John Musolf spends many hours attempting to serve our community with his financial expertise. It behooves the council to consider John's recommendations. Will they? We'll have to wait and see, but based on their decision to "kill" the police department management study, it's doubtful.
Please read what John recently sent to the town council & staff.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
Oro Valley has conducted past professional management studies of some of its departments such as Building Safety, Public Works, Legal, and Library to provide a detailed analysis of how the Town compares to established standards and benchmarks of operations.
Management studies are conducted with the intent of utilizing an experienced and independent third party to review current strategies and operations and make recommendations to improve efficiency and delivery of services.
Two management studies of the Police and Parks/Recreation Departments had been approved and scheduled to commence in the summer of 2010.
The new Oro Valley Mayor and Council decided to eliminate those studies.
Therefore, it falls to the individual taxpayer to question the operations and budgets for various Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis that I have made of the PRLCR department (which contains the Parks/Recreation department). I would also request that this email be made part of the Oro Valley Public Records.
Thank You
John Musolf
Prior to the election of May 18, 2010, the old Mayor and Council created a new super-department (a super-grab-bag of two disparate departments (Parks & Recreation and Library) and threw in some Cultural Resource project teams) in an attempt to become more efficient in delivery of services and reduce the budget. In my opinion, the creation of the PLCLR could be comparable to an attempt to “rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic”.
Discussion of the new PLCLR super-department
In the memorandum dated March 15, 2010 to the Mayor and Council concerning the new PLCLR Department formation:
Page 127-128
Staffing
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.
Library
“Library Technical Assistant 1 (LTA1): Two existing staff members filling LTA1 positions planned to leave their employment with the Town by the end of May 2010. It was recommended that these two 19 hour, non-benefit eligible positions be combined into one 35-38 hour per week, benefit-eligible LTA1 position”.
Swap two part time non-benefit positions (19 hours each) that cost the Town no benefit dollars with one (38 hour) benefit-eligible dollar position. Not only have you maintained the same 38 hours (no hour reduction) but are causing the Town to pick up added benefit dollars.
Page 130
Purpose and Justification for Consolidation
1. The consolidation, in combination with the budgeting process, will reflect a decrease of 11 staff members in parks & recreation and the library, and a net savings of $64,000 in personnel costs.
There was no statement in the memorandum supporting the decrease of 11 staff members and the savings of $64,000 for setting up the consolidated PRL&CR.
However, the following information was documented in the FY2010/2011Budget.
Parks & Recreation
According to the recommended budget the Parks & Recreation went down from 27.56 (2009) to 27.05 (2010) to 23.95(2011). This 3.10 personnel reduction between 2010 and 2011 was due to .70 reduction of park monitor, 1.00 reduction of park monitor, .75 reduction of assistant aquatics manager (position already vacant), and .65 reduction of water safety instructor.
Library
According to the recommended budget the Library went down from 18.68 (2009) to 18.53 (2010) to 18.36 (2011). A personnel reduction of .17 personnel between 2010 and 2011.
A new group called Cultural Resources was added to the PLCLR super-department with 4 new project teams workload.
Cultural Resources Projects
Property Management & Maintenance (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
Parks Maintenance Manager
Parks Maintenance Crew Leader
Programs & Special Events (Dual Assignments)
Recreation Manager
Assistant Recreation Manager
Historic Preservation Commission (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
Senior Office Specialist
Grants & Funding (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
MultiModal Planner
There was no workload analysis for the dual assignments that some positions are responsible for. For example, the PRL&CR Director is listed as 1 FTE under Administration but has dual assignments (increased workload) under the Cultural Resource Project Teams (Property Management & Maintenance, Historic Preservation Commission and Grants & Funding). There is no decimal workload analysis of how much time will be spent on dual assignments by these positions.
There is also no line item for Operations & Maintenance cost for these 4 Project Teams.
The new Mayor and Council had an opportunity to validate the correctness of that new super-department formation by allowing the Parks/Recreation independent Management Study to proceed.
Instead, that study was eliminated.
Perhaps the new Mayor and Council would like to revisit the justification for the PLCLR super-department.
23 comments:
Great information, and doubt the Council will consider any of John's information.
Some might question why a citizen like John cares so much about this town, or why this blog exists, just check out the mess in Bell, Ca. This is what happens when the citizens don't pay atttention to the goings on in city hall. The city manager was paid almost $800,000. Police Chief almost $500,000 and council members paid over $100,000. The citizens didn't have the time to keep an eye on their local government.
Where apathy reigns only the politicans gain.
Hey Turtle--- I saw that on CNN last night.
I could have posted it, but thought, Uh-Oh! We better not give this mayor & council majority any ideas.
