Printable View
Curious if city council members still have city provided cars. What about reductions in council salaries and staff budgets?
If I recall right, most of the 20 biggest cities in the council have part time city councils.
What is the current salary of a Common Council member?
Their cuts have been miniscule.
Then of course you have one council member receiving a pension as well.
I understand getting what's owed to you, but at the same tme it irks me that you're double-dipping in the city's funds while rubber stamping all sorts of austerity on the folks that elected you.
I'll stand with you on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Why would the city council cut any of their own budgets or perks? They're royalty -- or so they think.
In their defense...what would it matter? It's maybe 5? 10 million there that they could cut if they cut right to the bone?
Hundreds of millions in structural deficits and 15 billion in debt, if the CC fires all staff and turns in the keys to the city vehicle, that isn't going to do anything. At best it would be good PR, but really, like anything else done outside of bankruptcy, it's still just rearranging deck chairs.
The posts on here crack me up. [[NOT yours in particular) Every couple of days, someone posts something about cutbacks, and the general reply is, "That's only $5 mil, or $6 mil, or $13 mil. I bet if you started adding all the "mils" up, it would start turning into a significant number.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
No, I get it and I agree. However, my point is that the time for tinkering at the margins is long past. Staff cuts here and there... fringe benefit cuts here and there... are all well and good, but Detroit is never going to right itself making marginal tweaks. Wholesale across the board change needs to happen and it's likely not going to outside of BK or an FM with BK like powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I have always thought that less pay would be a benefit to Detroit. Many who are on council are there because its a good paying gig. I want people on council that actually care about the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenp
To be fair, its not such a good paying gig any longer. 15-20 years ago maybe it was. You could make the same amount as a high level staffer and not have to worry so much about losing your job [[unless you decide to take an appointment).
What better do they have to do except rearrange the chairs? I think cutting their own staff and frivoulous expenses like cars and drivers would be great for PR, and show they are willing to share the sacrifices required by the working rank and file. I also think our city council panders to the loud few instead of the quiet majority who don't have time to spend all day at the CAY building. 5 or 10 million is a ton of money. What if they used that 5million to hire people and collect the 200 million in owed taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Samll savings add up. 5million here, 5 million from cutting the same waste from the Mayor's personal staff, and you start seeing changes. You can expect to find a single savings idea that will wipe out the debt fro years of reckless waste. I agree bankruptcy is in our near future, I just wish Council would do their job to help the city instead of standing in the way of progress.
unfortunately, I think the "good paying" part of the job comes from the "extras" some are recieving in exchange for their votes, not that $80k salary is a bad paying job, plus your friends, sorry I mean staff, get up to $100k too. I think that is enough incentive for greedy self-serving people to stay on council as opposed to those trying to better the city.
Sorry to strongly disagree. This type of thinking is precisely why Detroit is in the mess that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
This isn't unlike the 'broken windows' theory.
If something is wrong, you fix it. That's it. No excuses.
Well, it depends on if anyone on council thinks anything they do is "wrong". Judging by the time many of them have sat in their chair, all the feedback they need they get at the ballot box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
If any of them felt accountable to the voters, perhaps they'd make meaningless PR cuts, like the staff...etc. Until the usual suspects get thrown out on their ass for standing the way of those cuts, no one is going to give a damn.
I'm saying that in terms of hills to die on...whether a few million come off CC's budget is pretty meaningless.
Sounds just like my wife when we argue about money.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Honky Tonk... your comment reminded me of the comment of the late great Illinois US Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen about the federal government spending... "a billion here and a billion there... and pretty soon it adds up to real money!"... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Hey Al... you're "dating" yourself... I haven't heard it called "Common Council" since "DSR" days.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Publican
http://www.hourdetroit.com/Hour-Detr.../Pay-for-Pols/Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Publican
there are several major cities on that list with part time CC. I would think that is a great place to start. I mean if Dallas can be run by part timers making 37.5k, Detroit certainly can. however, if you think the council would do that itself, ya'll cra-cra. [[also I have no idea what the charter has to say about it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by kenp
Meaningless PR cuts. Wow. And on we go. I'm not sure even bankruptcy will change that attitude. Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
They are meaningless when it's a drop in the bucket and there are much bigger cuts necessary. hundreds of millions in structural deficits. 15 billion in long term debt. 60 cents of every dollar in revenue going to salary or pension obligations.... cutting a few staffers pay by 10% is nothing but PR. oooh, look at us being all austere, we can't seem to figure out how to get belle isle offloaded to the state to save 6 mill a year, but yea couple of hundred thou saved on staffing is REALLY gonna turn the city around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
ha.
