Thought you should see

Homewood, IL

#41 Apr 13, 2010
Hummm wrote:
Those facts may be wrong but...How do you explain she sues the village looses and moves up in the ranks that fast? Im still trying to figure out why she would want to stay after she sued the first time. There is never a shortage of cop jobs. Doesn't get the chief job and she sues again. That is one of those things that make you go hummmmm Looks to funny to me to just ignore.
What do you mean by moving up the ranks that fast......... the lawsuit you refer to was 12 years ago! She is not suing for not getting the chief's job, the lawsuit is over a demotion that had no merit. The only explanation she was given for it was based on the color of her skin, that was when the comment of the frying pan was stated.(Refer to the Sun Times article for the exact quote.)
WHAT

Chicago, IL

#42 Apr 14, 2010
Hummm wrote:
Those facts may be wrong but...How do you explain she sues the village looses and moves up in the ranks that fast? Im still trying to figure out why she would want to stay after she sued the first time. There is never a shortage of cop jobs. Doesn't get the chief job and she sues again. That is one of those things that make you go hummmmm Looks to funny to me to just ignore.
seriously, stop talking... your stupid is showing
Spiro

Beecher, IL

#43 Apr 14, 2010
It is time to recruit new people for these next elections. People who are willing to stand up for the rights of the citizens and will be accountable. Some of these people we have now should be run out of town on a rail, starting with Benson and Wiliams. They are the most incompetent, arrogant and ignorant board members I have ever seen. Towers has proven that he's not too smart either.
Jeanine

Hazel Crest, IL

#44 Apr 14, 2010
You are very accurate in your post, however, new officers, full or part time must undergo testing prior to their hiring, the Chief's position is completely different then the rules and regs for officers. Also, should they get rid of 6 full timers and replace them with part timers, that thereby would reduce the amount of protection the residents have by half. The very thing residents need and want is more protection. Also, you stated they may have to pay back the money, wouldn't they also have to pay it back with interest? And, couldn't federal charges be filed given they broke the contract with the federal government when they accepted the grant money? In essence, SV accepted the grant money knowing they couldn't lay off an officer, let alone 6. Can you say misuse of funds, misappropriation of funds, perhaps conduct unbecoming an official? If they lay off 6 officers to hire part timers and then the government files charges against them, then the Village is in worse shape because now you have a whole lot of attorney fees the residents are going to pay for, in the least if they have to pay back the money, it may be with interest and the Village residents loose more! What were they thinking? Oh, that's right, they weren't.
Thought you should see wrote:
So now I hear that there is a special meeting today with Brunetta and Chief Martin to discuss laying off 6 full time officers and bringing in 6 part time officers. If you ask me this looks like retaliation for the vote of no confidence. But besides that, if Brunetta would of read and understood the Federal Grant that President Obama had put into action, that mandates any village/town's police department who receives this grant to hire a new officer may NOT layoff any full time officers. This grant was given to insure that police departments have enough officers to insure the well being of the residents. By laying off 6 officers Sauk Village runs the risk of not only losing the grant, but repaying any money they have already used. My other question would also be, by hiring 6 part time and laying off 6 full time where does the village actually save any money, the officers laid off will still receive unemployment, which is paid by the village. My fear would be, these 6 part time officers will be brought in like the Chief was and not be required to take the mandatory physical, psychological, and background exams. Again this proves what many residents have been saying, the people running the village seem to have no understanding of laws and procedures, Mayor Towers needs to take a hard look at what the voters want from him. After all, it was these people that put him in office, not the handful he choices to defend.
We all bleed blue

