In yesterdays ONW we see that there will be a second proposal for an advisory referendum that, if approved, will appear on the ballot in April. This is a multiple choice referendum that will give the council a better idea for where we should go with our form of government.
I think this is a grand idea. I only wish now that there was a scheduled election in November this year and we wouldn't need to wait until spring to vote on it. I don't feel that we should spend the extra money it would take to hold a special election if this was the only thing on the ballot. Not to mention the turn out for that type of election would most likely be less than 10%. People don't go to the polls in this city when it's future is on the line, what makes us think that they will go for a simple multiple choice question?
[----excerpt from the ONW
The advisory referendum will allow voters to pick one of four options:
1. A full-time mayor with seven alderpersons elected from districts
2. A full-time mayor with seven alderpersons elected at-large
3. A full-time mayor that votes with the council and four council members elected from districts and two at-large
4. The current form with a full-time city manager, directly elected part-time mayor and six councilors elected at-large.
end excerpt------]
Given these options, I would have to say that I would either like it to remain the same (option 4) or if there was to be an elected Mayor, option 1 would be the better of the 3. I have always believed that an elected Mayor is just a popularity contest that is won by the one who spends the most. It has very little to do with actual qualifications. If we have an elected Mayor, what would be the term? I have heard that it would be 3 or 4 years. That means that we would have to put up with a person for that period of time even if they are not doing the job. Election laws would hamper removal of an elected position. A recall would need to take place and that requires several thousand signatures to even get to the ballot box. At least with a hired Manager, the council is able to screen candidates and hire on merit rather than popularity and they are able to terminate the contract if they do not perform to the satisfaction of the council.
It has been discussed that there were many applicants last time that withdrew their interest in the position because there was a Mayor question on the ballot. I would imagine that we will have the same obstacle now. Perhaps the decision for a replacement needs to be postponed until April. Then we can get a better idea for a permanent replacement from a good field of candidates (assuming that we keep the same form of government).
In the mean time, perhaps the city could hire Mr. Wollangk back on as a temporary Manager until this decision is complete or appoint someone (maybe the Public Works Director) to fill the position on a temporary basis. I feel that the temporary replacement should be handled similar to a case that our Manager was on vacation or extended leave.
Now I will leave you with a couple of questions to ponder... If the referendum recommends that we have one of the first three options, when will the "full time" Mayor be elected? Will there be a special election in the summer? Would it take place with the Partisan elections in the Fall (Presidential Election)? Or would it wait until Spring of 2009 with the non-partisan election?
What is your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I believe this question will be placed on the spring '08 ballot, the council can determine the results of the results, and then come up with a binding referendum in November (Presidential election)and then have the new form of government start in '09.
Sounds like a great plan. Anything to get away from the mess we have now.
Kent. You said "If we have an elected Mayor, what would be the term? I have heard that it would be 3 or 4 years. That means that we would have to put up with a person for that period of time even if they are not doing the job. Election laws would hamper removal of an elected position. A recall would need to take place and that requires several thousand signatures to even get to the ballot box.
My response is that we have an 11 year term for a city manager and it cost us $117,000 to get rid of him. And if this council hires a new city manager, it's based on what THEY want, not what the citizens want.
At least with an elected mayor, the people will get to vote for who THEY want, and it won't cost us $117,000 to get rid of him/her.
I don't know if the Mayor or a different Manager is the best option for Oshkosh. All I know is reading how much is spent on the city labor vs what goes for operating Oshkosh, the thing is totally out of wack. Right now these council people hassle with a buck here an a buck there when the BIG BUCKS are going for workers and I guess health insurance. Whoever we get in there they better have a big set a balls so they can make some changes because Im mad as hell at spending all that money and seeing a prison inmate riding on the back of a garbage truck. Right now the way things are run is just wrong.
Kent, can you stop posting the bullshit about city employee wages and benefits? I can't read your blog without that being the center issue. Important? Sure. Does it have to show up in every freakin' thread you start? Nip this crap in the bud. It's getting old. It is not the only issue facing the city.
2:27 is no doubt a tax loving city employee. And s/he sounds embarrassed the s/he is sucking the money from our pockets.
