New Haven Independent

Posted by: David Myers | July 1, 2008 4:40 PM

I keep hearing about high unemplyment rates and layoffs but there are still tens of thousands of high paying jobs posted on employment sites -

http://www.realmatch.com
http://www.indeed.com
http://www.craigslist.com

Seems strange to me.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | July 1, 2008 5:29 PM

As of today July 1, 2008 the city is in deficit spending mode.
The problem here is clear, the Mayor over-estimated his revenue and over-spent expenditures, starting in the 07/08 budget year just ending, with a $10.5M hole. With,I might add, the blessing of the majority of the BOA.
To remedy this mistake while attempting to cover his tracks, the Mayor is now resorting to budget gimmicks and voodoo math rather than face the issue head-on like the responsible administrator he was trained to be. The Mayor is attempting to politic his way out of direct responsibility and blame.

At this stage of the game he must make the hard and true decisions in order to balance his budget now.

Attempting to lure 20 union members into retirement with a lifetime medical carrot is fish bait, the medical cut- off will come later.

Who knew that the city could lay-off 106 positions and 103 were vacant for a indeterminable amount of years.

"Of the 102 layoffs the mayor announced in May, no one has been put out of work yet".

This sounds like planned mass confusion, one day lay-offs, the next day " Hold on I have a better idea".

Decipher this paragraph....

"Most of the jobs reside in the Early Success Reading Program. Those teachers are expected to be absorbed into the school system due to attrition. And of the 10 filled positions on the City Hall side that were cut, two have retired, Hibson said. The rest have found new jobs within the city. Some people started new jobs Tuesday. Others took a week off before making the transition" . Really, WTF.. is going on??

At the same time the city is hiring four new police administrators, 58 officers, 2 new health nurses and a score of temporary workers.

Can someone riddle me this....please.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | July 1, 2008 7:07 PM

Our current agreement with City employees covers their healthcare until age 65. This agreement represents an unfunded liability of $430,000,000. That, I believe is the good number. When you take a closer look at the report that came up with this liability, it estimates that healthcare costs would rise one year to 10% and then decrease each year after by 1% for the next five years to 5% and remain constant. That seems like beyond wishful thinking into the realm of the delusional. That means that this $430 Million dollar --- unfunded --- liability is probably much more. Guess how much the City is putting toward this account? $50,000 dollars. Fifty thousand dollars. Now the City is promising "lifetime" healthcare. Is this a promise they're planning on making because they don't have to be in office to see it through?

Posted by: The Truth | July 1, 2008 8:04 PM

"The city expects 20 to take the offer". At $60,000 pay and $40,000 benefits this makes
$2 million. The budget hole is $6 million. So another $4 million is unaccounted.

What is going on. Johnny Boy is betting the house that Obama gets in. Then it will be federal money coming out the pork spout.

If not things are going to get very bad. 300 to 400 layoffs and a city in paralysis. It doesnt function now.

We all know what will happen. There will be layoffs big time. All the old politically favored that have been there for 30 years will bump the younger staff which do all the work.

See voters, you get what you pay for.

Posted by: James | July 1, 2008 8:10 PM

I'd like to renew my objection to the raises granted to the Mayor and h... Ron Smith, especially in the face of layoffs. Ron is driving around in a new Mercedes while people are getting laid off. How is that right? How can he claim to serve the city? How can he look himself in the mirror? How can the Mayor, who created this mess, cash his enhanced paycheck knowing that his raise could keep low wage workers employed? Shame on John, and shame on Ron. Especially Ron, since they mayor at least shows up for work from time to time. They both talk a good game, but where are the chips when the cards are on the table? In their pockets.

Where else do you get a raise for bankrupting your employer? I mean, other than the Motorola. And mortgage lenders. And hedge funds. And, well... OK, maybe not such a good point. Still disgusting.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 1, 2008 9:32 PM

It appears that this administration has mastered smoke and mirrors! ohhh look the budget is balanced...abracadabra The only problem with that is the old saying.... there's a sucker born every minute. The city can balance the budget cuts cuts cuts. Make the changes now.

Weblog don't forget the new fire class and the fact that there are 2 squads and we do not need them. Not to mention all the other tax wasting problems the fire department has. Which they are aware of and need to start to address.

This should not just be about balancing this years budget it should be about changing the way this city is spending! It needs to change. And if the charters and laws and union contracts do not allow it then those should be on the table to be changed.

Hey question did Perez ever get the consultant papers he requested at the BOA budget vote??

Glad we are not losing the basic service workers that the mayor says is the reason we spend so much .

