At the May 27 Special Session, which was continued from the May 20 Regular Session, the Council voted 4-3 to "raid" the contingency fund to avoid any layoffs.
In what some observers believe was a "predetermined" vote, on a motion by none other than Mayor Loomis, with the backing of Al Kunisch, Paula Abbott & KC Carter, it was decided that taking $380,000 from the contingency fund was a good idea.
It is worth noting, the Town Manager has recommended layoffs as being responsive to building declines, as well as other shortfalls in revenue.
As a result of this vote, there will be no scheduled layoffs, at least for the time being. However, in six months time, the "axe may fall" on some employees whose jobs are not required. How do we know this? It was an amendment to the motion, but the mayor was quoted as saying; "If people don't have work at that point, we can fire them."
What are some of the potential ramifications as a result of the council's action?
Well, one unintended consequence is the fact that any employees let go after the six month period, will in essence, be fired, with the potential of no severance pay and no unemployment benefits. (How would you like to work with that hanging over your head?)
Also, the city of Tucson took similar action and raided its contingency fund to save jobs. The result was a downgrade of its bond rating, obligating its taxpayers to pay more for any loans the city takes out, plus a major depletion of its fund.
Now Oro Valley is going down that same road. The Town Attorney ruled that the action was legal although town policy is to delve into the contingency fund for only " non-recurring one time expenditures."
To keep people on the payroll for a minimum of six months doesn't seem to meet that criteria.
Additionally, Oro Valley was in dire straights financially, at least as of last week. Now, it looks like money is no issue. What changed? Or better yet, what changed at least a couple of minds?
Why Bill Garner, Salette Latas & Barry Gillaspie saw fit to vote "no" is totally understandable. Salette quite correctly noted, "It is fiscally irresponsible." Bill put it another way, saying, "we are trying to be fiscally responsible." Barry said: "You have no plan."
What the other four were thinking is another story.
I would hope ALL our readers will listen to the audio on the OV web site (no streaming video) of this item, and determine who made sense, and who didn't. From my standpoint, the only sensible things I heard were from Bill, Salette, Barry & David Andrews.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Three Oro Valley Residents Speak Out Against "Contributions"
Three OV residents took the time to write The Explorer on the same issue: Giving OUR money to outside agencies.
For the record, as we previously noted on the blog, you can't "paint the whole council with the same brush." Bill Garner, Barry Gillaspie & Salette Latas opposed the motion to give C-Path $25K & TREO an additional $16K for a total of $40K.
Here are the 3 letters from the May 27 Explorer.
****************************************************************************************
Let the drug firms fund Critical Path
Re: Critical Path Institute:
I do not see the need for the taxpayers to fund this organization. As I understand it, their purpose is to aid the pharmaceutical industry in bringing drugs to market. This industry is among the most profitable and can afford to fund this organization with their obscene profits.
The taxpayers of Oro Valley should be funding organizations that provide assistance to those in need. The pharmaceutical industry does not qualify under any criteria.
Chuck Davis, Oro Valley
*******************************************************************************************
No OV money for outside agencies
I do not think that Oro Valley taxpayer's money should be used for outside agencies.
Robert Gershon, Oro Valley
*******************************************************************************************
No more taxes; OV government must cut its size
Oro Valley City Council recently voted to give more money to Critical Path Institute and TREO. It seems that the council cares more about subsidizing businesses than keeping residents.
The council is considering several new taxes on Wednesday, May 27. Among them are increased property taxes, increased retail sales tax, a grocery tax, an increase in utility taxes and a new franchise fee (tax) for our utilities.
We can't stand any more taxes. Many people are struggling to stay in their homes. Increasing our mortgage payments by adding more property tax is not going to help the residents of Oro Valley.
We are all going to see an increase in our utility bills once the cap and trade tax is passed by our federal government. It would be poor planning to increase those bills on a local level as well.
Raising our retail sales tax would put us in the same league with The City of South Tucson. Taxing our groceries is outrageous. Let's learn a lesson from California and cut the size of our city government instead of letting it grow out of control with increased taxes.
We need to start using common sense. We are not going to stimulate our local economy by digging deeper into the pockets of our residents.
Angela Puffer, Oro Valley
For the record, as we previously noted on the blog, you can't "paint the whole council with the same brush." Bill Garner, Barry Gillaspie & Salette Latas opposed the motion to give C-Path $25K & TREO an additional $16K for a total of $40K.
Here are the 3 letters from the May 27 Explorer.
****************************************************************************************
Let the drug firms fund Critical Path
Re: Critical Path Institute:
I do not see the need for the taxpayers to fund this organization. As I understand it, their purpose is to aid the pharmaceutical industry in bringing drugs to market. This industry is among the most profitable and can afford to fund this organization with their obscene profits.
The taxpayers of Oro Valley should be funding organizations that provide assistance to those in need. The pharmaceutical industry does not qualify under any criteria.
Chuck Davis, Oro Valley
*******************************************************************************************
No OV money for outside agencies
I do not think that Oro Valley taxpayer's money should be used for outside agencies.
Robert Gershon, Oro Valley
*******************************************************************************************
No more taxes; OV government must cut its size
Oro Valley City Council recently voted to give more money to Critical Path Institute and TREO. It seems that the council cares more about subsidizing businesses than keeping residents.
The council is considering several new taxes on Wednesday, May 27. Among them are increased property taxes, increased retail sales tax, a grocery tax, an increase in utility taxes and a new franchise fee (tax) for our utilities.
