| Author |
 Topic  |
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2008 : 8:40:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by billydee
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.
No, he hasn't managed his department well and if you recall, there were several occasions in previous years that he appeared before the council and acted like an arrogant, pompous, jerk. He wants something from the mayor right now................. he certainly won't get it if he did anything other than what he did last Thursday. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 8:47:41 PM
|
Billydee,
Would you consider sending an e-mail with this information to the councilors and the BOA? I don’t know what kind of a response you would get but it’s worth a shot. This is my personal opinion, but I have lived in Everett all my life, have always worked, and I just got by (which was fine for me) but I can’t even get by anymore and I have a huge problem paying someone a bloated salary (especially the solicitor that doesn’t even live in Everett, whom was supposed to by ordinance) so, my home forecloses because we have a Mayor that pays his friends bloated salaries and we are also paying his friends for street sweeping in excess of $102,000.00 for it and it goes on and on. He said he would lower the taxes. His proposed budget was to raise the taxes 6.5 million. With everything going on and Woodwaste, my head is spinning.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 12:14:06 AM
|
Billydee,
When I posted about the $200,000 the other night, I admitted that I hadn't run the numbers; I should have. By my calculations, I have Mr. Henderson managing about $16.75 million in the FY08 budget. $200,000 is approximately 1.2% of his managed amount. That's pretty good; I wouldn't want him cutting it any closer than that. I also thought that, over a four year period, he should have gotten better instead of staying relatively the same. Obviously what I forgot to consider was that the amount of money he was managing increased over the four year period. I don't have the numbers but obviously we are all aware that, at least, health care costs alone have gone up significantly each year. If the amount returned has remained relatively the same, then the percentage returned has trended down each year. How much money he returned to the city should be judged on the percentage not the amount. Sorry.
I obviously understand that any money returned to the city will go towards the free cash calculation. However, as our old friend CourtforFred (we miss you) used to tell us, if more money is raised than is needed to run the city, we are being overtaxed and a large free cash pool could be an excuse for politicians to go swimming. After running these numbers, I don't believe that we were overtaxed in this case and the $200,000 being returned is just large because we are dealing in large numbers.
We are definitely pretty close to being on the same page with Ms. Deveney and Mrs. Mejia. The only difference that I have is that I don't believe that paying Mrs. Mejia that amount is necessarily illegal; but it obviously doesn't make any sense given the intent of the ordinance. But does it make any more sense that anyone in the city gets paid more than its chief executive officer? I have something else to discuss about Ms. Deveney but we'll get to that later.
On Mr. Carlisle, I don't believe that there is any ordinance that sets the salary of the purchasing agent or the budget director. I posted every thing that I am aware of in regards to salaries that are set by ordinance on the prior page so I won't repost it here. Neither is included in that information. If you are aware of something else, please let us know.
The administration believes that Mr. Carlisle doesn't need to be designated as a special municipal employee because they are combining the functions of the two departments into one. Therefore, they don't believe that it is necessary for Mr. Carlisle to get the special designation. Again, if you know something that we don't, please share. The interesting thing that I found was in Section 35 of the City Charter. It gives power to consolidate offices to the city council; I couldn't find anywhere in the charter where the mayor was given similar powers. I took a look at MGL to see if I could find anything that could help to sort this out. I didn't see anything I'd consider concrete but its a little too involved for me to figure out. So my question is do we have another issue that needs to be addressed?
Getting back to Ms. Deveney. I'm not sure that this is an issue or not, but I'll try to lay it out so that people are at least aware of a possible issue. On April 28th, Board of Alderman confirmed Ms. Deveney's appointment as city solicitor. According to the meeting report posted on the city website for that meeting, the disposition of that item was "Appointment Confirmed". No restrictions or limitations were placed on the appointment even though it was suggested during the debate that it should be run by the state ethics commission to insure that were no issues. I believe that Ms. Deveney told Councilor Napolitano the other night that she was still not the city solicitor because an order needed to be passed by the city council to designate her as a special municipal employee. Why that process hasn't begun (it's not on Monday's agenda either) is a mystery to me.
Here's where it gets interesting. I ran across an ordinance that may throw a monkey wrench into the process. It's Section 2-32 (b) of the revised city ordinances and it reads as follows:
The failure to properly take and file with the City Clerk an oath of office within 30 days after the commencement of the term of the office to which the an individual is appointed under this section or Chapter 35 of the Charter of the City of Everett shall cause the office to become vacant and said appointment to be void.
(BTW - The grammar error in the text of the section is not mine, it is exactly as it appears in the ordinance.)
