From the Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070304_Ne_A15_Mayor10137
Mayor Kathy Taylor's 13 at-will employees saw raises ranging from 8 percent to 22 percent in January, even though most of them began working for the city less than a year ago.
Four of the employees came to City Hall as recently as August and September.
They also are receiving one-time stipends averaging 2 percent of their salaries when they reach six months with the city.
Perhaps the headline should have read: Mayor Screws City Employees
I don't often agree with Councilor Christiansen, but I do here. The Mayor is telling every city employee outside her office that they aren't as good as her at-will employees. And while the Mayor often touts equality with pay raises, that apparently doesn't apply to her own office.
No other city employee in any department saw percentage pay raises equal to the Mayor's staff.
"We hired the absolute best people we could find,... Is she saying she only hires the best people in her office, and the rest of the city hires less then the best?
Taylor said it's about rewarding "a team that gives 150 percent." Apparently those 'team' emails she sends out every week mean there are only 13 people on her team. The rest must not be part of the team.
"If they were working in the private sector, they would be making more," she said. "They deserve every penny." Amen, sister! Just like every other employee. I can't tell you how many years I've heard the goal is to bring employees pay to 'average'. We're still waiting, sister!
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w299/madashell_photos/AdminLeavepolicy.jpg)
Looks like the Mayor's "staff pay increase policy" is similar to her "administrative leave policy." Kiss it and you be rewarded. Refuse to kiss it...and you be gone!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/KathyTaylor.jpg)
Having already been told that I do not understand the wage policies of the city hall I am ready to admit that in view of this round of wage increases I do not. We are being told that these persons, being underpaid, are entitled to be paid a competitive wage as in private industry. At 52 work weeks in the year of 40 hours is 2080 hours and many employees are working for less that $10 dollars an hour which would be $ 20,800 dollars yearly with limited health insurance.
What was the rebuttal on raising the national minimum wage?
Someone raised the question before the election if the mayor was a citizen of two cities. She may be thinking she is mayor of another city.
Look at the link in the story that goes directly a spreadsheet of the pay of every city employee.
Only six people on the Mayor's staff now make over $67,000 per year and each of those oversee large departments. Exactly 100 employees in the police department make over $69,000 per year.
Using percentage as method of comparing is not an accurate way to measure salary increases here.
I don't feel compelled to defend the way the raises were given, but I don't think you can make the case for the Mayor overpaying without looking at what others are paid in city government and the private sector.
I wonder if the Tulsa World is going to do the same story and spreadsheet for all Tulsa County employees.
Using percentage as method of comparing is not an accurate way to measure salary increases here.
Then what would be fair? Someone making $82,000 getting an 8% raise is already going to get a larger dollar amount increase then some person getting an 8% raise making $40,000. But an equal percentage increase is fair to everyone.
The ethical thing to do is one of two things: Increase all city employees' pay the same percentage the Major just did for her staff, or, increase the Mayor's staff pay the same as the rest of the employees.
This Mayor and her budget director fought each employee group tooth and nail until they finally lost to an arbitrator. Even then, the budget director was telling the city council to deny the pay raises. Anybody want to bet the budget director never said a peep when the Mayor proposed her staffs' pay raises.
And out of curiosity, and I'm asking because I don't know: Did these raises just get done this week and were retroactive to Jan 1, or were the raises started on Jan 1 and someone finally leaked the story?
I don't think you can make the case for the Mayor overpaying without looking at what others are paid in city government and the private sector.
Then why on earth does that only apply to her staff?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Look at the link in the story that goes directly a spreadsheet of the pay of every city employee.
Only six people on the Mayor's staff now make over $67,000 per year and each of those oversee large departments. Exactly 100 employees in the police department make over $69,000 per year.
Using percentage as method of comparing is not an accurate way to measure salary increases here.
I don't feel compelled to defend the way the raises were given, but I don't think you can make the case for the Mayor overpaying without looking at what others are paid in city government and the private sector.
