though a majority of the line staff expressed no confidence in reeves. You must have been one who didn’t have the nuts to sign. The FOG’s pitiful attempts to defend him get more ludicrous each and every time. The Mayor can approve any expenditure up to and including the amount of $10,000. So the mayor didn’t need council approval to get it done. And contrary to your skewed recollection reeves was adamantly against any type of audit of his beloved fiefdom. Funny how from that entire piece that was the only thing your puny mind could find to attack. Reeves has done plenty to have himself removed as chief; violations of policy, ethics violations, and possibly even misdemeanor offenses involving his fake degree. I can’t explain why KTS didn’t can his ass when she was in office. Maybe she was fearful of him like the current mayor; maybe she was given bad legal advice; only she can explain that. And thanks for validating that reeves was responsible for the settlement in that case. I would think if an employee cost a company that amount of money due to such egregious, malicious and offensive behavior that would be enough to fire him. Oh and a couple of other things; have enough nuts to put your real name then maybe someone might take you seriously and please find a spell check program. I await your well thought out response. I hope you don't spend too much time looking up some of the words in my response. It will slow down your reply..
Tom Hell

Nerinx, KY

#11 Jun 4, 2011
Tom Bell wrote:
Well it’s nice to see that the Kool-aid still flows free at the GPD, even though a majority of the line staff expressed no confidence in reeves. You must have been one who didn’t have the nuts to sign. The FOG’s pitiful attempts to defend him get more ludicrous each and every time. The Mayor can approve any expenditure up to and including the amount of $10,000. So the mayor didn’t need council approval to get it done. And contrary to your skewed recollection reeves was adamantly against any type of audit of his beloved fiefdom. Funny how from that entire piece that was the only thing your puny mind could find to attack. Reeves has done plenty to have himself removed as chief; violations of policy, ethics violations, and possibly even misdemeanor offenses involving his fake degree. I can’t explain why KTS didn’t can his ass when she was in office. Maybe she was fearful of him like the current mayor; maybe she was given bad legal advice; only she can explain that. And thanks for validating that reeves was responsible for the settlement in that case. I would think if an employee cost a company that amount of money due to such egregious, malicious and offensive behavior that would be enough to fire him. Oh and a couple of other things; have enough nuts to put your real name then maybe someone might take you seriously and please find a spell check program. I await your well thought out response. I hope you don't spend too much time looking up some of the words in my response. It will slow down your reply..
You dont listen do you! A mayor can only spend if the money is BUDGETED! Legally she would have needed a budget amendment to spend it as it was no where in the budget. If that were the case, then why didnt she go ahead with it? And dont expect me to respond quickly, I have better things to do than to sit on here and defame people I dont like.
Tom Bell

Hueysville, KY

#12 Jun 5, 2011
Wow you really got me on that one. Nice response supported by fact and on point. I am still amazed that of everything in that note this is the only thing you choose to argue. You don’t want to counter any of the other things I wrote about? I guess you never heard of a mayor’s discretionary fund. I checked KRS 83A, 91A and 92 and couldn’t find any reference to the point you were trying to make.. Next time quote a statute or ordinance. As a full time foggie aren’t you just a little tired of having to fight his battles for him?
You really have better things to do? Somehow I doubt it. I also thought I would include a definition of defame for you:

1. To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.
2. Archaic To disgrace.

Show me where I damaged his reputation, character or good name. Show me one false statement or mistruth in any of my posts about him and I will issue an apology on here, facebook, the Georgetown News-Graphic and even a letter. You wouldn’t get the same from him or any of his cronies. I find you both laughable and sad. Continue hanging on like the lamprey to the shark. Eventually he will dry up and you will have to find a new host. Oh and nice play on my name. Still don't have the balls to use your real name, do you?
Tom Hell

