| Author |
 Topic  |
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2008 : 08:25:44 AM
|
I agree that the timing is suspect. I imagine his "justification" is he can't take anything from the union employees but since the money is needed to run the city, he's taking it where he can get it. Hopefully, the BOA and CC can prevent this since the budget they approved included those increases.
I understand he told the department heads that he doesn't submit mileage expense reimbursement papers when he travels for city business and going forward they can't either. That's fine for him, but not everyone is in the same financial position he's in.
He's beginning to remind me of honest john........... doing whatever he wants regardless of what the BOA and CC have approved! I wish I could take my vote back and I'm sure I'm not the only one! |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 08:47:47 AM
|
| Miller is also in that office. Very good attorney from what I hear. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2008 : 1:18:38 PM
|
Sorry to be so late weighing in on some of these issues but I've been away and I am trying to catch up.
I just don't understand the move to cut step raises for department heads and non-union help after budgeting the money for them. Why budget the money if you're to going to use it? The budget process could have gone a lot smoother if these step raises weren't funded then. For those of you who have asked, it is still possible to cut this money from the budget, with the approval of the BOA and CC, since the tax rate has not been set. If this money is not cut, it could be transferred again with the approval of the BOA and CC. Quite a few transactions would needed to cut or re-allocate the money. One of these options (or some combination of the two) must be pursued or this move makes absolutely no sense. In either case, definitely more "black-eye" material for the DeMaria administration.
Department heads did pretty well under the Hanlon administration. They may not be paid as much as their counterparts in other cities and towns but they definitely got closer to them. I'm not going to cry for them over this but pulling the rug out under them doesn't seem to be right thing to do either. The people I do feel sorry for them are the non-union help. Wasn't the argument that Mr. Henderson made during the FY2008 budget hearings that the increases for non-union help should not be cut so that animosity wouldn't be created between union and non-union help? What has changed between then and now? And how are any of these effected folks supposed to feel when they know the salaries that the "chosen few" are getting?
The real question is why? It is another case of the administration heading down one path and then changing their mind and going in another direction in relatively short period of time, without any explanation. It really is scary that we don't understand what's going on.
I support the move to restrict the usage of city purchased gas to city vehicles. During the budget hearings, I couldn't believe that the Board of Health could be given up to 40 gallons of gas each week for travel in a city of this size. I realize that the department may require some non-local travel but that much on a regular basis? The elimination of the practice, however, would make a lot more sense if the mileage reimbursement program wasn't being discontinued at the same time. If have no problem reimbursing city employees for using their own transportation for city business. Every large company that I have ever worked for paid for these type of expenses. As a small business owner, Mayor DeMaria is able to write off some portion of the travel expenses for his business as a deduction on his taxes. I agree with justme; a program like this does need some oversight and tools (i.e., standard mileage allowances to frequently traveled locations) but I don't expect a city employee do to city business on their own dime.
Does anyone know anymore about Mr. Carlisle going to work temporarily for FEMA? Is the city still paying him his salary? I've never understood the need for a full-time budget director on an on-going basis. However, after this year's budget hearings, I believe that some time needs to invested straightening out things and looking ways to streamline city government in order to make additional cuts to the budget in future years. The Purchasing Office was able to function when Mr. Pedulla was out but, since then, the funding for one position in that office was cut. In addition, a new position was added to the Purchasing Office with the justification that they will be performing functions that have not be addressed in the past. Without the department head to direct these new efforts, will this process get off on the right foot? My heart goes out to the people in the Midwest; however, we need to realize that our own city could be paying a price for providing this help. On the other hand, there may be some people who just might be glad that Mr. Carlisle isn't around to do any more damage for a while. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2008 : 06:33:23 AM
|
I'll be very surprised if Carlo goes back to the BOA & CC for approval to lower the budget by the amounts of the increases he's denying the department heads. He could have done that June 30th and chose not to but the meeting where he made the announcement was already scheduled. I sincerely doubt he decided to do this at the last minute! While I agree they did well under the hanlon administration, I disagree with leading them to believe they're going to get an increase and then telling them the day it's supposed to go into effect that he changed his mind.
I'm also in agreement with restricting who fills up on our dime. I think there's been a lot of abuse in that area for a long time and that change is long past due. However, there should be a policy in place to approve travel for city business with the appropriate reimbursement. There will always be occasions when it's in our best interest to have someone represent us at meetings and/or conferences. No reimbursement means many people won't go and that has the potential of hurting us somewhere down the line.
I don't know the deal with FEMA & Carlisle. I don't see him as a great representative of this city and I sure hope he's not there on our $$! |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Budget FY 09
