The Vanguard sat down with the candidates for ten minute interviews on their candidacy and a few issues. Lucas Frerichs, Brett Lee, and Dan Wolk were able to make the interview. Unfortunately, we were not able to interview either incumbent – Sue Greenwald or Stephen Souza.
It was nice to be able to press the candidates on a couple of key issues, though ten minutes is too short of time to real get into detail.
Lucas Frerichs
Brett Lee
Dan Wolk
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”Unfortunately, we were not able to interview either incumbent – Sue Greenwald or Stephen Souza.”[/quote]Why?
Looks like a prison interrogation with the stark green background!
A question to ponder… what if, to “fix” the unfunded liabilities re: retirement, post-retirement medical coverage, a 15% across-the board decrease in ’employee compensation’ is “needed”…. what is more humane, and/or best for the organization and the citizens it serves :
layoff 15% of employees, from least essential programs, who may not be able to pay their mortgages/rent?
reduce all employees compensation by 15%, across the board, where a much higher percentage may be unable to pay their rent/mortgage?
Lucas & others ignore the fact that there also have been ‘reductions in force’ over the past two years, due primarily to retirements. In general, these positions have either been eliminated, or remain unfilled indefinitely. Recently, CM’s office have touted these ‘savings’ as a result of their “re-organization” plans.
These retirements have not occurred proportionally across departments/functional areas. Not good.
“Why?”
A lot of reasons. The interviews were done the week that the mailer came out for one. Though I sent Stephen and Sue another email last week and got no response from either.
HPIERCE: The answer is probably some combination thereof. Part of our problem in my opinion is that we are over-compensating some employees in certain ways, so I would like to address the core problem and then the budget in that order.
[quote]in my opinion is that we are [b]over-compensating some employees[/b] in certain ways, so I would like to address [b]the core problem[/b] and then the budget in that order. [/quote]Beautifully vague. Can I guess? Use a sliding scale cafeteria medical/dental/cash-out plan for those making more than $35K in salary, tapering out to 100% medical/dental (w/ no cash-out) paid by employee for those making $100k. No retiree medical until age 65 for those making $100k during their working years, full retiree medical for those 60+ if they only earned $35k [sliding scale]. Employees making over $100k taking a pay cut (plus paying their med/dental) [to no more than $100k]to offset the costs of maintaining benefits for lower paid employees.
It had to be vague since I’m not looking at the current numbers. Though I would say, $100K isn’t my boundary, it is probably closer to $80K.
Ok… top salary for any employee, including City Manager, Department Heads, senior Planners or engineers ~ $80k. Taxed… less their contributions towards medical/dental (-$16k +/-), less $6,400 for employee share of retirement, less employee contribution towards employer share (figure – $4600[?]), less a contribution toward retiree medical (say, – $4000), a senior professional would see their current 100k salary go to (not counting taxes) ~$49k. The good news is that you could do a lot to protect the lower paid employees. Let us know when you get the numbers you need.
I swear Dan Wolk looks like Tim Geitner on camera.