United States

#45 Apr 14, 2010
This is what Martin's buddy former chief of Governors State university police (Albert Chesser)did . He brought in all his retired buddies to watch the house while he worked other security details or take fishing trips.Chesser destroyed the police department and I'm sure he is in Martins ear as well they are really close . Chesser hired martin as a PT Officer at Governors State Univ . If martin hand picks the PT officers the village will suffer.For any one reading that has a vested intrest in the PD and the town good luck .
Thought you should see wrote:
So now I hear that there is a special meeting today with Brunetta and Chief Martin to discuss laying off 6 full time officers and bringing in 6 part time officers. If you ask me this looks like retaliation for the vote of no confidence. But besides that, if Brunetta would of read and understood the Federal Grant that President Obama had put into action, that mandates any village/town's police department who receives this grant to hire a new officer may NOT layoff any full time officers. This grant was given to insure that police departments have enough officers to insure the well being of the residents. By laying off 6 officers Sauk Village runs the risk of not only losing the grant, but repaying any money they have already used. My other question would also be, by hiring 6 part time and laying off 6 full time where does the village actually save any money, the officers laid off will still receive unemployment, which is paid by the village. My fear would be, these 6 part time officers will be brought in like the Chief was and not be required to take the mandatory physical, psychological, and background exams. Again this proves what many residents have been saying, the people running the village seem to have no understanding of laws and procedures, Mayor Towers needs to take a hard look at what the voters want from him. After all, it was these people that put him in office, not the handful he choices to defend.
Jeanine

Hazel Crest, IL

#46 Apr 14, 2010
To Thought You should Know-I think you completely missed the point that "hmmm" was trying to make. It appears they were merely trying to state that the circumstances look suspicious. The lawsuit you refered to may have been filed 12 years ago, but was not settled until 6/22/2000 in the Appelate Court, so it is only 10 years old. Secondly, what I think hmmm is trying to convey regarding the fast moving up in the ranks is the mere fact that there were several other officers and detectives who had more seniority than she did, she was a police officer since 1993, then became a sgt, which was well deserved-she passed the test, in 2003, then a mere 5 years later she was given the deputy chief's job when others were more experienced, more qualified, more senoirity. However, the DC is an appointed position, not elected and not tested for, it is up to the Chief of Police. I don't think hmmm meant anything negative about her in particular, I think they were just trying to state that in the scheme of things, she did move up the ranks pretty fast for a police department and given the fact she sued sauk village for discrimination, then she becomes the dc. You need to keep in mind, it is up to the Chief of police in sv whether or not he wants to keep the current dc or replace them, he doesn't need to give a reason. The only thing he cannot do is remove them to a position lower than the one they had prior to taking the dc position. For example, if they were a sgt. he cannot make them a patrol officer. And you refer to the statement the only reason she was given for her demotion was her skin color, well, maybe it is true, but then again, maybe it isn't, you are looking at media, neither you nor I were there and anyone with a brain would look at the media and how they like to sensationalize things, it makes for good ratings. I think hmmm was trying to say, she went from sgt. to deputy chief in 5 short years, that does seem pretty fast.
Thought you should see

Homewood, IL

#47 Apr 14, 2010
Jeanine wrote:
To Thought You should Know-I think you completely missed the point that "hmmm" was trying to make. It appears they were merely trying to state that the circumstances look suspicious. The lawsuit you refered to may have been filed 12 years ago, but was not settled until 6/22/2000 in the Appelate Court, so it is only 10 years old. Secondly, what I think hmmm is trying to convey regarding the fast moving up in the ranks is the mere fact that there were several other officers and detectives who had more seniority than she did, she was a police officer since 1993, then became a sgt, which was well deserved-she passed the test, in 2003, then a mere 5 years later she was given the deputy chief's job when others were more experienced, more qualified, more senoirity. However, the DC is an appointed position, not elected and not tested for, it is up to the Chief of Police. I don't think hmmm meant anything negative about her in particular, I think they were just trying to state that in the scheme of things, she did move up the ranks pretty fast for a police department and given the fact she sued sauk village for discrimination, then she becomes the dc. You need to keep in mind, it is up to the Chief of police in sv whether or not he wants to keep the current dc or replace them, he doesn't need to give a reason. The only thing he cannot do is remove them to a position lower than the one they had prior to taking the dc position. For example, if they were a sgt. he cannot make them a patrol officer. And you refer to the statement the only reason she was given for her demotion was her skin color, well, maybe it is true, but then again, maybe it isn't, you are looking at media, neither you nor I were there and anyone with a brain would look at the media and how they like to sensationalize things, it makes for good ratings. I think hmmm was trying to say, she went from sgt. to deputy chief in 5 short years, that does seem pretty fast.
I do not believe I really missed the point, except if you think I took it as him bad mouthing her. He stated a fact, but when you say moved up quickly, that is open to interpretation. I just wanted people to see the time frame in years and to judge for themselves if it is quickly or not. Yes she went from Sgt. to DC in 5 years but spent 10 years before that as a patrolmen. She put in her time, and even though she lost her lawsuit, she still continued to come to work and do her job, instead of throwing a "hissy fit" and just up and quitting the job. Also, what makes you so sure I just took information from the media, things that are coming out now, I have known for awhile, and made sure had some basis behind it then just a hear say matter. There was more then one person in the area when he made the comment regarding her demotion. Yes I am fully aware of law and procedure of how Chiefs and DC's come into and out of power. Again, if the chief wanted to demote her that his is choice. But they better have a better reason then just because, even if the is their right. You also called in the other posting regarding the laying off of officers, in there was stated by you that full and part time must complete the mandatory testing by law.(I am not direct quoting so if I have misquoted I do apologize and want to one to take this as your direct quote) the point I was trying to make was they seem to conduct a lot of the hiring (such as the chief) and demoting procedures should we say not exactly by the book. That they MAY bring in these part timers without the correct testing being conducted.
umm hello

