Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Letter to the Editor: Councilmember Salafia: City Dept. Mergers Don't Save Resources

Below is a essay by Councilmember Linda Salafia. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff. 

The City Reorg will be voted on at a special council meeting open to the public at 6 pm Thursday May 2, 2013 in the Council Chambers.

Salafia previously commented on this re-org in an earlier letter to editor:
Read full article here.
The objective of the task force appears to contain a predetermined remedy for what were yet-to-be discovered problems. Salafia points out that many of the positions will still have to be filled and therefore the cost savings is a false assumption. Kleckowski cited departments becoming dysfunctional as a concern. In a previously published letter from the actuaries hired by the City to City Finance Director Carl Erlacher, the actuaries expressed concerns that the pension fund be in trouble as early as 2014. Apparently, Mayor Drew knows better than the professionals.
Editors Note: Background Information and financial breakdowns:
The package is available to read here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1OYjxtLEgUwUm9EZ1gzYUdsODQ
The smoking gun letter from the actuary is here:   https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1OYjxtLEgUwUm9EZ1gzYUdsODQ
 Previously published posts on this subject can be read here:

Councilmember Salafia's Letter to the Editor:
I want to respond to John Milardo's newsletter however I don't think the space for comments will allow me room to say what I want.
The vote on the merger of the Personnel Department into the Legal Department is scheduled for May 2, and most assuredly will pass.  However, I plan on voting no to that and to any other resolution presented as a result of the merger.  There are several reasons why I don't agree with this particular merger and don't think that it will either streamline, improve the efficiency of government or save money.

First, I don't agree with the report issued by the Task Force formed by the Mayor to improve efficiency in government shortly after he took office.  I believe that the Mayor gave them the charge to reduce the number of employees that report directly to him; not that the committee did an unbiased assessment of the workings of the city government.  The report stated that 20 employees reported directly to the Mayor, I'm having trouble coming up with those 20.  Also, I understand the concept of having outside eyes look at the procedures; however, they need to have a basic understanding of the current procedures before you make changes.  I had to point out to them that even though only one employee in a truck driver position was retiring that in reality they were losing up to 7 drivers who drive snow plows during storms.

Secondly, I don't agree with the numbers presented on how this merger will save money for the city.  As part of the package given to the Council outlining the savings, as John says, the second Deputy City Attorney position is included in the current funding column and also in the proposed column so that there is no effect on the bottom line.  While this is technically true, since the position of second Deputy Attorney is in the budget now, it was done so on the expectation of the merger happening.  It was not in the budget prior to this year and therefore should be included as a new expense.

Thirdly,  I truly believe that the Personnel Department has different duties and functions that although could often use the advise of attorneys, they should remain separate and distinct.  The volume of work needed to handle the hiring process of the city by itself should illustrate the need for a separation of duties.  Now you will be filtering the public and employees through the City's Legal Office.  The Personnel Department was a department of 4 employees and that had been reduced to 3; this merger is proposing 2 for this function.  I find it difficult to believe that 2 people are going to be able to handle the required duties without additional help considering what's on the horizon such as needing to hire a new Fire Chief, and the review and filling of the other positions that are open as a result of the retirement incentive given.  (That's another whole article about why I didn't agree with that either - as far as, I can see, there's been no actual savings with that.)  Paralegal has come up in discussions.

Also, included in this merger may be a change in the council committees which is going to be another problem and will require another whole discussion and I believe that should happen before any merger or change takes place.
Therefore, based on those reasons and more, I will not be voting in favor of this merger.  
Linda Salafia
Councilperson, R


  1. To Little to late. These coucil people don't do anything to twart this baloney during the process, yet, they know full well what's going on. Then they come out and strongly disagree, again, knowing full well it's going to pass! Nice political posturing to save face. Vote them all out! Egomaniacs all of them. Especially this mayor. Wow what a hack!

  2. Excuse me? Save face how? the republican women are the only ones watching out for taxpayers!

  3. Don't worry about the Fire Chief, the word is Fudgey has already been promised the job, at least all those visits to City Hall has kept him from nap time at the FH.

  4. The Republican Party can't even get on the same page. They have no support for each other. PP and JB should just convert. Salifa while has good intentions has no support and while she is speaking up, she can't back it up. Not completely her fault, but still a little to late, now on the cusp of the vote.

  5. Linda took good care of herself, she got the golden city retirement package

  6. Salafia did not receive any gold handshake. A pension she earned.

    Actually she can back it up with the numbers- its scary! Go ahead be in denial

    Keep your head in the sand!

    The boys need to go!

  7. don't blame anyone for taking the Golden handshake as I would have taken as well. I blame the mayor for thinking it would save money but so far it has just cost us all more.


Authors of comments and posts are solely responsible for their statements. Please email MiddletownInsider@gmail.com for questions or concerns. This blog, (and any site using the blogger platform), does not and cannot track the source of comments. While opinions and criticism are fine, they are subject to moderator discretion; slander and vile attacks of individuals will not to be tolerated. Middletown Insider retains the right to deny any post or comment without explanation.

Popular Posts