Dear Editor, Kudos for your well-reasoned editorial of Jan 2
(City workers need to accept the new reality), which succinctly and
accurately described the situation regarding our city
employees.
Dear Editor,
Kudos for your well-reasoned editorial of Jan 2 (City workers need to accept the new reality), which succinctly and accurately described the situation regarding our city employees.
The degrading economy and it’s depressing effects upon wages and profit margins is indeed a fact of life, one that those of us in the private sector have become, unfortunately, all too familiar with these past several years. As a contractor, many of my customers are asking about re-negotiating prices going forward. My brother, an airline pilot flying 747s for 18 years, has taken a 38 percent pay cut over the last three years, not counting workplace concessions and pension reductions, and yes, he is a member of a union.
Apparently, some of our public employees have been laboring under the impression that their livelihoods and lifestyles are somehow guaranteed and that they are exempt from the perils of a failing economy. Certainly the seeming reticence on the part of all three unions to offer wage and benefits reductions as an alternative to the proposed lay offs of their fellow employees speaks volumes as to their preference of seniority over jobs. Unfortunately, if that really is the case, then the City Council should act accordingly and decisively in order to get control of this budget crisis.
Unfortunately, it is the “bone” and not the “fat” that is being recommended by “staff” (read: management) to be excised.
“Staff’s” recommendations are to turn out street lights, close parks, eliminate programs, lay off street workers, raise user fees, spend the reserves, whatever it takes, as long as it doesn’t affect management. Their contribution? Foregoing their scheduled 3 percent COLA pay raise. No reductions, no layoffs, the real pain and suffering is reserved for anyone not lucky enough to be staff … the rank and file city employees and of course, the citizens who pay their salaries and benefits.
The quote from your editorial by Assistant City Manager and Acting Human Resources Director Brian Stott: “If everyone took significant pay decreases, those who could leave, would.
It would be difficult to recruit replacements” pretty much demonstrates staff’s attitude and apparent disdain for their fellow employees, the council and most importantly, the community. Regarding Mr. Stott’s statement, perhaps, to paraphrase Sandy Alderson, “that’s either a threat to be ignored or an offer to be accepted.”
I was astounded by City Manager Tewes’ cavalier dismissal of councilmember Lee’s perfectly appropriate questions regarding “staff’s” minimal inclusion in the proposed cuts at last night’s meeting (City Council Budget Workshop, Jan. 7) and his subsequent characterization of your editorial as “silly!”
Their fundamental failure to acknowledge the principles of your editorial demonstrate, either staff’s obtuseness or its self-serving attitude of entitlement, neither of which, serve the council nor the community well. It is important to understand that the information with which the council must rely on to make these important decisions are coming from “staff,” an increasingly dispiriting thought.
Perhaps it is time to consider if the council and the community would be better served if the layoffs were implemented at the top of the organization chart rather than the bottom.
Frank Manocchio, Morgan Hill
City has much to be proud of
Dear Editor:
In response to the Times recent article on elected officials’ attendance, please note that my absences in 2008 were all health related including a brief hospital stay which the article neglected to state. Yet I am puzzled by the purpose of article. This seems to be the paper’s second attempt to find a way to hold elected officials accountable. The first series was based on superficial criteria that lacked credibility and viability for example such as a date when a council report was to be submitted but failing to address the substance of the submitted report.
If the article wanted to focus on attendance, why did they not include all attendance on subcommittee, water board, waste water authority and other meetings that I and other council members attended not just this year but for the entire elected term? A partial listing just cannot suffice. While focusing on a selective and myopic view, they did not take the time or the effort to list any of the accomplishments or significant decisions made during the year which are a better indicator of leadership and accountability than attendance alone.
So I wonder, what’s the point? If you truly want to hold the council accountable, you will have to do much better analysis that includes in depth review of the goals and objectives as stated in the General Plan as an example and all of the other sub elements and compare it with the direction and decisions rendered by council. In that document you will find economic, cultural, recreation and public safety goals among others for review and comparison.
As opposed to any judgment or not as intended by the article, the fact remains that the city has much for which to be proud. There are many successes, and too many to list here. We are a small, but efficient, have wonderful facilities and are surrounded by incredible open space. We are blessed with hard working employees and a community with an overwhelming rating of satisfaction, comfort and safety as proven by survey.
We have our challenges like any other city but we have good people, and good leaders, making heroic efforts to address them. For me, that’s the story to tell.
Mark Grzan, Morgan Hill resident and former City Councilman
