We all know there is no responsible alternative to the proposed
lay offs, and when you combine state and local red ink, the future
is bleak indeed. Thirty-six positions is just the first wave unless
the city is going to raise taxes.
We all know there is no responsible alternative to the proposed lay offs, and when you combine state and local red ink, the future is bleak indeed. Thirty-six positions is just the first wave unless the city is going to raise taxes.
While we have focused on stemming the red ink, these layoffs are necessary for other reasons as well. Fact is that there are a lot of city employees who (through no fault of their own) are not earning their paychecks! With zero building permits issued in 18 months, and none to be issued in 2004 or 2005, how many planners and building inspectors do we need? We have 15 and we need only one or two!
Let’s face it, city government isn’t “lean and mean” just yet and that’s what we taxpayers should be demanding. That’s right, we should all be insisting that these cuts be made in the name of efficiency even if we were flush with money!
Equally important, yet overlooked, is that as the city structure changes, we must own up to the fact that we need different people with new skill sets in some key positions. Strange as it may seem, we should think about hiring as we are laying off. One example would be to look for a director of public safety who has both police and fire background to fill a combined position.
I fear we will see quite the opposite. The unions will hamstring attempts at efficiency by trying to foolishly assign a department head with no computer experience to a computer-draftsperson position or a building inspector as the airport manager.
I guess that this new perspective is what we tax paying citizens have wanted all along: a smaller, less wasteful government and no new taxes.
Randy Schell,
Hollister
