There are only three things wrong with the proposal to cut jobs in the city building code department - it didn’t happen when it should have, it hasn’t happened yet, it may not happen until November.
Nobody wants to see more people loose jobs, but for too long city taxpayers have been paying wages for what are essentially unemployed employees. The job cuts should have been made when individuals’ services were no longer used. This is what would have happened in the real world where where justification for paychecks is required; only in government could it be otherwise.
This is a good time to review a bit of the history of keeping unemployed city workers employed, as I wrote about it 1/9/09 Bend over Bunky, here comes Mayor Diebold again.
Well, here it is, almost exactly six months later, and a few guardians of the public’s city purse appear at last to be admitting the folly of paying the unemployed for being unemployed.
But wait. Even if the shucking off of unneeded employees is approved by Council, apparently it will not happen until November, which is the present plan, according to the Advocate report.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteI recall my first few meetings of city council I attended back in Sept and Oct of 2008, Marc Guthrie was asking questions to the Mayor and Director of Public Safety regarding postental revenue loss that indicated dept. expenditures would out pace income. Back then he asked why the lead grant position could not be filled by someone in building code (when Judith Carr already had someone else in mind to fill it). So I would say it is more like 8-9 months later, they are now talking layoffs and position eliminations. Poor, poor management, poor planning, poor execution.
Amy
postental? Man I need spell check on my posts!
ReplyDeleteAmy