Letter to the Editor: Reaction to City Dept. Merger

Below is a essay by Middletown Republican Town Committee chair, resident, and veteran Ken McClellan. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mayor’s Task Force on Efficiency in Government.

Thursday, May 2, at a hastily called Common Council meeting, the Common Council voted 10-2 to merge the Personnel and City Attorney departments, with the HR Director reporting to the city attorney.  There was not much publicity for the meeting, and attendance was sparse.  The meeting was called in order to allow a second vote on the ordinance change, as required by the city charter, within 90 days of the first vote.  The initial vote was taken on Feb 4.  The issue was removed from the April meeting agenda without explanation.

This was the first, and so far, the only recommendation implemented, out of 15 recommendations submitted by the task force.

In defending and justifying this recommendation, the Mayor and the city attorney, Mr. Brig Smith, in various meetings, gave a number of justifications for eliminating the personnel department, and placing that responsibility with the City Attorney.   Taken at face value these justifications make sense.  However, when examined, the justifications are not valid.
 

Reason 1:  Numerous municipalities and companies operate under this model. 

Mr. Smith and the Mayor stated during the Finance and Government committee that Lansing Michigan, and ‘numerous municipalities in Wisconsin’, and a number or ‘major corporations’ that operate under this model.  Mr.  Smith repeated this assertion at the special meeting on May 2.  Since Mr Smith is from Lansing, I would presume that he would have accurate information about that city.

Here’s what I found.   In Lansing, MI, HR and Legal are separate departments.  When questioned about the discrepancy between his statement at the Finance and government committee, and my finding, Mr Smith caveated his earlier statement, saying that the city attorney was also the personnel director of another agency.  I guess he misspoke at the Finance and Government commission.

Regarding Wisconsin, I checked the larger towns and cities, where there should be a Personnel staff. 

Eau Claire has separate HR and Attorney offices under Administration.

Racine, Wausau, Green Bay, Milwaukee, La Crosse, Madison, Wautoma, Onalaska, Fon du Lac all have separate offices.

Portage, Marion:  looks like the city clerk handles job applications, and Marion doesn’t have a city attorney.   In Grand Rapids, there is an Administrative Department with both HR and Legal as separate offices. That’s 2 cities with an Administrative Department, with HR and Legal as separate offices.  I’ll get back to that later.

As a further check I looked at Michigan.  Detroit and a number of other cities and towns of various sizes that I checked, all have separate Personnel/HR and Legal departments.

I checked a number of cities and towns in Connecticut, starting with cities with a population of around 40,000, like Middletown.  Among them: East Hartford, Milford, Stratford, Wallingford, Southington, Shelton, Groton and Norwich.  I checked Meriden, Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, Waterbury, Torrington, West Hartford, Greenwich, Bristol.  All of those cities and towns have separate HR and Legal.

I also checked a number of businesses, major corporations and small business in Connecticut and other states.  I could not find any that have the Personnel Manager reporting to the corporation counsel.  If this is as wide-spread a practice, I should have found one. There may be companies where the Director of Personnel is an attorney, but that would not be the same as merging the HR and Legal Departments.

Another example cited where the Personnel Department was supervised by the Legal Counsel was Southern Connecticut State University.  I wrote to the Personnel Director, Jaye Bailey. Here’s her response:  “..I serve as the VP for Human Resources and Labor Relations.  I don’t serve as the GC because only the Office of the Attorney General can act as the University’s counsel.  I report to the President. ”. 

So, what was the point of all this research?  At first, I did not believe that anyone operated with this model, but I wanted to try to find examples where it was used.  I found one.  In the interest of accuracy, I did locate one city that has the Personnel Manager reporting to the City Attorney:  Stamford.   Funny, that’s where Governor Dannell Malloy is from.  I found none in business.  If anyone can give me the name of a business that uses this model, I would welcome the information.  I will confirm that information with that business.  The conclusion is that the Mayor and Mr. Smith provided inaccurate, misleading information to the study committee and the Common Council when they stated that in ‘numerous companies and municipalities’ the City Attorney manages Personnel.   If Mr. Smith and Mayor Drew could provide specific, named examples where the Personnel/HR Department report to and is managed by the Legal Department, other than Stamford, I would like to see the list, and I will happily and publicly acknowledge any correction.  But, one city, out of the several dozen that I randomly checked, and not one business out of several dozen checked, does not make this a widespread practice.  Again:  Is Mayor Drew misinformed, or lying?