CC is just pissed. Their predecessors were able to steal with impunity and their predecessors predecessors were able to steal with impunity. Their predecessors predecessors predecessors were able to steal with impunity.
its their turn in the catbird seat. Their turn to get fat and happy and hook their families and friends up but their every move is under the microscope.
I think this view is partially right and partially wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Read the information published in the Free Press today: http://www.freep.com/article/2013022...text|FRONTPAGE
Quote:
liabilities consume 35 cents to 42 cents of every general fund dollar
Quote:
Milliman outlines three scenarios for each fund. In the worst, by 2017, the Police and Fire Retirement system would have to absorb 83% of the city's payroll to maintain funding at 72%
Bankruptcy or a structured settlement is the only answer. The two 500-pount gorillas in the room are [[1) pensions/retiree health care benefits and [[2) bonds.Quote:
The outlook for the general system isn't much better. If Milliman's numbers are right, the best-case scenario would see the city's contributions climb to 36% of payroll by 2016 to fund the system at 53%; the worst projections would see the city's contribution rise to 70% of payroll by 2016 to fund the pensions at 45%.
Each need to feel the pain, just as regular citizens are already feeling the pain with crappy services [[except for garbage pickup). Everyone needs to feel it like the citizens do, not just the pensioners and not just the bondholders.
I was in a pointless debate with a few here whether cuts to council staff were 'meaningless'... Its not about the savings, its about the attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
EBW is right. Everyone must feel some pain. Citizens already do. Bondholders who are making a good return on their investment must [[that's why their getting the good returns, btw). And so must the workers. Everyone.
And here's what I haven't heard explicitly said.
The problem of Detroit is bigger than Detroit, and needs to be addressed at a broader level. Its been proven that it can't/won't be done at a local level. So its gonna take some cash from the outside -- bondholders, pensioners [[who mostly live elsewhere I'll bet), and taxpayers State-wide.
They won't do this unless Detroit applies reasonable reforms and shows that they'll stick to it.
When your city council is an order of magnitude more expensive than it should be, it tells the outside stakeholders that you just don't care about 'a few hundred thousand a year'.
If we don't care, then they aren't gonna care. They won't put money into a sinkhole -- even if each of the individual problems aren't big enough to be 'meaningful'.
If you want help with your throat problem, you start by quitting cigarettes.
Yep, totally on point.
I will add a postscript to my earlier post. In addition to attacking those 500-pound gorillas, we also need to attack the day-to-day stuff, including the City Council.
The latter will be important and is the "cigarette" aspect of it. That involves cutting city council staff, DWSD restructering, a Belle Isle lease, reforming the property tax system, and tons of other things along those lines.
The former is the "throat" aspect of it. Unless we attack pensions/health care and the bondholder aspect of it, we can fix all of the short-term stuff and it won't mean a thing.
All of these aspects are necessary to fix the problems, but anything short of all of them are not sufficient to fix the problems. You have to look at it like oxygen, food, and water. It is necessary that we get oxygen each day. It is also necessary that we get food each day, as well as water. But we will not survive unless we take care of all aspects that are necessary.
Why shouldn’t the voters who voted for the debt be liable for the results of their votes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Voters in Detroit vote for bonds they have no intention of paying off and you expect voters/taxpayers in Grand Rapids or Warren to pick up the slack?
Don’t the people of Grand Rapids or Warren have their own bonds to pay off?
Hells bells, why not let everyone run up their credit cards, and lets force out neighbors to pay it off.
One more question, Shouldn’t those calling for Detroit to go bankrupt be first in line to loan Detroit money before the bankruptcy? It cant be they expect others to do what they are unwilling to do.