I wonder if the Tulsa World is going to do the same story and spreadsheet for all Tulsa County employees.
Are you saying that police employees should not make over $69,000.00 a year?
In addition, are you now saying that everyone needs to look at what others are paid in the city government and private sector regardless of budgetary issues. From what I've read, the mayor and city counsel are still looking for "efficiencies"(sp?)in all departments to pay for our raises. Now the mayor has raised the pay for her chosen few?
Are we seeing the beginning of a new "Have and have not" system in city government? Where the mayor's friends get paid a competative wage and the others have to fight through arbitrations (paid for by their union dues, that come out of their below average wages) in a hope to someday have a competative wage?
Both of you guys (both policemen) are arguing about the Mayor's office raises. I am just arguing that they are finally being paid on an even level with other city employees.
The reason that the percentage increases are high is because the initial pay was so low. This pay now is what it should have been all along. They are also within their budget.
Don't try to say that everybody should get the same pay increase and act like that is the ethical thing to do. The police got pay raises when city employees got pay cuts (during the LaFortune administration). I didn't hear you claiming ethical raises then.
Our police officers are very well paid (and worth every penny) and I think that the top management of the Mayor's office is now paid what they are worth too.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Both of you guys (both policemen) are arguing about the Mayor's office raises. I am just arguing that they are finally being paid on an even level with other city employees.
The reason that the percentage increases are high is because the initial pay was so low. This pay now is what it should have been all along. They are also within their budget.
Don't try to say that everybody should get the same pay increase and act like that is the ethical thing to do. The police got pay raises when city employees got pay cuts (during the LaFortune administration). I didn't hear you claiming ethical raises then.
Our police officers are very well paid (and worth every penny) and I think that the top management of the Mayor's office is now paid what they are worth too.
I'm sorry to correct you again but police officers also received a reduction in income during that time. Police officers voted to take compensitory time for overtime instead of pay. We believed it was the "ethical" thing to do. This cost saving measure saved the city more money than if we would have taken the same pay cut as other employees. Officers did this because we believed the city management and wanted to do our part. Now,in retrospect, we should have just taken the pay cut like other employees and made it up in paid overtime. After the way the city management has treated us, I don't trust them and I don't think we owe them anything.
They are only within their budget because the millionaire mayor doesn't take a salary. If a new mayor comes at the next election, the new salaries will bust their budget.
As far as well paid police officers, we are still 12% under survey. We aren't even the highest paid police department in the area anymore. Broken Arrow has passed us on portions of our payscale and they don't even require a college degree.
We have been through this argument before. Yes, you also traded comp time for overtime, but you guys still took pay raises.
The police fight the budget staff for everything and have negotiated well for yourselves, especially in benefits like take-home vehicles for officers living far from the Tulsa city limits.
I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?
I see the same pattern developing here that you guys always fight with whomever is Mayor. I can't remember the last time the police endorsed the incumbent in a Mayor's election. This past election you endorsed one candidate in the primary and then another in the general. Your endorsement wasn't for the candidate, but against the incumbent.
Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
We have been through this argument before. Yes, you also traded comp time for overtime, but you guys still took pay raises.
The police fight the budget staff for everything and have negotiated well for yourselves, especially in benefits like take-home vehicles for officers living far from the Tulsa city limits.
I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?
I see the same pattern developing here that you guys always fight with whomever is Mayor. I can't remember the last time the police endorsed the incumbent in a Mayor's election. This past election you endorsed one candidate in the primary and then another in the general. Your endorsement wasn't for the candidate, but against the incumbent.
Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?
Because the police are union and the Mayor's office is management. That's the way it works. Union and management never get in bed with each other, regardless of industry.
And I'm not saying that to diss unions in the slightest, that's just the way it is.
I am not defending nor am I condoning what the Mayor has done............
However; she is working for free this year.. I would think that takes care of any money she has spent lately.
The only negative I can throw in at this point.... and it is really not about the Mayor but the people she relies upon to do the work of the City..
