| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 11:11:20 PM
|
I had $272,830 because the budget that I've been tracking is the $133.1 million operating budget which doesn't include the $120,000 in capital expenses that were cut (and didn't belong there in the first place.) So that's a roundabout way of saying I have the same number.
I hung in there all the way even though I wanted to watch the basketball game. Too bad the same couldn't be said of Nuzzo and Marcus for two. I wonder when Wayne snuck out too. I can't believe that anyone could believe, no matter what you think of Stat, that Matewsky deserves the state rep seat.
Lots more to talk about (I don't have the words right now to describe the personnel director situation) but it's going to have to wait until later in the day tommorrow. I'm going to try to concentrate on the rest of the Celtics' game for a while. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 11:13:14 PM
|
Is it the usual practice of mayors not to have your city auditor have any input when making your proposed budget? I was very surprised when Larry Decoste said he had no input in the budget this year or last.
As for Mr Henderson, I am not a fan, but, what is the mayor thinking? Mr Henderson is in the middle of saving the city big bucks on health insurance and the mayor lets him go right in the middle of his negotiations. I also think the city needs to have a personnel director. I knew the mayor was letting Mr Henderson go, I had no idea he wasn't replacing him. It looks to me the mayor is combing jobs just to justify some of these high salaries. I can't see where any of it is cost effective and it has the potential to really hurt the city. Too many city hall employees are being pulled in too many directions. |
Edited by - massdee on 06/05/2008 11:28:14 PM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2008 : 08:51:50 AM
|
The general concensus seems to be that Mr DeCoste and Mr Carlisle don't get along which may be why Mr Decoste was left out of the preparation. Bottom line, they need to be professional and learn how to work together.
I agree with your assessment of the consolidations massdee. I don't think they're necessarily in the city's best interest. If we were looking at a significant decrease in payroll, it may have been worth a shot, but the salary expenses aren't any lower and which department is paying who is nothing more than a shell game! |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 09:37:10 AM
|
| Of course you need a personnel director. We are talking about an entire city government. As for Larry DeCoste, they should listen to him more. Larry is familiar with Everett and the way things are handled. Clayton does not know about Everett and everytime someone asks him a question, he recites his resume?? For me with this budget, I'd like to see Tetris's opinion and the November tax rate. As far as these bloated salaries and bogus justifications, these will be some of the reasons for the fall of the Mayor. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 1:47:10 PM
|
| A little help please....why is it we need a personnel director? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 8:12:30 PM
|
Oh, where to start.
First off, it is unfortunate that the High School graduation had to be rescheduled to Thursday night. I'm not going to take any exception with any members of city government that attended the ceremony, for whatever reason, that also showed up later at the budget hearings and stayed for the remainder of hearing. The fact that some of them showed up at all, i.e., Rosa Di Florio, went far above what I would have expected. I don't know that if my child had just graduated that I would be able tear myself away from that.
On the other hand, the members of the BOA and CC who couldn't be bothered to show up at all or checked out early should be ashamed of themselves. I already went off on a few of them last night. The ones that couldn't show up have no right to question anything that was done at the budget hearings later on. When you decide to run for one of these offices, you have to realize, especially after last year, that you need to be in a position to give up some extra nights in June. As far as the ones that bolted early, it was really hard to tell when they left because the camera angles were so tight last night. I'm sorry that the Celtics' game was on last night; I wanted to watch it too. But I hung in with the budget hearing (mostly) until it was over because I have an interest in the process and I care about the city. It is too bad that elections in this city are popularity contests rather that referendums on the performance of elected officials.
The nicest thing that I can say about the budget document is that it is a pile of excrement. It was filled with errors that could have been avoided. How many amendments to it are going to have to be taken up at Monday's BOA meeting? I have a hard time believing that anybody else looked at this document, besides Mr. Carlisle, before it was distributed, even the Mayor. I thought it was pretty obvious last Saturday that Mr. Carlisle and Mr. DeCoste don't see eye to eye; after last night, it seems to run deeper than that. I believe that I heard that Mr. DeCoste was part of some of the discussions that led up to the formulation of the budget but obviously he never saw the actual document until it was distributed to everyone. Is this the normal practice? Who knows. But if a good budget document had been produced, would it have mattered? Coming into a new community, making a substantial salary in Everett terms and following up on the last year's budget fiasco, one would think that Mr. Carlisle would want to make the best first impression possible; didn't happen. Listening to him speak is painful as well; way too wordy, it takes him forever to get to his point.