Nicholasville, KY

#13 Jun 6, 2011
Tom Bell wrote:
Wow you really got me on that one. Nice response supported by fact and on point. I am still amazed that of everything in that note this is the only thing you choose to argue. You don’t want to counter any of the other things I wrote about? I guess you never heard of a mayor’s discretionary fund. I checked KRS 83A, 91A and 92 and couldn’t find any reference to the point you were trying to make.. Next time quote a statute or ordinance. As a full time foggie aren’t you just a little tired of having to fight his battles for him?
You really have better things to do? Somehow I doubt it. I also thought I would include a definition of defame for you:
1. To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.
2. Archaic To disgrace.
Show me where I damaged his reputation, character or good name. Show me one false statement or mistruth in any of my posts about him and I will issue an apology on here, facebook, the Georgetown News-Graphic and even a letter. You wouldn’t get the same from him or any of his cronies. I find you both laughable and sad. Continue hanging on like the lamprey to the shark. Eventually he will dry up and you will have to find a new host. Oh and nice play on my name. Still don't have the balls to use your real name, do you?
And again you deflect. To stay on point, I'll say it again. KTS HAD NO discretionary fund! Remember idiot? She used it as a campaign tool and bragged about it often. The money could NOT have been spent without breaking the law.
Steve

Nicholasville, KY

#14 Jun 6, 2011
Tom Hell wrote:
<quoted text>
And again you deflect. To stay on point, I'll say it again. KTS HAD NO discretionary fund! Remember idiot? She used it as a campaign tool and bragged about it often. The money could NOT have been spent without breaking the law.
Unless I remember wrong, didnt she sign a contract for this audit? If the money had no been appropriated wouldnt that be a crime? ummmm, I think it would be.
Tom Bell

Hueysville, KY

#15 Jun 7, 2011
Wow resorting to name calling? I must have struck a nerve. I’ll tell you what Steve and Don, uh Tom. I’ll make you a deal. Even though you haven’t proven anything by presenting any factual information other than “Because I say so”, I will concede this one. Ok, guys, you win..
Now let’s debate everything else in that post. I’m ready. What do you want to debate first? The number of officers at roll call or maybe the quote about officers wanting to pay more “to get things right”? Oh, I know let’s debate the section about morale.. Because even though half the department has no confidence in reeves’ leadership, morale should be at an all time high, right?
Hey maybe we could debate the section about the “national standards” regarding staffing. You know, the part where he and the mayor both say we need 2.5 per 1,000 or 72 officers in Georgetown. Even though no such standard exists I’m sure you have a solid position on that one as well.
Bottom line is this. You spend all your time trying to protect and promote the FOG when all is slowly spinning out of control. You have been brought out into the light and are now seen for what you are. Couple that with the lack of confidence over half of the line staff have in reeves it begs the question, why is he still in charge? Why is someone who misleads the mayor, council and community to further his own ego; protects the loyal and punishes the “freethinkers”; Continues to lie about his education to make himself something he’s not; why is this person still allowed to hold such a position of authority? It almost makes one wonder if any of the rumors are true.
You can’t debate any of those points and do you know why? Can your tiny pea-sized brains comprehend that it is because they are true? How do you argue with the truth? You can’t.
Tom Hell

