We'd like to direct our readers' attention this morning, to a couple of interesting items appearing in today's Standard-Examiner. In a broad but slightly roundabout way, the messages on these two pages each contain one common element: an emphasis on the necessity of increased financial prudence and frugality in our city's extremely trying current economic environment.
The first item, a Scott Schweke story, reports that as our city struggles with its financially embarrassing current revenue pinch, the administration is cutting nonessential expenses to the bone, and will be doing without services even so mundane as newspaper subscriptions and window washing:
• Ogden to forgo clean windows, newspapersWhile we're not happy to see our friends at the Standard-Examiner suffer a $2,800 per year revenue hit, we're delighted to discover that the big spending Boss Godfrey is suddenly examining all the options, in his new quest to stop the financial bleeding at the Emerald City treasury.
The second item, a Gary N. Hicken letter to the Std-Ex editor, is slightly more tangential, in that its main theme addresses what the writer deems to be Boss Godfrey's misplaced priorities. Nevertheless, there is a reader comment under this letter which does squarely address another money saving strategy which we believe Mr. Godfrey ought to carefully consider, as he adopts, however belatedly, a more tight-fisted municipal money management approach. Read Mr. Hicken's letter here:
• Mayor lacks the people's best interestsWe also incorporate here the text of the reader comment mentioned above:
By: Blue Sky @ 07/15/2009, 11:58 AMHaving carefully pondered this reader comment, and being the curious type, we wandered over to this fantastic Salt Lake Tribune-sponsored site, and navigated to the page where Ogden City salaries are displayed in descending order. Once there, we invested about ten minutes, performed some head counts and calculations, and were both amused and slightly shocked to discover that the 31 Community & Economic Development Department employees displayed on this list impose an annual salary burden upon Ogden City of $2,026,378... an amount within amazing "spitting distance" of the $2.2 million tax revenue shortfall with which the administration is now trying to cope.
If Godfrey wants to save money, he can fire his Economic Development Team who have done nothing for Ogden but get us into this predicament.
Coincidence?
Hmmmm.... Perhaps Standard-Examiner reader Blue Sky is actually onto something here.
And what say our gentle readers about all this? Who knows? Perhaps one of our gentle readers will want to calculate the salary overhead of Boss Godfrey's "indispensable" A Team.
61 comments:
If it is ruled that police chief Greiner is illegaly serving as both chief of police and state senator who will pay the fine? Will this ruling, if it goes against Greiner, cost Ogden current or future grants? Where will the city secure the money for the fine?
Shirley, you jest! Of course we, the taxpayers, will pay the fine. It will either be levied against the City of Ogden or the Mayor will step up to help this FOM.
This is classic incompetence: a $2.2 million shortfall, and the manager (Godfrey) says he'll fix it by not washing windows.
Watch for other basic things to be cut as well.
What will not be cut is the number of butt kissing parasites around him. The most useless thing in the government - they are the most valued - by the one whose but is being kissed.
Godfrey may be berated by all, but he knows for 8 hours a day, there are those who will call him their glorious master. They are worth every penny to him.
Like Ozboy predicted, Godfrey was reelected mayor so in fitting justice, he could be at pilot when the whole thing "flies into the cliffs."
The salaries posted on the Tribune web site do not reflect the benefits, car, health retirement, expense account,etc.
I am pretty sure if you figure all the peerks in, it would be well over the 2.2 million.
I think I'll go wash some windows now.
i think one charismatic leader with excellent ideas could have made as much progress for ogden as was made under mr godfrey, without spending 1 dime of taxpayers money. call it service in the name of community.
if the progress could not occur without a kings mountain of peasantry debt, if no one had the guts and personality to volunteer to bring ogden up above meth houses and burned out businesses, then perhaps the city was not worth saving.
anyone who tells you that they need your money to save you from yourself is selling snake oil. take my word for it.
This department is the one that's responsible for all the millions of lost dollars due to misleading and untruthfull presentations to the RDA board. When was the last time one of their deals worked out?
