I almost titled this "A time to talk, a time to shut up" but the main point of the story would be lost on the pettiness and endless droning of a councilmember.
At the July 28, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting, at the very end during the often entertaining Council Comments, Councilmember Gabe Santos made a motion to end all litigation with the City of Firestone. This is something long overdue, especially considering these hard economic times. This is a loser of a lawsuit and appeal with money down the drain that will never come back. But there were some games going on before Mr. Santos even got to this point.
If you look at the video, council took a break which was extended by a few minutes when Councilmember Sarah Levison came back late from the break and then asked Mayor Roger Lange out of chambers. What was said during that conversation? Either of you like to say? Didn't think so.
It must have been significant as when it came time for council comments the Mayor ripped right through and went straight to City Manager remarks, which usually means Council Comments are closed. Luckily City Manager Gordon Pedrow, probably to Mayor Lange's chagrin, said he doesn't normally speak when councilmembers microphone lights are one.
So Mr. Santos got to speak. While he was trying to make his motion, the councilmember seated next to him, Sarah Levison, was trying to yell over the top of him. This goes back to the first sentence above - it's not as if Ms. Levison doesn't get her chance to speak. Her penchant for going on endlessly and often repetitiously is legendary. She knew what Mr. Santos was going to say apparently, how is that? Care to answer? Didn't think so. Odd as she rarely skips the chance to talk (a lot).
As much as I talk and write, I listen, read, and observe a lot more. I know some people just don't care about what I have to say, or do but don't need to hear it endlessly. Ms. Levison could take a tip here, but also a lesson in rules of order and civility. The sad part is when she really has something important or interesting to say, people would have tuned out with eyes long rolled.
But what Mayor Lange did was possibly worse: even after getting a second (from Councilmember Mary Blue) for Mr. Santos motion, he wouldn't allow it. I don't believe I've ever seen that happen before, with any mayor or council. This entire legal fiasco with Firestone needs to be made completely public and under the scrutiny of councils constituents - that would be all of us. No more secret meetings called by who knows who (my guess based on past comments would be Councilmembers Sean McCoy and Karen Benker) who have a vendetta against Firestone, Weld County, and LifeBridge Christian Church.
Sort of like a speaker at public invited said tonight, how about our City Attorney Eugene Mei actually do something. Start with this. Lets put these people on record, no more hiding. If enough people hear about what occurred tonight it should amount to some more votes for Mr. Santos - and a few less for Mayor Lange and any council member who supports this legal and financial disgrace with a neighbor city.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Let the Attacks Begin...
On July 21, at the Longmont City Council meeting, during Public Invited to be Heard, Doug Wray tried to launch in to a tirade condemning Councilman Santos for an email that was somehow accessed by Wray. The email, while coming from Gabe's personal account that was later made accessible to public due to the Open Records laws, was at the time NOT accessible as he was not yet on the council and the fact that Wray had a copy is a clear violation of Gabe's privacy. The email was a response to a Kaye Fissinger story posted on YourHub.com, that was in essence announcing that the attacks from the Left had begun - NOT a call TO attack as Wray implied before council. "Let the attacks begin" - simply another way to recognize that he knew it was coming and indeed, the Progressives, true to form, were the first to go on the offensive (and offensive they were!) But Wray tried to spin the email to say that Gabe was calling for his followers to attack Juday. In fact, Gabe never played dirty. There WERE questionable marketing pieces sent that attacked Juday but Gabe had no part in their creation or distribution. Gabe doesn't work that way.
A candidate has no control over what a supporter chooses to do of their own free will - both in promoting a candidate or exposing the negative aspects of the opposition. In trying to smear Gabe, Wray gets the award for being the first in this 2009 political season to turn to dirty politics - to which Gabe could again send an email tomorrow pointing to the video of the Wray speaking and again announce, "let the attacks begin."
