This weeks issue of the Call ! I direct you to the story on "strategic planning!"
Ladies and Gentlemen, I thought we were through with the idea of having Mr. Lyle Sumac return to collect another $8 to $9,000.00 from the City coffers, but no! I direct you to a story by Mr. Wasson that tells us some of our Alderman think we need him so they can "focus" on the needs of Crestwood!
Now, I am not the brightest bulb in the harbor, but it seems to me that he has given them idea's, and that should be giving them the direction to take next year as well, without resorting to spending more funds to get him back. I have attended many of these type's of meetings, and they are wonderful! However, you have to use the information given (as our Aldermen have,) to insure success.
In my humble opinion, the Board can do it with local "work session's," and if they need a "team leader," well we have some very qualified citizens to do that job.
If you agree with me that this is a needless expense please call your Alderman and voice your concern, because $9,000.00 would buy a lot of equipment for police and fire!
Click on the header as usual please.
Tom Ford
No. 259
Now, I am not the brightest bulb in the harbor, but it seems to me that he has given them idea's, and that should be giving them the direction to take next year as well, without resorting to spending more funds to get him back. I have attended many of these type's of meetings, and they are wonderful! However, you have to use the information given (as our Aldermen have,) to insure success.
In my humble opinion, the Board can do it with local "work session's," and if they need a "team leader," well we have some very qualified citizens to do that job.
If you agree with me that this is a needless expense please call your Alderman and voice your concern, because $9,000.00 would buy a lot of equipment for police and fire!
Click on the header as usual please.
Tom Ford
No. 259
posted by Crestwood Independent at 17:44
31 Comments:
The Mayor doesnt seem to have a problem with the idea either.
So I noticed! Why, I have no idea. I still think it's going to take a lot of explaining to get me to go along with this!
Tom Ford
Why should you have to go along with this idea? If it is wrong then who or why someone else goes along shouldn't matter a hill of beans.
I don't have to go along with any idea my friend! However, if you read what I wrote, you will note that I do not.
That said, as I asked in the main post, you make up your own mind, and go from there!
Me thinks you may be under some un-due stress! Lighten up a bit, it's Christmas!
Tom Ford
Have money, will spend.
You are right, this is more of the same Crestwood spending that happened during the past two administrations. The first list that the consultant came up with was to say the least, "duh". If the people we elected as mayor and alderman weren't bright enough to come up with that list on their own, we shouldn't have elected them.
Is Mayor Robinson so short-sighted that he can't see what the problems are without spending our money to have someone else tell him? Or, is this Mr. Myers wanting to keep an old friend employed? Either way, this is a WASTE of money. Let's see our employees get that $9,000, as well as the $8 or $9 already spent, in their paychecks for doing such a good job keeping our streets cleared during this last storm and keeping our shoppers safe during the holidays.
Did you READ the whole article. Did you read all the aldermanic comments. Did you see that several Aldermen approved of the study along with the Mayor but he said he would go along with whatever the majority preferred. Point - Mayor was not the lone ranger here folks. Go back and read again. Got your hand on the trigger again. ADdress your comments to your alderman if you stance is strong and different.
YES, I read the WHOLE article, and YES, the mayor went along with it, so that puts him in the same bucket. Have money, will spend.
mayor has the veto power and he will not use it...
Another expenditure -
from the Post Dispatch website stltoday.com, 12-13-2006
"Money to help post-storm cleanup
12/13/2006
CRESTWOOD — Aldermen on Tuesday night approved a $15,000 one-time expenditure to relieve a city parks department overburdened by the volume of debris left by the recent ice storm.
The funds will allow the city to bring in three tree removal services for a five-day blitz across the city. Removal will begin Thursday or Friday, depending on availability.
Director of Public Works James Eckrich said debris removal could stretch into early February without outside assistance. Despite the unexpected expenditure, Eckrich said he expects the park maintenance fund to come in under budget."
The initial decision to spend thousands of dollars of the city's limited income on Mr. Sumek's services, while reportedly yielding useful results, was at best ill-timed. Somehow it has escaped the city administrator and the board that the city is sitting atop a two million dollar debt; there can be no other explanation for their decision to include this expense in the 2007 budget.
While I agree that it is sometimes necessary to spend money to make money, this expense could easily be cut from this year's budget with absolutley no ill effect on the city. There is a much greater benefit to the city to apply any "excess" funds to the city's debt rather than spending those funds on consultants. After all, this administration promised it would do everything possible to work to eliminate the debt.
When any business is under financial pressure, it is forced to make a choice between the "nice-to-haves" and "need-to-haves." Putting money aside to spend on a consultant most definitely falls within the former category. How willing does this (or any other) administration think taxpayers will be to help the city in the future if it does not show some much needed fiscal restraint now? I hope anyone who opposes this budgeted expenditure will join me in speaking out against it at the next board meeting.
