Under the headline "Nobody Gets Fired Except Governors In Recessions," Joe Mysak writes in his column for Bloomberg News (12/30) that "any expectation that state and local governments would use the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression to reduce their biggest expenditures is proving to be wishful thinking." While companies have cut slightly more than six percent of their jobs since December 2007, local and state governments have cut only "132,000 positions – 0.66 percent" since August 2008, the month they stopped adding jobs. Of the two, local governments have cut 117,000 positions out of 14.6 million workers, while states have cut 15,000 of their 5.2 million workers, according to sources he cites. Mysak concludes, "Hearing state and local officials talk about reducing headcount is like listening to an 8-year-old announce he's going to bed. You don't believe it."
Is the same logic, or rather illogic being applied to our own little slice of Heaven known as Suffolk? It will be interesting to see if the “Empire” on Market Street is trimmed at all this budget cycle to save us all and perhaps reduce taxes. With everyone trying to do more with less, why is it that the employment levels and resulting costs within our local government seem safe and the rest of us have to pay top rates? In a service organization like government, personnel cost are the number one expense in the budget and the most rational place to look for at least some cuts, one would think... While no one likes to see another lose a job, especially in this economy, we all know that there just are not the rivers of honey flowing that we saw in the mid-2000’s growth boom. Given the fact that revenues are falling and taxes are just to high for the economic realities of the day in this hard economy, it may be time to trim positions and finally lower taxes. And please don't play the game that our mil-rate is so low. It is all relative to basis values and the argument does nothing for actual costs to the citizen, especially with all the new fees they always seem to tack on each year... If you don't spend it, you don't need to tax for it, simple.
We were all told last year that “Suffolk has a lean and hard budget”. Then we find out that this” lean and hard budget” really had so much fat in it, that it could absorb all the revenue cuts the economy could throw its way and still have a surplus for rainy-day funds and bonuses of well over $3,500,000.00… What will we see in the coming budget, show or substance?
If you use the budget sheers properly and early on, you don't have to use the AX, later...
Roger A. Leonard, MPA
Suffolk…
20 comments:
Cutting positions is never easy - for either the city or the school district. We've all thought about the process of living within a city/school budget before - and that has almost always involved using zero-based budgeting rather than simply cutting a certain percentage from each department. There could be a point where positions have to be cut since personnel is simply the largest expenditure of any budget. Personnel costs include more than just the base pay; the costs also include approximately 1/3 of the base pay added for things such as FICA. I'd be interested in hearing from both the city and the school district staff about how they're thinking they'll deal with the budget issues this year. The school district will get fewer dollars from the state this year based on our city's ability to pay for schools. Our city's property values and corresponding mil rate
is fairly high indicating that our city is taking in a fairly high amount of money from citizens. Thus, with its formula, the state will expect the city to pay a larger share of the school district budget this year.
Roger,
Don't expect to much from this crowd now in charge, it is just easier to keep spending than to make the hard choices you have discribed. The other issue is that it is easier to give out bonuses and be a hero in city hall than to cut the dead wood, that votes without thinking.
Of course cut.
Cut everything that is not a core, REQUIRED service.
Then, examine every agency from the TOP down and eliminate patronage jobs. Then require the elimination of all positions based on "diversity" and re-establish a MERIT based hiring and promotion program that truly rewards excellence.
Make every employee re-apply for their jobs and only hire back the people who are highly skilled and focused on providing the highest performance.
That would be a good start.
Yes, a wise decision. Have all of the city employees re-apply for their jobs. It's much more cost effective to hire a young rookie cop, or new fire fighter than to keep the older, more experienced and higher paid employees on staff.
The city, which employs over 1000 people would essentially run the risk of firing several hundred employees and then be in the position of replacing them with people that need to be trained; Thus incuring an additional cost on the city, as well as facing the loss of experience. If you want to have qiality employees, then you should pay them well. A police officer with 25 years experience may not have the so called "performance", by the definition of Mr. Ballance, as would a young, spry 22 year old who aspires to have a career in law enforcement.
And hey, here's a news flash, the city of Suffolk has gone under hiring freezes before (http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/news/2009/mar/05/city-looks-ways-balance-budget/)
as well as creating budget cuts to actually give us a SURPLUS without raising taxes!! The surplus was then used to beef up our police department, the rainy day fund and give employees a one-time bonus. Not bad, eh?
Look at other localities in Hampton Roads. If you adjust the population and revenue, then Suffolk's pay roll is right in lockstep with the rest of the region.
What will happen when we lose experience? The employees that survived the firing tsunami will quit.
I like what the Sheriff has done. Much of his staff consists of deputy sheriffs that are retired law enforcement officers. People who have pensions and insurance with the city, who are part-time employees. This saves millions annually. Check out this article. It makes sense to me.
http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/news/2009/aug/29/isaacs-seeks-his-fifth-term/
And you can't make all employees re-apply for their jobs. You can't simply walk in the Sheriff's office and have his employees participate in such a daft agreement. Those employees are hired by an elected official (someone who is/was ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE with a resounding 70%).