These guys are the ones responsible for giving the Windsor Hotel owners more than their investment in buying the building, thus allowing them to have to do nothing short of letting it collapse while they'll still profit from the land it sits on.
How much is being lost holding properties in the river project for gadi, which he can't afford to buy?
The jackass center and surrounding properties serve as a testament to the incompetence of this overpaid bunch of idiotic facilitators of all lying little matty's crony serving delusions of his pigs at the trough.
Aw, c'mon, gang. Don't be such naysayers. After all, if Ogden City is going to scrape up the million dollars the Mayor wants to front the downtown velodrome, it's got to come from someplace....
Curm: last I heard, the mayor wanted the city to kick in $2 million for the Velodrome.
Dan:
OK. Even worse. Thanks for the correction.
The $2 million for the Velodrome was a down payment to show the city's commitment. The rest would come from unnamed sources (namely, the taxpayers, but later.)
Dirty windows are a small price to pay for a velodrome.
It will only take dirty windows for about 100,000 years to pay for it.
Godfrey's staff of "suits" should be fired and replaced with a single suit for the mayor - a white one with long, wrap around arms.
"Perhaps one of our gentle readers will want to calculate the salary overhead of Boss Godfrey's 'indispensable' A Team."
The cemeteries are full of indispensable men.
Methinks Godfrey does not want the windows washed because he doesn't want anyone to know the true state of the skulduggery going on.....
It is most refreshing to have other Ogdenites look at the salary cost of Ogden's Redevelopment Agency.
But do not fail to also take into account all the legal fees that have been paid....plus the administrative costs of the Agency and the financing costs and the travel costs. This has not been a cheapo exercise in usurping taxpayer rights.
The legal fees are nothing compared to all the giveaway of tax increment to businesses and individuals including Melvin Kemp and multi-million dollar German company Frensenius.
Maybe hard times will accomplish what Rulon Yorgason and Dorothy Littrell have been trying to get accomplished for many months--years--which is to get Ogden citizens to understand and stop the ripoff that is going on in the name of Redevelopment in not only Ogden but in all of Utah and the rest of this country.
It is time for the citizens of Ogden to pitch in and help us get by this temporary financial blip. I suggest a city wide bake and rummage sale. Lets sell rides on fire trucks. Charge admission to citizens to enter public buildings. How about a surcharge on city utility bills. Make the city owned channel 17 pay perview. I bet they could even find a way to charge for looking at the mountains visible from the city. Come on citizens, put on your thinking caps. Lets come up with really creative ideas to raise funds. I bet a guided tour by the mayors house would be a great fund raiser.
Why can't some of our local rock climbers climb up and clean the windows? The ice climbers could clean them in the winter. Turn down the heat and make the entire building a ice tower. Charge city employees for the use of office furniture,or have a daily raffle to win a place to sit. Lots of people stand at work all day, why should they be allowed to sit. Get a Starbucks franchise near the coffee drinkers, let them pay for the privilege of drinking caffine on the job. Pay toilets!
How about a dunking booth with Matt sitting on the stool? I bet we'd have people lined up 10-deep waiting to toss some balls for a few bucks.
Personally, I'd prefer tar and feathers, but that would be awfully messy.
Here's another Godfrey Friend of Matt leach who's sucking off the public Godfrey FOM teat. This featherbedded Ogden "employee" is the "gondolist" Curt Geiger's wife:
Kamie Geiger
Please don't tell us that this piece of air-headed Godfrey dead-wood can't be chopped from the Ogden City budget, allowing Ogden City to save another $64 grand or so.
How about paying the mayor to speak to your group? Pay even more and he wouldn't speak to your group. Name a city street after yourself? Lots of empty and abandoned buildings in Ogden, pay for the privilege of saving demolition by bidding for the right to be a city authorized arsonist. Help Matthew Godfrey realize his dream. How about "I Am A Friend Of Matt" shirt? Change all city telephone numbers to 1-900 and charge $2.99 for answers? Higher for correct and honest answers. Come on people. Put on your thinking caps or business development suits and come up with money making ideas for Ogden. Practical ideas appreciated but not really necessary in Ogden.
i think they should divide the total cost of all projects bonded, promised, and in arrears, by the total number of people living in the city.
and send every household a bill, payable immediately.
include in this bill from the city a voter registration form.
and only then approve of new projects.