Some, that I have had dealings with, seem to be promoting an agenda that will gain them favor with the higher ups... The policy they seem to be promoting sounds nothing like the Mayor's Policy... Rather what they feel should be her policy...
IMO she needs to get a handle on this quickly.
In the form of an internal State of the City report.... or possibly something that will re-emphasize her objectives, goals, and priorities........
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
We have been through this argument before. Yes, you also traded comp time for overtime, but you guys still took pay raises.
The police fight the budget staff for everything and have negotiated well for yourselves, especially in benefits like take-home vehicles for officers living far from the Tulsa city limits.
I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?
I see the same pattern developing here that you guys always fight with whomever is Mayor. I can't remember the last time the police endorsed the incumbent in a Mayor's election. This past election you endorsed one candidate in the primary and then another in the general. Your endorsement wasn't for the candidate, but against the incumbent.
Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?
LaFortune gave us the take-home car policy (25 mile radius)during negotiations so we wouldn't go to arbitration for more pay. I believe the city knew we would win an arbitration(like we did last year)so they gave us the 25 mile radius and hoped we would take it instead. We did.
Our negotiation power comes from the two things. The fire and police arbitration act 11 O.S. 51-101 et seq. and the fact that we are at the bottom of our 10 city survey. If the city ever raised our salary to a competative wage with the other cities, we would lose alot of our negotiating power. In fact, you probably would never hear from us.
As far as other people getting paid what they are worth, we are all for it. However, I find it sad and a low blow that the millionaire mayor decided to give her friends raises to get them up to survey before she helps out the other city workers who have lived thru pay-cuts and lay-offs.
The reason we haven't endorsed an incumbent for mayor since before Susan Savage is because all the mayors we have had have promised us things and haven't delivered. We never got along with Savage. Lafortune promised to never settle the BOC lawsuit, get us up to market survey and give us more officers. LaFortune then agreed to settle the BOC lawsuit (www.tpdd.org shows the lawsuit was without merit by the way) and put us on a hiring freeze for two years. Mayor Taylor promised more officers and better pay. When we won arbitration, she was going to fight it and take it to a vote of the people. We are still waiting for more officers. She has okay'ed two academy classes with 20 officers each. That won't even keep up with attrition. We don't go out of our way to pick fights with the mayor's office. We just expect people to follow thru with what they say.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
I am not defending nor am I condoning what the Mayor has done............
However; she is working for free this year.. I would think that takes care of any money she has spent lately.
The only negative I can throw in at this point.... and it is really not about the Mayor but the people she relies upon to do the work of the City..
Some, that I have had dealings with, seem to be promoting an agenda that will gain them favor with the higher ups... The policy they seem to be promoting sounds nothing like the Mayor's Policy... Rather what they feel should be her policy...
IMO she needs to get a handle on this quickly.
In the form of an internal State of the City report.... or possibly something that will re-emphasize her objectives, goals, and priorities........
Right you are, Rico, she better smarten up. Strange happenings with river corridor zoning, historic preservation easements, and clandestine comp plan update/Alberty apointed river corridor zoning steering committees. Strange days indeed, most peculiar, Brother.
Considering that other city employees who have worked for the city for less than a year did not get the raise, do you think it's fair that the folks on this list who have worked for the city for less than a year get this raise?
BTW, if the Chief Technology Officer is responsible for the City Council (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/%22) and the City (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/%22) websites, he ain't worth the $135,000 he's getting.
Don't try to say that everybody should get the same pay increase and act like that is the ethical thing to do. The police got pay raises when city employees got pay cuts (during the LaFortune administration). I didn't hear you claiming ethical raises then.
I don't know where that claim keeps coming from. Neither the City nor the FOP would agree with that statement. Police pay was frozen. Firefighters received a pay increase when their amount of pension contributions were shifted towards the City.
I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?
Why is it only the Mayor's staff ever gets to be paid what they are worth? Having heard for over 20 years that the City wants their employees to be paid market average, why does it never happen? The City fights against its employees year after year. We simply want to be paid what we are worth too! Why do you begrudge us for that?
