New Haven Independent

Posted by: fearless | July 7, 2009 8:47 AM

why is this Mayor still in office? He has disrespected all the city workers who agreed to cutbacks to help the city. DeStefano is been in office so long that he and his executive team drink the KoolAid about themselves and think that they have the power of votes, so they do what they want, and the hell with the workers and taxpayers Again, why is this guy still MAYOR? ....

Posted by: abusedteacher | July 7, 2009 9:00 AM

Hey New Haven...welcome to the double-speak that ... Mayor John has been giving the teachers for years. WE have given back over and over, each time we were promised that we would be taken care of next contract...guess what? it never happened. When His Majesty came to us and asked for concessions on a valid contract, we all laughed and told him to walk. Our incredibly smart Union leadership showed him how to save more money than they asked for, and THEY denied it because it wasn't what they wanted. ...
Also, he keeps tooting his 3 percent give-back. Yeah, but he gave himself a HUGE raise when he was re-elected, so his net income is still UP!!! What a guy our mayor is. ...

Posted by: What | July 7, 2009 9:28 AM

Melissa/Paul,

Which aldermen were there, and which were not?

Posted by: disappointed again | July 7, 2009 9:36 AM

Isn't there anyone out there with the chops to run against DesStefano?????

Are we doomed to have him as Mayor forever???

Posted by: jay | July 7, 2009 9:54 AM

if the unionized city workers are getting a raise, then the non-unionized city workers should get the same comparable raise. it's only fair - treat everyone the same, across the board!

Posted by: Streever | July 7, 2009 10:08 AM

It's a real shame. I'm glad we have someone like Roland to fight this.

In separate news, the City tried to sell of the Community Garden on Williams street for 1 dollar to plug holes in the budget.

What a load of nonsense.

Posted by: Disgusted almost ex-resident | July 7, 2009 10:12 AM

Almost pointless to comment. King Johnny was mayor when I moved here. Guess he'll still be mayor when I move away. You get the government you deserve, folks.

Posted by: Research Assistant | July 7, 2009 10:20 AM

Jay (and every other City Hall management type taking this personally because, guess what!, you're on the list!) --

With apologies for my affinity for parentheses. There's so much stupidity here it's hard to contain myself.

These are the same non-unionized employees who demanded that the unionized employees give up their raises because of the crisis. They were right then and they're wrong now.

What's awful about this?

Well, first, it severely cramps the City's bargaining position in future union negotiations. We have got to cut the fat out of those contracts when they come up for renewal and City management loses the moral authority to do that when they write themselves raises, no matter how well-deserved, a few months after demanding that unionized employees take pay freezes or face lay-offs.

Second, the hypocrisy and political ineptitude of it all make us all question the abilities of the folks in charge here (even those of us who are generally inclined to give City Hall the benefit of the doubt).

Third, the first question in making salary decisions isn't whether the raise is deserved. How many city employees deserved to be laid off (some of them, doubtless, but not all of them)? How many people in the private sector with decreased salaries or pay freezes deserve them (and for goodness sake, who hasn't seen a pay freeze or decrease or furlough days and an increase in employee share of health benefits in the last year and a half? Cry. Me. A. River.)? "Deserve" isn't the point. "Afford" is the point. It's disgusting that these management folks understood that a few months ago with respect to non-management employees but that they've forgotten that basic principle now when their own salaries are at stake.

Posted by: what | July 7, 2009 11:10 AM

Streever,

Roland isn't the only Alderman fighting this, or even leading the charge. The only reason he got the press is that he is usually in lockstep with the mayor.

Next time there is a fight at the BOA with the mayor on spending priorities, how about you support the folks who are ALWAYS in the trenches.

Posted by: notimon | July 7, 2009 11:16 AM

That is a Good Question Paul and Melissa. Which Aldermen did not show? I think all spending should be transparent.