Now that I've spent a few too many words myself ripping Mr. Carlisle, a little in the way of defense. I'm sure our old friend Ms. Vetrano didn't leave things in great shape for him to pick up. It can be debated who actually put the budgets together in the last administration but Ms. Vetrano was ultimately responsible for them. In the few department head interviews done last year, there were many questions about the personnel breakdown sheets. Not having seen them, I can't comment on them any further but that portion of the budget seemed to be a great point of contention last night. For the most, Mr. Carlisle has seemed very open to constructive criticism in both budget sessions but there have been a couple of times when we seemed to get a little bit of a "my way is better" attitude.
I think the bottom line is this. Give the council what they want. Get more than one set of eyes to look at they budget before it goes to the printer so that it won't be filled with mistakes. Maybe each department head should sign off on their department and the mayor should sign off on the entire thing before it goes out. If you have additional information that you think the City Council should be aware of, present it to them separately from the operating budget. There's a ton of additional information that could be presented with a budget. Go to the City of Somerville web site and take a look at their budget documents. They are over 400 pages and contain a lot more than just numbers. Make sure that the operating budget that is going to be debated matches the document that is going to be voted on, without footnotes. If this had happened last year, I think that the budget would have been sent back to the administration. If it happens next year, that might be a possibility again. Let's make sure that it doesn't happen.
More later on. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 12:30:17 AM
|
I feel a little bit like Catherine Tomassi Hicks. This is little bit off subject but since it was such a focal point of Thursday night's budget hearing, I have no problem addressing it here.
From dictionary.com:
cir·cum·vent verb (used with object)
1. to go around or bypass.
2. to avoid (defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting.
I'm sorry. I have to disagree with Ms Deveney. The administration is circumventing the rules in regards to her salary. Section 2-46 of the revised city ordinances states that there will be someone named as the city solicitor for the City of Everett. Ms. Deveney will officially hold this title once she receives her designation as a special municipal employee. Section 43 of the city charter reads as follows. Read it carefully, we'll be coming back to it later:
Section 43. Salaries to be established by ordinance, etc.
The city council shall establish by ordinance the salary or compensation of every administrative officer, but after the first municipal year no ordinance changing any such salary or compensation shall take effect until the municipal year succeeding that in which the ordinance is passed.
Below are the ordinance in question and a copy of a City Council agenda item that was ultimately passed last year to adjust the minimum and maximum salaries:
Sec. 7-164. Amounts for Administrative Officers.
In conformity with the provisions of section 43 of the Charter, the salaries of the Administrative officers of the City are established by ordinance and are on file in the City Clerks office.
Administrative Affairs Committee Report on Ordinance that In accordance with Chapter 7, Section 7-164 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett, to adjust compensation for the following Administrative Officers effective July 1, 2007: City Auditor minimum $74,819.51, maximum $85,856.04; City Solicitor minimum $70,249.12 maximum $80,613.57; and City Treasurer minimum $65,888.68 maximum $75,696.58; with favorable recommendation.
The next thing that I think needs to be considered is which of her two positions actually holds precedence, an Administrative officer of the City or a staff position? Need I say more.
Ms. Deveney is getting paid from a line item that states her position is chief of staff. It doesn't matter where she gets paid from; she's still city solicitor. Her claim Thursday night was that she was initially hired as chief of staff. I have no doubt that was true but let's be a little forthright about it. At the time that she was hired, Ms. Deveney could not be hired as city solicitor as there was an ordinance in place that would not allow that as she was not a resident of the city. As early as the Chamber of Commerce get-together in January that was rebroadcast on ECTV, the mayor was referring to Ms. Deveney as "chief legal council". I'm not sure that I'd want to be named city solicitor if there were someone else in the Mayor's office carrying that title. But was that ever really the plan?