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 1, 2008 10:43 PM

this nails it!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KReZyAZLI0&feature=related

Posted by: Westviller | July 1, 2008 11:09 PM

The CHR is correct in saying the Fire Department has created its own problems for the City. Not only are Squads a smoke and mirrors for taking care of the chosed few, but can someone tell me, a long time taxpayer, why a city of our size needs 2 Squads. What do these units really do? How about the gas pumps the NHFD put in to manage its accounting but never hooked them up! How abpout the equipment it buys without following city procedures for bidding - they somehow find ways to get around the city process - check those at CH that help them! If the promotional lawsuit is won by those who deserve rank, how much will that cost us? When is City Hall going to open their eyes to the mismanagement of 952 Grand Avenue and how they continue to falsify reports to the BOA and how they have handled personal matters in the stations. Time to fight the real fire!!!!!!

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | July 2, 2008 5:36 AM

I hope that Brian McGrath's job is still safe!

Posted by: Deuce | July 2, 2008 8:05 AM

Cedarhillresident, what tax wasting problems of the fire department are you referring to?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 2, 2008 10:13 AM

Deuce
With modern buildings our fire dept's are not as busy as they use to be (building codes prevent fires). But a well stated argument on that is, the downtown fire and that we need 70 guys on, for the "just in case" factor. Which I will not argue. But in the mean time these men and women now have become a medical response unit. 70% of their calls are now something ambulances can handle. So we send out 6 fire truck and emergency response truck for things that an ambulance can do. We have a special group called the 2nd Squad (which I admit I know nothing about) but this is a group of fav.'s rewarded by being on this squad. (which is not a needed thing with today's building codes) I counted 7 fire trucks in my area for a burnt dinner. So what is my point.....
first to hire the new incoming class is a luxury not a necessity right now. They say we need them to cut down on overtime but reality is fireman gave up their overtime...they do not get time and a half they get straight pay for over time. So by not hiring this class we save a ton on benefits alone. Hold of on them for a year or two. take that money saved and invest it in smaller ambulances and classes for the present firemen to become paramedics not just EMT's so that we can at the least make the money for the medical calls. Now this is just starters. The whole Dept needs to be done over....just as most of the city does. Times are changing and with that change the way things are ran also need to change.
Now don't get me wrong these things can not be done over night but we need to at the least start the wheel or this city is going to be in a mess down the line.
Ok I know I did a crappy explanation.....so ready... aim... fire (no pun intended).

Posted by: Deuce | July 2, 2008 10:24 AM

CHR, no reason for me to fire back, just was looking for clarification. I never think it's a good idea to cut back on police and fire, but I will look more into this. Thanks for your responce.

Posted by: Newbie | July 2, 2008 12:07 PM

James-

I'm sorry but who is this "Ron Smith" charecter you complain of? I searched the article and site and found no such name.....

Posted by: Hooligan | July 2, 2008 1:29 PM

James

You hit the nail on the head, Ron Smith has a full time job at the RWA ( Water Co. ), and works " parttime ", for the City make 40k a year, can anyone tell me what his duties for the City ?, what exactly does he do to earn this money??

I bet he couldn't tell you, and another thing the school budget is the largest in the city, does Hillhouse need (4 )principles?, all on speacial assignments, Wilbur Cross has the same amount I think, can anyone answer this question. They make in excess of 100k if your wondering, and there building another couple of highschool?, one on prime reality ( Coopertive High ), downtown in the bar district no less, this was a perfect example of a well thought out plan.

I also can't see cutting the budget for the FD, it makes no sense, the bravest are a hard working bunch.

Posted by: James | July 2, 2008 2:00 PM

Ron Smith ... usually flies under the radar. Not sure why more people don't pick up on the waste, excess, and patronage he represents. The City Clerk is a largely ceremonial part-time job that pays somewhere in the $50k/year range. He holds another full-time position with the water company. He was also given a sizable raise along with the Mayor last fall, though not as sizable as he would have liked. In short, it's a do-nothing patronage position. A free-ride for a political ally of the Mayor that you and I fund. From our pocket to his.

Posted by: James | July 2, 2008 2:09 PM

Hooligan, from ther City web site;

The City Clerk processes all public documents, including claims, garnishments and suits against the City; records and processes land records (mortgages, releases, quit claims); records all notaries and justices of the peace; codifies all legislation concerning the City of New Haven and prepares, distributes and records all materials needed for primaries and general elections.