The mayor of Bell was interviewed, and he had the audacity to say his town of about 40,000 with a per capita income of approx. $35,000 pays its people well because you need to pay if you want the best.
Unbelievable!
Art, your comment, "I could have posted it, but thought, Uh-Oh! We better not give this mayor & council majority any ideas," is ridiculous! Comments such as this one can be construed as "false" and "defamatory."
Oh Jay D, give it a break. Art's comment was not an attack on our elected officials. It was a humorous side comment.
Mellow out. Less fear and loathing.
Nombe, I guess "side comments" are in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder...In the future, when appropriate and in order to clear up apparent confusion, I'll label my posts as "sarcasm."
I'd say lots of posters on this blog should "mellow out."
Enjoy your day...
J. D., ok.
Jay D,
See Nombe's comment. My sentiments exactly.
And I'll add...
Why do you feel a need to attack every single thing Art says (or every single thing I say), including comments that are clearly meant as humor/sarcasm?
What...are YOU the only person on here who's allowed to use sarcasm?
As I said before, there's a lot of fake outrage on this site.
Click here to read the CNN Story.
Okay, so the 'post' question is "Will the Oro Valley Council John Musolf's Input Re: Financial Recommendations?".
Two ('Fear' and 'OVOT') out of the 11 following comments drifted off into the Bell, CA 'story', etc. Just like in several recent previous posts, after a subject is posted, the streams go awry into an irrelevant bunch of 'coconuts' and 'gotchas'.
I doubt very much if our Council will consider seriously John's input and, technically, should they? The Town has a Management and Finance department; shouldn't they be the ones to receive those suggestions?
For every business function there is a 'pecking' order - input, analysis, output, analysis - final approval. Departments give input to analysts who deem the input as output and then proffer it to management as input. Management then takes this input and deems it to be output, then analyzes the output and proceeds to present their analysis to the 'Powers' as input who subsequently deem it as output. The 'Powers' then make their decision(s) and thus we have a final decision. Sound crazy? Probably is.
Is their room in our scheme for John's input? Probably not.
Last lines should have read: 'Is there room in THEIR scheme for John's input? Probably not.'
How amazing the following disappeared... Must have been blown away by the strong winds.
READERS BEWARE: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF OPINION MAY CONTAIN SOME SARCASM, HUMOR OR OTHERWISE PAINFUL COMMENTARY.
I fail to understand why some folks (including John Muslof) feel that his words ought to be taken as the final say. John is a part-time resident of Oro Valley. One of many, and just one of 44,000 total population. He has his opinion and it should be respected but it is nothing more than that.
Maybe what John might do is apply for a position with the Town. Surely he could write a proposal that would be so financially irresistable that the powers that be couldn't resist the tremendous opportunity afforded them by John.
btw...The same story about Bell, CA was on FOX news several days ago. I'll bet that's where Art really heard it.
ZEV...I thought I answered the original question quite broadly with a very brief aside to the Bell story.
For those readers that may not know, or may not remember, it was John Musolf who pretty on his own saved the six police officer positions that the chief had already agreed to "give up."
So much for the "powers" to do what they should be doing.
This town should appreciate the likes of John Musolf who cares enough to give of his time and knowledge to benefit all of us.
Should the council pay attention to John's analysis?
Without a doubt!
Will they?
I doubt it!
Art would you be so kind...or John, to clarify what six police positions you are discussing. I think there may be some major confision over this.
And Art is absolutely correct and I think he reiterates my posted point.
He says: "This town should appreciate the likes of John Musolf who cares enough to give of his time and knowledge to benefit all of us." And he is correct. But let us understand that it is still just the opinion of one person and should be given just weight.
Zev,
Come on lighten up and stop being the blog's thread police. In person you're a nice guy, but you take yourselve a little too seriously on this blog.
My point was, John as usual has provided valuable information to this town that most likely won't be acted upon. Please read the question posted on this thread.
What happens when citizens don't stay involved in their town's matters ....ring the Bell, Ca.
Fear, my intention was that you and OVOT were the only 2 who related to the point. Re-reading my post, I guess I edited a few words out which changed the meaning of my initial paragraph. My comment relative to 'straying' was meant for the others' not your's or OVOT's.
My latter meanderings were an intention to be light (not dark).
Hope this clears it up as I believe that, while John's
analysis might be of value, the Town still has departments which are supposed to oversee these subject types.
Zev Cywan’s valid question:
“I doubt very much if our Council will consider seriously John's input and, technically, should they? The Town has a Management and Finance department; shouldn't they be the ones to receive those suggestions?”
