Dear Editor, Thank you for your cogent editorial of April 17,
‘Awarding Raises While Laying Off Workers Sends The Wrong Message.’
Throughout the budget process, I have felt like the lone voice in
the wilderness at council meetings regarding the cavalier attitude
of the council toward potential pay cuts and contract
renegotiations with city employee groups.
Awarding raises while laying off workers sends wrong message
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your cogent editorial of April 17, ‘Awarding Raises While Laying Off Workers Sends The Wrong Message.’ Throughout the budget process, I have felt like the lone voice in the wilderness at council meetings regarding the cavalier attitude of the council toward potential pay cuts and contract renegotiations with city employee groups.
I repeatedly asked why pay cuts, particularly for management, were not even on the table. The city manager’s reply was that it was “more important to attract and retain the best people.” The sheer audacity to even trot out that specious argument in this current economic climate indicates the city manager’s and the council’s lack of understanding of the new realities of this economy, the severity of the crisis and their contempt for the tax-paying public.
However, the “best people” had no problem, nor hesitation in recommending the elimination of various recreation programs, removal of turf from parks and the closure of half the street lights to save money. The purpose for which it has suddenly become obvious, was not to balance the budget, but to maintain and augment the pay of public servants.
Finally, not once, did anyone publicly mention the issue of “5 percent merit raises.” I guess it slipped their minds. Meanwhile, as the deficit widens almost daily and property values plummet, our council fiddles while Rome burns and Councilman Greg Sellers assures us that it is not flames that we are experiencing, merely the new heating system that management has thoughtfully installed for our benefit.
Clearly there are elements in the city’s management and council that view the public as a host organism, whose only reason for existence is to provide sustenance for their sinecures.
Bottom line, the only city employees that took a pay cut, were those unfortunate few who lost their jobs, because their fellow employees were apparently unwilling to sacrifice anything more than their 3 percent cost-of-living raises. Meanwhile almost half of the employees get a 5 percent merit raise, and the other half doesn’t qualify by virtue of their already being paid the maximum for their positions. Sweet! That’s a deal that could have been modeled at AIG.
Lastly, thank you for providing the links on line for the salaries of our public servants in Natalie Everett’s April 13 article regarding this matter. Unfortunately, the list does not address the overtime costs which put roughly half of our full-time employees in the six-figure range.
Frank Manocchio, Morgan Hill
Courtesy Chevrolet closed, do we need to bring in more auto dealers?
Dear Editor,
It’s hard to understand why (the city) wants to spend more taxpayer money to bring in more dealerships to Condit Road.
Steve Humpfle, Morgan Hill
No matter how you slice it, Measure A is a bad idea
Dear Editor,
The proponents of Measure A emphasize that the measure simply expands an authorization to build 500 additional residential units – in addition to the 200 per year authorized in the slow growth plan.
Flyers use the words “vibrant” and “bustling” to describe a plan to build the 500 units. The proponents, who are financing the measure, do not mention anything about our city spending millions of dollars. We have many areas of business concentration in Morgan Hill. Any of these can be referred to as downtown. These business people are not advocating the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to subsidize their competition.
We have been told that our city does not have enough money to finance city services. We have been told that our city does not have enough money to hire needed police. I have read in the Morgan Hill Times about how the city has had to layoff employees because of budget shortages.
In the public budget session I attended, which was administered by a hired consulting group, it was never mentioned that if the city takes less redevelopment money then the city will get more general fund money. I asked the question at a city meeting and was told specifically that if we ask for less redevelopment money then we will receive more general fund money.
I was in a neighborhood meeting a while back with Mayor Steve Tate. The community group was talking about a developer’s plan to construct maybe 50 more residences behind Community Park. I understood Mayor Tate to say that he preferred that the developer build 12 multi-million dollar homes on the property because 50 houses would greatly increase the workload for the city and police.
The city has already spent maybe $10 million to buy buildings in the strip mall located between Fourth Street and Main Avenue along Monterey Road. Now we are proposing to spend another $30 million or so.
We have a city Planning Commission that makes comprehensive plans. We have clearly stated that we want to limit the number of residences built so that the city grows slowly based upon carefully executed plans.
Measure A is not about 500 more residential units. This measure is about spending pent up Redevelopment money – while claiming that we cannot afford police protection, public area maintenance and public services. The City Manager and the City Council are in support of this?
Staten Johnston, Morgan Hill
