We agree 100% with John Musolf as it concerns his letter to The Explorer printed below.
With More Town Holidays, OV Taxpayer Loses
On July 21, the Oro Valley mayor and council voted 7-0 to pass Resolution 10-50 (add employee holidays).
A memo from Human Resources supported this action.
Discussion:
"In 2009, Dec. 24 and Dec. 31 was authorized as paid 'vacation' days for all staff for the first time by the interim town manager. This act was initiated on factors that included no cost of living or merit increases, difficult economic conditions and a reduction in force resulting in heavier work loads and strain on employee morale."
Why not boost our taxpayer morale by less spending?
Why no Resolution in 2009 but added for 2010? Hmmm.
"Designating these dates (added holidays) is beneficial to our customers and staff for the following reasons:"
"The Town may effectively communicate to the community that business offices will be closed Dec. 24, 25 and 31 and Jan. 1 due to holiday schedule."
The town must add two additional holidays so a communication can be made to the public? Logical?
"For payroll, financial and individual department accountability, having set dates is more efficient for each department to administer."
How will adding two additional holidays make it more efficient for each department to administer?
"Staff may plan for customers' needs and holiday gatherings proactively."
How does adding two additional holidays help town customers needs? The only thing it does help is the employees in planning their personal holiday gatherings.
Fiscal impact:
"For essential services there will be a holiday payroll cost associated with this change. For FY10-11 this cost will be absorbed through vacancy savings and year end operational line item savings."
In my opinion, a sweeping statement that the added holiday cost will be absorbed is insufficient justification. The Oro Valley taxpayer loses again.
John Musolf, Oro Valley
2 comments:
John makes a good point. I think that many taxpayers and some elected officials are starting to wake up to the costs of growing government and employee benefits:
Extra time off would cost Montgomery $7 million, report says
By: Brian Hughes
Examiner Staff Writer
July 13, 2010 Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett's plan to grant nearly 9,000 employees more time off next year would cost about $7 million, a new report shows -- contradicting claims the move would cost nothing.
The county's Office of Legislative Oversight attributes the cost to the lost work time and backlog of leave days that would result from 48 additional hours off for firefighters and 26 extra hours away from the office next year for police officers and general government employees.
The county would lose out on nearly 250,000 work hours, or the equivalent of about 120 employees annually, if workers used all the leave time, according to the report. The time off was part of the negotiations with unions approved recently by Leggett.
County Council members have largely balked at the arrangement, however, saying they can ill-afford to give employees more time off while asking residents to pay about $250 more in taxes this year. Even council members with a long history of union support are joining the chorus of dissent.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Extra-time-off-would-cost-Montgomery-_7-million_-report-says-98276824.html#ixzz0v5gNOmdj
OVMom,--- Did you read the posting of July 23, Re: John's recommendations on saving OV money?
Concerning Parks & Rec, John wrote:
Parks and Recreation
“Assistant Aquatics Manager: Recommend elimination of this 30 hour per week (0.75) benefit-eligible position which is currently vacant. Workload of this position to be completed by Water Safety Instructors (WSIs) with 26 hours per week (0.65 FTE) added into the WSI budget line. This change will result in a savings of $6000 annually”.
How can you count savings of $6000 when the position was already vacant? Only in government accounting can an already vacant position be counted as savings.
Need we say more?
Post a Comment