Sorry bucko, Kent will continue to post the truth!
Now get back to work!
“Kent, can you stop posting the bullshit about city employee wages and benefits?”
Our annual city budget is $60,000,000.00. We spend $52,000,000.00 of that budget on employee wages and benefits. Discussion about the spending habits of 87% of our entire annual budget is certainly not “bullshit”.
If you have other issues you’d like to discuss, by all means feel free to post them. You are correct that wages and benefits are not the only issue facing the city. But it is without a doubt a fact that wages and benefits (95% taxpayer funded healthcare)have the greatest financial effect on taxpayers.
Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at General Motors plants around the country Monday in the first nationwide strike against the U.S. auto industry since 1976.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/20920334/site/newsweek/
site/newsweek/
Who Should Pay for Health Benefits?
The costs of providing health-care insurance have risen 78 percent this decade, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Hewitt Associates.
Private industry has said that they and the consumers are no longer able to pay the cost of rapidly rising healthcare.
Our public sector unions, somehow, continue to believe that the property taxpayer and rent payers are still able to fund 95% of their healthcare costs.
This can’t continue! Our public sector employees must share a larger percentage of the healthcare cost. 80/20 would seem to be fair. 95/5 is clearly robbing the taxpayer!
The Dubious Claim of a Public Worker Gravy Train
Prompted by a recent report by the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance (WTA), Jo Egelhoff of FoxPolitics.net got on the topic of public sector vs. private sector compensation in Wisconsin.
According to the WTA report, average public sector benefits are 50.1 percent greater than the average cost of benefits found in the private sector in the state. This, Egelhoff concludes, is a sign that public sector workers are on a "gravy train" in Wisconsin.
Such a conclusion, however, doesn't tell the whole picture.
For starters, simply comparing "average" benefits packages misses a key point, which is that not all private sector packages are worse than their public sector counterparts. To be sure, a number of top executives in the private sector ride a pretty nice gravy train of their own when it comes to benefits.
And I'm not mentioning that as a "gotcha," but rather as a means for pointing out a fundamental difference between benefits in the public sector and benefits in the private sector.
As a relatively low-level administrative employee at UWM, I get paid a heck of a lot less than the chancellor (and justifiably so); but, in spite of the salary difference, I still get the exact same health care package as he gets, and so does every receptionist on campus, every custodian on campus, every full-time food service worker on campus, etc. That's not something you could say about top executives and lower-level employees at too many private sector corporations, particularly ones that come close to the size of UWM.
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the point here that private corporations should need to give the same benefits packages to all employees -- that's an entirely different discussion -- but rather my point is that while a wide gap has developed in much of the private sector when it comes to your position and the benefits you receive, the public sector has opted to keep everyone in largely the same boat when it comes to benefits, which is a big reason why "the average" cost of benefits for the public sector is so much higher than the private sector.
But even more fundamental than that is the issue of total compensation -- that is, benefits plus salary.
Jo addresses the issue of salary in her post, citing some average salary figures from 2005 that were included in the WTA report along with some figures crafted by the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC). Both suggest that even when you factor in salary, Wisconsin public sector employees are still making out better than employees in the private sector.
But, really, you don't need the WTA or the MHPC to relay the total compensation figures for Wisconsin -- the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes those figures on its website for everyone to see, and it even breaks it down by industry and individual county.
Using the BEA data, we can see that total compensation for the private sector in Wisconsin grew 17.6 percent between 2001 and 2005, while total compensation for the public sector grew 18.7 percent in the same period.
And, if you look at the data prior to 2001, when the economy was still kicking in high gear between 1998-2000, private sector compensation grew at 12.1% in Wisconsin while public sector compensation only grew at 9.7 percent. And if you take out the big recession years of 2001 and 2002, and just look at the last three, private sector compensation again outpaces public sector compensation in Wisconsin, 9.1 percent to 6.8 percent.
But, of course, these macro-analyses are complicated because -- although we can see in the BEA data that total private sector employment increased by 7.5 percent between 1998 and 2005, while total public sector employment jumped 6.7 percent in the same period -- that data doesn't tell us what type of jobs exist in each sector or what type are being created and, as a result, driving compensation increases.