Game on Doug. You have opened the door my friend, and you and your candidates (if there are any? For some reason the Progressives haven't announced their intentions yet...are they all waiting to announce together so the left will know which bloc to vote for?) will surely feel the wrath. This town is tired of the tirades of Kaye, Nita, Duane, Strider, Ruby and a handful of others - you all had nearly 2 years of majority rule and in that short time have managed to bring this town to it's knees. It's time to give back power to those who act on behalf of the people of Longmont. Who consider what's best for the city as a whole, not those who act on behalf of a progressive agenda that favors a minority that shouts the loudest. Gone are the days of equal rights for prairie dogs and chickens. Gone are the days of choosing studies over action.
For his actions that night, I give kudos to Roger for saying enough is enough and to Mary for standing up for her fellow councilmember by saying character assassination is NOT OK in front of this council. What Doug did was a typical mean spirited, Progressive-left-wing tactic and it has no place in Longmont. The DeLay references are a feeble attempt to try and discredit the work Gabe has done so far for this town. It didn't work when he brought it up during the Juday campaign and it won't work now. Let the attacks begin....again....
A candidate has no control over what a supporter chooses to do of their own free will - both in promoting a candidate or exposing the negative aspects of the opposition. In trying to smear Gabe, Wray gets the award for being the first in this 2009 political season to turn to dirty politics - to which Gabe could again send an email tomorrow pointing to the video of the Wray speaking and again announce, "let the attacks begin."
Game on Doug. You have opened the door my friend, and you and your candidates (if there are any? For some reason the Progressives haven't announced their intentions yet...are they all waiting to announce together so the left will know which bloc to vote for?) will surely feel the wrath. This town is tired of the tirades of Kaye, Nita, Duane, Strider, Ruby and a handful of others - you all had nearly 2 years of majority rule and in that short time have managed to bring this town to it's knees. It's time to give back power to those who act on behalf of the people of Longmont. Who consider what's best for the city as a whole, not those who act on behalf of a progressive agenda that favors a minority that shouts the loudest. Gone are the days of equal rights for prairie dogs and chickens. Gone are the days of choosing studies over action.
For his actions that night, I give kudos to Roger for saying enough is enough and to Mary for standing up for her fellow councilmember by saying character assassination is NOT OK in front of this council. What Doug did was a typical mean spirited, Progressive-left-wing tactic and it has no place in Longmont. The DeLay references are a feeble attempt to try and discredit the work Gabe has done so far for this town. It didn't work when he brought it up during the Juday campaign and it won't work now. Let the attacks begin....again....
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Refresher: How the BMX track was driven out of Longmont
In the July 14, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting, the issue of the former BMX track came up. It used to be over by Union Reservoir, but is now gone. Councilmember Mary Blue was asked about it at Rhythm on the River recently, and the constituent eluded to a fee hike as the reason they are gone.
Well, they were partially right. It was an attempted fee hike by Councilmember Sarah Levison, and her cohorts on council (Sean McCoy and Karen Benker) couldn't say no to a fee increase (a form of a tax). I talked about this with lots of audio in a podcast back on May 4, 2008.
So the greedy get too greedy and end up with NOTHING. Councilmember Levison wanted to shake down the BMX people for a $100 here, $50 there, cleanup fees over there (which already existed) and what did the city get for her idea of "incenting"? Not a thin dime. As a matter of fact, money lost - and a venue gone and probably not coming back. Would you?
And you thought raiding Estate sales (as in recently dead people) for tax revenue was the beginning? Nope. She first went after kids, their BMX bikes and family fun. Why am I hearing The Beatles "Taxman"'s line "declare the pennies on your eyes"? These tax-and-spend types have no shame or decency.
Well, they were partially right. It was an attempted fee hike by Councilmember Sarah Levison, and her cohorts on council (Sean McCoy and Karen Benker) couldn't say no to a fee increase (a form of a tax). I talked about this with lots of audio in a podcast back on May 4, 2008.
