| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 09:06:18 AM
|
2.
An extra almost quarter of a million dollars at the end of the fiscal year for rubbish? The increases budgeted for two of the line items next year don't come close to that and the third line item was submitted for a lower amount than it was in FY09. Probably not the best issue to have on the agenda on that night that next fiscal year's budget is up for a vote. We need to get a really good explanation of this one, or maybe more accurately, a good answer (or idea at least) about how rubbish costs can be brought down.
3.
According to the FY10 Budget document, the Medicare Line was overspend by more than $46K in FY08 (How does that happen?) and was only increased by $25K in the FY09 budget; so a transfer of only $8K seems like a "victory". A $30K 9C cut to Treasurer/Collector Salary Account seemed safe given that the 50K Assistant Treasurer position was empty most of the year; why is $16K more needed now? $5.9K to the City Clerk's Salary Account? No clue. $600.00 for City Clerk's Miscellaneous Election Expenses Account. Too much in 9C cuts were taken; weren't elections over by the time the cuts were made? And $30.5K available in Unemployment Compensation. Too much money transferred to it in late March or money available because layoffs were avoided? None of this leaves me with a comfortable feeling.
5.
The longevity payment was probably missed due to a combination of not having a VSO during budget season last year and our old friend Clayton Carlisle. But how does overtime get authorized if there's no budget for it in the department? The same thing is true in the FY10 budget too.
6.
I said it last week, I'll say it again. There's no need for this and it sends the wrong message. Make a slight adjustment to the City Solicitor maximum so that no one can question the couple of bucks that she's above the range and be done with it.
9.
Alderman Matewsky seems to be out on an island by himself about not empowering the traffic commission. Let's see what he has to say about it this time. I wonder if anyone will catch the errors in the piece before they vote to enroll it.
10.
I just get the feeling that the future of the "Social Host" ordinance might still be bumpy.
14.
I'm still not sure how this is supposed to work. The revised sum of $131,489,009.00 represents the administration's original appropriation request minus the adjustments made by the Budget Committee. How do the additional appropriations totaling $947,701 get approved? I know that the City Council can't increase the appropriation amount. I would have expected some type of piece on the calendar from the administration for this additional appropriation, but, there is none. There's still time to address the additional appropriation but the clock is starting to tick.
It's pretty obvious that the budget is going to pass as is, once the two pieces of it get put together somehow. But, I wouldn't be surprised if one or two members of the Board of Aldermen voted against it Monday night. Last year, I couldn't understand why someone would do that; this year, I think that I can. Last year, I thought that if someone had a problem with the budget, it should have been aired out in committee. I still think that should have been done this year but the bottom line is that the city still needs to have a budget and the council decided to work with the hand that the administration dealt them. They didn't need to like though and I think that some them may tell us that Monday night.
And there really doesn't need to to be any ugly debate about that this year. Once the aldermen say their piece (I would be surprised if anyone on the City Council had anything to say about it), it will be just up to the mayor and his administration to prove the dissenters wrong, if they can.
15.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the DCR to do anything. Just ask Sal DiDomenico; I can't imagine that he could be very happy with them right about now; I don't believe that any of the work he was promised from the DCR has been started yet.
16./17./18./19.
Doesn't it seem that these items have been around forever, even if they haven't? What more can you say about them.
20.
I won't be surprised in the curbs don't get painted. I also wouldn’t be surprised if they do. I'm just having a hard time getting a read on this one.
21.
My mother asked me if the City Council taking the summer off meant that they were giving up two months of pay and health insurance too? Good one Ma. One more charter change that needs to be made is a requirement for the legislative body(s) to meet at least once a month. If you can't give up two nights in the summer to meet, then you probably shouldn't be running for the office. Of course, the Mayor can call special meetings if needed; but that's not the point. They have a job and should be doing it. With elections in the fall and a new body in to be seated in January, very little will likely get done for the rest of the year. |
 |
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 2:54:43 PM
|
| I heard that tomorrow nite is nuzzo last time on the board of alderman he took a job with the city of everett as rec. director |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/07/2009 : 6:19:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by michael
I heard that tomorrow nite is nuzzo last time on the board of alderman he took a job with the city of everett as rec. director
Here's another one padding his pension................. This really sucks! I wonder if he'll bother to wait the 6 months the state requires? Probably not, no one else does. I hope with the charter change that number can increase to 12 months and NO waivers!!! |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 7:43:34 PM
|
I guess we will have to wait and see if he waits the six months. My bet would be a big "NO".....