The last police contract takes us from last place in the market survey to last place in the market survey. I'd say the City is making great progress!
Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?
Actually, the question should be: Why do candidates lie to potential voters? Because a candidate says one thing to a group, then, once they get in office, does something else, you expect the group to sit back and say "Oh well. Great guy/gal that mayor is."
The last Mayor of this city to treat ALL employees fairly and equally was Rodger Randall. Since then, each Mayor has pitted employee groups against each other when it came to salary/benefits.
I'm not saying the Mayor's staff shouldn't get raises, although I question how quickly they came. I'm not aware of any other employee group who has received raises at all with less then 6 months on the job.
And we need to leave out the claim that her staffs' salary is under budget. When you get to make up your own budget, making the budget larger then last year, then claiming you are under budget, says nothing. A more true test is to compare total salary budget from this year to last year.
I'd like the Mayor and her staff to lead by example. A novel concept.
Look at the spread sheet on pay for all city workers and you will agree that the Mayor's staff is not overpaid.
The city council administrator and attorney are higher paid than the vice-mayor and top staff. I have already pointed out how many police department employees are in the top ten per cent of city salaries. It is true in other departments as well.
The one employee who got a 22% raise was the receptionist who went from under 23K a year to now 29K a year. She has worked there a long time (was the same position under the previous Mayor). She is great in her job, is always answering phones, typing memos and greeting everyone who enters a very busy office. She deserves every penny she is now being paid.
Her pay raise was about the same as yours in dollar amounts, but somehow you think that is unfair.
I am not going to defend the pay of every city employee, but when you start a thread and whine about someone else's pay you should not then argue about how you are underpaid.
Thank God some working people in Tulsa are making a decent living. I've been out in the job market here and I'm being offered money that I haven't seen since the early 1980s when I was working in Texas. The cheerleaders among you can flip double somersaults but most of us Tulsans make "Restaurant Dishwasher" money.
While judging pay raises by percentages may not be fair in some eyes, it is the general rule used by many large companies. Even if judged on a case-by-case basis to be fair, the Mayor has to realize this is an extremely touchy subject and should tip-toe accordingly.
Raises for someone who has worked less than a year seems frivolous. If they got a promotion, that is one thing, but if you wanted them to make $50k, why hire them at $40k and then give them a raise a few months later?
...but when you start a thread and whine about someone else's pay you should not then argue about how you are underpaid.
I didn't intend, nor did I direct, this thread into a underpaid discussion. But when the accusations go in that direction, I will defend my position.
Every time city employee pay gets discussed here, you always make it an anti-police issue. Certainly you are not saying that firefighters, labor & trades and all the non-unionized city employees are thrilled the mayor gave her staff bigger raises then everyone else? Whether you are a ditch digger, a parking meter maid, an engineer or an accountant, the raises the mayor gave her staff were above everybody else and out of line with, what I believe, is policy on when raises can be awarded (as in how often).
While judging pay raises by percentages may not be fair in some eyes, it is the general rule used by many large companies. Even if judged on a case-by-case basis to be fair, the Mayor has to realize this is an extremely touchy subject and should tip-toe accordingly.
Agree 100%
I wrote about the police raises because you started the thread complaining about other people's raises and you have wrote on this forum in other threads about how policemen like you are underpaid. Do you honestly think that police are the only ones underpaid?
This pay increase was not for her entire staff and for most who received a raise it was a 8% raise. What did the police department get this year? Also 8%.
The employees were now paid below what similar jobs in the city are paid, including jobs in police, fire, public works, the council, etc.
I have tried to explain that to you, but you just want to continue the argument and act like the Mayor has done something wrong by paying her staff what they deserve. You even started the thread with a statement in bold say "Mayor screws city employees."