I think Snyder is on a mission to get an EM in there. As long as the courts don't muck it up, we will have an EM by the end of the year. IMO, Detroit needs one. Stop the fools on the council, they are a big part of the problem. Bing is clueless.
I really hate when folks go on a rant about totally incorrect facts. In 2010 I was one of those City Council staffers. I have previous posts on here telling other posters that Council has cut its budget several times in the last 3 years. So much so that the staffs of all offices & administration were cut significantly. Real people lost jobs, benefits, houses, retirement savings, cars, etc. Stop living in this alternate universe, please. Council persons & remaining staff got furlough days just like everybody else -- in fact, they took them FIRST before union workers did. And I said before that it barely gets covered in the press when Council cuts its own budget because folks just like to hop on the bandwagon & bitch about nonsense. Yes, a small minority of Council staffers did/do have big paychecks, but they also didn't/don't get fringe benefits [[those pesky legacy costs that significantly add to the City's liabilities). The Council office where I worked was downsized by 50%, but I know there are still those posters who will say, ” So what? Your staff was probably too big anyway” or who just flat out will think i'm lying. A couple weeks ago there was a blip in the paper i'm sure about the City Council approving furlough days for non-union executive & LEGISLATIVE employees. Who do you think that is? Since that Pew study the City Coucil members' own salaries were cut by 10%. We rationed copy paper & shook our toner cartridges & bought our own office supplies just like every other City of Detroit worker because the City can't provide what we need to get the job done. Stop bitching about what you clearly either don't know or choose to ignore because it doesn't fit in your narrow paradigm of what you THINK is a bunch of ignorant fools who are oblivious to and immune from feeling the effects of the City's financial crisis. NO DETROIT CITY COUNCIL CUT ITS OWN BUDGET IN AT LEAST THE LAST TWENTY YEARS UNTIL THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL WHICH HAS CUT ITS BUDGET AT LEAST THREE TIMES & IMPOSED FURLOUGH DAYS AT LEAST TWICE. IF A ”STAFFER” ON CONTRACT FOR $50,000 [[no fringes) gets a 10% cut, that staffer then gets $45000. AND WHEN THAT STAFFER THEN GETS FURLOUGH DAYS IMPOSED ONCE EVERY OTHER WEEK, THAT EQUATES TO ANOTHER 10% CUT, SO NOW THAT SY STAFFER GETS $40,500 [no medical, pension & don't forget to take out taxes). That scenario has played out at least twice now both inside Council offices & with all City employees [[not to mention the ones who were just flat out laid off or contracts not renewed).
The City Council and staff should not be about having a job and making a living. It should be a part time nominal fee position.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
I KNEW you worked for the city council, I KNEW it!!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Exactly. He/She actually *defended* Watson at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I'm pretty sure he/she was Watson's staffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
"I'm 90 pounds overweight, but LOOK, I lost 5 pounds"Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
The original question was about whether Council has cut their own budget. Having personally looked at this in the past I can say that yes, they have cut their staff budgets as well as their own salaries. I recall that this current Council cut their own salaries 10% early into their terms. I don't have exact figures but I know that Council's budget has been cut fairly significantly in each of the past few budget cycles. Along with the furlough days that someone above pointed out.
There's enough to criticize this Council and Mayor about without having to make up and/or ignore facts. I would gladly accept their budgets and salaries if they would be more visionary on things such as Belle Isle and less divisive about things such as this $200 million that the State legally does not owe the City.
On the cars, a few of the Council still drive city-owned vehicles. I know a few of them do drive their own vehicles. Again, don't know the exact numbers on this.
On the part-time Council, some of that can be a bit misleading. From the linked article some cities pay their Council over $100k and classify it as part-time. From my experience, that part-time can often just mean that they can hold another job. In DC, the Council is supposedly part-time but they get a $100k+ salary and can hold an outside job on top of that.
Yep, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
What I am saying is that the voters who approved much of the debt and pension obligations MOVED to the burbs. They're who I think should also pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Smiles
You can't move out of Detroit after voting for a fool and then disavowing the consequences.
This problem was created by us all to some degree. Moving out. Leaving laws in place that allowed retirement in your 40's while life expectancy moved upward. Subsidizing transportation to the burbs while ignoring Detroit. Building your own suburban schools while leaving Detroit to carry the debt burden you created without your contribution.