Mr. Ballance, are our first responders paid too much? Are our teachers? Isle of Wight County, which has a population of less than half of Suffolk's pays their teachers more.
We need to meet a middle ground here, rahter than the ususal blather that we alwyas seem to hear about how great everyone is in City Hall. There is little doubt that there must be a review and more accountablity to hiring and pay in the public sector than we have seen in the past, because it is just getting to expensive to bear. Yes there is little doubt that there are many that should not be in a public position, they are "Dead-Wood" and should be cut and sent their way. There also are those who are good and hardworking public employees and should be treasured and valued for the service that they render to us all by their valued efforts.
So the only way to deal with this issue is to do a real and quantified review of all positions and those who fill them to determine if they give more than they take in the equation. If they are not worth their salt, they get the boot and we all save alot of our hard-earned money and government gets smaller as it should. If they are doing work that meets a real and valuable need, they stay on with our thanks and we are blessed with their hard work for us all to deliver needed services of local government. By example, the city would do well to cut the Communications and Tourist Departments out all together and then look at other "Soft-Staff" positions that serve no purpose than to make politicians feel powerful and nedded, which they are not on either count! Do we really need a "Chief of Staff" for over a hundred thousand dollars a year in slallary and another thirty thousand dollars in benefits?? It seems that we now have the same set-up we did in the past that was supposidly so bad and had to be changed by those now in power. A City Manager with a Deputy and Cheif of Staff is what we now have to do the job of but one good administrator. Please explain what the difference is here from what we had with a City Manager and two Assistant City Managers that was bad and had to be changed, other than it gives the City Manager a chance to hire friends and those she can control for her own purposes to serve the Hair-Brained Mayor we have to suffer?
We need to have honest and open dialog on why local government costs so much and how it can be more efficent and responsive to our real core needs. This is a very good thread to follow to its conclusion and I commend the writer for the great comments and idea thereof. We used to have these discussions in the past, so why not now under the information control idiots now in power?
Suffolk has over 1,353 employees in 24 departments with a combined salary of $54,085,287. That clearly points to an area that does have fat that can be trimed. Why it would take so many to do what local government is supposid to be doing is almost mind-boggeling for those of us paying.
I agree with others that it is never pleasent to see another lose a job, but we all can not keep paying these rates of taxes they demand. How such can be justified in these hard time is unconcionable. Will we all hear of another "lean and trim budget" again only to find plenty of money for bonuses and such at the end of the year? What does the manager and mayor have to say? Parr, Gardy or the others? Their silence says it all. Take without regard, because we can! Not a good way to run the city is it? What will you do? Pay up and keep your mouth shut as they always demand?
Linda Milparrdy would never allow the tax cart to be turned over beacuse of a budget shortfall. Just wait to see what new diabolical means to milk the public they are contriving to keep the ranks of government bloated.
Linda and her Democrats will insure that they have as much of our dollars as possible to spend for how they think our city should be run. Her henchmen on staff will do all they can to keep the dollars rolling in and we are powerless to stop them, or so it seems. She has never meet a proposed tax, fee, or revenue enhancement that she did not like, if it cemented her hold on power and kept her ability to hand out the dole for her political favors. There will be no cuts, infact there most likely will be big raises in taxes and new fees like alarms, recycling, rain-water, and so on to counter the losses they see coming to the spending spree they have been on for the last four years under her terms. Linda has said that they have the finances of the city on track now, but at what cost to us all as theystrip us of any quality of life as they lean on us and dig deeper into our pockets? It is starting to feel like the contrived financial crisis she claimed with the helping hand of our City Treasurer was nothing more than a means to insure that we all would swollow the bait that it was OK for them to keep taxes and fees as high as they have been. When have we ever paid so much for government in Suffolk in the past and for so many questionable things? I have been here for decades and have never seen local taxes and fees so high related to my income, how about you? Spending is out of control and the empire building must be stopped! The first step would be to lay-off some of the less needed workers and staff. Some of those $80,000+ staffers would be a good first step in that direction!
To get on track, I do think that the local governemnt could and should cut more stuff that is not a core service from the city and school budgets. Why do we give to things that are for marketing when the market is closed? Can we support the hotel, culture center, and all the other stuff now days like we did? NO! We need to cut the stupid stuff and trim the number of people on the dole in city hall and market street. I do agree that we need some services, but anyone can tell you that it is getting to gold-plated to make any sense.
Let us get back to real priorities and stop the fluff and spending for politics stuff MS. Mayor and council. We just can not afford how it has been run. The days when we all made it are over and government should be trimed too! Why can they spend, when we just don't have it anymore?
The city has increased it's debt service at an ever increasing pace. Couple that with swollen employment ranks fed by the assessment boom of the 1990s and now a recession that is throttling back tax revenue and we can expect to hear our Mayor say that she must raise taxes and fees to continue to service the city's debt. Council's decade long spending spree and their insideous use of the EDA to channel borrowing will be excused away to tax and spend themselves well into the next decade. They will again use the city's credit ratings to leverage the uninformed, city and school employees and agenda driven special interest groups to sign on. "The Show Must Go On".