I would not have argued so much with you if you had not started the conversation this way. I also think that is wrong of you to say so when you accepted the same raise as most of these employees.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Mayor Screws City Employees
Kudos to Mayor Taylor for coming up with fiscally-responsible ways of compensating employees and increasing morale.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Thank God some working people in Tulsa are making a decent living. I've been out in the job market here and I'm being offered money that I haven't seen since the early 1980s when I was working in Texas. The cheerleaders among you can flip double somersaults but most of us Tulsans make "Restaurant Dishwasher" money.
HT- these aren't working stiffs like yourself. This smacks of cronyism. If it were a Republican mayor you'd be talking about those evil, selfish Republicans bilking the poor man again.
Am I the only one who is eternally annoyed by her dialect and mannerisms when she speaks? [xx(]
She needs a makeover and elocution lessons-STAT.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/Kashy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
HT- these aren't working stiffs like yourself. This smacks of cronyism. If it were a Republican mayor you'd be talking about those evil, selfish Republicans bilking the poor man again.
When ole LaFortune was doing his thing, the only people complaining in mass were GOP bloggers and so called conservatives.
I'm neutral on Taylor as I was Lafortune. She hasn't done anything too far out of the ordinary.
Double A- nice make-over!
Do you honestly think that police are the only ones underpaid?
Absolutely not! Thus the reason my original post said CITY EMPLOYEES, not police employees.
As I have said throughout, if the Mayor were leading by example with her own employees, they would have accepted the same pay raise as everyone else.
I have tried to explain that to you, but you just want to continue the argument and act like the Mayor has done something wrong by paying her staff what they deserve.
I don't blame the Mayor's staff for getting paid what they deserve. My problem is, only the Mayor's staff gets paid what they deserve.
I also think that is wrong of you to say so when you accepted the same raise as most of these employees.
The Mayor only gave that after it was ordered by an arbitrator. Then, she rightfully offered the same to everyone else.
I don't expect to get paid as much as the Mayor's staff, such as Tom Baker, Susan Neal, or the like. And Charles Hardt can have his job at $171K. And, the Mayor deserves more. I'm only asking her to treat ALL of her employees fairly, not just the ones on the 11th floor.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I don't expect to get paid as much as the Mayor's staff, such as Tom Baker, Susan Neal, or the like. And Charles Hardt can have his job at $171K. And, the Mayor deserves more. I'm only asking her to treat ALL of her employees fairly, not just the ones on the 11th floor.
Just one question officer....?
If these individuals, that you refer to, on the 11th floor could come up with enough money making ideas that the "Force" could have 25% more Officers and a pay raise equal to what you just received.... Say every other year or so...?
Would this be something you could endure and continue doing the spectacular job that the "Force" now does....?
Or would this be just too much for you to bear and continue to complain until you got another LaFortunate.... That promised everything and produced nothing...?
To me she had to let it go to arbitration or she would have looked soft and the downside of the economic index would never have supported the raise she gave everyone..
Then when the bottom fell out so would any chance she may have had to get anyone anything...!
Her judgment would have been called into question on everything from, Michael Bates' choice of plaid for the day to Recycle's love of waste products..
Just one question officer....?
If these individuals, that you refer to, on the 11th floor could come up with enough money making ideas that the "Force" could have 25% more Officers and a pay raise equal to what you just received.... Say every other year or so...?
Would this be something you could endure and continue doing the spectacular job that the "Force" now does....?
Or would this be just too much for you to bear and continue to complain until you got another LaFortunate.... That promised everything and produced nothing...?
To me she had to let it go to arbitration or she would have looked soft and the downside of the economic index would never have supported the raise she gave everyone..
Then when the bottom fell out so would any chance she may have had to get anyone anything...!
Her judgment would have been called into question on everything from, Michael Bates' choice of plaid for the day to Recycle's love of waste products..
I'm not sure I understand your question. And again, I didn't intend this to turn into a police pay issue.... but since you asked.