Reason 2:  Reduce the number of directors reporting to the Mayor

This reduces the total of 21 to 20.  I won’t comment on that, here, but I’ll get back to it later.

Reason 3: Efficiency gained by co-locating the City Attorney and HR. 

This could be done by a simple relocation of one office or the other.

Reason 4: Personnel is governed by laws and requires supervision by an attorney.

Legal concerns are not the extent of the Personnel department.  They do screening, hiring, training, promotions, performance evaluations.  Water and Sewer, Public Works, the Fire and Police Departments, the Common Council and Mayor are all governed by laws, so by the same logic, the Police Department, Fire Department, Council and Mayor should also be reporting to the Legal Department.  Sounds a little ridiculous, doesn’t it.

Those were the stated justifications for this merger.  If all of them are inaccurate, specious or ridiculous, what is the real reason for the merger?  Is there another reason that is not being made public?  

Reason not to merge

There is, however, one very good reason not to place the Personnel Department under the City Attorney.  The City Attorney needs to be an advisor to and resource for all city departments.  The city attorney represents the city in legal matters.  He or she should not be directly involved or managing routine operations of any department.  Department directors should certainly seek his advice as needed.

HR is responsible for recruiting, vetting, hiring, training and developing employees.  The Director of HR must at times hear work grievances, which could result in legal action against the city.  Would the Director of HR be a neutral hearing officer if reporting to the city attorney?  I don’t believe that is possible.  

There are 15 recommendations in the task force report. 

Here are a few, in the order they were presented in the report:

Establish a Technology Advisory Committee

Institute  performance appraisals with specific, measurable goals

            Supervisory and Management Skills Training

            Review City Personnel Rules

            Enforce Internal Controls and Checks and Balances

            Merge Information Systems and Tax Assessor into the Finance Department

            Reorganize the Finance Department and add a Grant Writer

            Merge Legal, Personnel and Human Resources

            Merge Arts and Culture Office and Building Division into Planning, Conservation

            Merge Senior Services into the Recreation Department

This is the order in which the recommendations were presented by the task force.  Merging the HR and Legal departments was Number 12 of 15 on the list.  Why did the mayor start with eliminating the personnel department? 

What is the status of the other 14 recommendations?  Will any be implemented?

During the meeting on May 2, Council members hinted that my opposition to this merger was political.  It is not.  I agree with a number of recommendations of the task force, and look forward to the mayor and council implementing those recommendations, including the Management Training, Performance Standards and Evaluations and enforcing Internal Controls. And I look forward to the improved service that will be provided to the citizens of Middletown by a more efficient, well-trained, well-led staff.

As a final  comment.  The Mayor’s task force was directed to reduce the number of directors reporting to the Mayor.  They went from 21 to 13.  I have a recommendation reduce that number to 4 Directors reporting to the Mayor, each with 4 – 7 Assistant Directors reporting to each Director.  The model I propose has been used by the US Military quite successfully, and is used in the majority of businesses across the country.  Group city departments and offices by functions.

Establish 4 Departments:  Administration, Safety, Public Works, and Services.  Take the current 21 Directors and group them as follows:

Administration:  Human Relations, Information Systems, Legal Department, Personnel Department, Tax Assessor Office, Town Clerk Office.  Include Finance and the City Treasurer in this department.

Safety:  Emergency Management, Fire Department, Health Department, Police Department.  Include Communications.

Public Works:  Planning, Conservation and Development, Public Works Department, Water and Sewer Department, Parking Department.  Include vehicle, building and grounds maintenance and custodial services in this department.  Include such portions of Parks and Recreation that do maintenance and landscaping.

Services:  Russell Library, Senior Services Department.  Include such portions of Parks and Recreation as Youth and Sports programs and Arts & Culture programs.

This organization:

1.      Reduces the number of directors from 21 to 4, saving money on salary, and reducing the number of direct reports to the mayor.

2.      Balances the number of direct reports to each director.

3.      Improves communication and coordination by grouping like functions.

4.      Places all vehicle maintenance under one supervisor, and consolidates purchasing of parts and supplies, maintenance management and supervision of repairs.

5.      Places all building maintenance and custodial services under one supervisor, and consolidates purchasing of parts and supplies, maintenance management and supervision of repairs..  This could be expanded to include building currently managed by the board of education. 

6.      Places all grounds-keeping/landscaping work under one supervisor, which should improve also resource usage and scheduling.

The proposal above is just that, a proposal, not a plan.  But I do have examples of this model being used successfully, and think that it is worth looking into.