Posted by: Whatsername | July 7, 2009 11:19 AM

"They're some of the most labor-intensive and lowest-paid jobs the city. Salaries for street crews start just below $43,000."

According to the Teacher Salary schedule for 2007-2008, a teacher with a BA starts at $39,181. [Link from NHPS here: http://www.nhps.net/nhpsjobs/TeacherSalarySchedule.doc]

Many who are working long hours for youth-serving non-profits get paid $4,000 less than that a year, and some, even less, while we work with city schools (some easier to deal with than others) and city employees (again, some easier to deal with than others, but never a walk in the park) to help our youth develop into healthy, successful citizens. I would even go so far as to say that we are doing what many schools and city employees do not.

My point? I guess it's along the lines of--you get paid pretty well, a salary many wouldn't mind having. I agree the city overstepped the moral boundaries of trust and the legal boundaries of honesty in negotiating with the unions, but really?!? You get paid pretty well for what you do.

Posted by: jay | July 7, 2009 11:32 AM

research assistant - guess what, you are wrong. I am not on the list - not even close !!! mine was just an outsiders opinion.

Posted by: Jim Blunt | July 7, 2009 11:34 AM

Seriously... why won't anyone mount a credible challenge to JD? Why does the Democratic Party of New Haven and CT continue to give JD unwaivering support and ZERO accountability?

I have said it before... New Haven sometimes feels like a mafia run town strait out of the movies... or the twilight zone.

New Haven has so much potential and how can anyone deny the financial and moral mess that this town is in... was in long before the current national financial crisis.

JD needs accountability and my respect for the Democratic Party and the Republican party in New Haven and in CT has all but disappeared.

Posted by: End the Waste | July 7, 2009 11:35 AM

There are many employees at the Housing Authority of the City of NH that earn more than $111,000 per year. Their salary plus great medical benefits seem even more excessive than many City salaries.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 7, 2009 11:54 AM

City's across the state, state employee, and all across the nation people have been taking pay cuts, furlough days, and increases in health insurance payments all to save the jobs of others. This saddens me to see that our city is not following the lead of all these amazing HUMAN BEINGS. Instead we are giving raises to people that make triple what the average public's work guy or parks department makes. ( waving my finger in disappointment!!)

Posted by: cba | July 7, 2009 12:00 PM

King DeStefano should send forth his trusty Sheriff... (Peter Criscuolo ) and harry the citizens for more of their money so he can continue to pay...his court.

Posted by: NellyBlydeux | July 7, 2009 12:16 PM

END THE WASTE is correct.

HANH has to many high price managers. From our simple little street there were two people who mananged to be in the audience Monday night.

111,000 dollars could have funded what? Executives in this state down in Fairfield County took a hard hit this year. City employees should be lucky to have a job. Managers might want to rethink accepting this raises.

You get to a point where you don't need managers full time because they don't have enough workers under them.

Maybe it's time to dispand HANH and have it as just another city department.

Look at pages 40-45 of the Supreme Court's recent decision of Ricci vs DeStefano.

Run little one Run. You can't catch me because I'm the gingerbred one.

Posted by: Mark P | July 7, 2009 12:29 PM

What,

Good call. Streever has to show support for Roland because he helped him get on the BZA. We all know that NOBODY gets on the BZA without the approval of King John!

Posted by: Jim Blunt | July 7, 2009 12:33 PM

"There are many employees at the Housing Authority of the City of NH that earn more than $111,000 per year."

Who?

Posted by: Melissa Bailey | July 7, 2009 12:50 PM

I updated the story to include who was absent and present for the vote.

Posted by: nfjanette | July 7, 2009 12:59 PM

Westville Alderwoman Ina Silverman said she would have supported the measure but she thought that change went too far; she was the only "nay" vote against the amended proposal.

The amount of rhetoric being thrown about is off the scale.