Well, where does this leave us? The approval was given by the BOA without any formal restrictions that prevented Ms. Deveney from taking the position. She has stated that she hasn't taken the position yet because one more step is required, a step that was not part of the vote taken by the BOA. If she hasn't taken the position yet, surely she hasn't taken an oath of office. It been more than 30 days. As a layman, I have an opinion. If the BOA had approved this with a limitation, I wouldn't have a problem; because they didn't, I do. In my opinion, they got great legal advice on this vote. It's ironic that it should require a legal opinion to actually sort this all out. Let's see if anyone picks up on. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/09/2008 12:24:32 AM |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 10:31:04 AM
|
Tetris,
I did some homework. There are few positions in the City ordinace that are listed: City Solicitor. Executive Director of City Services. Chief Procurement Officer are a few. These positions require BOA approval for the appointment. These positions are listed in the ordinance because the City forefathers recognize these as important City posts. Any one who seeks these posts while working in another City job, probably has an ethics problem. According to the State Ethics Office, which I just called, persons like Erin Deveney and Mr. Carlisle (oops, just learned that it was not Mr. Clayton) who were serving in one city job before seeking the second city job, should have contacted the State Ethics themselves to discuss any potential state ethics issues. Ms. Deveney apparently contacted them and knows that the Chief of Staff has to be declared a "special municipal employee" in order for her to serve as City Solicitor. That position has not been declared a special municipal employee. It is unclear that Mr. Carlisle has contacted the Ethics Commission. He operates at his peril if he does not.
I relied on the advice of a lawyer friend on the subject of whether Mr. Carlisle's salary is listed in the ordinance. I will investigate this later. However, I am now clear about one thing. Since neither Ms. Deveney's Chief of Staff position nor Mr. Carlisle's Budget Director position have been declared "special municipal employees" by the City Council, they should not be serving in the City Solicitor and Chief Procurement positions, respectively, until that happens. Tonight the BOA should postpone the appointment of Mr. Carlisle since the Budget Director has not been declared a "special municipal employee." Nor is Mr. Carlisle certified as a chief procurement officer.
Ms. Deveney should be held to a higher standard than Mr. Carlisle, as one who is currently posing as the City Solicitor. As the City's chief lawyer, Ms. "From Out of Town" Deveney (who already had the City Solicitor residency requirement removed in order to become City Solicitor) should tender her resignation as City Solicitor immediately. She admitted on two occasions recently that she is violating the State Ethics laws by not having the Chief of Staff position declared as "special municipal employee." That's problem number 1. Her $91,000 salary violates the ordiance that sets the City Solicitor salary. That's problem number 2. The City of Everett does not need lawyers who take the lawyer's oath so lightly. As far as I am concerned there will always be a cloud over her City Solicitor head. The Everett taxpayers want to know that the advice our City Solicitor gives is based on what is in the law now, not the future. The other night Ms. Deveney suggested that the ordinace setting the City Solicitor salary should be amended. She is currently receiving a salary in violation of the ordiance. She is saying "change the ordinance so that I no longer violate it." How self-serivng, unethical and illegal is that?
She should hsve made certain that the ethical and ordinance hurdles to her appointment were resolved before she took the position. Failing to do that, she shows us the kind of lawyer she is not. Former City Solicitor, Bob Jordan, would never have accepted the position under such ethical or city ordinance clouds. Ms. Deveney can't even light to candle to "do little" John Kryzovic now. Kryzovic at least had a modicum of integrity. Ms. Deveney and the advice she gives will be forever tainted. She has proven herself to be a lawyer prone to unethical or illegal behavior when it suits her purposes. The City cannot afford its chief lawyer to behave so despicably. The City can do without lawyers like that, especially with Thibeault's dumping sites ready to take over Everett. The smell around the Stop and Shop is growing. Now it's over City Hall, in particular the office of the City Solicitor. |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 2:25:29 PM
|
Tetris:
I read with interest your statement "however, as our old friend CourtforFred (we miss you) used to tell us, if more money is raised than is needed to run the city, we are being overtaxed and a large free cash pool could be an excuse for politicians to go swimming."
Unfortunately, unlike former Mayor Ragucci, this Mayor and former Mayor Hanlon never figured out the fine art of balancing between a) budgeting for those things that department heads absolutely must have and the taxpayers should pay for and b) getting certain things that department heads "wish for" via free cash orders approved by the the city council in the fall after free cash is certified. Free cash transactions in the fall have no impact on the tax bills that come out later in the fall (although the less free cash the City spends, there is more of a potential savings for the taxpayers during the following year's tax cycle). It apparently takes time to develop this delicate balancing act, especially when the poor excuse for a budget director is really not a budget director. He is a town administrator type who did not meet with department heads to discuss the budget because that is not what town administrators do.