Thank you for your attention,

Ken McClellan

Chairman, Middletown Republican Town Committee

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:

http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/city-governmen-re-org-part-ii.html

http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/city-government-re-org-part-i.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.  
 

Sincerely,

Linda Salafia

Councilperson, R

Finally: Water & Sewer Investigation Report Reveals Disfunction

Professor Douglas Rae Investigation of Water & Sewer: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1OYjxtLEgUweUYya3A1b2I3cnc/edit?usp=sharing
Subcommittee Findings: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1OYjxtLEgUwa2FCcUZwUjlBTTg/edit?usp=sharing
Water & Sewer Attachments: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1OYjxtLEgUwTHFCbjVEV0pDeG8/edit?usp=sharing
Water & Sewer Sub Committee Findings:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1OYjxtLEgUwYUpaaUFqME9PTGc/edit?usp=sharing

The Water & Sewer Debacle:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008: In 2008 $100,000 had been spent to overhaul the department including a reorganization plan that according to Mayor Giuliano, was never enacted by W&S Director Guy Russo as ordered.W&S was supposed to have made as of 2008 after the department had to be taken over by then Finance Director James Reynolds due to lost of funds, had still not been implemented. In addition to the extreme departmental debt and numerous warnings to basically fix things before they hit the fan, an  unprecedented number of grievances by employees were filed at this time and on the job accidents spiked leading to the logical conclusion that at the very least management needed to  be scrutinized

2009: Candidate Dan Drew stated on record in an interview with the Wesleyan Argus that:"Not to mentioned our city's sewer department is in dire straits financially. If it were privately owned, it would declare bankruptcy. We don't know where we're going right now."

In 2011 the Common Council voted to investigate the Water & Sewer department “to investigate

The underlying basis which led Mayor Sebastian N. Giuliano to order moving the Water and Sewer

Department’s administrative staff from headquarters on Berlin Street to City Hall.” This “investigation” was in response to a letter from the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Authority) objecting to this move. Apparently, the WPCA did not believe that the mayor had discretion to move the Director and Deputy Director to City Hall.  A firestorm of debate ensued with the end result being $10,000, yes, 10 thousand dollars being spent on this matter!
 

The Charter, Chaper 111 sec. 8, provides the Council to conduct an investigation; Council-not a consultant.  Disregarding the Charter, Professor Douglas W. Rae was hired by the sub-committee, Councilwoman Kasper, Councilman Bibisi, Council Klattenberg and former Councilman Bauer, to assist in the investigation by conducting preliminary interviews with key department and personnel.  The backstory is that there was and still continues to be management issues within the department.  The problem was not former Mayor Giuliano moving staff it was the incompetence of the “management team” and the grievances filed.

So, the Council decides to spend $10,000 because a Mayor moved staff, the investigator never interviewed all the employees of Water and Sewer and the $10,000 conclusion, “Water and Sewer’s central administrative spine is broken” according to the final report.  In the end, nothing changed, management has yet to withdraw from the Teamsters Union (Mayor Drew deciding not to adhere to the recommendation of the report), management HAS NOT received any training as indicated necessary in the report. 

 In conclusion, $10,000 was spent and NOTHING has been done.

 
The public needs to be aware that the report was done “illegally” because Council did not perform the investigation. Water and Sewer management continue to manage in the same “broken” manner with the same problems still present.  And, the public should demand to know why former Mayor Giuliano’s move of the director and deputy director set the stage for a $10, 000 report yet Mayor Drew has moved people and offices without so much as a peep from the Council. 

 
The entire Water and Sewer Investigation Report dated March 5, 2012 is posted for your review. The $10,000 question-“Was $10,000 wisely spent or squandered?”

2013: Several requests to get this report via FOI were made and dismissed.http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/wilson-foi-results-transparency-not.html

How many cycles do water bills have to go out with wrong information before anything is done?

Letter to the Editor: Mayor Daniel Drew’s Bipartisan Task Force on Efficiency in Government: A Commentary

Report of Mayor Daniel Drew’s Bipartisan Task Force on Efficiency in Government

A Commentary

First, let me credit the Mayor and council for looking for ways to save money and make city government more efficient. 

Second:  The composition of the commission:  Bi-partisan?  One Republican doesn’t make a commission bi-partisan.  That’s tokenism.

Competence.  Of the 9 members there are 3 attorneys.  33% of this commission were attorneys.   I would have expected a higher percentage of individuals with management and organizational expertise, and maybe one attorney for legal advice.  Where is the management experience? I see one business owner, who is an IT person.