Alderwoman Silverman, apparently unlike the other members of the board, appears to have the clarity of vision and strength of conviction to approach such issues with logic unswayed by the union/populist rage, perhaps fanned in part by the NHI coverage of the situation. I rarely been a fan of the mayor, and have often been a critic, and I agree that once again, his style and approach are self defeating in the arena of public perception.

None the less, these raises should be considered on the basis of merit as determined by professional compensation experts (rather than the NHI people's court), and should of course include consideration of budgetary issues such as ability to pay in the short/medium/long terms. But such matters should not be considered with simplistic "they got, we want" logic as proposed by some of the the people quoted in the article.

Posted by: Streever | July 7, 2009 1:19 PM

Mark P:
I love the concept that I would have given political favors to get on the BZA. A no-pay volunteer bit?
Do you understand how BZA works?

No one thinks you're doing a good job--you can't profit off of it in anyway--and you get yelled at by friends & neighbors for decisions you've made.

The reality is the BZA has 2 open spots still, and no one wants to be on it. Roland actually tried to talk me out of it. As much as I disagree with the Mayor & his staff on any number of things, it was my hard work that got me there, and my interest in seeing neighborhood development proceed in a lawful & ordained way.

If you really think you're right, let's sit down for a coffee and look at this together, before you shout yourself hoarse with a lot of nonsense.

Posted by: Streever | July 7, 2009 1:26 PM

and fyi Mark P, you'll see I tend to support people who I believe excel--Lemar is hands down the best alderman I've ever worked with. He picks and chooses his battles & his top priority has always seemed to be "get things done". Can you say the same for yourself or the people you support?

My integrity is important to me, and like I said, I'd welcome the chance to sit down with you over coffee & hear your accusations.

Posted by: taxpayer | July 7, 2009 1:53 PM

The bill is being footed by the taxpayer.

By way of their elected officials the decision should be made on whether or not to grant raises. Clearly this elected official ( The Mayor) was out of touch and not listening to his voters and taxpayers.

Posted by: what | July 7, 2009 2:07 PM

NFJAnnette,

The got my money, I want it back. Can it get any more simplistic for you than that?

Posted by: Exiled Italian Shill | July 7, 2009 2:13 PM

Once again I will state I believe that Destefano should have not passed out raises this year, but the hubris of the Aldermen in the article is amazing to me.

"The bill's proponents were quick to say that their resolution is no condemnation of the 41 hardworking individuals. Those workers may well deserve a raise, they said, but the timing and process are wrong."

Yes I am sure that Alderman Lemar and Alderman Perez would prefer that raises be handed out AFTER September and after the primaries - duh! Had the mayor waited until November to give raises I bet we would not hear a peep from these two.

I think the mayor should have not given raises out this year at all, but lets put this into perspective shall we?

1) More than 3,000 city workers DID get a raise. Whats the deal with these 41? Are they not workers themselves and not worthy of a raise? Should they be treated so differently?

2) take the raise list and look at it - not at the overall salary, but at the amount of the adjustment. $3,254 at the top to $1300 at the bottom. Focus on that and not the yearly total. Over two years is not a big raise at all and less than yearly cost of living adjustments.

3) the unions that voluntarily rescinded their wage increase only did so for the life of the their contract (unless they agreed to something otherwise I imagine). Most of these contracts expire in the next couple of years - the same period of time as the managers went without raises.

I think he [the mayor] should have given raises next year in the budget and placed it in a large pot in the budget designated "management merit pay" for the sake of transparency. Perez is right it should be debated. What should not be debated is how much an employee should be given - thats a managers right, not the boards.

Its clear that Lemar is ready to primary Staples for the Representative seat next year and this was his coming out party. I applaud him for disagreeing and pointing out that there was a better way, but he could have disagreed without being a political opportunist in the process.

This was not a resolution drafted by someone that didnt know any better - it was drafted by someone that does know better and understands a governmental process yet took a political opportunity to manipulate public opinion and make themselves look good.