Between 2004 and 08 assessments increased in the city by almost 90%and property taxes increased by a whopping 55%. Government revenue and employment rolls grew porportionatly. Do the math and see how much can be cut away from this year's budget. Let the Suffolk Pucblic Schools be dam-ed. They didn't care one iota when the cash was rolling in. Before you teachers talk about a Union go ask the IP workers in Franklin about it.
How true and inciteful these comments are! It is always easier to approve spending than to use the seat of leadership given by the people. The mayor and council have failed us too often and then claimed victory becasue they can count on the fact that no one even knows what they are doing. The group now in council and in leaership on staff have failed to respond to the new issues of the faultering economy, at all. They claimed a huge problem with the city finances when they came to power and patted themselves on the back for doing a good job fixing this non-issue, only to then continue the spending spree that has always been their way. It is time to take a real and objective view of our public finances, not just a simplistic view that we can spend on that item and this "because we always have"!
Governemnt must be deeply cut, so that we all can afford it. Right now there is no one in authority looking at that new mandate driven by our faultering economy and that is what is wrong. Government should cost as little as possible, since it is a leach on the butt of the citizens that it proports to serve. It creates nothing, makes no money, and is easily manipulated to make bad decisons to often for politically driven purposes, that many times are at odds to the real needs of the people. Even if they have to cut services, local government must get smaller and less expensive if we are to enjoy a reasonable style of life in Suffolk! Time to cut folks and that means a budget that is about twenty percent smaller than now exists.
Batavia, Illinois, Administrator Volunteers For Pay Cut.
The Kane County (IL) Chronicle (1/5, Schelkopf) reported that Batavia City Administrator Bill McGrath decided pay cuts needed to start at the top, so he will take a five percent pay decrease in his salary while other city supervisors and department heads do the same. Ward Alderman Tom Schmitz said, "They as part of our group discussion said they would do this to help out the city," and he "said it was McGrath's idea to cut his salary." Ward Alderman Alan Wolff "said he appreciated McGrath's willingness. ... 'That is a show of support for every employee. Everybody is feeling it.'" Batavia has had to reduce its overall city employee count "by 10 percent since 2008."
A good example of real leadership! Will we see the same in Suffolk?
Roger A. Leonard
Mr. Leonard I believe City Manager Selena Cuffee Glenn Mmm Mmm Mmm, will make cuts starting with herself. She will do so by reducing the size of Mercedes she drives to a more fuel economical model. Don't ask about the price.
Editorial Urges Hernando County, Florida, To Shrink Government, Expand Economic Initiatives.
In an editorial published in the Hernando (FL) Today (1/7), the Tampa Tribune argues that "on Friday, Hernando County commissioners will meet to set priorities and goals for 2010," and "it should be a short list." The Tribune says it would like to see commissioners "shrink the bloated county government bureaucracy that contributed to the housing bust and is an impediment to the county's economic revival," and "do whatever possible to promote private-sector job creation." In addition, "commissioners should also promote incubator business partnerships with the private sector and put an end to the frustration businesses encounter in dealing with the county."
Sound familiar to anyone out there???
As we look for a new Economic Development Director after the "Ms Cave fiasco" and years of growing local government by taking advantage of the huge rise in assessments of our property, is it possible for Suffolk to make a change like this and cut back? My bet is NO, and I await the future to prove or disprove my position...
I do not dislike Suffolk and the many fine ans civic minded souls who inhabit the city. I do however dislike how it is run and some decissions that are made that seem always to demand more and more from my pocket or continuely restrict my perogative to live a free and unencumbered life in this great City. Due to this economy, we have an opportunity to get back to what made Suffolk attractive to many for us: smaller government, reasoned rules and demands, and a friendly atmosphere. Many of those attributes are suffering now and evaporating before our eyes...
Roger A. Leonard
Suffolk...
Publish Reject
Do a 10% paycut across the boards and spend the money to preserve the Obici Home. At least then we will get something for our money. Right now we get nothing of real value, except to see our mayor spew untruths twice a seek and when she gets a gig to pander to some group or other!
For the service we get, a cut is mandated. I hope that more comes of this budget to cut the fat than we have seen in the past! Time to cut back folks and make sure we all can afford to live in Suffolk. There just are to many big salaries now on city staff and that needs to be trimed or eliminated.
With the double-cross for the school employees and teachers in favor of the bonuses given to the city workers, it is time to cut their pay too. I say cut the pay of City workers now if it will lead to taxes being lower! Once again Mr. Lenard is right about this issue.
The City would not have to consider cutting positions if Linda and her band of spenders had not given, $1 million dollars away to the same people they are going to eventually have to cut. I guess city counsel has 1,000 votes in their pocket for the next election versus 60,000 voters that are major unhappy with their fiscally under sound decisions.
I am sure that we will see more problems as the cuts play out. With how things are done in Suffolk, it seems just a matter of time befroe the spending cuts go higher and lead to political throat-cutting. Who is first?
Post a Comment