Despite my support of Mayor DeMaria and my vote for him in November, I am beginning to wonder whether the taxpayers can afford another mayor who just does not get the tax implications of his actions, or lack thereof. The jury won't be out too much longer because we will know when we receive our tax bills next fall just how much cost savings were included in Mayor DeMaria's first budget. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 5:03:55 PM
|
Billydee,
I understand how the process works. The point was over taxation one fiscal year should result in free cash the next fiscal year unless there are liabilities (like unpaid water bills, etc.) that the state will make you cover before declaring the cash free. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 08:17:23 AM
|
If Alderman Van Campen's recitation was correct last night, we are in for an 8 to 10 percent increase in our taxes.
I heard many of "them" say with the sale of the old city yards and the Devens school, that could be applied to the taxes to help reduce the tax burden to the tax payer. Isn't that just putting a band-aid on the issue? Won't we just have to make up all the money next year that they apply towards the tax levy now? What happens when we run out of places to pull money from? It seems to me it's a lot like, "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
|
Edited by - massdee on 06/10/2008 08:32:31 AM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 10:07:56 AM
|
Massdee,
Does the "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" mind set surprise you? The city has been on that path for some time now. Hard to pinpoint when it began. Was it when the decision not to fund the retirement fund properly was made or was it something else? Once you put yourself on this path, its a hard habit to break; it not an easy decision to make either. If both of these sales come to fruition before the tax rate is set and the mayor were to come before the city and say that these proceeds were going to be used to better insure the city's long term financial health rather than to lower your taxes this year, what would the hue and cry be? It's rock and a hard place material.
BTW, Alderman Matewsky, let's not to try and take the city council off the hook for the decisions made by past city governments for the transgressions of past budgets. There has always been the opportunity for the city council to comment and question about things that may be under funded, even though that is not the primary focus of the budget hearings. Unfortunately, the city council has only woken up in the last few years and started to take its budgetary responsibilities seriously. Unfortunately, sir, you still have not. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 10:27:39 AM
|
| Another question. What were the 125 new hires that Mr Carlisle was talking about, under the Hanlon Administration? I thought I understood until he kept talking. Did anyone get it? Tetris? Did the DeMaria Administration cut any of these positions? |
Edited by - massdee on 06/10/2008 10:30:55 AM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 1:14:36 PM
|
What I thought Mr. Carlisle was talking about was the number of new people that were added to the retirement system according to the admistrator PERAC. I think that at first he did say payroll but later came back and corrected it to retirement. He also said that it was during the Hanlon administration and it was three year period? No wonder we're all confused.
I'm not sure what the requirement is in order to get on the city's retirement system. It didn't sound too restrictive last night, i.e., work 20 or more hours per week, but I'm sure that there's a least little more to it than that. According to Mr. Carlisle, PERAC covers everybody in the city except for teachers and school department administrations and I have no reason to doubt that. Therefore, the number from PERAC will include school custodians, cafeteria workers, etc.
Now with all that out of the way, here's a link to the latest PERAC valuation report for Everett on the state website. It covers the period of calendar year 2006, the first year of the Hanlon administration.
You must be logged in to see this link.
Pay special attention to pages 6 and 7 (Adobe page numbers). Page 6 shows a growth of 76 active employees and a decrease of 8 retirees and survivors. The text of page 7 states the there was a significant increase in the number of active employees and the increase was reconfirmed with the Everett Board of Retirement.
The other information of interest in this document are the projected payments that the city will have to make to PERAC in the coming years to fully fund the city's pension liability. The numbers are dismal. The only good piece of news that can be taken from this is that the actual payment in the budget for FY09 is almost $400,000 less than the estimated FY09 payment specified in this document. On second thought, maybe the difference is the amount is the housing authority's contribution. Remember that from last summer? No matter what the difference may represent, the numbers are ugly.
Remember. We're talking about people here; not positions. I'll differ to Mr. Carlisle to talk about the jobs (if he can) in two weeks. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/10/2008 1:21:10 PM |
|
|
|
nicholas
Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 9:25:49 PM
|
I guess I am naive, but how come there have been so few voices upset with the bull that the Administration has been dishing out lately? This budget is $8 million higher than last year's budget. It's $21 million higher than it was 2 years ago. It's $29 million higher than it was 3 years ago. Yet, the Mayor and the Budget Director tell us that he saved us money by consolidating positions. There was no cost savings in combining Budget with Purchasing until the City Council cut the Budget Office's salaries line item by $23,000. So that was about paying that weirdo Carlilse more money. And our taxes go up.