This really needs to stop.
I wonder if the rest of the rumor will come to fruition, Matewsky - Alderman Ward 1 and McKinnon - Alderman at Large?
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 8:52:45 PM
|
| Well, we know they funded a position in the budget for a full time rec center director. You know.............there is a reason that Mass General Laws are put in place, and I have a huge issue with the blatant disregard to the law. These people think the law does not apply to them. Is the City Solicitor that advises the city, advising to ignore MGL? That doesn't sound very smart. Yet another wait and see... |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 9:55:10 PM
|
I sometimes wonder if all the deceit and deals were the reason Erin left.............. It's tough for an honest person to deal with dishonest people!
|
Edited by - justme on 06/07/2009 9:56:09 PM |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 06:10:23 AM
|
I'll give you this Justme...... I think Erin didn't have a clue what she was getting herself into. The was young, right out of school with a limited amount of state agency background. She had no idea about municipal government. When it became evident to her that no one truly had a clue and she realized they were making fundamentally bad decisions, I personally believe she headed for the hills before her law degree became in jeopardy. Who in their right mind would jeopardize all that hard work and disgrace for the greed and gluttony of others?
Not only that but, like others in that position, the buck stopped with her and she was getting the wrath of many when all she was doing her job. Imagine taking that pressure and not believing in what you were doing?
Its as I said before, governmental service, in that capacity, is not for everyone. It takes a certain kind of person who can do what needs to be done and sustain the barrage of bullets. A former colleague of mine had a position similiar to that and I can tell you, Joe and Mary GQ Public dont have a clue what a 24/7 job that is and how much pressure you are under.
I dont blame her and it wasn't a big surprise. She truly had no vested interest here. It certainly wasn't the glamourous job she probably thought it was and, lets face it, when push came to shove, we all know, that she was beginning to get painted with the same brush as the people around her. WOW..... can you imagine? I would have run for the hills if someone compared me to that crew....
Just my Humble Opinion
[b]"Cruller DaHville"
 |
Edited by - Cruller DaVille on 06/08/2009 06:23:41 AM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 07:17:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cruller DaVille
I'll give you this Justme...... I think Erin didn't have a clue what she was getting herself into. The was young, right out of school with a limited amount of state agency background. She had no idea about municipal government. When it became evident to her that no one truly had a clue and she realized they were making fundamentally bad decisions, I personally believe she headed for the hills before her law degree became in jeopardy. Who in their right mind would jeopardize all that hard work and disgrace for the greed and gluttony of others?
Not only that but, like others in that position, the buck stopped with her and she was getting the wrath of many when all she was doing her job. Imagine taking that pressure and not believing in what you were doing?
Its as I said before, governmental service, in that capacity, is not for everyone. It takes a certain kind of person who can do what needs to be done and sustain the barrage of bullets. A former colleague of mine had a position similiar to that and I can tell you, Joe and Mary GQ Public dont have a clue what a 24/7 job that is and how much pressure you are under.
I dont blame her and it wasn't a big surprise. She truly had no vested interest here. It certainly wasn't the glamourous job she probably thought it was and, lets face it, when push came to shove, we all know, that she was beginning to get painted with the same brush as the people around her. WOW..... can you imagine? I would have run for the hills if someone compared me to that crew....
Just my Humble Opinion
[b]"Cruller DaHville"
You said it a lot more eloquently…………….. but we’re definitely on the same page! |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 08:27:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by justme
I sometimes wonder if all the deceit and deals were the reason Erin left.............. It's tough for an honest person to deal with dishonest people!
Justme....That makes a lot of sense. I often wondered the same thing myself. I think she was smart getting out when she did.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 8:22:08 PM
|
I just arrived home.....any news on the BOA meeting?
"Deb" |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 8:30:57 PM
|
| I was late tonight too. Did Nuzzo resign? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 8:38:57 PM
|
| I'm working on my meeting comments. But not to keep you in suspense, Alderman Nuzzo did not show up tonight. It was reported that he would be late but.... Take that for what you will. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 8:46:54 PM
|
Hmmmm........he doesn't miss meetings very often.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 10:15:33 PM
|
2.