Posted by: what | July 7, 2009 2:17 PM

Wow,

Does that list of who was absent give you a clue? Goldfield? The President of the Board. I would bet a dime to your $1000 that this was one of the few, if not only meeting he has missed this year. The two Rodriquez's, Sandman and Morehead the same. All sure votes for the Mayor, all missing in action.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | July 7, 2009 3:02 PM

What is the total amount of money in raises that will be paid out to all city employees receiving increases--including union leaders and other managers?

Posted by: VoiceOfReason | July 7, 2009 3:21 PM

CBA!

Aka uncle billy!

Hey Marshal, why pick on one of your own in a forum that has nothing to do with your profession?

Let's stick to the topic. Ok Marshal N.?

That topic is, it seems to me, why 41 people are being singled out of more than 3000 that received raises?

Is this fair reporting?

Posted by: Research Assistant | July 7, 2009 3:40 PM

Man, you people have short-term memories. The other 3000 + raises were always going to happen. They are in union contracts, some of which were negotiated while the Mayor was trying to curry favor with unions for his gubernatorial bid. They could not be negotiated, not be avoided, except through union concessions. We relied on the good will of the two unions that did make concessions. Beyond that, the City made lay-offs.

None of the raises should have happened this year, but in the case of the unions, the raises were not discretionary (and therefore could not be avoided unless they were conceded by the unions). This is a lesson for future union contract negotiations.

The 41 folks who got these raises pressured the unions to make concessions and urged the unions to share in the pain. Most of the unions refused to do so. The 41 folks who got these raises lambasted the unions for failing to share in the pain. Then the Mayor and crew laid people off. They had to do it. I'm glad they did.

But it is unseemly (and more importantly casts a shadow of hypocrisy and ineptitude on the last few months of budget negotiations) that the Mayor and his crew now feel like there's a group of people in the City who don't have to share in the pain, and those people happen to be appointees, a number of whom make six figures or close to it. Just read the quotes from the union leaders and members in this article. This was dumb politics, even for this administration, which so often gets the facts right and the politics all wrong.

The BOA stepped in not to be opportunistic but to salvage some, any negotiating power in future contract discussions.

I see so many commenters tripping over themselves as they can't decide who to hate more -- the Mayor or the BOA. Get over it. It's not about hating anyone. Just about seeing the big picture and trying to do productive things for your community (like Streever on the BZA!).

Posted by: Gary Doyens | July 7, 2009 4:06 PM

These raises were unconscionable, sneaky and dishonest. That Mayor DeStefano approved spending outside of the budget process, indeed, in violation of the budget process and to have that dishonesty and probably illegal approach blessed by Emmet Hibson and all of the city's finance department is stunning. Of course, they are all beneficiaries of the mayor's largess. It's good the majority of the alders called him on it. If the raises are not rescinded, the board absolutely should not approve any transfer of funds to pay for them when it comes up for a vote. The alders who did not have the courage to attend and take a public stand in this resolution are cowards.

Other notable comments:
1. Pay raises for management mirror union pay raises. The two are unrelated and contractual obligations are never in the real world used as a basis for management raises.

2. I'm glad Silverman had the courage to vote as she always has - in lock step with the mayor. Make no mistake, though, it wasn't done because she has strength in her convictions. She has strength in her arrogance.

3. Exiled Italian: I'm sure you're enjoying your work in the Neverland of Public Policy in Hartford, which must be affecting your analysis of this debate. You don't seem to get it but this money is unbudgeted and the raises were not accounted for in three months of budget discussions even though the very people who proposed it, approved it and finally authored it, are the very same people who wrote the freaking budget. It is patently dishonest. 3,000 union workers who refused to cave to demands for concessions got their pay raises - including fire, police who the mayor refused to ask for anything. And no, nearly all of the 41 people do not deserve raises. They are among the highest paid in the city - private or public.