There is a updated Ogden slogan on the KSL website comments "its all within reach...except our windows, we have to hire out for that"
Honestly, I think we should just trust our Mayor in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.
Now I'm Paying Attention:
I've said it before, and will say it again now: going after the jobs of relatives of those on the other side of policy disputes is a classless thing to do. If you have evidence --- evidence --- that a city employee --- any city employee, no matter who he or she is or is not related to --- is not doing the job they are hired to do, bring it forward to the proper authority as a first step. Or if you have evidence --- evidence --- that the pay for that particular job is out of line with pay for similar jobs with other cities in the region, show us that. But the employee's last name, which is all you have to offer, is not evidence of wrongdoing on anybody's part.
Whether the City needs a particular number of people in one department or another, especially in a time of dropping revenues, is a legitimate question to ask. But to go after a particular employee, by name, without any evidence whatsoever offered that they're not doing what they were hired to do adequately, because they are the relative of a policy opponent is a low thing to do. I want no part of it. You shouldn't either.
Sometimes, Curmudgeon, it's apparent that you don't have the sense that God gave a goose. If you don't believe its more likely than not that Ms. Geiger is filling her $67 thousand position because of Godfrey style nepotism, you're evidently completely out of touch with real world reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Now I'm Finally Paying:
I notice that, as in your first post, you provide no evidence to back your claims about her abilities, or the job she's doing, or the compensation attached to that job. Not a hint of substance. That Mr. Geiger's connections with Hizzonah had something to do with her getting the job originally is "more likely than not," I'd not dispute. That that means she is therefor necessarily unqualified to do the job, or that she is therefor necessarily not doing it adequately in no way follows.
You have problems with Mr. Geiger's policies and his support of the Mayor's gondola and other loony obsessions --- I certainly do --- then take him and his wrong ideas on, and do it straight up. Going after a relative's job, however, to get at Mr. Geiger and Hizzonah and your problems with them is way way over the line [absent supporting evidence of which you offer none].
In any case, nepotism [with respect to government employees] involves government employees employing their own kin. Mr. Geiger does not work for the public, and so the employment of a relative of his by the city does not constitute nepotism.
You have a problem with Mr. Geiger, go after him. You have a problem with the Mayor, go after him. Straight up.
Brittiany Spears has revived Donna Burdette's 2004-05 song -- "Support and trust the Mayor." Find out what the candidates for the council are REALLY saying -- not what it sounds like when their lips are moving!
Curm,
Do you believe there is a god?
now I'm finally paying attention,
Pay no attention to Curm.
It's common knowledge that the reason Kamie Geiger's husband and son show up on cue to bash the city council, is because the mayor pays the family to do so. In spite of the impressive titles Curt and Bob give themselves, they are really not that well paid. Mom's Godfrey Dollars are a big part of the family's daily bread.
Dittos for Sue Wilkerson, another FOM taxpayer leech.
Kamie's job is called "political favoritism". Curm can thrash all he wants, that's what it is.
You guys are too much. Is there any issues in Ogden, in your opinion that Godfrey doesn't have a hand in? Last week the price of skim milk went up at Costco and that was probably due to Godfrey enacting some sort of tarriff on the Utah Dairy Association because it didn't cut him a big enough campaign check during the last election. You guys are so prediciatble. i also wonder how many people would post here if they had to sign their real names like a letter to editor?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ken:
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure where you're going with this. What we have been discussing, in this thread, is management of Ogden City administrative budgets.
These are under the direct and exclusive control of Mayor Matthew Godfrey.