Indeed, just as an example, it seems likely that the private sector includes more minimum wage positions than the public sector (think fast food, retail, etc.). And, even beyond wages, the lowest paid positions in the public sector are still receiving excellent benefits packages, just like the higher ups, while it's a pretty safe assumption that those minimum wage workers at places like Dairy Queen or ShopKo aren't getting much of anything in terms of benefits, especially in comparison to the management at their respective companies.
When that's factored into the aggregate -- thereby increasing the "average" compensation for public workers and decreasing it for private workers -- does it necessarily mean that all or even most public sector workers are riding a gravy train?
All in all, there always should be an eye towards how the public sector is being compensated. But using aggregate data to create alarm about a so-called special gravy train for an entire sector of workers is more problematic than it can be made to appear, particularly considering that aggregate data, in and of itself, isn't even all that alarming.
Health-Care Debate
You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton to welcome her recent presentation of a health-care plan. With the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination now officially calling for mandatory coverage for all Americans, the health-care debate should get the attention it deserves in the coming campaign.
Clinton’s plan calls for an individual mandate. That is, all Americans would be required to have health insurance, just as all drivers are required to have car insurance. Oddly enough, that’s similar to the starting point for the Massachusetts health-care plan that the Bay State’s former governor, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, helped forge.
Clinton’s plan would differ significantly from the 1993-94 effort she made as first lady. For example, Americans satisfied with their current health insurance could keep it. In her first go-round with the issue, that was not the case.
The Clinton plan gets thrown on the table with other plans, developed to varying levels of detail, by most of the other candidates. A recent Associated Press compilation of plan summaries is dizzying. This debate will not be easy for the American people to follow.
But follow it we must, because the debate is essential to our health and our economy.
As the system now operates, Americans pay some of the highest medical costs in the world yet get some of the worst coverage. Tens of millions of Americans go uncovered and without health care until they are so sick that they must show up in emergency rooms, thus driving up costs for all of us.
For senior citizens, health-care insurance, even with Medicare and prescription-drug benefits, often saps a major portion of their income, forcing them to choose between food, rent and medical necessities.
And, in the business world, American companies pay dearly for our inefficient and expensive system. Health-care expenses burden American auto manufacturers, for example, but not their Japanese competitors. Canada recruits auto manufacturers to North America promising proximity to American markets without the burden of American employee health-care costs.
Iraq and the war on terrorists have understandably absorbed most of the attention during the early part of this presidential campaign. No one wants or expects that debate to go away. But alongside it, health-care insurance must have a place as one of the two key issues of the 2008 campaign.
Most of the rest of the world, especially modern, industrial countries, have figured out how to deliver good, affordable health care to their citizens without breaking the backs of taxpayers and putting their industry at a disadvantage. America can do this, too.
But it will take a commitment on the part of the American voter to demand health-care reform, and there is no better time to do that than right now, as the debate on the issue begins to go full blast.
The city employees in Oshkosh don't appear to be lagging behind in any wage or benefit area. Some would call it a Gravy Train, others would not, but this is an accurate example of city wages and benefits:
Oshkosh City Employee Union
Local 796 - AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Rates Effective Pay Period 1, 2006
Vacations:
1 year of service = 2 weeks vacation
7 years of service = 3 weeks vacation
12 years of service = 4 weeks vacation
20 years of service = 5 weeks vacation
25 years of service = 5 weeks + 1 day vacation
Sick Leave:
1 day of sick leave for each month of service.
Holidays:
12 paid days per year.
Medical Benefits:
Employee contributions for PPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $30 per month toward single; $45 per month towards dual and $55 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
Employee contributions for EPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
Retirement Fund:
The Employer shall pay the employees mandatory contribution to the fund, up to 6.5% of the employee’s gross wage.