We can't stand any more taxes. Many people are struggling to stay in their homes. Increasing our mortgage payments by adding more property tax is not going to help the residents of Oro Valley.
We are all going to see an increase in our utility bills once the cap and trade tax is passed by our federal government. It would be poor planning to increase those bills on a local level as well.
Raising our retail sales tax would put us in the same league with The City of South Tucson. Taxing our groceries is outrageous. Let's learn a lesson from California and cut the size of our city government instead of letting it grow out of control with increased taxes.
We need to start using common sense. We are not going to stimulate our local economy by digging deeper into the pockets of our residents.
Angela Puffer, Oro Valley
Oro Valley Resident Finds Fault With Council Members Latas & Garner
In his letter to The Explorer, OV resident Keith Smith takes Salette Latas & Bill Garner to task for there extra efforts on behalf of the citizens.
In Salette's case, it about her attempt to try and help the pet owners.
In Bill's case, Mr. Smith evidently is not happy that Bill, along with John Musolf were able to trim the Oro Valley budget deficit.
Oh well!
Following is Mr. Smith's letter as published in the May 27 Explorer
***************************************************************************************
OV deserves better from the elected
There is an underground campaign being fought in Oro Valley, and council members Latas' and Garner's behind-the-scene efforts are causing a shadow effect on Oro Valley's policies and practice.
Latas has been taking private polls and using them to form justification for her crusade to bring animal control services from the county to Oro Valley. Garner is being lauded for his use of Oro Valley citizen John Musolf to do a line by line audit of OVPD's 2009 budget.
Why would Garner and Musolf together target just OVPD's budget? Why does Garner need the notably congenial and obsequious Musolf when Town Manager Andrews spent 17 years in the Oro Valley Finance Department? Doesn't Oro Valley already employ competent accountants to do the work that Musolf is doing for Garner and, by default, us?
In my recent contact with Latas, she told me she has found some support from residents to make the town the official body to license and register pets. Ms. Latas believes there are some 8,500 unlicensed dogs in Oro Valley, and by relieving the county of the burden of collecting the fees for licensing, Oro Valley could stand to gain that revenue.
Of course what Ms. Latas would not tell me in any of her e-mails was how she intends to accomplish the 100 percent compliance, the cost of boarding any strays, the cost of veterinary care (by their definition, strays are an unknown quantity possibly infected with anything from rabies to parvovirus to valley fever), nor the cost for the new bureaucracy.
Ms. Latas has determined that she has the support required to move ahead by polling only those individuals she deems worthy to forward her petition. Not very scientific, and if it lends itself to Oro Valley policy making, not a sound investment either. While the goal of alleviating even one suffering animal is altruistic, the method is pollyannish and duplicative.
The development of incomplete polling data to form policy initiatives, and the practice of using unelected, unaccountable accountants to decide our budget, is inconsistent with sound governance.
Oro Valley deserves better from our elected representatives. We deserve honesty, accountability, integrity, and excellence … hmmm, sounds a lot like our police department. Maybe our council members should look across the parking lot for an example.
Sincerely,
Keith G. Smith,Oro Valley
In Salette's case, it about her attempt to try and help the pet owners.
In Bill's case, Mr. Smith evidently is not happy that Bill, along with John Musolf were able to trim the Oro Valley budget deficit.
Oh well!
Following is Mr. Smith's letter as published in the May 27 Explorer
***************************************************************************************
OV deserves better from the elected
There is an underground campaign being fought in Oro Valley, and council members Latas' and Garner's behind-the-scene efforts are causing a shadow effect on Oro Valley's policies and practice.
Latas has been taking private polls and using them to form justification for her crusade to bring animal control services from the county to Oro Valley. Garner is being lauded for his use of Oro Valley citizen John Musolf to do a line by line audit of OVPD's 2009 budget.
Why would Garner and Musolf together target just OVPD's budget? Why does Garner need the notably congenial and obsequious Musolf when Town Manager Andrews spent 17 years in the Oro Valley Finance Department? Doesn't Oro Valley already employ competent accountants to do the work that Musolf is doing for Garner and, by default, us?
In my recent contact with Latas, she told me she has found some support from residents to make the town the official body to license and register pets. Ms. Latas believes there are some 8,500 unlicensed dogs in Oro Valley, and by relieving the county of the burden of collecting the fees for licensing, Oro Valley could stand to gain that revenue.
Of course what Ms. Latas would not tell me in any of her e-mails was how she intends to accomplish the 100 percent compliance, the cost of boarding any strays, the cost of veterinary care (by their definition, strays are an unknown quantity possibly infected with anything from rabies to parvovirus to valley fever), nor the cost for the new bureaucracy.
Ms. Latas has determined that she has the support required to move ahead by polling only those individuals she deems worthy to forward her petition. Not very scientific, and if it lends itself to Oro Valley policy making, not a sound investment either. While the goal of alleviating even one suffering animal is altruistic, the method is pollyannish and duplicative.
The development of incomplete polling data to form policy initiatives, and the practice of using unelected, unaccountable accountants to decide our budget, is inconsistent with sound governance.
Oro Valley deserves better from our elected representatives. We deserve honesty, accountability, integrity, and excellence … hmmm, sounds a lot like our police department. Maybe our council members should look across the parking lot for an example.
Sincerely,
Keith G. Smith,Oro Valley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)