I don't think that I heard a good answer as to why Capital is entitled to an extra $100,000. If it was a legal issue, the City Solicitor was sitting right there and they could have gotten an answer to it. I can understand the increase in tonnage leading to an extra charge; the streets are filled with trash on trash day even though recycling appears to be a success But, I didn't hear a good plan as to how the tonnage is going to be decreased. I understand that recyclables commodities prices are down. But just hoping that they they change in favor of the city doesn't address that problem either. From what we heard tonight, I can't begin to understand how this won't be a problem in the FY10 budget too. And one more thing. A standard set of account names and/or account numbers needs to be used in all transfer orders to avoid any confusion like there was tonight over which line items are involved in the transfer.
3.
We were told that there may be issues in finding the money to pay for Separation Incentive Program. But not having seen a complete list of those position that were eliminated, it was hard to tell how much money would be needed to fund these payments in each department. So that explained the transfers to the Treasurer's and City Clerk's Salary line items. Probably explains at least a portion, if not all, of the transfer to the FICA line item too. The Miscellaneous Election Expenses line item was just cut too deeply by the 9C cuts. Why no questions about why the money was available in the Unemployment line item though?
5.
Of course, no questions were asked about spending overtime money when was not budgeted for. The department seems to have some every year; so why not budget for it?
6.
I'm sorry but what the budget director told the members about these salary ranges was not correct. She didn't seem to be properly prepared to answer the question but don't the members also share a responsibility to prepare for these meetings too? I found the information easily enough.
7.
Even though it is lengthy, all the information that was needed to find out which amounts were changed was provided. Could it be better presented. Yes, I've already commented as such. It just took a little time to figure it out. Again, no preparation.
9.
I thought that it was a little strange that Alderman Marchese was against empowering the traffic commission but didn't speak on the piece. Is anybody going to realize that this item needs to corrected before the final enrollment vote is taken next week? Is there a recurring theme here tonight?
10.
Maybe I'll be wrong. There was only a minor bump for the Social Host Responsibility ordinance tonight with Alderman Sachetta speaking and voting against it. I think that it will hit a few more bumps next week though. It'll probably pass but you never know until it happens.
14.
Again, I can't believe that the administration wasn't prepared to amend this order as soon as it was pointed out that it needed amending. The amended budget amount that was passed was $132,436,710. I was right that someone would have something to say about the budget but not that no one voted against it. It probably doesn't really make any sense to vote against it but, since it was done last year, I thought it might happen this year too.
15.
It's nice to get a promise from the Senator's office that the DCR is going to do something about this. I do hope that they show up tomorrow to assess the situation. But does anyone know if the previous promises made by the Senator's office in regards to the DCR have been completed? I haven't been in the Santilli Highway area lately to see if that works been completed. When I was on the Parkway Sunday, it looked like a small piece of that area might have been addressed. The growth on the Sweetser Circle side was growing up higher than the beautification area already. So, we'll see what happens with the DCR. BTW, it didn't look like the hydro-seeding on the rotary took hold very well the last time I was down in the area.
16.
Why do we need any volunteers to help keep the city clean. According to Councilor Hicks, it's never been cleaner.
17.
Of course, we're not going to get a rebate from National Grid. But at least the problems that could be fixed easily were addressed and the other issues that need to be rectified have been identified.
18.
Considering to restrict 24 hour stores probably should have been sent to committee in the first place.
19.
We all know how this goes. The city threatens to take away their license. The problems get cleaned up for a while. They get to keep their license. Soon after, they start going back to their old ways. A never ending circle. Time to break the cycle.
20.
Like I said before the meeting, I believe that the chances of the curbs getting painted are no more than 50-50.
21.
It figures; no discussion about suspending the meetings. Who would have thought that Alderman Marcus would be the only one to vote against it.
22.
I think that it is pretty obvious that I have no use for the majority of items added under suspension. This one was no exception. Alderman Marchese never should have dropped his previous piece on cleaning up the Charleston Chew property until it was cleaned up to his satisfaction.
I thought that Alderman Marcus was going to pop a cork trying to get in his point of personal privilege. Although the rescheduling of the Ragucci dedication was a worthy point, I glad that President DiPerri let the Alderman know who's running the meeting, at least the first time.
Doesn't Alderman Marchese realize that the City Solicitor is required by ordinance to attend city council meetings. She wasn't going anywhere, there was no need to take her pieces out of order. |
|
|
|
charm
Senior Member
264 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2009 : 05:48:30 AM
|
| I think not having a meeting for july and august says wow no ward one alderman and two is marcus going to jail on a deal plea if so he will be out in 30 days, so that is my interuptation of no meeting in july and august, I could be wrong but sources close to me are saying the same thing |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2009