Posted by: Roland L. | July 7, 2009 4:20 PM

Exiled Italian Shill,

I typically wouldn't take the time to respond to someone unwilling to identify themselves by name, but you make some damning (and extraordinarily false) statements at my expense, and while I often agree with your thoughts on these pages, I wanted to quickly rebut some of your more inflammatory remarks.

This isn't intended to be exhaustive of my feelings, but to your claim of Political opportunism - I think I'll address that directly -

I find this raise request at this time to be abhorrent - I think it diminishes our ability to make tough asks of our union workforce during a critical moment (take a walk around NHPD HQ to get an idea of how these raises are going over in their minds - we are, RIGHT NOW hoping to achieve meaningful and long-term concessions from the PD- concessions I took a LOT of heat from officers for advocating for last year- see link that Ms. Bailey included above)

I think these raise requests, if so important to be done this year, should have been made during the 3- month budget process we just concluded (while we were considering cuts to our workforce, cuts to city programs & services, and asking our folks to make significant changes to their benefit structures) - we should have known that ex-management was seeking raises at that time, but raises were NOT included in the Mayor's budget request and, in fact, the Mayor's office stated to not be requesting raises this year at all)

I think we should also know where this money is coming from (the city has yet to identify a real source to fund this request)

For these reasons, and many more which I stated last night and in the article above (and if you send me an email or give me a call, I will tell you all about those reasons as well) I thought it was important that I personally, given the role I played over the last year in seeking union concessions and advocating for givebacks, make this statement against these raises.

Furthermore, I thought it important that the entire BOA make a similar statement. Almost everyone on the BOA felt similarly. The near unanimous vote wasn't about me, about making anyone "look good" or an attempt to "manipulate public opinion." It was about a shared sense that these raises were not appropriate at this time, that they were handled poorly and placed the City in an awful position as we continue to seek necessary changes in our union contracts.

Your points above as to "perspective" are, as usual, well-considered and thoughtful - and as usual, I find just a few small points where I would disagree with your analysis.

To another point of yours, if these raises were handled in the same way two months from now, as you suggest, I would have been as equally disgusted. Your claims to the contrary exhibit your unfamiliarity with both me and the fights/votes/issues I've focused on during my time on the BOA.

Finally, the idea that I would primary Cam next year is ridiculous. I have and will continue to support Representative Staples now and into the future. That I would falsely use this situation as my "coming out party" to challenge Cam? That illustrates your lack of political astuteness, your understanding of my support for Mr. Staples and knowledge of my willingness to tackle issues similar to this over my entire adult life.

I will continue to look forward to your comments in future articles as I often find them to be well-conceived, researched and delivered - your just way off-base this time.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 7, 2009 4:42 PM

People wake up,term limits now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: working(too hard)mom | July 7, 2009 7:11 PM

Gary Doyens-Would you please run for Mayor????

I for one will support you any way I can. We need a voice of logic, fairness and fiscal control in City Hall.

I live in the 25th ward, and am not at all suprised that our alder was the only nay on this. ... No way will I vote for her hand picked replacement fot alder (even if McGrath shows up at my door and drags me kicking and screaming to the polls!)

Posted by: Wendell | July 7, 2009 9:09 PM

This is a little absurd, I hope voters are aware of this next time they are at the polls!

Posted by: kamb | July 7, 2009 9:10 PM

READ THIS:

King John has cost this city's taxpayers (the few that are left) an arm and a leg!

1. He allows the skipping of Sgts. and Lieutenants on the NHPD's tests, then the guys win huge law suits for being skipped per King John over $250,000 for like 3 or 4 guys!

2. He erases an arrest of a priest made by Officer Tolney then gets sued and costs the city more than 1 million bucks!

3. He tries to throw away a test for the NHFD now those suits should come rollling in that will cost the city MILLIONS for Civil Rights Violations!

4. BUT - all is not bad . . . he did make City ID cards for illegal, I mean undocumented workers

ARE there anymore KING JOHN bad decisions to list?