So the greedy get too greedy and end up with NOTHING. Councilmember Levison wanted to shake down the BMX people for a $100 here, $50 there, cleanup fees over there (which already existed) and what did the city get for her idea of "incenting"? Not a thin dime. As a matter of fact, money lost - and a venue gone and probably not coming back. Would you?
And you thought raiding Estate sales (as in recently dead people) for tax revenue was the beginning? Nope. She first went after kids, their BMX bikes and family fun. Why am I hearing The Beatles "Taxman"'s line "declare the pennies on your eyes"? These tax-and-spend types have no shame or decency.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Gift idea for your congressman: reading glasses
The not-so-shocking news came out that our excuse for a congressman (man, woman, person, whatever - I haven't heard she's ashamed of her gender or genitalia) Betsy Markey (Democrat CO-4) is going to run for re-election in 2010. As a congratulatory gift I suggest each and every one of you send her a thoughtful and much needed gift. A pair of reading glasses.
She admitted in a radio interview that she didn't read the stimulus bill that she blindly voted for back in February, and as Amy Oliver pointed out it was nearly impossible to read the latest "cap and trade" bill either: "The final version ended up being 1428 pages long with some 276,000 words. At an average rate of 250 words per minute, it would have taken her 18 hours to read the cap and trade bill assuming she did nothing else — not sleep, not eat, and took it with her to the bathroom."
I found out recently during a conversation with some people that they don't care that she didn't read it. I was asked how a particular Republican voted, to which I had to point out that person isn't in the current congress. It was a nice redirect move that people attempt when trying to deflect blame from their own guy's shortcomings, along with asking if I thought all congressmen read bills before they vote on them. I don't think it's too much to ask, so yes, they either read it, ask for more time, or vote against it.
But more to the point, I'm talking about my congressperson here, the one I get to vote for or against, the one that's supposed to represent me. I don't call or write congressmen from other districts or states - not that there's anything wrong with that - but I just don't. I might start though as it appears we're currently stuck with a representative that isn't all that bright, and is lying if she admits to reading this latest bill.
Speaking of representing, and I know how so many of our local political buffoons like to point out what's red and what's blue around here, who exactly is Betsy Markey representing? Is she representing Boulder or Denver? No. Let's take a look at how this congressional district voted for President in 2008:
John McCain (Rep) 49.54%
Barack Obama (Dem) 48.66%
So, Ms. Markey has voted for a stimulus package (that she didn't read) that is working so well that they are thinking of another, since they underestimated the trouble the economy is in (to which I 'd suggest they look at my weekly foreclosure reports). Then she goes and votes for this cap-and-trade (AKA tax and kill) bill that amounts to a massive tax increase and job killer. It doesn't matter if this bill dies in the Senate - her vote in favor of it should be used as a sledgehammer on her during the next election cycle.
Speaking of jobs and foreclosures, you Obama/Markey voters who have or are on the verge of losing their jobs and houses, happy so far? Things going swell? That stimulus trickle down to you yet? Look forward to saving 2 cents a month on those neat (but dangerous when broken) light bulbs? Making plans for those gas guzzling vehicles that must go to lower our global temperature (or is it raise now)?
It's okay to admit to being bamboozled (Obamboozled I like to call it), also known as a bait-and-switch. I just ask next time,
a) pay a little more attention,
b) stay off the bandwagon,
c) avoid the hero worship in politicians, or
d) vote on the Wednesday after Election Day.
(Picture source: eyesavecontacts.com)
Money Magazine names the best places to live...where is Longmont?
Last year, Longmont was listed at #50 by Money Magazine in the list of 100 of the best small cities (with populations between 50k and 300k).
But where is Longmont in this years ranking?
Click here to read the rest of the article by the Longmont Examiner.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Budget time? A closer look at how the Colorado Municipal League (CML) is funded
Another summer outing of the Colorado Municipal League is history. Eight Longmont officials attended this year’s event in Vail at a total cost of $5,840: Mayor Lange, three nights; Councilmember McCoy, four; City Attorneys, Mei, three, Rourke and Friedland, two; City Clerk Skitt, one; assistants Seader, four, and Hinz, one.