This to me, a non-lawyer, is as black and white as it gets. There is no grey in the way that the charter and the ordinance are written.
With all of that said, I agree with Ms. Deveney about a couple of things. She is probably making less than her peers that are only doing the city solicitor's job. Also, the charter and the ordinance do not take the present situation into account. I have stated before I was not in favor of combining the chief of staff and city solicitor positions. It's just too much for one person to handle. Case in point. I believe that Ms. Deveney was the only department head that didn't have a dollar estimate of how much money her department would be returning to the city from the FY08 budget. However, at this point, the BOA has provisionally approved her appointment as city solicitor, so I accept that this is way that things are going to be and she should be compensated accordingly for holding both positions. I don't have a problem with her salary in the budget book if she is able to pull this off and, as it is with all such decisions, we won't know unless we try it. The only issue that I have now is that I want it to be done so that there is no question as to its legality. How do we get there?
Last year, changing the ordinance required that it be sent down to the city council by the Mayor where it was referred out to the Administrative Affairs committee. Once the committee approved the change, it was sent back to the city council where it took four readings to approve it since it is an ordinance. Here's where Section 43 of the charter comes into play. This ordinance would have to be modified by June 30th for it to take effect for the FY09 fiscal year starting July 1st. Even if it was decided that a committee meeting wasn't necessary to discuss the changes this year because the Committee of the Whole "approved" her salary (did we ever get a ruling as to whether or not the council could cut the mayor's budget?), it would still take four readings to get this approved by June 30th. There are only three regularly scheduled meetings left before June 30th and this item isn't even currently on Monday's agenda (neither is the special employee designation; what the hold up?). It's not that this couldn't be accomplished, it's just pushing it. The city council has not reacted well in the past when they have been boxed in the corner, especially when there was no need for it.
What happens if this change doesn't get done? Unless some is willing to drop a dime to the AG's office, probably nothing, except the usual political bickering that we all know and love.
There so much more that we could discuss about this issue, i.e., the implications of the ordinance change if the positions are not combined in the future, Joe Hickey's position on it vs. Millie Cardello's, etc. But I think I'll leave it here for now. More about some other issues later today. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 1:15:16 PM
|
| Tetris, You could never be anything like Councilor Hicks, she is one of a kind. Thanks for the great posts. |
Edited by - massdee on 06/07/2008 1:15:53 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 1:15:44 PM
|
Lots of random thoughts about Thursday night's session and the budget process in general.
Obviously, not enough of the budget hearing participants read the comments here and in the Independent about using their microphones. Unbelievable! Also, the Independent made a good point about how city officials should address one another at these meetings. Mr. Clayton? Really shows a lack of respect. They need to work on that.
Cynthia Sarnie - Why wait until now to ask for a third quarter budget?
Glad Mike Marchese was paying attention during fire dept department debate. Sheesh! Almost glad that he skipped out early.
Wayne Matewsky, thanks for taking up space for about an hour or so on Thursday night. He wants to be elected to the State Representative position yet he doesn't have one question or even a comment about the city budget during the entire process. Is this really the type of person that should be representing us at the State House?
I thought that with his accounting background, Sal Sachetta would have been much more active during the budget process. Wrong again!
Jason Marcus = face time. I don't think that any of his questions/comments were original, just piggy-backing on prior questions and comments. Another one that I didn't really miss after he disappeared.
I realize that the Mayor attend the High School graduation; I'll cut him the same slack as I did everyone else for that. But after he joined the hearing, why didn't he stay until the end? Wasn't it requested at the beginning of the budget process for him to be present at all hearings? He didn't show up at the school committee session, he showed up late last Saturday and wasn't in the chamber as far as I could tell until the end of Thursday's session. Not a great track record.
Could Ms. Deveney bring it down a notch on the "lawyer-ese" when she speaks? I realize that she needs to project a certain image but it's a little annoying.
Why is the health insurance buy back accounted for differently in parking clerk's office than rest of the city? It should be handled consistently same across all departments; it probably should be broken out separately in all of them. How many more things are there like this buried in the budget? To achieve full transparency in the budget, the budget director may still have a lot of work ahead of him.