Having heard for 20+ years that the City's goal is to get all of its employees paid at market average, which never happens... and the City agreeing to use a list of 10 similar cities across the US to determine a market average for police salaries, of which Tulsa is always at the bottom, consider this:
As you mention, in order for Tulsa police to get off the bottom of the pay range, it is going to take a couple years of consistent larger-then-normal pay raises. When Tulsa got 8% last year and 2% this year, those same 10 cities we use also got raises, which simply left Tulsa at the bottom. Those same 10 cities are consistently getting (I guessing here) 3%-6% each year. In order for Tulsa to get to average, we'll need larger raises then that consistently. Neither the FOP or the City of Tulsa argue that Tulsa is paid at the bottom. IF the City wants their police to be paid at the bottom, just tell me that! Don't say and promise one thing, then do nothing about it.
You mentioned manpower. Neither the City nor the FOP will argue Tulsa is way behind the curve when it comes to manpower. But what drives this issue more then anything else? Crime. Crime is at a tolerable level, so more citizens complain about roads then they do about crime, so the city counselors, rightfully, do more about roads, because that is what their constituents want. Until crime gets to an intolerable level, our manpower will continue to lag the national norm. The police have asked for more manpower each year for the last 9 years or so.... and got shot down every year. As the police stagnate in manpower, the duties police have to respond to continue to increase with population, calls for service, downtown, ......
To say the Mayor was forced to go to arbitration is just flat wrong. The city has record income. If pay raises can't be done in years with record income, then when should they happen? It is all about how you choose to spend your money. Record income just turns into record spending.
And I didn't vote for LaFortune.
But, once again, let me say, this is not just a police pay issue. It is a city employee pay issue. If the mayor wants to appear fair with pay raises, she makes them all the same. Not just more for her own staff, which was my original complaint.
Okay, slap me down if you must but I can't just let this thread go without making this observation. Someone should have already.
These are "at will" employees. They do not have the same protections as civil service lifers. They may be terminated for little or no reason. Their term is generally only for the term of the elected official. Remember what happened to LaFortunes appointees. The civil service employee is generally career oriented in government whereas these employees have a limited govt. life span.
Because of those circumstances an appointee should not be measured against the pay scales of police, fire, administrative staff etc. I am not sure what those employees are worth but she felt that from a private industry perspective they were worth that increase. Stop trying to make this a political thing.
As a side note: Mayor! I'm just as capable and I'll do the job for a lot less!!
Okay, back to real life.
The best way to judge pay scale is not to compare it to the rest of the country or any other job, it is to ask
"How many qualified people are willing to do the job in this location for this pay."
In some cases the salary seems ridiculously small because there is a huge pool of people that can and will do the job (WalMart checker). In other instances the salary seems high because people are either unwilling (crab fishermen, 3rd shift premiums) or unable (experience lawyer, professional athlete, pipe welder). Obviously there are some anomalies created by unions (long shore men), government interference, or a boom/bust in that industry, but generally, that's all there is to it.
So if there is a huge number of people that are willing and able to do a job - the pay is probably too high or something is interfering with the market. An employer wants to see 3 to 5 qualified applicants for every position. Any less, and it is underpaid. More, and it is likely over paid.
The average opening for a firefighter position receives something like 150 qualified applicants. Are people jumping away from private practice to work for the mayor? That determines to me if they are over paid.
Public service is noble. It also is full of cronyism and corruption. I get that there has to be some incentive to attract well-qualified people to fill staff and administrative positions.
It's certainly altruistic that Ms. Taylor spent what, about $1.2 mil for a $105K/yr. job for which she's taking no pay the first year. I'm sure she could be making more somewhere else as a corporate attorney or as a corporate officer.
However, it's essentially her alone who is deciding the merits of pay raises mostly for people who have been collegues, friends, and suppporters over the years, with our tax dollars. I get the fact this happens in other cities, at state capitals, and in D.C. by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
My issue is, these people have not even been on the job a full year, and some for as little as four or five months. Okay, so Mayor Kathy isn't taking salary this year, what about next year? Seems like we might have a more top-heavy pay in the administration of Ms. Taylor than Mr. LaFortune or other previous mayoral staffs and confiscating county facilities to help pay for her largesse.