United States

#48 Apr 14, 2010
Albert chesser is at the pd on a regular basis. if the chief gets what he wants he'll hire chesser in then appoint him dc like he has been trying these ppl have no clue what they are doing and certainly don't know the law or the rules and regs of the dept. The chiefs main quote is " I can because I'm chief" and the lovely meeting where he wouldn't answer any of the citizen questions because he's "not in an interview" when will he stop being supported for his color and be seen for his incompetence and illiteracy.
We all bleed blue

Park Forest, IL

#49 Apr 14, 2010
I agree and Chesser is an even bigger idiot he did not leave Governors State because he was ready to leave .
umm hello wrote:
Albert chesser is at the pd on a regular basis. if the chief gets what he wants he'll hire chesser in then appoint him dc like he has been trying these ppl have no clue what they are doing and certainly don't know the law or the rules and regs of the dept. The chiefs main quote is " I can because I'm chief" and the lovely meeting where he wouldn't answer any of the citizen questions because he's "not in an interview" when will he stop being supported for his color and be seen for his incompetence and illiteracy.
hummm

Oak Forest, IL

#50 Apr 14, 2010
You say "She is not suing for not getting the chief's job, the lawsuit is over a demotion that had no merit. "
Humm Thats funny..according to articles I have read this started the same month she was not handed the Chiefs job.* http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/ra... * They asked 4 an *independent, outside agency to investigate. Then she sues. This cry babying started the same month that chief job was given to someone else.
If the treatment was so bad she sued, Why did she stay at the same dept that was treating her so unfairly that she sued the last time and LOST? Shortage of Cop jobs available?? Funny she was promoted over and over why??
Something stinks...
I hope it gets to court..I would luv to hear the answers...
*What* Since you were never thought better..Its Be Quiet not Shut up...grow up

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/ra...
Thought you should see wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by moving up the ranks that fast......... the lawsuit you refer to was 12 years ago! She is not suing for not getting the chief's job, the lawsuit is over a demotion that had no merit. The only explanation she was given for it was based on the color of her skin, that was when the comment of the frying pan was stated.(Refer to the Sun Times article for the exact quote.)
duh

Chicago, IL

#52 Apr 14, 2010
hummm wrote:
You say "She is not suing for not getting the chief's job, the lawsuit is over a demotion that had no merit. "
Humm Thats funny..according to articles I have read this started the same month she was not handed the Chiefs job.* http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/ra... * They asked 4 an *independent, outside agency to investigate. Then she sues. This cry babying started the same month that chief job was given to someone else.
If the treatment was so bad she sued, Why did she stay at the same dept that was treating her so unfairly that she sued the last time and LOST? Shortage of Cop jobs available?? Funny she was promoted over and over why??
Something stinks...
I hope it gets to court..I would luv to hear the answers...
*What* Since you were never thought better..Its Be Quiet not Shut up...grow up
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/ra...
<quoted text>
"What* Since you were never thought better..Its Be Quiet not Shut up...grow up"..... what does this mean??..... you seriously have issues..... seek help
Thought you should see