John Musolf’s response:
The Mayor and Council as well as the Town Manager, Jerene Watson, and the Finance Director, Stacy Lemos, did receive the Amphitheatre and PLCLR analysis. I also asked the Town Clerk, Kathy Cuvelier to make the emails part of the public record. I copied the Town Attorney, Tobin Rosen as well. I then sent copies to the Explorer News, Arizona Star, and the LOVE blog. I neglected to ask Art to list all the recipients of the emails when he posted them.
Zev Cywan’s statement:
“Last lines should have read: 'Is there room in THEIR scheme for John's input? Probably not.'”.
Zev, I really didn’t have any illusions that the Mayor and Council or the Town Staff would immediately take any action on my analyzes. However, as a citizen of Oro Valley, I felt an obligation to bring this analysis information to the Town’s attention since no independent studies would provide this information.
OVOT’s Comments:
“I fail to understand why some folks (including John Muslof) feel that his words ought to be taken as the final say. John is a part-time resident of Oro Valley. One of many, and just one of 44,000 total population. He has his opinion and it should be respected but it is nothing more than that.
John’s Response:
I purchased a home in Oro Valley in 2003 after I retired in 2002. I have been a registered voter in Pima County since 4/14/2004. I have served over 4 years on the Monterey HOA Board. I spend 8-9 months in Oro Valley. I take a summer vacation for 3-4 months to visit my 3 children, 4 grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. I was unaware that taking a summer vacation made me a part-time resident of Oro Valley.
I don’t have the final say in anything that the Town takes action on. That is why we have elections to place a Mayor and Council in charge of our government. They direct the town staff. However, as one of the 44,000 citizens of Oro Valley, I felt a civil obligation to bring this information to the Town’s attention. I hope OVOT can forgive me for practicing my democratic right.
John Musolf
Moose:
Maybe you missed the following...
" He has his opinion and it should be respected but it is nothing more than that."
I take that as a clear, unqualified endorsement of your "civil obligation to bring this information to the Town’s attention."
So I really do not understand your last sentence. I have my right to an opinion also but you appear to take exception with me stating it.
I am also still waiting for the answer to the "6 cops" question.
OVOT.
Are you being willfully dense? The "6 Cops" (6C) story was well documented on this blog. I do not have the inclination to research the comments, but I do recall the discussion. Your comments relating to the 6C story reminds me of your refusal to understand that the "Witches" who picketed the late, lamented city council at the Hilton, several months back, were NOT in disguise, as you claimed several times, but costumed, despite several posting explaining the facts to you.
You need a memory test, OR you are engaging in an irritating tactic to cause consternation on this blog.
Nombe...
I know what was previously posted on this blog. But since the original discussion I have learned some very interesting facts and I need to make sure that we are all on the same page before I go further. I wouldn't even bring this up, but Art wants to build a shrine to Muslof because he, "saved the six police officer positions that the chief had already agreed to "give up." That may be very innacurate information.
As you know, I do TRY to be very factual with my postings. Being human on infrequent occasions, I get some fact wrong. I believe that my accuracy record far exceeds many posters here including the blog masta.
Lastly, why don't you just let Art and John answer for themselves. I knew going in that Art would never commit to anything so that's why I asked both.
Thinker.
HA!, I knew you did not need a memory test!
OVOT:
In your response to Nombe Watanabe you hit the nail right on the head. To quote you (OVOT):
“I know what was previously posted on this blog. But since the original discussion I have learned some very interesting facts and I need to make sure that we are all on the same page before I go further. I wouldn't even bring this up, but Art wants to build a shrine to Muslof because he, "saved the six police officer positions that the chief had already agreed to "give up." That may be very innacurate information.”
John’s Response:
Yes, OVOT, you caught us. Art and I have been working together to build a “shrine to Muslof”, whoever that is? Like Walt Disney many years ago when he purchased property in Florida for Disney World, Art and I have not used our names so landowners would not raise their land prices or developers their infrastructure costs for the “shrine”. However, it looks likes the “shrine” would be too cost prohibitive, so we dropped plans to proceed with it.
On a more serious note, I believe Art and I would really like to know “ some very interesting facts” that you have learned. Without publishing “some very interesting facts”, we cannot judge if : “That may be very innacurate (inaccurate) information”.
OVOT
In a previous post you stated:
" He (Musolf) has his opinion and it should be respected but it is nothing more than that."
I take that as a clear, unqualified endorsement of your "civil obligation to bring this information to the Town’s attention."
So I really do not understand your last sentence. I have my right to an opinion also but you appear to take exception with me stating it.
John’s Response:
Now that you have clarified that you endorse my right to bring this information to the Town’s attention I would like to endorse your right to any opinion you (OVOT) may have on my blog postings.
Thanks
John Musolf
Moose....So which 6 police officers did you "save"? I obviously don't need or care about names but if they were the motor officers or SRO's or whatever that information might be is what I am seeking.
Post a Comment