The city paid registration fees of $190 each except for Skitt, Seader and Hinz, who were presenters. All apparently qualified for the city’s $159 per night lodging allowance, meals of $46 per day, and those who drove their own vehicle could be reimbursed $.505 per mile for the 230 mi. roundtrip (230x$.505=$116.15).
On the upside, congratulations to Mayor Lange for being elected to the CML executive board. On the downside, I’m a longtime critic of this lobbying/partying organization because it lives almost entirely off the taxpayers through dues collected annually from 263 of Colorado’s 271 municipalities, this year totaling about $1,765,000. And for what? CML offers training for elected and appointed office personnel. In addition to this year’s dues, Longmont has apparently budgeted another $38,613 for that purpose.
Longmont’s population is listed at 82,904 with dues this year of $45,647 or 55 cents per capita. Denver’s population is listed at 530,223 with dues of $153,117 or only 26 cents per capita. How nice.
But it’s really the poor, small towns that I feel sorry for: places like Campo, Bonanza City, Haswell, and Hooper, that cannot even afford to hire a dogcatcher, yet each is expected to contribute upwards of $200 a year to the CML for dues.
In 1998, CML constructed its own deluxe headquarters buildng at 1144 Sherman Street in downtown Denver, close to the Golden Dome. But you won’t find CML paying ad valorem taxes to help fund the public education system – its property is tax exempt.
Two personal anecdotes that I deleted prior to submitting letter to meet the Times-Call’s 300-word limit:
Item 1: As mayor of Simla, Colorado. in 1960, upon finding how the CML was funded, I pulled the town’s membership; it eventually rejoined.
Item 2: As publisher of the Louisville Times, the newspaper told of how renown city administrator Leon Wurl got fired in midsummer of 1984, mostly because he was away attending a CML summer conference in the mountains and Louisville ran out of water, bone dry, when the main supply line broke.
The city paid registration fees of $190 each except for Skitt, Seader and Hinz, who were presenters. All apparently qualified for the city’s $159 per night lodging allowance, meals of $46 per day, and those who drove their own vehicle could be reimbursed $.505 per mile for the 230 mi. roundtrip (230x$.505=$116.15).
On the upside, congratulations to Mayor Lange for being elected to the CML executive board. On the downside, I’m a longtime critic of this lobbying/partying organization because it lives almost entirely off the taxpayers through dues collected annually from 263 of Colorado’s 271 municipalities, this year totaling about $1,765,000. And for what? CML offers training for elected and appointed office personnel. In addition to this year’s dues, Longmont has apparently budgeted another $38,613 for that purpose.
Longmont’s population is listed at 82,904 with dues this year of $45,647 or 55 cents per capita. Denver’s population is listed at 530,223 with dues of $153,117 or only 26 cents per capita. How nice.
But it’s really the poor, small towns that I feel sorry for: places like Campo, Bonanza City, Haswell, and Hooper, that cannot even afford to hire a dogcatcher, yet each is expected to contribute upwards of $200 a year to the CML for dues.
In 1998, CML constructed its own deluxe headquarters buildng at 1144 Sherman Street in downtown Denver, close to the Golden Dome. But you won’t find CML paying ad valorem taxes to help fund the public education system – its property is tax exempt.
Two personal anecdotes that I deleted prior to submitting letter to meet the Times-Call’s 300-word limit:
Item 1: As mayor of Simla, Colorado. in 1960, upon finding how the CML was funded, I pulled the town’s membership; it eventually rejoined.
Item 2: As publisher of the Louisville Times, the newspaper told of how renown city administrator Leon Wurl got fired in midsummer of 1984, mostly because he was away attending a CML summer conference in the mountains and Louisville ran out of water, bone dry, when the main supply line broke.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Boulder County Open Space madness rolls on
A July 8 Longmont Daily Times-Call story indicates Boulder County is set to spend another $11 million for open space (OS) acquisitions.
