Let's get really lame
We've got a lame duck city council and a budget problem in Monroe that's getting worse by the day.
But it looks like business-as-usual at city hall. That's good in some ways. It's bad in others.
It's good because nothing major is being done. There's been a big city study saying positions shouldn't be filled and others should be eliminated. As far as I can tell, nothing's been decided about that. The question is, will those on the hit list be hit before the current city council changes? Should they be? Or should the city council just ride this out and not do anything major that a new council might be forced to undo?
I would think that the city should make the no-brainer cuts and cost reductions that are pretty obvious and practically no one would argue about, but leave the major decisions to the next council.
In other words, council should get even lamer right about now. Talk about what it might do or should do or could do, but do nothing but easy cuts and maintenance until after the election. It's not only easy. It's safe for those who are running for re-election.
But it looks like business-as-usual at city hall. That's good in some ways. It's bad in others.
It's good because nothing major is being done. There's been a big city study saying positions shouldn't be filled and others should be eliminated. As far as I can tell, nothing's been decided about that. The question is, will those on the hit list be hit before the current city council changes? Should they be? Or should the city council just ride this out and not do anything major that a new council might be forced to undo?
I would think that the city should make the no-brainer cuts and cost reductions that are pretty obvious and practically no one would argue about, but leave the major decisions to the next council.
In other words, council should get even lamer right about now. Talk about what it might do or should do or could do, but do nothing but easy cuts and maintenance until after the election. It's not only easy. It's safe for those who are running for re-election.
posted by The Observer at 9/13/2007 11:24:00 AM
7 Comments:
I will tell you that the majority of council would like the "immediate" recommendations to be implemented immediately, imagine that. The problem with that is that the City Manager is the person responsible for the implementation of the operational assessment. He is interested in getting the department heads' recommendations as to implementation, and if we go behind his back and "force" him into implementing certain aspects of this study, he loses credibility with other departments. All of the other departments will be coming to council with their pleas, and the study will not get implemented in the best possible way.
My belief is that the immediate recommendations should have already taken place. However, I will respect the City Manager's wishes, and let him manage the city, as it is his job, and he is much more qualified than any elected councilperson. Councilman Paisley, who has done operational assessments, made a comment about implementation that we should have done from the start. The day that this study was rolled out to the public, we as a council should have accepted this study in principle, and directed the
City Manager to get reports from the department heads within thirty days as to the ways that they could implement this study, or give alternative recommendations if they believed that the study was not just in its findings. This is the one mistake that I believe that this council has made regarding this assessment. No one on council is pushing this assessment back due to the election. NO ONE. I don't believe that any person running for re-election wants to push this onto the next council. It doesn't matter that this is election time. It is still the time to implement this study, and we all will. We need to follow up on the City Manager's progress, and push him forward if necessary. The major decisions and minor decisions need to be made when they are ready to be made. I know that no matter when these recommendations are made to council, we will make the decisions to implement the study as to the recommendations by the professional City Manager we have hired.
Lame Duck?
I think they are legally still mandated by the charter to perform their jobs.
Iaco proved that you can pass stupid legislation the last day of your term (Ethics / Car / Entertainment Policy).
They should make the tough decisions now. The sooner the cuts are made, the better off the city is.
Roundybout.
Brian:
Congratulations on your re-election, first of all.
But hang on there. Are you telling me you and the majority on council want to move ahead but the city manager is holding you back?
That's crazy. He has no constituents to answer to. The monkey's on your back, not his. Whatever he does, you'll be blamed for.
What makes him any more qualified than you to read a report and follow a recommendation?
I'm talking about the "no-brainers." In other words, why do we have to get a department head's blessing to follow a pretty clear recommendation. Does Brian think we need a city attorney? Does Brian think we need an assistant city manager or a front-desk receptionist? Why does Brian need a department head to give feedback on this kind of stuff? Since Brian as far as we know is going to be the only returning councilman for sure, Brian should be ramrodding this stuff. Explain why he wouldn't want to do that. He doesn't want to p.o. the city manager?
Guess you missed the point.
It is the City Manager's job to implement the study in the best professional way possible. He must meet with the department heads and if necessary, the unions. Ramrodding this through affects alot of people, possibly in a very negative way. Most of us still would like the recommendations followed through the retirements of people who may be able to retire, or at least close. This is another area where the CM is coming up with a plan, where to set the limit at giving years to people who are close to retirement. It doesn't take a political genius to whack jobs. Should compassion not factor in somewhere? I have been pressing the CM though, just to let you know. As I already stated, I believe that the "immediate" recommendations should have been immediate (within at least 90 days) but Mark Knottley's idea was that immediate meant before the next fiscal year, which is ridiculous. But regardless of the "easy no brainer" cuts or the "tough" cuts, they will all be done.
If you want my opinions on particular positions, you certainly may call me and ask. I will not post what I may believe the highest priority cut should be.
You bring up po'ing the CM. If you know me personally then you would know that I'm not worried about that. I think I did that regarding the assessment already. It was at that time that I was informed that if the Council was to circumvent the CM's authority and implement an area of the assessment, then what would keep every other department from coming directly to Council to plead their case. It then becomes a popularity contest or who sells their positions the best. If that were going to happen, then we might as well do away with the City Manager form of government. He is the professional, not you or I. Should he not act soon, I promise to push harder, OK?
The assessment will get implemented, and hopefully sooner rather than later. I'm not worried about getting blamed for it either. It is, after all, necessary. And I'm not arguing about this, and the only reason for my initial post was to inform whomever reads this that this Council wants this assessment started. I don't think anyone wants to lay this on the next Council. Why would I? The sooner it is started, the less on edge everyone will be and the less speculation that will be tossed out there, or here. Besides, it would be in everyone's best interest to show the voters that they are willing to make these cuts. Not doing so would hurt them, in my opinion. Showing that they are making cuts shows that they are looking out for the City's finances. Am I wrong with that thinking?
As usual, a rationale explanation of what's going on behind the scenes. But my point is in your last paragraph. No one is saving money by sitting on their hands. You already know what your priority is. Just do it (or argue for it) and everyone will realize -- if they don't already -- that you're serious about making cuts. You're guaranteed re-election. Just do what you think is right. And you are right, Nottley is crazy. The projected savings isn't enough to cover the projected deficit, so we should wait till the end of the year?
BTW, thanks for taking the time to try to explain your position.
Brian is to be respected for understanding the separation of powers in city government. I hope that the City Manager proceeds with making the adjustments as best he can. Be aware that lame Duck Al publicly stated that there would be no layoffs at a Jobs Fair at ALCC.
Again - Brian Benetau proves he should be re-elected. Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home