My solution. No support from anyone in the form of EM/EFM/loans, etc. until Detroit cleans its own act up. And that includes as a flagship reducing the size of council costs. Heal thyself, and then society will help.
I agree. There might be a 500 pound elephant in the room, but there are a boatload of smaller rats running around as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Thanks for your perspective, mam. I often disagree with council, but I always strive to form my opinions based on facts. It appears you have provided detail here that most of us are oblivious to.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
IMHO, there was no reason for several folks to mock your post.
At this point- I wonder if even idealists, once they get into office, can’t help but to do whatever it takes to hang onto the salary & perks?
Back when the city charter was being officially revised and the commission solicited suggestions from residents, one of the suggestions I submitted was to make city council part-time, with part-time pay. My rationale was that, theoretically, it would help encourage a more diverse pool of applicants, knowing that this would not be a full time job. Thus if you had people involved with active careers/businesses, they wouldn’t necessarily feel compelled to be careerists on council.
Obviously, this suggestion didn’t make it. Would an EM have the power to make changes in the structure of council?
"I really hate when folks go on a rant about totally incorrect facts. In 2010 I was one of those City Council staffers. I have previous posts on here telling other posters that Council has cut its budget several times in the last 3 years."
I was pretty sure that this was the case. Too bad that some posters decided to attack you instead of admitting that they had been wrong by claiming or implying that Council and staff hadn't taken any cuts.
For the record, no one has said the City Conncil didn't take any cuts, but plenty of people, rightfully, have said they haven't taken enough cuts.
For the record, if they cut their entire budget it still wouldn't be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Still doesn't mean the council's budget still isn't too big. There's absolutely no reason why we can't have a part-time council on a part-time salary [[council members that aren't double-dipping in their pensions I might add) with only one or two executive assistants per member and no security or city cars.
Let's all share in the pain if we're all supposedly committed to having a leaner/meaner Detroit.
The City has gotten a lot leaner. That's part of why City services are so poor. The problem, which I think even YOU have said previously is much bigger than just making CUTS, especially when the costs of employing people grows more & more expensive each year & far outpaces revenue generation. So what's too big? What percentage of the City's total budget should the City Council represent in your opinion?
I just gave my proposed structure of the city council's budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
I just can't stop myself from responding to posts that say this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Too much is too much -- even if you have the money. But when you don't, too much is much too much.
1) Council doesn't need as much staff as they have,
2) Every little bit of a cut helps.
3) Setting an example is also very important.
Yes, it 'still wouldn't be enough'. Even if council each contributed a million, 'it still wouldn't be enough'.
It doesn't matter than its not enough. It only matters that its the right thing to do.
Well the rest of us live in the real world where the Council is full-time, but their stillQuote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
paid less than some of those part-time Councils in the country as someone pointed out earlier. Just accept that your perception of the Council's budget is skewed & move onto a different Council criticism. There are many to choose from. They are flawed in many ways,but to say they are overpaid & over-staffed is no longer even close to being correct.
Agreed. But I addressed that in my original post which was responding directly to the subject of this thread & to those who implied or explicitly stated Council has not cut their own budget or led by example regarding their budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
1. What Wesley Mouch said.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
2. Who care what other cities pay their councils [[I didn't post that link)? Chicago and New York are not on the verge of bankruptcy and are not bleeding taxpayers at the rate Detroit is. On top of that, their Council members aren't ineffective like Detroit's.
No one said the Council has not cut through their budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Posts 4, 13 & 38 did make that implication, for the record. And you still haven't said how much of the City's budget is appropriate to be allocated to the City Council. How are you determining that the Council has not made enough cuts? How do you determine if they're 90 lbs overweight or just 5 lbs overweight?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I usually use a scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...cts-pay-raises
Anything else I've pulled up shows the DCC has cut wages for "non-union workers", nothing for themselves or staff. Charles Pugh DID say in a press interview he took a 10% pay cut, nothing on anyone else. I'm sorry you lost your job. I do hope you land on your feet. The one thing you have to accept is the golden goose is dead, and it's about to get buried.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-141-1553-new
Effective March 28
http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...iveBudget.aspx You can read the budget there ,funny how they cut out the workforce development aspect,its a good thing the city carries a well trained workforce. Keep em broke but fed,keep a roof over their heads but no more,keep them dependent on you for their survival and you can control them.
