I’ve had this idea for some time now and just now I have thought to think of it. I think it would be a great idea in terms of all departments having balanced member counts. If this were to be implemented, it could be controlled by either the Governor or the Congress. Regardless of who is authorized to change it, it should require the advice of the department in question. The department member budget to equal departments and bring down the excessive member count. Please let me know how you feel about this in the reply section.
No? No explanation? I’ve seen you do this numerous times. Provide reasoning.
Why do we need to manage virtual Firestone bucks? No one has time to manage a budget. This group has over 100 state and county employees and over 10 departments.
Can we not shitily copy Mayflower with little reason?
It’s not that kind of budget. @TheBloxKiller123
@DannyboyJurist Putting a limit on departments for a valid reason is not copying another State. They did not come up with “department member budgets”.
They’re the only place I’ve seen use it. And with the amount of crap the County sees everyday, I really don’t think limiting the ammonia of LEOs is a good idea.
It’s not limiting the amount of LEOs, this is only so that a certain department doesn’t hog all of the members. For example, ( this is fake )
FSP gets around 105 members, while SCSO only gets 32 members, or vice versa. That just isn’t fair. It isn’t limiting the total amount of LEOs, but to make it fair for all LEA’s. In real life, this happens. It’d be smart to implement this to get rid of issues in the future.
I actually kind of like this idea. I’ve seen something similar to it be brought up by @IJake15, and I think we should be focusing more on the quality of our applicants. Nowadays, departments don’t want to have little members because then they’ll be seen as “inactive” compared to other departments who may be accepting too many people. DHS doesn’t have as much members as FSP, and they higher quality applicants, yet they’re still perfectly fine. I think having department member limits will allow us to focus on quality, and have more of a “there’s one _ many spots left to join, so the best get in” mentality.
I totally agree with you and I appreciate your support.
Not only will this help us out, it will make department leaders look at the quality of the applicant, verses someone who has little to no competence.
I’m abstaining on this one. I really can’t decide what’s good and what’s bad; there’s two sides.
I don’t know what’s bad about this because there is nothing bad about it, maybe one thing.
Well yeah its copying mayflower but irl police departments copy each other all the time. I think this would help large departments like FSP get better because all the inactive troopers would have to go and it would bring extra activity and competition from those who want to keep their jobs.
truth is they already have that, pretty sure the budget for fsp is 200
That’s for one department, smart one. That’s irrelevant.
scso also 200 http://prntscr.com/j97lc5