Since I have written a number of letters and commentaries regarding this ongoing OS boondoggle, I feel taxpayers should know the latest mind-boggling numbers from verifiable sources. First, my posted comment to the T-C story...
"Look at the numbers behind this Boulder County runaway enviro-madness...94,000 acres of open space...$200 million bond debt....$67 million county budgeted for open space in 2009 (more than social services and public safety combined); Ron Stewart's open space kingdom is the biggest racket ever perpetuated on the taxpayers of Boulder County."
The 94,000 acres figure comes straight from the current BCPOS webpage under "About Us." The county doesn't technically own all 94,000 acres--some of it is conservation easements--but it makes little difference since they have full control of the easement lands and pay exorbitant top dollar for the plots (who cares anyway, it's taxpayer money).
The $200 million total OS debt comes from an editorial I saw in the Boulder Daily Camera in late 2007 (pro-OS, of course). For all I know, the total debt may be considerably more by now.
The $67 million designated for OS expenditures in 2009 comes directly from the adopted Boulder County budget posted online. It's $34 million from OS Fund II, $21 million from OS Fund I, and $12 million from the GENERAL FUND. It's a little known fact, but the commissioners take millions every year from the county general fund for OS--Director Ron Stewart admitted as much when questioned by former Mayor Julia Pirnack in front of Longmont City Council in July 2007. This alone is a great outrage in government fund juggling.
Finally, I've always been curious about appointed Czar Ron Stewart's annual salary. I believe it is at least $150K--possibly close to $200K--just never been able to pin it down. I'm sure he's comfortable in his spectacular mountain-view office at the $6 million OS Taj Mahal (headquarters building) bordering southwest Longmont. What an absolute racket.
Since I have written a number of letters and commentaries regarding this ongoing OS boondoggle, I feel taxpayers should know the latest mind-boggling numbers from verifiable sources. First, my posted comment to the T-C story...
"Look at the numbers behind this Boulder County runaway enviro-madness...94,000 acres of open space...$200 million bond debt....$67 million county budgeted for open space in 2009 (more than social services and public safety combined); Ron Stewart's open space kingdom is the biggest racket ever perpetuated on the taxpayers of Boulder County."
The 94,000 acres figure comes straight from the current BCPOS webpage under "About Us." The county doesn't technically own all 94,000 acres--some of it is conservation easements--but it makes little difference since they have full control of the easement lands and pay exorbitant top dollar for the plots (who cares anyway, it's taxpayer money).
The $200 million total OS debt comes from an editorial I saw in the Boulder Daily Camera in late 2007 (pro-OS, of course). For all I know, the total debt may be considerably more by now.
The $67 million designated for OS expenditures in 2009 comes directly from the adopted Boulder County budget posted online. It's $34 million from OS Fund II, $21 million from OS Fund I, and $12 million from the GENERAL FUND. It's a little known fact, but the commissioners take millions every year from the county general fund for OS--Director Ron Stewart admitted as much when questioned by former Mayor Julia Pirnack in front of Longmont City Council in July 2007. This alone is a great outrage in government fund juggling.
Finally, I've always been curious about appointed Czar Ron Stewart's annual salary. I believe it is at least $150K--possibly close to $200K--just never been able to pin it down. I'm sure he's comfortable in his spectacular mountain-view office at the $6 million OS Taj Mahal (headquarters building) bordering southwest Longmont. What an absolute racket.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Longmont foreclosures July 4th report
This weeks Longmont foreclosure report found at:
Longmont Foreclosures
Longmont Foreclosures
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Longmont's secret meeting addiction
Since it changes almost weekly, I don't have the exact number of Executive Sessions the current Longmont City Council has held in the last couple of years. It's probably around 26, which means the council that's been in office since November 2007 has held 1.4 Executive Sessions per month since they've been here. That's just ridiculous.