And, BTW, what has our $105K per year economic development director done for us? Last thing I heard about him was when he was hired.
Himelfarb is one of the few employees in the Da Mares administration that I think is a good hand and earns his keep.
If that is the case, perhaps they need a better PR person at City Hall to let the rest of us know Himelfarb is doing anything substantive.
Only thing I've caught recently was the irony of 200 car rental jobs being outsourced to Ft. Lauderdale and the Phillipines. I understand that was a corporate decision and corporations are free to do as they see fit with where jobs are located. Still, given the background of the mayor and E.D.D., that's pretty good irony.
Wouldn't surprise me if Lobeck quietly owns a share of the company to which jobs were out-sourced since he has digs in Broward County.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If that is the case, perhaps they need a better PR person at City Hall to let the rest of us know Himelfarb is doing anything substantive.
Only thing I've caught recently was the irony of 200 car rental jobs being outsourced to Ft. Lauderdale and the Phillipines. I understand that was a corporate decision and corporations are free to do as they see fit with where jobs are located. Still, given the background of the mayor and E.D.D., that's pretty good irony.
Wouldn't surprise me if Lobeck quietly owns a share of the company to which jobs were out-sourced since he has digs in Broward County.
You need to read the local papers. Not a week goes by where Himelfarb isn't mentioned at least once or twice.
Don't get me wrong, the outsourcing bothers me, too. Of the proposals he's made, I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, that's all. That and he's seems to be keeping an open mind, really listening to all the ideas on the table an evaluating them objectively. If he has any hidden agendas, he is hiding them very well.
In the amendments to the charter it reads concerning the mayor pay they are to receive ........"per year payable as employees of the city are paid"
By the intent of the charter the mayor must be paid and to refuse the salary is not upholding the charter. So do not be alarmed as the mayor may at some future date demand the pay.
There is no provisions made in the charter for a dollar-a-year volunteer employee therefore they will not be upholding the charter.
If the mayor wants to donate their salary, which is subject to the state statue on budgeting, then they must first accept the salary before it can be donated, even on paper.
Then also the IRS code classifies that as income subject to the 10% rule of not more than the total gross income.
When the paper trail is followed and the 16 helpers the mayor can employ outside civil service, add the mayor salary, are we still within the budget? If not we should amend the charter setting the mayor salary as a volunteer seeking power, holding the scepter, as a dollar-a-year person.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
In the amendments to the charter it reads concerning the mayor pay they are to receive ��..�per year payable as employees of the city are paid�
By the intent of the charter the mayor must be paid and to refuse the salary is not upholding the charter. So do not be alarmed as the mayor may at some future date demand the pay.
There is no provisions made in the charter for a dollar-a-year volunteer employee therefore they will not be upholding the charter.
If the mayor wants to donate their salary, which is subject to the state statue on budgeting, then they must first accept the salary before it can be donated, even on paper.
Then also the IRS code classifies that as income subject to the 10% rule of not more than the total gross income.
When the paper trail is followed and the 16 helpers the mayor can employ outside civil service, add the mayor salary, are we still within the budget? If not we should amend the charter setting the mayor salary as a volunteer seeking power, holding the scepter, as a dollar-a-year person.
Shadow Man.. You can always be relied upon to make one feel as though they spent about ten minutes too long in an Opium Den............
But that is only in Afghanistan... so may the farce be with you..![}:)]
These are "at will" employees. They do not have the same protections as civil service lifers. They may be terminated for little or no reason. Their term is generally only for the term of the elected official. Remember what happened to LaFortunes appointees. The civil service employee is generally career oriented in government whereas these employees have a limited govt. life span.
An excellent point and one I had not considered. But, I would be curious to know how many of those employees are new hires under Taylor. Many have been there through several administrations, and Tom Baker is a retired firefighter and fire chief, with who knows how many years with the city.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/car.gif)
One wonders if the contributors of the 1.2 million clams in the mayor campaign are getting a return to help them in fishing for more clams?