Homewood, IL

#53 Apr 14, 2010
hummm wrote:
You say "She is not suing for not getting the chief's job, the lawsuit is over a demotion that had no merit. "
Humm Thats funny..according to articles I have read this started the same month she was not handed the Chiefs job.* http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/ra... * They asked 4 an *independent, outside agency to investigate. Then she sues. This cry babying started the same month that chief job was given to someone else.
If the treatment was so bad she sued, Why did she stay at the same dept that was treating her so unfairly that she sued the last time and LOST? Shortage of Cop jobs available?? Funny she was promoted over and over why??
Something stinks...
I hope it gets to court..I would luv to hear the answers...
*What* Since you were never thought better..Its Be Quiet not Shut up...grow up
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/ra...
<quoted text>
The article you refer to regarding the request for an independent review is for the following questionable hiring practices: The first being that the mayor was aggressively seeking recommendations of any African American males. Secondly, one of the candidates interviewed was the DC of Will County Sheriff's department, he completed the FBI management academy, scored the highest on the interview scores, the outline he presented in his interview for goals he would accomplish in the first 6 months to better the department is the outline now being used by the village hall and chief Martin. Why wasn't he hired? Maybe cause he was Caucasian? Going along with your argument that there are more qualified people in the police department that should of gotten the job, why were non of them approached or interviewed for the position of chief? What qualifications does Martin have? All the Sergeant's of Sauk Village have been to Staff and Command, Executive Management, and have Bachelors and/or Masters degrees in Police Management. Out of 5 Sergeants and other numerous officers they have 15 plus years of experience each and they were not qualified? What qualifications is the village exactly looking for? The Chief himself has never been to staff and command and even has no idea what even FMLA is! And in regards to previous lawsuits your information is incorrect.
hummm

Oak Forest, IL

#54 Apr 14, 2010
I don't know about any of that. Whats incorrect? I read the court papers when she sued last time... For your Information the Mayor didn't hire anyone...The *Trustees* voted to hire the chief. Any idea why someone would stay for years where they have been mistreated to the point they had to sue? I could understand if cop jobs were hard to find but that hasn't been the case. So why did she stay?
hummm

Oak Forest, IL

#55 Apr 14, 2010
*WHAT*.........You told me my stupid is showing and shut up...I said its *be quiet not shut up*... Not surprised an uneducated Hillbilly couldn't get that. I'll take you more seriously if you tell me to shut up to my face as for now you are just a joke, with a rude ignorant mouth hiding behind a computer. Lots of people have big ba....when it comes to talking on a computer. Not hard to figure out who the bigots are on here, the ones yelling the loudest!
Thought you should see

Homewood, IL

#56 Apr 14, 2010
hummm wrote:
I don't know about any of that. Whats incorrect? I read the court papers when she sued last time... For your Information the Mayor didn't hire anyone...The *Trustees* voted to hire the chief. Any idea why someone would stay for years where they have been mistreated to the point they had to sue? I could understand if cop jobs were hard to find but that hasn't been the case. So why did she stay?
Ok lets agree to disagree on topics of the past (old law suits) Lets focus the present, and the fact being that a WHOLE police department, minus one officer who only graduated from the academy a few weeks ago signed a vote of no confidence against the current chief.
Thought you should see

Homewood, IL

#57 Apr 14, 2010
hummm wrote:
I don't know about any of that. Whats incorrect? I read the court papers when she sued last time... For your Information the Mayor didn't hire anyone...The *Trustees* voted to hire the chief. Any idea why someone would stay for years where they have been mistreated to the point they had to sue? I could understand if cop jobs were hard to find but that hasn't been the case. So why did she stay?
You are 100% correct that the Trustees did in fact vote to hire Chief Martin. But why wasn't a more qualified candidate selected? Or please explain how they came to the conclusion that Chief Martin was the most qualified? Other candidates had more management training such has Staff and Command.
zzzzz