For those that don't know, an Executive Session is a meeting that is closed to the public. You can't know what goes on or is said in those meetings. It isn't recorded or televised like City Council meetings, you can't comment, you can't be told what went on, you usually don't even know who requested it and specifically why.
A couple of things you need to know to get the full picture: at least one councilmember doesn't like being held accountable for his often abrasive and utterly embarrassing remarks. After making said remarks, feels paranoid enough to ask the local police department to show up at council meetings for his safety. If you know anything about YouTube, you'd know that any public official can and often is featured on this site basically being themselves, good or bad. This councilman has publicly requested there be a way to stop this from occuring. Or audio from meetings being used in some way. Did I mention he and others on council also have a vendetta against the local newspaper - so it's pretty much all media they want shut down and not commenting on their public activities. Reminder: a) these are elected public officials, and b) last I checked we're not in the USSR (yet).
So how does one stop ones idiotic remarks from actually getting read or heard? Secret meetings closed to the public! Brilliant!
But really, how bad could it be? Who could be so paranoid and such a lousy public speaker to cause such a shift in public policy and this need for covertness?
Two words: Sean McCoy
Oh, there's much more at my YouTube channel, but one can only guess what goes on behind closed doors. But he's not alone, other members of this majority on council (that would be McCoy, Karen Benker, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen) have blathered repeatedly and at least one has shown their concern and curiosity over citizens having cameras at council meetings. Nevermind that these meetings are televised LIVE, re-aired, and available at the library to check out on DVD. So why would someone be so concerned about their own words?
I doubt we'll ever know what's gone on in those meetings, and that's a shame because I'm sure it would be very revealing (which is why we'll never know). Considering their public behavior, we can only assume some of them must act like total horses asses behind closed doors. Until we hear otherwise, that's exactly the mental picture you should assume - all the worst stuff you can think up, or as they said in Ghostbusters and Team America: World Police, "all the bad/worst parts of the Bible."
Things like: name calling, saying how they really feel about something or someone, attacks on citizens, anti-religious comments, praise for Dear Leader, war on Firestone, war on Times-Call, war on free speech, prairie dog amnesty, mosquitos are human too, who haven't we taxed yet and how do we go about it, fees are too low - we need more and higher fees, screw city employees, etc etc etc. Feel free to submit your own. They can say all they want they didn't say it, but can they prove it? Nope, no records. Double sided sword.
Come clean and stop these secret meetings, or that list, correct or not, will only grow.
For those that don't know, an Executive Session is a meeting that is closed to the public. You can't know what goes on or is said in those meetings. It isn't recorded or televised like City Council meetings, you can't comment, you can't be told what went on, you usually don't even know who requested it and specifically why.
A couple of things you need to know to get the full picture: at least one councilmember doesn't like being held accountable for his often abrasive and utterly embarrassing remarks. After making said remarks, feels paranoid enough to ask the local police department to show up at council meetings for his safety. If you know anything about YouTube, you'd know that any public official can and often is featured on this site basically being themselves, good or bad. This councilman has publicly requested there be a way to stop this from occuring. Or audio from meetings being used in some way. Did I mention he and others on council also have a vendetta against the local newspaper - so it's pretty much all media they want shut down and not commenting on their public activities. Reminder: a) these are elected public officials, and b) last I checked we're not in the USSR (yet).
So how does one stop ones idiotic remarks from actually getting read or heard? Secret meetings closed to the public! Brilliant!
But really, how bad could it be? Who could be so paranoid and such a lousy public speaker to cause such a shift in public policy and this need for covertness?
Two words: Sean McCoy
Oh, there's much more at my YouTube channel, but one can only guess what goes on behind closed doors. But he's not alone, other members of this majority on council (that would be McCoy, Karen Benker, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen) have blathered repeatedly and at least one has shown their concern and curiosity over citizens having cameras at council meetings. Nevermind that these meetings are televised LIVE, re-aired, and available at the library to check out on DVD. So why would someone be so concerned about their own words?
