Lay Off or Selective Terminations?

When you hear the term layoff, don’t you expect the employees with the lowest seniority to be first out the door? Technically, the word does not require those with the lowest seniority to be let go first but common usage does just that.
-
In 2004, the City Manager reduced the City workforce by 44 employees, of which 17 took retirement. The remaining 27 were terminated without regard to their number of years with the City.
-
Of those who were terminated, fifteen had less than five years service with seven of them having three. Five had between five and nine years. Three had between ten and fourteen years. Two had between fifteen and nineteen years and one had twenty-five years.
-
I am sure the Manager considered some departments as being at a minimum, essential staffing level. But, his justification for terminating employees with five, ten or more years of service certainly has to be questioned. The Mayor and City Council had the power under the Charter to establish the severance package and the procedure to be followed in reducing the size of the staff; but they did not bother.
-
I first stated in a letter to the editor last summer, the truth of the matter. He eliminated employees in 2004 that “resisted” or failed to instantly embrace his grand staffing scheme and methods, just like he did when he first arrived in 2001. The City lost its planning director, senior engineer and chief building inspector to name a few. Yet, he kept an engineer who had just obtained his State registration, promoted an inexperienced planner and a plumbing inspector, with no experience in the area, to the position of Chief Building Inspector.
-
There is still time for the Mayor and Council to conduct an investigation into the Manager’s handling of the “layoff” and I do not mean that they should ask the Manager for the information. Obtain data on the position every person held at the time they left. Determine their seniority ranking at the time. Review their professional credentials where appropriate. Obtain a report on every person employed or rehired since that time. Put it all together, think and compare it to the purported savings provided by the terminations. (I have a copy) You still have time to add this information to his evaluation and do the right thing.

The Giveway in Detail

I would like to report on the incentive packages that the City Manager used in the so-call layoffs and “encouraged” retirements in 2004. I’m sure we would all like to look forward to such a deal.
-
For both those terminated and those who resigned, the incentive he gave is as follows: 1) Six months of health and dental insurance in which the City continued to contribute its standard percentage. 2) Eighteen additional months of health/dental insurance at the COBRA rate; no City contribution. 3) One week of pay for each year of service plus an additional amount of bonus weeks. 4) Full pension contributions for all pay received. 5) Finally, the payoff of all accrued vacation time per State law.
-
The formula for the additional weeks, over and above accrued vacation time, differed based on total service. The minimum was “plus two weeks” and the maximum was “plus ten weeks”. Here are three examples of the formula. An employee with less than 5.99 years of service received one week of pay for the number of years served plus two additional weeks. An employee with 16.0 years of service received 16 weeks “plus ten” weeks for a total of 26 weeks. (Half a year) Those with 30 years of service received 30 weeks plus 10 weeks for a total of 40 weeks.
-
That was not the end of his generosity. All employees who took retirement instead of termination received an additional 10% calculated on the total cost of their compensation package. It includes accrued vacation, extra weeks of pay and the cost of health insurance and pension expenses.
-
Finally, here is another twist that needs a public response from the Manager and the Members of the Council, individually. The Manager gave three of the twenty-seven employees who chose to be terminated the very same 10% incentive as the retirees. The employees are Pat Breitenstein, Nestor Fedak and Linda Segovia. Only three!!!
-
Some more questions concern Mr. Breitenstein. The City estimated that his total package would be paid off on 9/16/05. Remember, the personnel actions took place in early 2004. Why was he rehired on a part-time basis during this summer (2005)? Why did he resume full-time employment before his severance package expired? Was the "layoff" of a 25 year employee necessary and what did it save the City?
-
The bottom line of the Manager’s generosity with your money is $1,098,989 not counting the pension contributions and the accrued vacation costs.
-
Coming very soon is the reason I do NOT called the terminations a layoff.

The Million Dollar Give-a-Way

We all heard about the 44 employees who lost their positions last year. Seventeen choose forced retirement and twenty-seven were terminated. I filed a public records request last month and have been going through the information received. The first information I would like to share concerns the total amount of money the City Manager paid to employees over and above the amount required by law or City policy. Yes, the Manager; not the Mayor and Council. Our elected office holders did not establish the termination amounts or formula.

