As we get closer, it goes from bad to worse - Meeting of April 11, 2011

In preparation for this meeting, I sent an email to the Town Council regarding all the issues I had with both the salary ordinance and the budget - the two items of most note on the Conference agenda.  This was the last scheduled meeting that we would be having prior to the budget vote on May 2nd and I wanted to be sure that all the issues were out on the table.  [I have posted the email below for you diehards who actually read the WHOLE thing each week!  What I have not included is the spreadsheet attachment as that contains private information regarding the Township employees.]  The issue I had with the salary ordinance was not the ordinance per se - which is merely a listing of salary ranges for job titles within the Town.  But when I matched the ranges with the actual salaries being paid to the employees, I was struck by the fact that 13% of the employees were being paid salaries higher than the highest level of their range - and by more than could be explained by merit increases (which is supposed to max out at 2%), longevity bonuses, and annual increases (which were 1.5%).  The other thing that struck me is that the Township salaries range from  $26,834 to $201,414.  Hourly wages run from $12.50 per hour to $36.13 per hour.  These wages are VERY comparable to industry - these are not the governmental pittance salaries of yore.  I respect the jobs that our Township employees are doing but I’m not quite sure why we are paying private industry salaries AND doling out public industry perks.

[The Township Manager responded to my concerns regarding the out of range salaries with the fact that we had been provided with incorrect information - that the schedule provided did not have updated titles.  I have since asked for additional corrected information - see below as well.]

My fellow Republican on the Council also raised the issue of holding the library budget to the level of 2010 instead of increasing it by $100,000.  When I supported this issue, we were voted down by the other Council members who did not want to go back to the Library board - even though the Library board had stated – and I’m paraphrasing here – ‘give us a number and we will work with it.’

Needless to say, Mike Rieber and I have pitched a number of suggestions that would lessened the budget increase without affecting services – all of them were shot down.

Email sent 04/08/2011:

I have performed an analysis of the salary ordinance in conjunction with the 2010 salaries.  [I am aware that the 2011 salaries have not as yet been finalized; and that the 2010 salaries should be falling toward the minimum range given that this is an ordinance that should cover salaries for 2011 and 2012.]  That being said, I find it very puzzling that approximately 13% of the non-CBA salaries exceed the maximum levels of the ordinance – some by a very significant amount.  Therefore, I am not quite clear as to what this min/max ordinance is supposed to accomplish if we can merely pay more by calling it a merit or longevity increase.  If the fact is that someone is paid much higher than the pay range on an ongoing basis, de facto that is his or her ‘base’ salary.

Now, I did not have the previous 3 years with which to perform a comparison – which would be helpful.  Michele – if you would provide me with that data, I would be happy to plug it into the spreadsheet.

So – why are these salaries so far above the range?  What are the bonus amounts/percentages that are awarded and on what basis?  If we just look at the salaried employees, we are paying over $150K over the max range (and the max range is higher than the 2010 one – so the difference is actually higher.)

Second, in looking at these wages, we are not looking at ‘poor’ public sector wages that are lower than private sector.  To me, it appears to be private sector wages with public sector perks – which is a very, very expensive way to go.  I would like to discuss again the option to increase the employees’ contribution to the health benefits.  If I recall correctly, increasing the rate of contribution from 1.5% to 3.0% will result in a $107K savings – or almost a 20% reduction in the current tax increase.  Maybe a rollback of ‘merit’ or ‘longevity’ pay as well could be discussed – that $150K (not including hourlies) would also go a long way in reduction of the tax increase.

Third, if I recall correctly, personnel are paid a sum if they do not subscribe to the insurance plan.  Why?  It is a benefit that is offered.  If it is declined, there is no legal requirement to pay them for it.  How many people do not take the insurance and how much would that save the town if that benefit were expunged?

Finally, the parties and (2) ½ days paid – another issue that I would like to raise again.  When times are good, everyone shares.  But times are tough – do we really want the taxpayers shelling out for this?  Even if it comes out to a $2 a taxpayer – that’s THEIR two dollars to spend, not ours.  And, when things are getting better, it can be reinstated.  I think it would be good PR for the Town to show support for the taxpayers in this.

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please don’t hesitate to call me.

Email sent 04/27/2011:

Michele:

Thank you.  Would it be possible, then, to get a corrected 2010 salary schedule along with a projected 2011 salary schedule based on the assumption of the 2011 budget being passed?  Are people being paid the 1.5% projected increase now or is that being held off until the budget is finalized?  Also, what is the total impact in 2010 of the merit increases in actual dollars and as a percentage of salary?  What is the (proposed?) impact of merit increases for 2011 in dollars and percents?

Also, why was there a decision to give xxx a stipend?  He is a full time employee of Livingston - which is providing shared services to Milburn to get a revenue source.  Is there a need to keep giving him this stipend?

Also, may I have a list of all employees who are given the usage of automobiles as part of their compensation package?  And, do we have a cost (which I'm sure we must for tax purposes) broken down by employee for this benefit?

I am also looking forward to seeing the costs for the benefits as requested by Mike Rieber.  If we assess a 5% premium charge for each non-CBA employee - based on the plan in which they are enrolled - what would that save us?  Also, what would be the savings for changing the benefits package and eliminating the bonus for NOT taking benefits?  How much are we paying out in this benefit now?

Thank you again.

Budget meeting on May 2^nd.  Should be fun.