Martha Duchild
Correction:
"Have YOUR Money...Will Spend"
Enough of the people who live here just do not care.
The one alderman that will listen is usually the lone ranger trying to rebuild the reserves. What more can we do? Reduce the number of wards and alderman? Increase the pay for alderman? Hope to attract more qualified alderman?
You should be more concerned about the 2% across the board pay raise. That adds nearly $100,000 to the yearly budget. This gives no incentive for anyone to work harder. Nor does it having any regard for what the market is paying. Longevity doesn't make you more valuable.
I thought the City Admin was hired mostly on the basis of his ability to revive an old mall. It sounded good, but what can he really do? They can't even get the important people at Westfield to come to the table.
4:49 blogger: I would disagree with your statement that "longivity does not make a person more valuable." In the case of Police and Fire it does indeed make you more valuable, as it in experience, and knowledge of who the "players" are!
You see, it takes at least five years for a police officer to be ready tell you who the bad guy's are on sight. It takes experience, and the knowledge that comes with "time on the street," for an officer to do his/her job as best that they can!
So the next time you consider the time on the street, lost time, please re-consider!
Tom Ford
Are all of these meetings a way to play the shell game with public money?
Is this same shell game that benefited Crestwood Swim Club and THF?
Now I know why there is a pool hall picture at Whitecliff Center.
Our public officials loved to gamble away our money for their own interests and hide under the shell of our city attorney.
Martha,
When you hire a music man consultant like Lyle Sumek, it is easier for our City Administrator to blame Lyle for all of our money missing.
Who is getting fat on our public money?
Who is building a new house and driving a new car?
Who has deep pockets?
Martha,
It has escaped the Mayor's attention as well, since he has the power to veto or call for this foolishness to end. No free passes here, either an elected offical is fer or again it.
9:38 PM blogger:
Tom, that is partially true in almost every job. I don't disagree with gaining experience. But at some point the younger Police and Fire personnel are probably more physically fit? So there is some trade off.
Every job in Crestwood should have a cap. I'm not against raises. I'm just against splitting up the pot and giving 2% across the board. Everyone here claims Crestwood gives a higher level of service. Give those who excel at their jobs a bigger piece of the pie.
That gives people the pride in their jobs that you speak of.
To 11:54 PM 12/15 and 8:46 AM 12/16:
I hope I'm not assuming in error, but it sounds like you concur with my opinion regarding the budgeted consultant expense. Therefore, I hope you (I'm not sure if the "you" is singular or plural) can and will speak at the next board meeting to express your opposition. The board would be more inclined to reconsider this expense if there were more people than just me expressing their disagreement.
Martha Duchild
we are just lucky the mayor is holding this meeting in the evening when most of us can be there, unlike the Kohls meeting Tom wrote about being held at 900 in morning
I have read all the entries here and have a serious concern. Maybe we should ask our aldermen to vote down every request for expenditures. We should not be picking up limbs from the storm if it is going to cost the city $15,000 dollars. Just how many of you are waiting for the city to pick up your tree limbs at the curb at a cost of $15,000? I haven't heard anyone say they thought this was an unnecessary expense. By the way what value do we as citizens receive from the city picking up our treelimbs? We might as well have thrown that money in the Shredder. I guess I am just bitter because I cut my branches up and put them out for my waste collector before the announcement.
5:00 PM blogger: my branches were picked up by my lawn service so I understand how you feel!
I agree that $15,000 is a lot of money to spend on "branch retrival."
Could it be that those of us with pick up trucks could pick them up, take them to Whitecliff park, and the City could have a bon fire in January?
I'll do it if anyone else is willing to help. It might be fun, and it's a way to show the City fathers were serious about not spending the loot if we don't have to!
Tom Ford
It certainly has not taken very long since the tax increase to surmise that someone at city hall does not realize the importance residents put on "frugality." That residents are totally committed to the bottom line. There is a huge difference between "wants" and "needs" in Crestwood. It could not be more clear nor more pertinent.
Reminds me of someone who is getting financial counseling and when their VISA is down, they say "Oh, well, I've been good and I need to reward myself." And it starts AGAIN!
Is it the City Administrator, who does not realize we, the residents, are not kidding? Who is it? Whoever it is, are they above reprimand? Because it sure seems like it is in order. We don't need a $10,000 study. Where is the Mayor? Where are the 8 Aldermen? Are they in tune with the city voters? Is there only one Alderman up there who is looking at the bottom line? And, when he does, he is usually maligned by an alderman who is historically out of line. This is pathetic! One out of 8 who realizes the importance of a reserve fund and the path to take to get there.
Now is also a good time to look more closely at the legal expenses at city hall. The word monitor comes to mind.