I have signed letters to the editor, written signed Op-Ed pieces that were published in the Standard-Examiner, and have addressed city council giving my true name.
And you?
I think you guys missed Curm's point. He's not saying there's no favoritism going on, or that you shouldn't be suspicious or take action if warranted. I'll admit the circumstances might support what you're suggesting of Mrs. Geiger but you need to be sure before going on a witchhunt that affects people's lives and families. How is it "common knowledge" she's just a paid troublemaker and nothing more?
Curm,
I was a subcontractor on the Junction project, and Kami was at the meetings as Scott Brown's assistant. She took notes at the meeting and did various tasks at his bidding. In general, I would say she was an administrative assistant. At the time I had no idea she was Bob Geiger's wife. Personally I think $67K for the type of work she performs is outrageous and I'm sure the other administrative assistants in the building aren't making nearly that much (maybe Godfrey's).
interesting in the list of godfrey managers is Reed Waterfall whos title is Business Development Director Public Services/Golf Course making a salary of $107,544per year. seems to me that we could cut the citys costs at the golf course just about in half if the city let this guy go.
has anyone ever seen him at any golf course meetings or heard him comment on the golf course. i sure havent and ive attended several meetings. other than being assigned as a cost center to the golf course does he really do anything for the course other than accrue cost.
Disgusted:
For reasons that aren't clear to me, the Economic Development department staff have "/Golf Course" appended to their titles.
I would speculate that Economic Development and the Golf Course come out of the same budget, but that's just a guess. I don't have any special knowledge.
Bullet:
Nicely put. Thank you.
A lot of us have criticized the Godfrey administration for reaching conclusions before it does the research that ought to precede the drawing of those conclusions. I think we should be very careful that we don't fall into the same practice out of political convenience or expediency.
The city needs a corporate head hunter to audit positions and if they are necessary keep them, if not let them go. I'm sure there is cronyism going on, Geigers, Jo Packhams daughter, G Trains monopoly oh city HUD homes, other folks directly favorable to the Mayor. I's sorry but if their lively hood depends on a politician then they need to check their conscience.
Most cities are cutting back to make budget with the slow economy. I would start with the planning department where you get different answers depending on who you talk to. Try and help out current businesses rather than offer tax benefits to meg-corps.
Business development office hasn't shown to be very savy with the contracts they have been involved with. Look at the return on investment when you put taxpayers monies into high adventure and more kiddyland endevors.
What permits did Geiger get to transform a wharehouse into a ski adventure? If you weren't a friend of the mayors would anyone else be able to open a business scrounging materials from the hood? I have heard G Train rents rooms out of her home, permits for that..
Scott Waterfall "works" as head of the Economic Development department. Kamie Geiger is married to Curt, Bob is the son.
It won't get you to $2M, but a good start would be to remove any salaried city employees who are "double-dipping": those who hold other positions and have other sources of income.
They should either be RIFfed or asked to reduce their salary to $1, in the interest of fiscal discipline.
Mono:
Double dipping, as in retired from the job they now hold and are being paid full salary for, yes. Double dipping, as in holding two jobs, each of which can reasonably be taken to interfere with meeting the responsibilities of the other --- oh, say, like being Police Chief and State Senator at the same time --- yes. But double dipping as in having any "other sources of income," no. That's way too broad a standard to apply to a city salaried office holder.
Possibly off topic, but since the quality of SE reporting, particularly with respect to willingness [intermittent] to fact check statements by elected and appointed officials, is more or less a perpetual topic hereabouts, maybe not.
I'm reading Helen Thomas' Watchdogs of Democracy, which is largely a nostalgic ode to the days when print journalism was the only game in town, and a Viewing With Alarm at the decline of journalism in the Television and Internet Age. Some of what she says is sound, some not. But in it, I did find this fine paragraph:
Accuracy also is the essence of a news story, and that takes a lot of fact-checking and "being there." As the saying used to go, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out."
That ought to be engraved on little brass plaques and bolted to the keyboard of every SE editor and reporter. "If your mother says she loves you, check it out!"