Longevity Plan:
The following longevity plan is in effect-
$2.77 bi weekly after 5 years of service
$5.54 bi weekly after 10 years of service
$9.23 bi weekly after 15 years of service
$12.92 bi weekly after 20 years of service
WAGES…………………
Clerk Dispatcher - $15.79 - $16.66 per hour
Shop Laborer - $18.05 - $18.67 per hour
Transit Operator - $18.05 - $18.67 per hour
Service Technician - $18.05 - $18.67 per hour
Sanitation Operator - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Groundskeeper - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Zoo Specialist - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Traffic Painter - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Maint. Shop Worker - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Sewage Plant Maint Worker - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Street Maint Worker - $18.48 - $19.49 per hour
Parks Maint Worker - $18.48 - $19.49 per hour
Utility Operator - $18.99 - $19.65 per hour
Park Trades Tech - $18.99 - $19.65 per hour
Arborist - $18.99 - $19.65 per hour
Water Maint Worker II - $18.81 - $19.79 per hour
Park Maint Leadperson - $18.81 - $19.79 per hour
Traffic Painter II - $19.06 - $20.05 per hour
Water Meter Reader Service - $19.06 - $20.05 per hour
Equip Oper III - $19.06 - $20.05 per hour
Solids Plant Oper - $19.06 - $20.27 per hour
Parks Maint Tech - $19.06 - $20.27 per hour
Solids Plant Oper - $19.06 - $20.27 per hour
Sewerage Plant Oper - $19.48 - $20.66 per hour
Filtration Plant Oper - $19.48 - $20.66 per hour
Equip Mechanic - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Transit Mechanic - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Welder - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Lead Mechanic - $19.79 - $21.32 per hour
Mechanic III - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Electrician Ii - $21.10 - $23.03 per hour
And please remember, property taxpayers and rent payers fund 95% of healthcare costs for city employees on top of these benefits.
The UAW is out on strike and city workers just feel entitled that we property taxpayers and rent payers should fund 95% of their healthcare payments.
"I think this is a grand idea." --Kent Monte
Of course you do. It's authored by Paul Esslinger, and you're a mouthpiece for Paul Esslinger.
The majority of the jobs and related salaries listed are for men. I'd be curious to know if the women in City Hall are making comparable wages. If not, they should be!
"Health-Care Debate"
What a crock this post is!
You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton to welcome her recent presentation of a health-care plan.". Yeah, providing you yourself are a socialist!
"Americans satisfied with their current health insurance could keep it". The only thing MOST Americans will be able to keep is whatever emnployment benefits their employer chooses to give them. If you were an employer, and the gov't made insurance available to everybody, why would you continue to offer it to your own employees? You aren't going to get taxed any less, so why not just drop it?
"But follow it we must, because the debate is essential to our health and our economy.". No, it is neither, you just wish it to be so.
"As the system now operates, Americans pay some of the highest medical costs in the world yet get some of the worst coverage." The worst coverage? Prove it!
"Canada recruits auto manufacturers to North America promising proximity to American markets without the burden of American employee health-care costs.". More BS. This was tried right here at a local level, vis-a-vis Leach/Federal Signal. The companies plan was to save millions by moving to Canada and not having to pay health insurance because of Canadas "superior" system. They were out of business in less than 2 years. What they didn't pay in health insurance premiums for their employees was more than made up for by the amount they paid in taxes for gov't provided health insurance for everybody.
"health-care insurance must have a place as one of the two key issues of the 2008 campaign.". MUST? That's your opinion.
"Most of the rest of the world, especially modern, industrial countries, have figured out how to deliver good, affordable health care to their citizens without breaking the backs of taxpayers and putting their industry at a disadvantage". "GOOD, afforable" huh? What happened to GREAT, affordable? What you'll end up with is basic, not even mediocre, which is what happens to all socialized systems.
"But it will take a commitment on the part of the American voter to demand health-care reform". Another of your opinions, not fact. The American voter has been demanding that the likes of Hillary stay AWAY from health care reform since her first stupid idea in 1993.
"The majority of the jobs and related salaries listed are for men."
This is not only wrong, it is about the most sexist thing I've ever read. Just because women don't work in those job descriptions does not mean that they are precluded from taking those jobs. If they don't take them, that's how it is.
Regarding women in city hall and their wages, they're in unions. The wages are controlled by contracts. If the women don't like the wages for a given job description, they can simply not vote for the contract. If their union sisters out-vote them in favor of it, that's how it is. If they are not employed by the city, and the wage is not attractive, they are free to look elsewhere for employment.
Post a Comment