$1,070,000+ and counting, with still one more employee to go. Has any other Mayor had staff salaries that exceeded one million dollars, or is the 'city doesn't have any money' Mayor setting all time records?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070926_1_A9_spanc47180
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Don't get me wrong, the outsourcing bothers me, too. Of the proposals he's made, I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, that's all. That and he's seems to be keeping an open mind, really listening to all the ideas on the table an evaluating them objectively. If he has any hidden agendas, he is hiding them very well.
This guy sure had me fooled! Boy, was I wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Don't get me wrong, the outsourcing bothers me, too. Of the proposals he's made, I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, that's all. That and he's seems to be keeping an open mind, really listening to all the ideas on the table an evaluating them objectively. If he has any hidden agendas, he is hiding them very well.
This guy sure had me fooled! Boy, was I wrong.
Told you so. [;)]
Sheesh, I should have dumped a ton into Kathy's campaign and maybe I'd be making six figures on the public dole right now too.
I notice the paper seemed to leave off one important detail. Who was Mr. Wilkie's previous employer? Vanguard? $120K to hire someone to supervise another supervisor who supervises more supervisors and subordinates...my donkey!
If there is anyone who is still paying attention to what I have to say, what more evidence do we need to see that we are getting more government in Tulsa and fewer essential services with each of these six-figure hires.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Don't get me wrong, the outsourcing bothers me, too. Of the proposals he's made, I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, that's all. That and he's seems to be keeping an open mind, really listening to all the ideas on the table an evaluating them objectively. If he has any hidden agendas, he is hiding them very well.
This guy sure had me fooled! Boy, was I wrong.
Told you so. [;)]
Sheesh, I should have dumped a ton into Kathy's campaign and maybe I'd be making six figures on the public dole right now too.
I notice the paper seemed to leave off one important detail. Who was Mr. Wilkie's previous employer? Vanguard? $120K to hire someone to supervise another supervisor who supervises more supervisors and subordinates...my donkey!
If there is anyone who is still paying attention to what I have to say, what more evidence do we need to see that we are getting more government in Tulsa and fewer essential services with each of these six-figure hires.
Do you mean we actually have to explain that a Democrat mayor wants big government? Isn't that the definition?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Don't get me wrong, the outsourcing bothers me, too. Of the proposals he's made, I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, that's all. That and he's seems to be keeping an open mind, really listening to all the ideas on the table an evaluating them objectively. If he has any hidden agendas, he is hiding them very well.
This guy sure had me fooled! Boy, was I wrong.
Told you so. [;)]
Sheesh, I should have dumped a ton into Kathy's campaign and maybe I'd be making six figures on the public dole right now too.
I notice the paper seemed to leave off one important detail. Who was Mr. Wilkie's previous employer? Vanguard? $120K to hire someone to supervise another supervisor who supervises more supervisors and subordinates...my donkey!
If there is anyone who is still paying attention to what I have to say, what more evidence do we need to see that we are getting more government in Tulsa and fewer essential services with each of these six-figure hires.
I've known Jeff for the past 6-7 years. He has mostly been self employed in the same type of field.
Wilbur, self employed, meaning he didn't take a pay cut for this job, eh? Can you see any purpose whatsoever for this newly-created position.
In the past I've never really thought of our Democrat mayors as being cookie-cutter liberals. In fact, I've always thought they'd be considered flaming conservatives in a place like New York.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wilbur, self employed, meaning he didn't take a pay cut for this job, eh? Can you see any purpose whatsoever for this newly-created position.
In the past I've never really thought of our Democrat mayors as being cookie-cutter liberals. In fact, I've always thought they'd be considered flaming conservatives in a place like New York.
Self employed as a paid consultant to go to companies and put on training. Not sure what that pays. And I'm confident pay from month to month varied.
Some people will take pay cuts to ensure they have a steady pay check.
As to what he'll do here that is really needed for $120K? Your guess is as good as mine.