Exactly.
Mono and Curm: A good place to start would be to simply require public disclosure, by all full-time salaried city employees, of hours worked and income earned from other jobs. Other income, from such things as investments, royalties, and alimony, could be excluded.
Curm and Dan S.:
Thanks for the clarifications. That's what I meant, Curm. I don't care whether Ogden City employs trust funders or not. That's none of my business.
What is my business, as a taxpayer, is that in at least two instances I know of (you have cited one), city employees are double-dipping. This is prohibited for hourly employees, but not for salaried employees. That policy should be changed.
I don't care which one of his two employers Mr. Waterfall chooses, or which one of his three employers Chief Senator Retiree Greiner chooses. But I submit, in today's stringent budget climate, that they each need to choose one.
I'm going to side with you on this one, Mono. The whole object of employing an employee with a fixed salary is to have that employee available full time, around the clock. When an employee accepts a salaried job (usually at an "enhanced pay scale"), the implication is that such employee will devote his/her full energies to the job... period... without other paid employment distractions. When a salaried employee "moonlights," his employer is deprived of the benefit of its bargain.
This whole attitude that salaried employees should be free to work another job, after they've completed eight hours on their "salaried job" is comical.
If their salary is pegged to an eight hour job, they might as well be compelled to work "hourly," and punch a time clock, like all the peons.
And as much as I appreciate Dan's suggestion that "disclosure" of outside employment would be sufficient to raise everybody's awareness of potential double dipping, I'll gently suggest that this option doesn't address the fundamental problem at all, where "salaried employees could conceivably (and probably do) devote a few hours per week to their high paying "salaried jobs," while spending most of their time pursuing other economic endeavors.
For salaried employees (at least in the government sector) sidejobs should be banned clearly and unequivocally.
(Trust fund income and PASSIVE investor activity should be an entirely different matter, of course, as several readers have already pointed out.)
Once again, when an employee accepts a salaried position it should be considered to be a 24/7 job.
That's my take; and I'm stickin' with it.
Rudi,
I didn't say disclosure would be sufficient; I said it would be a good start. I'd prefer an outright ban on moonlighting by full-time salaried employees, though I suspect there will turn out to be gray areas no matter how such a law is written.
Thanks for the clarification, Dan.
Looks to me as if you, mono and I are pretty much on the same page.
As for Gentle Curmudgeon... well I'm guessing we'll soon find out his more refined views on this topic.
;-)
Rudi:
Nothing more refined about them. They're just what I stated above. Retirement double dipping [i.e. retiring from a job, then being rehired at full pay for the job you're getting retirement pay for] is a bad idea. It's legal in Utah, but that does not mean the city must rehire a retiree for his or her old job. It shouldn't, particularly not in a time of high unemployment.
Taking a second job while holding a full time salaried city job is, as well, not a good idea, and the city should not, as a rule, permit it. Wage earners should be free to work at other jobs after they put in their full hours on a city job. But salaried staff should not.
This does not mean a salaried city employee could not, say, write a book, create art for sale, play the market, grow petunias for sale at farmer's markets or do similar "work" on his own on his off time. But he should not accept a job, paid work, requiring his presence and/or his time by another employer while a full time city salaried worker.
There will, as Dan notes, be grey areas and the devil is always in the details.
people who work behind desks in city government should make the same salary as those who shovel snow in city government. and managers should make less, far less than their private sector counterparts. city budgets should reflect a sense of volunteerism plus quality, not a sense of entitlement at the public coffers expense.
As far as I know plenty of people are on salary and work fixed hours. I think many of them would be surprised to learn they are expected to be available "around the clock". So to clarify this we'd have to know the exact employment agreement of city employees.
The flip side of that coin is some people on salary are paid to get specific jobs/projects done and thus it's quite possible a gifted employee might get the job done in 4 hours a day. So long as that person is meeting the criteria of the job why shouldn't they do what they wish with the rest of their time?
"I think many of them would be surprised to learn they are expected to be available "around the clock."