I doubt we'll ever know what's gone on in those meetings, and that's a shame because I'm sure it would be very revealing (which is why we'll never know). Considering their public behavior, we can only assume some of them must act like total horses asses behind closed doors. Until we hear otherwise, that's exactly the mental picture you should assume - all the worst stuff you can think up, or as they said in Ghostbusters and Team America: World Police, "all the bad/worst parts of the Bible."
Things like: name calling, saying how they really feel about something or someone, attacks on citizens, anti-religious comments, praise for Dear Leader, war on Firestone, war on Times-Call, war on free speech, prairie dog amnesty, mosquitos are human too, who haven't we taxed yet and how do we go about it, fees are too low - we need more and higher fees, screw city employees, etc etc etc. Feel free to submit your own. They can say all they want they didn't say it, but can they prove it? Nope, no records. Double sided sword.
Come clean and stop these secret meetings, or that list, correct or not, will only grow.
Longmont city councilmember pledges whopping $66 to furloughed city employees
A lifetime of being a government bureaucrat sure gives someone a warped sense of scale. Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker, who as a career politician never stops campaigning, made the grand gesture to forego her city council stipend for the 2 days the city is furloughing city employees. These furloughs will save the city around $140,000, give or take. Her "sacrifice" will save the city about $66. Impressive.
In case you didn't know, councilmembers receive a $1,000 a month stipend, the Mayor receives $1,500. Divide that by 30 days and that's $33.33 and $50 per day, respectively. Multiply by 6 the smaller amount (6 councilmembers), add in the $50 and that comes to $249.98. Since employees are being furloughed 2 days (day after Thanksgiving, day before Christmas), multiply that number by 2 and the grand total comes to $499.96 that city council would "match" the city employees financial misery index - which has grown exponentially under this council since 2007.
Hey, that's only a difference of $139,500.04, but it's the thought that counts. How about a months worth of stipends ($7,500) or a years worth ($90,000)? Now we're talking real money. (Yes, we pay $90,000/year for this assault on our senses)
I'd be curious to know what these furloughs are costing individual employees in pay. If you are a city employee, make a comment (anonymously is fine) about how much you are personally losing. By the way, I'm sure you'll be comforted to know that the legal fees in the ongoing legal battle with Firestone over Union/LifeBridge has probably surpassed the $140,000 being cut from your paycheck. And these furloughs occur right around the holidays, how nice. Then again, it was former Firestone Mayor Mike Simone who referred to an "anti-religious faction to the Longmont City Council", so what do holidays (especially Christmas) matter anyway?
Adding insult to injury, did any of you city employees catch the comment by at least one councilmember (Sarah Levison, if memory serves) to remind you, city employees, to shop local in Longmont? Of course you'll have less money to do that thanks to city councils wasteful spending ways. But doesn't that remind you of the rip on Walmart these types usually make - where employees are urged to do their shopping where they work? Regardless if that's all they can afford due to the wages, I just thought it was ironic.
How much do recalls cost again? Ah, nevermind, city probably can't afford that either. How convenient, and probably not totally coincidental.
Joking (although it's not all joking) and sarcasm aside, I suspect 2 days are not all that will be cut, I'd count on 5 or more, and more next year. Anyone who follows the city budget over the years knows that their biggest expense (and most governments and companies for that matter) is payroll. The last time this city had a budget crunch there was a pay freeze, that lead to the police/fire department demanding (and eventually winning) collective bargaining.
In the recent budget, some on council were spending like "drunken liberals" (note: I use that term here as it's in the popular culture, but can we dispense with that term, because most of these types spend this way while perfectly sober) with their little pet projects, and cutting spending on activities that bring money and employment to Longmont (LAEC). Meanwhile that looming huge number (for payroll) was there but ignored until there was nothing else to do. What's the fastest way to trim the budget? Well, the biggest item of course (payroll) and telling them to share the pain.
Yes, city employees, you must put some skin in this game of theirs. Hope that was the change you had in mind, or if you've forgotten:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)