Let's take a long hard look at the City Administrator and let him know we are not interested in spending habits which compromise our trust. We have had enough of this kind of leadership and we are policing spending because WE NEVER WANT A REPEAT PERFORMANCE. And because the tax we approved of was not meant to be used as an idea platform for a new C/A.
If the Aldermen and Mayor do not have time to make this abundantly clear, then they should resign. They are there to serve you and I. I believe all monies spent should be approved by the BOA. The C/A is an employee, he is not the ruler. We already had one of those.
We do not want the study, we do not approve of Mr. Grewe and his tactics and we want our city to pick up the branches even if it takes until February. Or, perhaps, people should hire their own service to pick it up or reimburse the city for pickup. This is the way cities, like ours, which are on the comeback trail must operate. I paid a tree service to come and get mine. Seems I walk the talk.
A little here, a little there, and soon the very reason people voted for Prop S is invalidated by the fumes at City Hall. If this is the direction we are once again headed, then change is again in order.
It is time we get down to the business of saving, not spending. Anyone have a clue when this is going to happen? If you have a candidate in your ward who wants to run for office, I suggest you grill them and get a commitment on their stance on spending. And, when I say grill, I mean grill. And if they don't live up to their promises, barbeque them.
It's funny how all of the old farts can suddenly afford to pay for a lawn service or someone to pick up their branches but WATCH out if anyone proposes a property tax increase...let's skip the bonfire.
Indeed we old *%^## can, and do afford to pay a lawn service, and they do a great job!
Now the question I beg to ask is why you want the Government to pay to pick up your branches? Sounds like the "cradle to grave maintanance" the liberals are espousing!
By the way, I supported the prop. "S" tax increase, and so did a majority of the "old %#*#@! You see the majority of the people who come out and vote are not the "kiddies" in town but us "old &*$@^!"
I still think a bonfire would be fun, and who knows, you might enjoy the "old ^#@*&."
Tom Ford
I hope you noticed Alderman Bland' s comment in the article. He said something to the effect he wanted to support the city administrator. Are we really returning to the time when the aldermen did whatever the c/a told them to do? The aldermen should listen to the CITIZENS and make sure the c/a does what THEY want done, and not return to spending money because a c/a wants to!
Please remember that at city hall if you are not elected, you are either appointed or a city employee. This includes the City Administrator. He works for you and I. The BOA works for you and I. Residents of this town have seen enough power play from their former city administrator and BOA and enough lethargy from the previous CA from the one before him, not to mention the fact of cost of their separations from the city. At this point in time, we are not looking for expensive innovation, outside studies and added employees. We are still into belt tightening and doubling up on jobs. Nor are we looking for ways to give away the store to developers. Not until such time as we have overcome the excess of the former administration, its architects/consultants/contractor and legal fees for a non built building; its lawsuits and undocumented legal bills and $200/hour city attorney charges; and its totally out of line concessions for the former city administrator and his lady love.
I was happy to see lights on city hall this year. Of course I was. I know the tax increase will help. However, climbing out of the hole, taking care of our streets and infrastructure and maintaining a reserve fund is the priority now. I am not impressed with news coverage about Aldermen who seem to delight in maligning Mr. Miguel, the one on the board who asks the questions I would also ask. I am grateful for his presence and his financial background. These aldermen with their troublesome behavior are exactly the kind of people whose politics are a total embarrassment to our city and who helped get us into financial quicksand. Hard questions must be asked in this town otherwise we land back in the same day old soup.
I would ask that every action taken in this city by its aldermen be thoroughly examined and tweaked until there is unity on the board. The trust factor along with the bank account stand front and center in Crestwood. While we need retail to supplement our coiffers, we do not need to adapt to the desperation policy of letting developers dictate development to the point of losing control. To me quality of stores is more important than quantity. If people who are in office do not have time to attend meetings and when they do are in a big hurry to rush things through without thorough examination, they should find another outlet for their politics. Number 1 on the agenda is what is best for this city, not what is best for a particular niche. the one which seems to delight in creating diviseness rather than unity. Our expectations are much higher than their motives.
I know what you mean, but someone on this blog one said if the entire board agrees that should be a red flag that no one's asking questions just voting in lockstep. I guess I'm for majority agreement AFTER careful debate!
Miguel for Mayor in 2008!!!!
Absolutely, debate and ask questions and present opinions and options - until the best interests of the city are met. If the motion itself is not okay, no matter what, state your case and vote your vote - with emphasis on YOUR, YOUR and your constituancy. Not a special interest group.Not lock step.
This city is way too small for an alderman to play politics. Those who in the past don't agree with this logic, are the very ones who so many hold in contempt. Tis time to get people in our city government who do not have a recorder under their suit telling them what to say and do and think.
Does that mean the Mayor could be wrong and the BOA needs to stop him? And the recorder bit, what the heck are you talking about?
Post a Comment
<< Home