Yes indeed, Bullet sponge. In our modern "me first" cultural age there are many people who don't know the difference between "right" and "wrong."
I'll repeat it again thusly: When any individual accepts a salaried job in either the private or public sectors...
They're supposed to be on the job, without other employment distractions 24/7.
If they're moonlighting... they're cheating.
In some of the most inept and/or corrupt States in the Union, once you are collecting a pension from State employment, you are not permitted to be employed by that State in any paid capacity.
Maybe Utah, and Ogden in particular, could aim to achieve that level of ineptitude and corruption.
Ask a Satanist:
Generally, people who work in managerial jobs of city governments do earn less than people doing comparable jobs in the private sector. I have known, in several states, many people who worked for somewhat less for the public because working for the public was important to them. There are many many many people who work for the public for whom "public service" is not a contradiction in terms.
But your suggestion, that managers should make... far less than their private sector counterparts" would all but guarantee in many instances that the most talented people, and so the most productive people, would avoid working for the city. Or would work for another city that offered them less than a private sector job, but not "far less." This would not serve the taxpayers of Ogden City well, since many city salaried jobs require substantial expertise to do competently.
Fixing abuses is one thing. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is another.
The discussion has gone away from the real problem. What has caused Ogden to get into such dire financial straits? Who are the responsible parties? What can we do to correct this financial morass? Talking about having employees available 24/7 will do little to correct the current situation. We need to review job performance and correct the problems. It is not realistic to expect employees to be always available. They are people with families who deserve time with their loved ones and a break/respite from job pressures. The availability is not the problem, the performance is the problem that needs to be resolved.
No, Blackrulon. I believe it'e YOU who's missing the main issue here.
You've written: "They [salaried people] are people with families who deserve time with their loved ones and a break/respite from job pressures."
And with that assertion, I'm sure everyone would agree with you. Yes, everyone should devote as much time as is possible to their families.
On the other hand, salaried people need to available whenever duty calls; and that's NOT possible if they're moonlighting on a side job, when they're NOT "taking time with their loved ones and a break/respite from job pressures.".
It isn't complicated. Salaried employees should not have side jobs - period.
And no. That doesn't mean that they souldn't devote time toward "decompressing" with their families.
I'm surpised I have to keep hammering this fundamental issue, frankly.
One thing Rudi probably knows already, but may come as a surprise to readers of this blog, is that the FLSA, Federal law regulating salaries and wages, specifically exempts both executives and/or those making over $100,000 per year from receiving overtime.
The theory here is exactly what Rudi is saying: you can't collect overtime if you are supposed to give the job your undivided attention.
I think that's what informs Rudi's argument. If you are a city executive, or if you make over $100,000 annually, then you can't accrue overtime. By the same token, you shouldn't engage in other employment.
If a private business wants to throw away their money on salaries and bonuses for employees making over $100K, I guess that's legally okay but I would question the judgment of such executives.
However, as a taxpayer, executives (especially those calling themselves, grandly, "CEO of Ogden City" or "CAO of Ogden City" or "Chief of This and That", should not ever, under any circumstances, have their precious and expensive attention divided by working another job.
Let me offer an example. When I am 60, I will begin to collect retirement from a previous job working for another state. I am specifically forbidden to collect my State Retirement and still remain employed in any capacity by the great State of My Former Employment.
That's as it should be. If you are drawing public sector retirement, you should be prohibited from collecting pay from the same entity. Period.
Instead of spraying clsss resentment at people in city jobs merely based on their pay [and some of that seems to be going on], or targeting particular individuals on the basis of their martial connections [some of that going on too], it might be better [meaning more effective] to take a broader view, and make a more generic argument. Be interesting if Hizonah said something like this:
In troubled economic times, with city revenues declining, Ogden is not be able to afford to continue to staff all its departments at the level I would prefer. Unfortunately, some cuts will have to be made in light of the city's reduced income, which is not projected to improve much over the next fiscal year. Such cuts should, I believe, involve people at all levels of city employment --- not just policemen, fire fighters, park workers, maintenance people and secretaries, but also those higher up. These cuts will be painful. They always are. But the pain should not be concentrated at the lowest levels only. Consequently, I am announcing today the following staffing cuts in Ogden City. First, I've reluctantly asked for the resignations of [X and X]. They have served Ogden well and I am sorry circumstances are such that we cannot continue to employ them. "
[Announced cuts in police hiring and elsewhere would follow.]