Let me get this straight. Some of the errors in the budget document were caused because of the format chosen to print the budget? With a background in software development, even I can't rule out that choosing a format that includes a page number and run date would also cause non-operating budget items to be included in the print-out of the budget but I would find it highly unlikely.
I didn't remark on it in my post on the city solicitor's salary issue, but isn't just wrong that a deputy city solicitor makes more than the city solicitor can by ordinance? Just another reason that the ordinance needs to be changed.
Why was it necessary for the entire legal department to show up while their budget was being debated? Seems like a school department tactic. Not sure what it buys you. At least with the school department, it looks impressive because they can fill up the chamber.
During the discussion on cutting of the city solicitor's litigation/professional services line item, Mr. Carlisle jumped in to help Ms. Deveney out but he started out his comments with the statement "I haven't been rehearsed to intercede on this point...". Wow, there is really some paranoia out there! I just thought he was trying to help her out.
Why is the legal department doing job descriptions? Isn't this something should begin in each department? Provide them with templates for what is required and let the department heads do the work since they know the jobs better. Eventually, they would probably need to be reviewed by the legal department as well as the union for union jobs. Doesn't make sense to me.
I wish that the elimination of the internal auditor position had been discussed at the hearings. I really believe that this position was recommended as a part of the last state audit. I'm not certain but it could be that the person being brought into the purchasing office from the school building committee will be handling some of the IG's concerns in that audit. I'd hate to see the city left exposed on something that we told that state had already been addressed.
Earlier this week, I posted how much money is actually being cut from the city side of the budget. When I did this, I failed to include $120,000 that is being moved out of the operating budget to the capital budget. If these capital requests are approved, the $120,000 needs to be deducted from any savings in city side expenses. Not completely sure why this is being done; Mr. Carlisle seemed to think it had some benefit but I don't think that he elaborated on that enough to make it clear what it was.
Although I would agree that tipping your hand on the eve of going into contract negotiations isn't a good thing, I hope that the administration has a plan for how any raises negotiated during these sessions are going to be paid for. If the plan is to come forward to ask for an additional appropriation to fund them, that approach is going to reduce the savings in the city expense side of the budget even further.
Didn't get the discussion about how additional school department employees would cause the health insurance trust fund not to be funded adequately. Doesn't the school department pay for the health insurance of all its employees? Wouldn't health insurance be part of the calculation of how many additional employees they could hire? I thought that was what Mr. Carlisle was trying to say (in a lot more words) but Mr. DeCoste seemed to disagree.
Maybe it's just me but I think it might be a good idea to go thru each department's budget line item by line item, at least in the year following a local election. There really aren't all that many line items in most departments and most of them get talked about anyways. It would help to educate new members of the council about what each line item is all about. When administrations change, it would give them a chance to talk about how they found the line items when they entered office and discuss any changes in the direction of their use. It would give the hearings more structure as line items could discussed be in sequence. Of course, this bunch can't even follow an agenda in order. Just a thought though.
I'm surprised that the council found as much money as they did to cut out of this budget. I believe that this will be is the most money in accepted (key word) cuts that has ever been trimmed from the city budget. After the mayor's plea to give him a chance with the budget in the discussion of Alderman DiPerri's budget amendment, I would have expected a much tighter budget.
What are these other monies that Mr. Carlisle kept referencing that can be applied to the tax levy? I would have liked some more detail on this but may be this wasn't the place or the time for that discussion. It was good to hear that it is not the stabilization fund that they are talking about though.
Almost sounded like Mr. Carlisle was saying that he never has seen a tax levy go up 8 to 10%; unfortunately, we have. A worst case scenario of 2%. Sorry, but for now at least, I'll have to say that I'll believe it when I see it. As RVC said during Thursday's session, the mayor will rise or fall upon his choice of department heads.
I'll finish up on this round of comments on the budget later on with a discussion of the personnel director or the lack thereof. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 10:02:07 PM
|
Let me get this out of the way first thing. I fall into the camp that thinks that the city needs a personnel director. Can I fully quantify why I feel that way? No, I'm still trying to work that out; maybe this post will help me to do that. I'll say this to start. We often talk about the city as if it were $100+ million corporation. I'd find it hard to believe that many corporations of that size don't have a personnel director.