Nicholasville, KY

#16 Jun 8, 2011
Tom Bell wrote:
Wow resorting to name calling? I must have struck a nerve. I’ll tell you what Steve and Don, uh Tom. I’ll make you a deal. Even though you haven’t proven anything by presenting any factual information other than “Because I say so”, I will concede this one. Ok, guys, you win..
Now let’s debate everything else in that post. I’m ready. What do you want to debate first? The number of officers at roll call or maybe the quote about officers wanting to pay more “to get things right”? Oh, I know let’s debate the section about morale.. Because even though half the department has no confidence in reeves’ leadership, morale should be at an all time high, right?
Hey maybe we could debate the section about the “national standards” regarding staffing. You know, the part where he and the mayor both say we need 2.5 per 1,000 or 72 officers in Georgetown. Even though no such standard exists I’m sure you have a solid position on that one as well.
Bottom line is this. You spend all your time trying to protect and promote the FOG when all is slowly spinning out of control. You have been brought out into the light and are now seen for what you are. Couple that with the lack of confidence over half of the line staff have in reeves it begs the question, why is he still in charge? Why is someone who misleads the mayor, council and community to further his own ego; protects the loyal and punishes the “freethinkers”; Continues to lie about his education to make himself something he’s not; why is this person still allowed to hold such a position of authority? It almost makes one wonder if any of the rumors are true.
You can’t debate any of those points and do you know why? Can your tiny pea-sized brains comprehend that it is because they are true? How do you argue with the truth? You can’t.
This should be easy. Please tell me exaclty what law he has broken, SOP he has violated, or ethics violation he has trumped. Keep your personal opinions, rumors, hearsay etc to yourself and give me just one example of an action that would warrent him being fired.

Since: Jun 09

Georgetown, KY

#17 Jun 8, 2011
You're exactly right, it is an easy one! He wrote a letter to Varney requesting a pay raise based upon his newly earned Bachelor's Degree from Hamilton University. I think we all know that Hamilton University really was nothing more than a paper mill! Very simply, he paid to get a degree that he never earned. This is also a misdemeanor in Kentucky. It is against the law to solicit a pay increase or job advancement using a fraudulent degree!
Tom Hell

Nicholasville, KY

#18 Jun 8, 2011
Shane Marcum wrote:
You're exactly right, it is an easy one! He wrote a letter to Varney requesting a pay raise based upon his newly earned Bachelor's Degree from Hamilton University. I think we all know that Hamilton University really was nothing more than a paper mill! Very simply, he paid to get a degree that he never earned. This is also a misdemeanor in Kentucky. It is against the law to solicit a pay increase or job advancement using a fraudulent degree!
I said without rumor and personal opinions! Your "I think we all know" comment doesnt comply. Unless the protocol requires a specific type of college by which you can attain your degree, then a degree is a degree. Does anything require your degree to come from Georgetown College or UK? No! Therefore no law broken. Thanks for playing, please try again.

Since: Jun 09

Georgetown, KY

#19 Jun 8, 2011
Tom Hell wrote:
<quoted text>
I said without rumor and personal opinions! Your "I think we all know" comment doesnt comply. Unless the protocol requires a specific type of college by which you can attain your degree, then a degree is a degree. Does anything require your degree to come from Georgetown College or UK? No! Therefore no law broken. Thanks for playing, please try again.
The question isn't whether there is any requirement as to where your degree comes from, its whether there is a legitimate degree! In this case there isn't! It isn't a rumor or an opinion, its a fact! You can spin it however you may, but the facts are clear that Reeves is not a college graduate. He cannot show attendance at any college, and he certainly doesn't have transcripts! He misled the City and all others to believe that he had graduated from a college, but the fact remains that he didn't!

Since: Jun 09

Georgetown, KY

#20 Jun 8, 2011
Tom Hell wrote:
<quoted text>
I said without rumor and personal opinions! Your "I think we all know" comment doesnt comply. Unless the protocol requires a specific type of college by which you can attain your degree, then a degree is a degree. Does anything require your degree to come from Georgetown College or UK? No! Therefore no law broken. Thanks for playing, please try again.
Let me clarify my last post. Reeves cannot show attendance at a college, through transcripts, that resulted in a Bachelor's degree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Georgetown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Suspicious car 27 min crazierthanthou 3
Shutting down high school daycare 3 hr Jo Mamas Luver 2
Toyota Bonuses another slap in the face 3 hr Jo Mamas Luver 145
applebees 3 hr yep 22
TMMK to announce 9 hr haha 13
shooting threat at high school 15 hr fill er up 8
Haddix Construction LLC (Sep '16) Wed nothaddix 14

Georgetown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Georgetown Mortgages