But so far as I can tell from the SE report on the Mayor's cheese paring, the only cuts to personnel are coming way down the pay chain, notably in the police department. That's not how you lead in troubled times. Not if you're good at it, that is.
Sorry Rudi, the real issue is not availability 24/7. The issue is that when they were available they did not do a very good job. With computers, pagers, cell phones, etc being available is not a real problem. They did not do a good job when they were available, what havoc could they create if on duty 24/7.
I don't think it's possible or desirable to force a city employee to be on-call 24/7. Even the mayor is entitled to a little time off for hiking the Appalachian Trail (for example), so long as he delegates the authority to act in emergencies to someone else while he's gone.
In any case, I agree with blackrulon that 24/7 "availability" isn't the main issue. To me, the issue is that moonlighting necessarily takes time and/or energy away from one's full-time, salaried job. Family and volunteer activities also take time and energy, but moonlighting for pay is in a different category because it creates a competing professional obligation where none should exist.
That said, I should acknowledge that the moonlighting problem is not restricted to Ogden City. Ask me sometime about the practice of overload teaching by WSU faculty...
Ogden Pioneer Day Rodeo Report:
Broncs had a field day at the rodeo tonight. Ten riders, only one stayed on long enough for a score. I figure that makes the overall event score tonight: Broncs 9 Riders 1.
Only disappointment: the Clydesdales were not hitched up and pulling. Bummer. They're up tomorrow, rumor has it.
[Report submitted by Mrs. Curmudgeon.]
SE report on the Mayor's cheese paring, the only cuts to personnel are coming way down the pay chain, notably in the police department.
What the City and SE didnt report is that the Police department has and still does paid positions on the department that are not filled. They have such a hard time hiring and maintaing Officers, they keep the positions open, most times upward of ten positions are open at any one time.
There a number of reasons that could be causing the positions, and turnovers in the police department including: Low pay, no merit increase funding committed by the city ( yearly performance expectations with no funding of the merit system), high call volume, lack of support from administration, no opportunity of promotional advancements ( because of the retire in place of Leiutenants and Other Administrative personnel).
My question, where has the money been going that is allocated for the open positions being used if not for payroll of a warm body?
No newspapers, no clean windows, give me a break... Read the paper at home and give Mini Mayor Man a rag!! Tap water is good for the rest of us and it's good enough for those working for the city too. You want water... go to the fountain like the rest of us. There are soooo many other ways to cut costs in Ogden besides having dirty windows. I see jobs being cut in order to save Mini Mayor Man's precious river project. Come on people, wake up and smell the stench! Gadi has no money and his investors have bailed on him before they need bail of their own. Tearing down, "accidently" burning and condemning perfectly good homes that were paying taxes and bringing in money to the city has been replaced by pipe dreams and personal interest. Could someone please tell me why Mini Mayor Man is allowed to force businesses that are thriving to leave town to make room for other businesses, ie. WinCo Foods, when there is a perfectly good and vacant Fred Meyer building across the street? Ogden City needs a good house cleaning and it needs to start at the top. Let's get rid of this dreamer and his croonies and take back our city!
K:
That chance to do what you recommend --- "get rid of this dreamer" --- came up a year and a half ago. And was missed. He was re-elected. Next opportunity still two and a half years off. So at this point, "getting rid of this dreamer" isn't a very useful suggestion.
Getting rid of "his cronies," however, is another matter. We're but months away from an opportunity to pare their number on the Council by one or two. With some hard work. And a little luck.
Post a Comment