As explained on Thursday night by the administration, it appears that they may believe that the city's personnel director has only has two functions, serving as an intermediary between his two managers and the law department and acting as the immediate administrative supervisor for his two supervisors. Of course, I'm being a little facetious here but those were the only reassigned duties of the personnel director I heard about about on Thursday night. Once again, I'm going to go back to an argument that I made last week that the administration has done a very poor job of presenting the changes that they are making to the structure of city government to both the city council and the residents of the city.
The other two managers in the personnel department are the only other employees in that department and, as such, probably have a fair amount of day to day responsibilities already. Are they going to take on more? It wasn't mentioned the other night. The only salary increases that are scheduled for these two employees appear to be the step increases that most managers in the city are getting. They don't appear to be on the receiving end of a large increase for taking on added responsibilities like others in the city who fall into that category. Who takes on the rest of the personnel director's responsibilities?
While we're on the subject of large increases, doesn't the deputy city solicitor's increase seem excessive for someone who's job responsibilities aren't really changing all that much; it seems to be more of a change of focus and being a primary contact to the personnel department rather than a secondary one. Again, a change that was not very well justified.
The city seems to be at a point where having a personnel director only makes sense. All of the union contracts, with the exception of police and fire are up as of June 30th. If the city wants to consider joining the GIC for the next fiscal year, the application process has to be completed by October 1st. If a decision is made not to join the GIC, then other steps need to be taken to control the city's ever increasing healthcare costs. Whatever changes are made to the available healthcare products will require education to all of the insured. How does the administration plan to take on all of these challenges? The phrase is getting old but it's all that we have; I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
A few words about Mr. Henderson. I felt that he handled himself with a great deal of dignity and class the other night. Sure the blew his own horn a little bit but I think that he was entitled to do that given his circumstances. I have mixed feeling about him being proud to return $200,000 from his budget to the city for the fourth straight year. I'd rather not raise money on the tax levy that is not required. However, if he came up short on one or more of the large line items he managed, where would the city get the money to make up for it? I haven't done the math but it probably isn't that bad as percentage of the budget dollars that he managed. It think it's great that he'd like to leave a legacy behind. Many people seem not to like Mr. Henderson; I don't know him enough about him to have an opinion one way or another. The one thing that I have been able to observe though is that he was a good solider for every administration that he served. The mayor is very lucky that Mr. Henderson decided to take the high road the other evening. To me, the fact that Mr. Henderson was the one representing the personnel department at the budget hearings is an indication that all of the issues surrounding the elimination of the personnel director position have not been sorted out yet.
The budget process is far from over. The recommendations of the Committee of the Whole on the operating budget still need to be voted on. It sounds like there are some changes to the operating budget to be submitted by the administration. The question of how the administration intends to reduce the tax levy will be playing out for months according to Mr. Carlisle. Also, we haven't seen the capital improvements budget yet or have been told how its going to get paid for. My friends, the budget process hasn't ended; it's hardly begun. Keep holding on tight, it could still be a bumpy ride. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/07/2008 10:06:13 PM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 09:25:00 AM
|
I think these [job] consolidations are being made due to his inexperience and lack of knowledge and are going to blow up in Carlo's face. His view of many of these positions seems to be that the people in them don't do anything therefore merging them [so he can overpay his new hires] is not a big deal.
I have worked for several large corporations the past thirty years and when downsizing and consolidations take place, the formula is always the same………………… The first to go is always middle management. Then they look at job functions and combine like positions across departments. The last thing they do is eliminate positions from the rank and file.