IF SO PLEASE POST????????????????

Can anyone please run against this guy next term?!?!?!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 8, 2009 8:30 AM

working(too hard)mom
I am always asking Gary to run, I think he would make a great mayor!!!

Wendell
And vote for who???? No one is running against him!

Posted by: End the Waste | July 8, 2009 8:58 AM

From the Independent article May 20, 2009 by Mr. Appell:
"In other personnel news, Jimmy Miller was re-upped for another year as deputy director of HANH for special projects. Miller, the former director of the agency, supervises real estate deals and long-range capital planning for HANH, most recently Eastview Terrace and the evolving re-development of West Rock. His salary is to be $126,000."

Posted by: AgOr | July 8, 2009 1:16 PM

The Mayor thinks he doesn't haven to answer to anyone. When will the taxpayers of New Haven wake up. He paid AFB a private company over a million dollars to manage custodians in the BOE. I'm glad there isn' any money.

Posted by: observer | July 8, 2009 1:37 PM

has the independent asked the alders who were absent where they stand on the raises? seems important to know especially since one of them (s.rodriguez) is in a contested race.

Posted by: concerned | July 8, 2009 8:57 PM

Good point observer. I bet the Independent would for some strange reason not be able to reach Goldfield, S.Rodriguez,Sandman and the rest of them. They know darn well this is so wrong what the mayor did, but afraid to go up against this control freak mayor. They can run, but they can't hide. If not this election for sure the next will catch up with them hopefully. Anyone of these characters that are being challenged this time around should be unseated for being cowards and not responsive to the needs of the tax payers.

Posted by: Concerned | July 8, 2009 9:58 PM

Can anybody at the BOA tell us if the Mayors bagman in education has been around shaking down the employees yet. It's sad to watch a once distinguished, elder statesman in education and a PH.D. in admin being reduced to the role of Omega dog.

Posted by: blue dog dem | July 8, 2009 10:42 PM

Why can't everyone who is fed up with JDS just vote for a Green or a Republican to end this mess? Kick the Machine in the butt, upset everything they hold true and then elect a Dem from outside of the Machine in 2011. A complete restructuring needs to occur and neither JDS nor anyone the Machine endorses just cannot do the right thing for those of us outside their cabal.

Posted by: esfhjyrj | July 9, 2009 9:00 AM

Mayor DeStefano has been in office too long. New Haveners must love the arrogance and political games because they keep re-electing him. When DeStefano wins another term, he will continue with his lackluster performance and political games. New Haven deserves better, but it is a shame that the voters have yet to realize it.

Posted by: Bluebadge 564 | July 9, 2009 3:36 PM

To KAMB, you are exactly correct in your citations against KJD! When is he going to make any attempt to correct the inadequate supervision with his two public safety departments? It appears that instead of making changes he's rewarding those who ought to be unemployable due to their lack of ability to manage departments. I can't wait to see the dollars we, the taxpayers will have to shell out when the final decision is in on the New Haven 20 or even the next PD promotional list that has yet to be made public. What's the problem - not enough "qualified" officers?

Posted by: Greg Dildine | July 9, 2009 6:01 PM

Working (too hard) Mom: If you or any other Ward 25 neighbor would like to chat about this or any other issue, please contact me directly via email available on my website. Transparency and fiscal responsibility are indeed important.

Posted by: AgOr | July 10, 2009 6:33 AM

Why did president of local 3144 make a deal with management to allow private contractors to use their own supervisors in a union job. What's in it for him? He is not only selling his own local 3144 members out but also local 287.

Posted by: Your Fired | July 10, 2009 7:31 AM

A month back our mayor had an oscar winning performance on the steps of city hall on the issue of UI hiking electric rates. He sure learns quick.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 11, 2009 11:26 AM

This is all over the country,And we keep voting them in!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/11/2009-07-11_mayor_bloomberg_quietly_approves_.html