Western Springs, IL

#58 Apr 15, 2010
Jeanine wrote:
To Thought You should Know-I think you completely missed the point that "hmmm" was trying to make. It appears they were merely trying to state that the circumstances look suspicious. The lawsuit you refered to may have been filed 12 years ago, but was not settled until 6/22/2000 in the Appelate Court, so it is only 10 years old. Secondly, what I think hmmm is trying to convey regarding the fast moving up in the ranks is the mere fact that there were several other officers and detectives who had more seniority than she did, she was a police officer since 1993, then became a sgt, which was well deserved-she passed the test, in 2003, then a mere 5 years later she was given the deputy chief's job when others were more experienced, more qualified, more senoirity. However, the DC is an appointed position, not elected and not tested for, it is up to the Chief of Police. I don't think hmmm meant anything negative about her in particular, I think they were just trying to state that in the scheme of things, she did move up the ranks pretty fast for a police department and given the fact she sued sauk village for discrimination, then she becomes the dc. You need to keep in mind, it is up to the Chief of police in sv whether or not he wants to keep the current dc or replace them, he doesn't need to give a reason. The only thing he cannot do is remove them to a position lower than the one they had prior to taking the dc position. For example, if they were a sgt. he cannot make them a patrol officer. And you refer to the statement the only reason she was given for her demotion was her skin color, well, maybe it is true, but then again, maybe it isn't, you are looking at media, neither you nor I were there and anyone with a brain would look at the media and how they like to sensationalize things, it makes for good ratings. I think hmmm was trying to say, she went from sgt. to deputy chief in 5 short years, that does seem pretty fast.
How is 17 years with the department fast? Maybe it was long overdue, maybe it was'nt. Most officers career's are only 20 years so I do not think she moved up the ranks too fast especially considering its such a small department and until the last few years had many less officers then are there now. It was the lesser of two evil's. There was only one, maybe two people as or more qualified to do the job.
Jeanine

Hazel Crest, IL

#59 Apr 15, 2010
Nowadays, very rarely do you see an officer retiring after 20 years if he became an officer at age of 21. Also, you missed the point, what people are saying is that it seems very fast going from a sgt. to deputy chief within 5 years, not the totality of her time on the job. Read the post more carefully. They weren't too thrilled either when they took an officer and promoted them to Detective Sgt., not a dective, but a detective sgt, when there were 3 other detectives already for many years, but here an officer gets this huge promotion, people weren't happy then. Not saying the officer that was promoted doesn't do his job, but then again, you have detectives, doing their job, not demoted and along comes a patrol officer handed the sgt. of detectives position. They weren't happy then, it also seemed a whole lot fishy. I do believe he is now one of the complaining people.
zzzzz wrote:
<quoted text>How is 17 years with the department fast? Maybe it was long overdue, maybe it was'nt. Most officers career's are only 20 years so I do not think she moved up the ranks too fast especially considering its such a small department and until the last few years had many less officers then are there now. It was the lesser of two evil's. There was only one, maybe two people as or more qualified to do the job.
zzzzz

Western Springs, IL

#60 Apr 15, 2010
hummm wrote:
I don't know about any of that. Whats incorrect? I read the court papers when she sued last time... For your Information the Mayor didn't hire anyone...The *Trustees* voted to hire the chief. Any idea why someone would stay for years where they have been mistreated to the point they had to sue? I could understand if cop jobs were hard to find but that hasn't been the case. So why did she stay?
Cops stay because it is not easy to go from one dept. to another. They still have to test for another dept. regardless if they are already the police or not.Also, they lose seniority and may have to put in more time to balance their pension.If you were treated like this don't claim you would not stand up for yourself and not sue yourself.
zzzzz

Western Springs, IL

#61 Apr 15, 2010
hummm wrote:
I don't know about any of that. Whats incorrect? I read the court papers when she sued last time... For your Information the Mayor didn't hire anyone...The *Trustees* voted to hire the chief. Any idea why someone would stay for years where they have been mistreated to the point they had to sue? I could understand if cop jobs were hard to find but that hasn't been the case. So why did she stay?
Yes the mayor and did hire this chief just as he hired the chief of staff.Correct, the trustees voted these incomitents in but that is easy to do with trustee's like benson and meyers hanging onto towers coat tails voting for whatever he wants.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Sauk Village Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ex harvey police (Apr '09) 5 hr george mahony 59
Mayor Gonzalez - 4 more years! 8 hr Eye in the sky 5
midlothian election 9 hr Donnie Smith 86
Alsberry vs Donaldson 11 hr Chessmaster 5
Dowaliby Case 14 hr Resident2 16
Unbiased Voters 19 hr No Vote 17
Josh Deabel going down Sun Truth hurts 8
Sauk Village Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Sauk Village People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]