The only time I’ve seen department heads eliminated is when a division is sold or closed and those functions/products are no longer offered. When this occurs, every effort is made to transfer the out-placed employees to a similar position elsewhere in the company. Under these circumstances, department heads are the least likely to be reassigned since there are fewer comparable positions available.
|
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 6:55:07 PM
|
I recall seeing the outgoing Personnel Director on ECTV before. Even under fire on Thursday night after being told that his friend, Ms. Mejia, is getting more money to do his job, he showed nothing but respect for the Mayor. He only wanted to talk about staying until October in order to bring the health care costs down. I take my hat off to you, Mr. Henderson. You are a stand up guy and the City of Everett is losing a great public servant. I say this because I was told this weekend that you also served on the Everett School Building Commission that built the new High School. Good for you and hopefully the Mayor will see that it is in the City's interest to let you stay until October. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 7:20:56 PM
|
| In actuality billydee, Jim Henderson is a self-serving, kiss a$$ who has done nothing for anyone without first calculating what he was going to get out of it. He will not be missed at City Hall |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 7:45:33 PM
|
I just got a return phone call from an attorney friend about the Mayor's consolidation of positions like the Chief of Staff and City Solicitor and the Budget Director and Purchasing Director. She told me that Ms. Deveney and Mr. Clayton have conflicts of interest in two ways. First, both Ms Deveney and Mr. Clayton must be declared "special municipal employees" by the City Council in order to receive moneys for two separate city jobs. They should not be receiving such high salaries or taking on the second jobs until the City Council approves the Chief of Staff (original position) and Budget Director (original position) as "special municipal employees."
Second, Ms. Deveney and Mr. Clayton will receive salaries in violation of the City ordinance if Mr. Clayton becomes Purchasing Agent. The City ordinance sets the salary for the City Solicitor and Purchasing Agent. Any salary in excess of salaries in the ordinance for these jobs by definition violates the ordinance. Councilman Napolitano picked up on this. So did Ms. Deveney. My lawyer friend told me that Ms. Deveney said that all the City has to do in change the ordinance to allow her to get more money. But therein lies the second conflict. Ms. Deveney has already taken on the second job of City Solicitor. And she is advising the City to change the ordinance after she has already violated it just so that she will no longer violate it. HELLO. Hopefully, the Board of Alderman will hold up Mr. Clayton's appointment as Purchasing Agent on Monday, the 9th, until after the Budget Director has been declared a "special municipal employee." But I am not holding my breath. The City Council members were like deer in the headlight on Thursday night when Mr. Henderson was being screwed without vaseline and the new City Solicitor dained to advise the City Council to change the ordinance after the fact so that her salary does not violate it.
Ms. Mejia's exorbitant salary (allegedly to do some of Mr. Henderson's job) is also a violation of the City Solicitor ordinance. If there is a cap on what the City Solicitor makes, there is also a cap on what the newly named Deputy Solicitor gets. My attorney friend said that the $82,000 salary was over the cap. The ordinance by implication prohibits her from making as money as the City Solicitor. She also told me that inside sources at City Hall told her that Ms. Mejia is already getting that money now and has been since January. She said that Ms. Mejia and Carlo grew up together. I think they are just saying that she is doing Personnel work to justify her salary. Thus at the end of the day we have a City Solicitor and Deputy City Solicitor who advise the City either with ethical problems or with salaries in violation of the City ordinance. Who needs lawyers like that? Nice going, Carlo. And how dare you use female attorneys that way. Hillary Clinton would be ashamed. Let the corruption begin. |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 8:26:38 PM
|
Tetris,
I just read your postings from the other day where you wrote, "I have mixed feeling about him being proud to return $200,000 from his budget to the city for the fourth straight year. I'd rather not raise money on the tax levy that is not required."
I heard Mr Henderson the other night too. I understood Mr. Henderson to say that of the $13 million to $18 million dollars the he managed as Personnel Director for the past 4 budget cycles, he never overspent that money and always returned money to the General Fund on June 30th. He is returning $200,000 of $18 million this fiscal year. That's a good thing since any money returned by Department Heads will be part of the calculus in determining next year's Free Cash. The City is making money whenever a department head returns money to the General Fund at the end of the Fiscal Year.
Justme,
I have only seen Mr. Henderson on TV so I cannot comment on his personality. I only observed that he represented the City well if he manages his department as well as the numbers suggest. He also chose the high road on Thursday at a time when he could easily have told the Mayor and the City Council to kiss his _ _ s. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Budget FY 09