-

The totals listed do not include the payments to the pension plan because the information I received combined the severance pay with the payoff of vacation leave. Please remember the staff was very temporarily reduced by 44 positions as a cost savings measure. The following dollars are gifts from the City Manager during a time of "down sizing".

-

For those terminated: $358,629 Forced retirements: $740,360 Total: $1,098,989

-

Who left the City and how they were treated on an individual basis will be another posting.

Break Time

I've been on a short leave to tend to my mother's illness.
-
I have some very interesting information about city activities that I will be posting as soon as time allows me to complete the analysis.

NG Neighborhood Development Corp.

I would like to address some concerns I have about the City created non-profit Northglenn Neighborhood Development Corporation. You can go directly to its web site by clicking on the title of this posting. There you will be able to see the very positive spin on most of its activities.
-
NNDC is a hybrid organization linked to the City staff but outside of the control of our elected officials. Thus far the Council’s only involvement has been as a check writer for the group’s promised achievements. The amount that NNDC has received already exceeds a quarter of a million of your tax dollars plus a free house for rehabilitation and the use of the old IBEW building on Washington St. Thus far there has not been a request for accountability from the Council. I urge the Council to rectify that situation quickly.
-
Here is one small example of the slipshod operation of NNDC. The first Executive Director, Debra Bustos left many months ago but she was still the Registered Agent per the Secretary of State until I did some homework and advised the City Clerk of the situation. As of the 10th of this month William Sullivan became the Agent. Mr. Sullivan is on their Board and is now drawing a salary as Executive Director.
-
You may remember him as the consultant who was hired by the City to conduct a Housing Inventory for $15,000. He prepared a narrative using several sources including http://www.city-data.com/ and took a picture of your house. Well, you and every other house in the City.
-
Back to the business at hand. NNDC has made a lot of promises to residents and has been given the responsibility and authority to use the Airport Mitigation money received from Denver as a settlement for excessive noise to fulfill those promises. It is time for some accountability. I would suggest first off that the Council, not staff, request an accounting for every penny received and spent through November 30th including salaries. This should not be hard since the City staff is the bookkeeper for them.
-
Secondly, a committee of the Council should review every publication put out by the group and every contract or agreement that has been signed by them. See if the promises have resulted in tangible results demonstrating that promises have been kept. Another important part of the review should be personal, random contacts with residents who have paid their $50 fee to join in some of the programs.
-
NNDC and the City Manager have plans to transfer another $150,000 to the program next year. Let’s see whether or not it would be more efficient for the staff to assume the program before another penny is spent. Remember, the Mayor and Council has no control over the corporation except for the purse strings.

A Bad Council Meeting Procedure

The City Council has a long standing procedure for initiating policy considerations that has seen its better days. It is time to abolish the practice in favor of a more cooperative procedure.
-
According to the current procedure, members of the Council must “sponsor” all proposed items in order for them to be placed on the agenda. The staff may not place an item on the agenda, nor may the Council members by informal consensus. At least one of them must put his or her name to the item.
-
The most common practice is for a member of the staff to contact a member, explain the proposed policy consideration and receive permission to place it on the agenda. A member may also direct the City Clerk to add an item to the agenda. At the December 1st meeting we saw an example of both, and both of the discussions were a comedy of errors that was quite embarrassing.
-
On one of the ordinances, some members had asked the City Attorney to draft an ordinance concerning the placement of the City’s poly carts in the public right-of-ways. The attorney cannot be expected to be an expert in every detail of the Municipal Code and City operations but he sincerely tries. In this case, conflicting sections of the Municipal Code were not addressed in the ordinance. Because of the conflicts we were witness to the Council, Attorney and staff attempting to rewrite the ordinance at the meeting.
-
On the other ordinance the staff had asked a member of the Council to put his name on an ordinance appropriating some of the anticipated 2005 fund balances on two projects concerning the waste water treatment plant. It became very clear during the discussion that the staff had misled the Council member on the full impact of the ordinance to fiscal 2005 and 2006. Other problems also came out that need not be discussed at this time.
-
I would like to suggest two changes to the policy whereby members of the Council are required to sponsor agenda items. There is no requirement in the Charter requiring sponsorship; therefore the Council has the power to consider my suggestions.
-
First, drop the sponsorship requirement and allow staff to place items on the agendas for both regular and special meetings and study sessions. A member can still add items to the agenda to protect her or his rights as an elected official even though it would be wise to consider my second suggestion; first. The same applies to the staff.