I still don't see the cost savings in eliminating a $60,000 Personnel Director position when Henderson stated that he could have shaved $6,000 from the 12 lines items he managed and gotten a better cost savings result. This Carlisle improved "true budget" Vetrano's public image. She made more sense than that weirdo. I am still using her "true budget" reference. She at least discussed the Budget with the Department Heads who were responsible for their Budget. I doubt if Henderson discussed his budget with anyone until he learned the hard way that "he" was the "costs savings." Not any of his line items. Not anyone else. As noted, when Mr. Pedulla was terminated, there was no cost savings until the Council made cuts. And our taxes still go up.
And since when does one get a salary increase when another loses his or her livelihood? Isn't a Deputy Attorney getting $14,000 more money to take on personnel duties? Rumor has it that the Deputy Attorney has been receiving most of that $14,000 increase since January. So then the Mayor used the elimination of the Personnel Director job to pay another individual a higher salary. Ouch! In corporate America they don't call it a layoff when only two department heads are laid off. A cost-savings layoff should mean that our taxes are going down. But they are going up. Mayor DeMaria told us that further layoffs are coming after July. Does he even know what a fiscal year is? The Budget the Board approved last night will be paid for by our taxes next fall, whether or not the Mayor lays others off after July.
And our taxes still go up.
I applaud the lone Alderman from Ward 5, Mr. Van Campen, who voted against the Budget. It took guts and courage, especially knowing that certain local papers
may find a way to crucify him in this week's editions. Mr. V stepped up to say "this is scrap." And some of us--hopefully many of us-- thank him for that.
He is a City Solicitor himself. When he tells our City Solicitor that you are, unethical and illegal, I listen to that. And I learn from recent postings here that there is some truth to that, if Deveney became the City's top lawyer in violation of ethics law and a city ordinance on attorney salaries.
Mr. V. voted "no" to this Mayor's first budget because it was unworthy of a "yes." The Administration was dishonest with the spins on cost savings and our taxes are going up. Thank you, Alderman Van Campen.
Is it true that Alderman Nuzzo is getting a job with the City? Doesn't he already work for the airlines? So he will retire from the airline and collect a second income from the City? Deep. I still can't believe that the City is so orrupt and that the goal is figure out how to best benefit from the corruption.
My mother tells me that I am too hard on those at City Hall and on the City Council who have mouths to feed and gas to buy. I tell her that if I have $500 less to spend when my tax bill comes out next fall, then feeding their children's mouth and gasing their cars will make it difficult to feed her grandchildren or take her to Square One Mall on my gas. I thought that my mother and I were the taxpayers and that the City runs because of our taxes. My mother is already gone because she buys the bull hook, line and sinker because she can afford most tax increases. That's why I found a way to register and write tonight. Thanks for listening. There is still hope for me. Either I must have Mr. V's courage and step up now and again, or, find a way to get mine from the coruption while it is taking from me. How sad. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 9:37:10 PM
|
| Welcome, Nicholas. I enjoyed reading your post. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 10:20:28 PM
|
| There were a couple of remarks made from Mr. Clayton last night that I do not quite understand and I hope I remember correctly. Were there line items in the budget that were cut by the city council that they could not cut and was that amount 120,000.00 and he put zeros in that line item? I ask this too because there was a few occasions during the budget when he was called upon because of these “zeros” and he said he wouldn’t do that anymore. I’m just wondering if there are other mistakes and is the budget accurate. I also do not believe for one second that within two years, 125 positions were created, minus-teachers-fire and police that are in the pension system. Mr. Clayton does not want to give RVC the names on these positions, but these names need to be requested. These remarks have been going around and around. It went from 40 positions to 80 positions now its 125?? Is it ever going to stop? He was not even here in the past two years, how would he know this number without names and hire dates. I think that was a very inaccurate statement by him to make. It appears the budget was not quite accurate so I’m not sure what to trust. We need the names and position titles of these 125 people that were hired within the past two years. Something’s not right. He needs to go back to the Monopoly Board for his day job and collect the 200 when we pass go. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 11:06:25 PM
|
| Tetris thanks for Perac link. How did we get this bad? I don’t understand, who is responsible for this and I know the big hit was last year for this and only larger to come. I mean, they have been doing budgets for years and no one caught this in the past 10 years say? Something else that makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 11:07:06 PM
|
Nicholas,
I join Masdee because I also enjoyed reading what you wrote. It is making me think about our complicity in what goes on and what does not go on in our City government and our Schools. The School Dept is the #1 reason our City Budget has increased so much over the last few years. Yet, most of us don't dare get into that in our posts. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Budget FY 09