So in theory, that's what he does. In practice there's a staff that does all of the work and the few times that I've tried to contact the Clerk's office to obtain documentation, Mr. Smith is always "out," though the folks that actually work there are pleasant enough. I suspect that he is rarely there.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 2, 2008 2:14 PM

Hooligan
I agree about the thinning of the Principle I thought it was 6. And I did not say cut anyone from the NHFD I said do not hire anymore. Some of my friends and their family are one of our finest. And we know I would never say cut PD.
And when we bring up Ron Smith, he is one of many in my understanding that is why the consultant list was requested. To see if these people are what we think they are. How many people work for the city, retire and then go back to work PT as consultants and get a NICE paycheck and a city paid pension on top of that and then the big question is do we even need these positions. Do they even put the hours in???

Posted by: Hooligan | July 3, 2008 7:24 AM

James

Thanxs for the insight, wow, this practice of politcal pay offs has got to stop. The mayor is looking for concesions from the Unions and he can start with one of his hench men ( Ron Smith ).

Also the double dipping at the board of Ed, this isn't complicated, all you have to do is check the Boards budget to see the top payees and what there actual jobs are. I wish I could retire from my job and be rehired all while I was collecting a pension. These people have got to be earning ( no pun entended ), in excess of 150k to 180k. You mean to say you can't find a kid fresh out of college ( with new ideas ), to step into those jobs at a fraction of the cost?.

Mr. Mayor you need to recheck your staff if you can't trim the fat and find where the leaks are. That's the 6 millon dollars your looking for, ask Dr. Mayo for it.

My fee is nominal I'll take Ronnies job, at least I'll be around when people call the office.

Posted by: James | July 3, 2008 8:35 AM

Hooligan, it's actually an elected position. Or, rather it would be if anybody ever bothered to run. For the money versus the work you have to do, I'm not sure why nobody else has gone after his job. You want his job, go for it. You've got my vote. You can at least spell and form a coherent sentence. Though I don't know how much of a chance anybody has in this town without the blessings of the machine.

Posted by: facChek | July 3, 2008 11:42 AM

FYI....

The city clerk's position is not a city appointed senior staff position. The clerk is a elected position supported by law of the state of Connecticut and the city Charter.
Previously, Jack Keys, now probate judge held the position for years, no one every raised a concern about work time or salary during his watch.
The Clerk position by charter is a part time position, and has been that way since the charter was first written. The office is set up and functions according to city standards, and reportes directly to the comtroller. If you all don't like the fact that the position is a paid part time position, I suggest you petition your alder person to call for a complete charter change.

More importantly, the clerk does not participate in the budget process, that process is completely controlled by the mayor.

So if you have a axe to grind about the budget, your anger is misplaced and should be directed solely to the Mayor.

Posted by: James | July 3, 2008 1:30 PM

I don't think anybody accused the Clerk of having a hand in the budget. The complaint is that the position commands too high a salary for the work done. There is certainly no justification for a raise, and especially not in a budget crunch and in a year where the majority of tax payers have seen a massive increase in taxes. Moreover, the position itself seems to go to whomever the mayor supports. With no alternate candidate on the ballot it is a de facto appointment. The fact that it's codified does not absolve the City of the responsibility to spend its money wisely, and there is nothing in the statue that I am aware of that dictates that the part-time position should be paid a salary greater than the household income of much of the city. At half the salary there are plenty of people capable and willing to preform the menial tasks required of the Clerk.

Posted by: facChek | July 3, 2008 1:59 PM

James:
Here we agree..
"there is nothing in the statue that I am aware of that dictates that the part-time position should be paid a salary greater than the household income of much of the city. At half the salary there are plenty of people capable and willing to preform the menial tasks required of the Clerk".

Unfortunately,
Almost all city positions full and part time pay more than the household income of the city households, estimated by the Census in 2005 to be an average $30,500.

And that's not statutory or codified.

Posted by: James | July 3, 2008 5:51 PM

I think we would both agree that it would be both reasonable and prudent, not to mention well within the power of the administration (or possible BOA) to dramatically slash the salary of this and any other archaic and ceremonial position.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 5, 2008 10:11 PM

And what about the "clerical staff" mentioned in the article? What is that?

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 5, 2008 10:14 PM

Oh, never mind. I just realized these are probably the people who are actually doing all the work.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 6, 2008 12:08 PM

Here we are doing it again redirected into caring about one position? Ron is one of many!!! The BOE has many people, what about traffic and parking, housing authority? what about town hall, city planning, zoning. We can be mad about this one position but we need to look at all dept. with similar useless positions!

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 7, 2008 12:02 AM

I think the best way to bring about change (and save money) is to start firing from the top down. But what do I know.