It would be refreshing to hear the Council just once say "Yes, we'll get on board with you and make this thing work". No, it's more "We're going to seek outside council and mount another legal challenge to whatever plan you're proposing". Who's going to pay for that with money the city doesn't have?
Glad to hear they are cutting things like 'workforce' development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
1) Its not an appropriate job for a city.
2) They can't handle their own payroll, tax collection, water board, or police department right, and they're going to train people? Good Heavens?
3) Sure, the citizens need jobs. Make it safe. Do that one thing. Do it right.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
The goal of a government is not to provide everyone with good-paying jobs, it is to make sure the services its taxpaying citizens are paying for are provided in an efficient manner. Once the services are provided in an efficient manner, then the investment from small businesses will come who will create jobs for the people of the city. DAn Gilbert with his tax incentives to invest downtown despite the city's fiscal crisis is an anomaly, given that he's committed to downtown Detroit [[a very little cost to him I might add relative to what he could be paying) no matter what happens to the city fiscally or the neighborhoods .
Until the city can assure the police will arrive to a crime scene in 5-10 minutes, buses will come every 5 minutes and all of the streetlights will be on, pensions for retirees and jobs for union members should play second fiddle. Otherwise, if you piss off the taxpayers too much with more cuts to their services to fund these unsustainable contracts, then there won't be any more taxpayers around to sign your paychecks.
I say this as a fiscally conservative liberal BTW.
That has nothing to do with Detroit's situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by skyl4rk
Any EFM appointed by March 28th [[which Detroit's EM will be) will grandfathered to an EM with the same powers as they had under PA4.
That said, I think there are two diference that will apply for Detroit though...
1. The state will pay for the EM, not the city [[which was the case under PA72 and PA4).
2. The city [[council) has the option to send the EM packing after 18 months under PA436.
You & your assumptions...I left for a new job because I was underpaid and needed health insurance & to save for retirement. Never saw any golden goose...But ur sincere concern for what you thought was my plight was touching. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Its good you don't get paid by City Council because if that's all you found, you're a lazy researcher. There is no union for City Council staff so as I said earlier, who do you think that10% applies to? I would go through the trouble of finding it for you, but i've done that on this forum ad nauseum and people still ignore cold hard facts and continue to believe what they want to believe as long as it fits their narrow perception of the Detroit City Council. Unlike some on City Council I know when to stop beating my head against a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Really?! Please find that post. I support the institution. I don't ”defend” individual members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...rs-apart/page2
Since I was having a sense that this topic has come up before, instead of repeating research efforts, I decided to just post a link to the thread where someone else questioned whether the City Council had reduced its budget...
I've always wanted to pitch for the Tigers. Tell you what, I'm going to apply for the pitching position, and it's up to the Tigers to train me for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I'll give you I "assumed", but my assumption was based on your post # 27, "Council office where I worked, [[past tense), was downsized by 50%", You do seem touched. [[no, wait, that didn't come out right).Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Wouldn't be the first time what you "said" didn't come out right. You seem to be a pro at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
This whole sub-discussion about spending on "workforce development" demonstrates the problem of people spouting off when they don't know the first thing they are talking about. The workforce development activities have nothing to do with training city employees as some have implied. Those activities are geared toward helping Detroit residents develop skills that will help them become more employable, a serious problem for many potential workers who lack skills to secure jobs in today's economy. These programs are largely funded by state and federal dollars and eliminating these programs would have little or no impact on the city's budget. But this doesn't stop the usual uninformed commentary from people who don't appear to even have a clue as to what they are talking about.
Novine, The current budget shows that what you say is accurate. In fact, the revenues almost exactly meet expenditures. The budget isn't very transparent, with lots of opportunities for confusion, but clearly they got the memo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
That's really good to see. I do hope its true.
My apologies I should have been more informative then sarcastic.
Ah, the master is pleased.....Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
I bet you are...but, I wouldn't call you a ”master”. ”Pro” was sufficient. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk