Jack -

Why no comment on the Interstate Ave / Chavez renaming issue?

I believe this is the fix proposed so that injured workers will come back to work light duty jobs. This should actually save us some money. Currently, there is no incentive for an injured worker to ever come back to work. They just stay out on disability until retirement age and we end up paying that full disability benefit anyway. I remember some stories being reported about this by the local MSM earlier this year. It was a big controversy that the Police and Fire were not using employees for light duty work and instead were paying for a whole other employee/contract employee to do that work.

Somewhat related, why does Multnomah County give the police and fire retirement benefits to Parole/Probation Officers?

They don't run into burning buildings and when they are "in the field" and run into a situation, they call the real police to take care of the matter.

The financial liabilites thrust upon the taxpayers are, in essence, a means of pandering to the varying unions that donate to their respective political campaigns-look no further than Randy Leonard and the proposal you point out.

Bingo! Z has figured it out! How long will we have to wait until the rest of Portland catches on to the scam? You have to really dig into the financials to figure out how much cops, firefighters, deputy sheriffs, and yes - probation officers earn. If you add it all up: salaries, health benefits, retirement, "add pays", overtime, it's a bundle. Compare that to what others make for the same occupations around Oregon and you'll find a HUGE discrepancy. The elected officials know what side their bread is buttered on. This is Oregon, we do things differently here. Get used to it.

Since there is a "HUGE discrepancy" between the same occupations, and politicians and government officials believe there should be parity, then it would only be natural to decrease the cops, firefighters, deputy sheriffs and probation officers pay. Right? It should work both ways, Ted K.

My dad is a retired firefighter who was forced out on injury just a couple of years before he was due to retire. He was totally broken down (both shoulders, knees and elbows are all blown). He had to fight for many years for coverage of those injuries that put him out of a job. Trust me, these guys just want to work, put out fires and save lives. I don't know about parole officers, though. They probably don't get hurt much anyway.

Every now and then, one will drop a heavy bong on his foot, or accidentally spray paint into his eyes while tagging a church.

Okay armchair quarterbacks, if parole and probation officers have it easy, why don't YOU apply for the job? I've known a couple. Whereas police officers encounter many ordinary citizens during a regular shift, probation and parole officers, by the very definition of their job, must deal exclusively with criminals. Every one of their, ah, "clients" is a bad guy. Many have known violent tendencies. Yeah, I think they deserve the same perks as the cops.

Didn't the state legislature just pass something that changed the definition of "service-related injury" to include things that may have little connection to actual uniformed service? Like, if a cop or firefighter gets prostate cancer, it's assumed to be "service-related" and thus qualifies for disability medical coverage. If this is related to that at all, yes, this will be very expensive.

Miles, you might be thinking of Senate Bill 560 "relating to claims for work-related injuries by certain public safety officers." According to the bill history it was still in committee upon adjournment.