Second, the Council should work as a team by sharing areas of concern informally at a study session before they appear on the agenda of a regular meeting. Items should be discussed while in their infancy so that the wisdom of all, including staff, can be obtained before the details are worked out and a specific document, ordinance or resolution is drafted. They can save a lot of staff time and legal expenses by cooperating at the start. Of course, members wishing to do some grandstanding might not agree with this suggestion but we have seen enough of that already.
-
Yes, this will slow down the speed of some considerations, but it will foster cooperation.
Yes, study sessions will have fewer presentations and more items for discussion. Study sessions will also become the work horse of a better and more efficient local government.

12/1 Meeting- WWTP Mess

At the meeting the Council adopted an ordinance that should not be published and should be subsequently repealed. The ordinance as submitted was modified by the Council with good intentions but they caused a problem with the 2006 budget by changing the date from 2005 to 2006. The ordinance is viewable by clicking on the posting’s title. Please review the Purpose and Explanation in the staff recommendation and Section one in the ordinance.
-
The $704,000 to finish the construction of the treatment plant is already budgeted for 2006. By changing the date in Section 1 of the ordinance to 2006, the appropriation has been doubled even though the actual funds do not exist. The $1.3 million also in the section will consume all but $400,000 of the total set aside for all sewer projects in 2006. Furthermore, the addition of the effluent line constitutes a new project not in the 2005 or 2006 capital improvement budget. And finally, the staff wants to give the present treatment plant contractor, Glacier Construction, and additional project WITHOUT going out for bids.
-
At the meeting staff defended their proposal in part by admitting that a recommendation on the effluent line and a subsequent decision by the Council will be forth coming in January. What was really happening with the proposed ordinance is more sinister. The Manager wanted to fund the final payment on the treatment plant construction out of the 2005 fund balance; thereby freeing the already existing appropriation up for other purposes. The reason for asking for the appropriation on the effluent line out of the 2005 fund balance is even more deceptive. By obtaining the fiscal authority from the Council at this time, the existing contractor could be rewarded by the staff with and extra $1.3 million without the “nuisance” of competitors, and the 2006 budget would not be impacted.
-
The Mayor and Council are partially responsible for this mess because of a long time procedure that assumes an adversarial relationship among the members. In this instance Council Member Lindsey followed the procedure by agreeing to a staff request that he sponsor the ordinance. The sponsorship of items on the agenda works only if the staff is being honest with the members of the Council. Other members have been burnt by this staff but that is another subject.

12/1 Council Meeting Follow-Up

The meeting turned out to be fertile ground for at least two more postings in addition to the following observations. Look for the additional posting in the very near future. I would like to address the Executive Session that occurred Thursday.

-

The Mayor and Council discussed a far ranging list of subjects roughly related to the direction they will take in a couple of weeks on the proposed retail area next to the proposed theater. As predicted, only a few minutes were spent on issues that properly should be confidential. The Mayor and Manager will most likely win this one. You can expect temporary, full-time staff member, Katy Press, to head up the effort to find develop the Mayor's "unique" retail center.

-

We will all loose on this plan because the retail outlets sought by the terminated professional development company were unacceptable to Mayor Novak and her oligarchy. Instead Press will be bringing retail facilities into the area that will provide "character" but with little in the way of revenue for the City. Yes, revenue generation will take a back seat to "form". Additionally, you will eventually hear how wonderful the area is, and a total denial that revenue generation was sacrificed.