Gerry Daley, Chair/Common Council

Todd Berch, Common Council

Joe Bibisi, Common Council

Dan Ryan, Corporation Counsel

Dennis Murphy, Deputy Commissioner of Labor for the State of Connecticut

Quentin Phipps, City Treasurer

Mike Gaudino, IT Expert/Middletown Business Owner

Jamie Mills, Labor Attorney, Middletown resident

Carl Chisem, Transportation Professional, Middletown resident ·

Commission first met in January 2012, and completed the report in April.  That was quick.  Was it thorough?

Recommendations – there were 15 Recommendations contained in this report.   Some good, some incomprehensible.

1.       Replace Engineering Technician and Drivers – The committee consulted with the Director and used his recommendation.

2.      Change the way the city fills vacancies, to include a review for alternate staffing, and include impact on health/safety, revenue, etc.   I’ll take this to mean that the impact to Public Health, Public Safety will be considered.  I hope these two concerns would rate higher in the decision matrix than cost and possible revenue to the city.

3.      Vital Statistics – No change here.  I don’t see the significance of the presence of Middlesex Hospital in Middletown has on who keeps vital statistics within the city.  But, again, the commission reviewed the issue with the Town Clerk and Health Department and took their recommendation.

4.      Information Technology Advisory Committee – I offer my services as a member of  this committee.  I have over 20 years’ experience with information technology, from building and programming computers, to designing and building networks and databases.

5.      & 6.  Performance Planning and Measurement – an excellent recommendation and brings the city in-line with current business practice.  When do we get a status update?

7.      Supervisory/Management Skills Training – ditto.  When do we get a status update?

8.      Personnel Rules Review and making them available on the city web-site.  Excellent.  All city documents, rules, ordinances, job descriptions should be easily available on the web-site.  When do we get a status update?

9.      Internal Controls and Fiduciary Responsibility – see comments above.

10.   Information Technology – merge into the Finance Department.  In the past that was where most corporations located the IT department, since the Finance Department owned most of the computers and software.  As computers have evolved, most corporations have separate IT departments which serve all other departments.  If the IT department is short of staff, I’m not sure how that will be helped by this merger.  If the issue is staff shortage, add staff, don’t merge it into another department.  This is a step backward in organization, but it is not without precedent.

11.  Financial Management – Buried in this recommendation is the new position of Grant Writer.  Is this the Grant Writer that Mayor Drew hired as soon as he took office, or is this a second Grant Writer?  Either way, I would be interested to get a report on the success of the this new position, i.e. how many grants have been applied for count and amount, how many have been received, count and amount.  Has this position increased the amount of money received by the city compared to past years?

12.  Merge the Legal and Human Resources Department.  This is the ugly one.  I’m not aware of any major corporation where this is the organizational structure.  Our new city attorney claims that Adidas, Citrix, and multiple municipalities in Michigan operate this way.  They may, but they are the exceptions, not that standard practice.  Law and HR are two different skill sets.  The Human Resources Department needs to be run by a Human Resources professional, with appropriate staff.  The legal department needs to be independent of and an advisor to, all other city departments.  The organization chart shows a Director of Human Resources with one-half of an administrative assistant.  In contrast to recommendations #1 and #3, there is no mention here about consultation with the HR Director.  I don’t see how an office of  4 is cut down to 1.5.  That math doesn’t work.  I’ll point out, again, that three of the nine task force members were lawyers.  I know lawyers are intelligent, highly trained people. But, they are trained in Law.  Not Human Resources.  This is not the place to try and shave costs.

13.  Merge Arts and Culture and the Building Division of Public Works to Planning and Zoning.  This one I don’t understand at all.  Arts & Culture, Buildings and Planning and Zoning?  Let’s use some actual logic here.  Put Arts and Culture with Recreation and Buildings with Public Works. 

14.  Merge Parks Division and Parking Department into Public Works – this makes perfect sense.  Facilities and property all under one director.  Good recommendation.

15.  Merge Senior Services into Recreation – makes sense. Programs for recreation in one area. This is where the Arts and Culture belongs.  Not in Planning and Zoning.

One recommendation I don’t see: Merge Water and Sewer under Public Works.  This is a logical combination.  It would consolidate vehicle service and maintenance, allow for close coordination of maintenance of streets, buildings, underground utilities and water & sewer.  I would also eliminate a Director and one or more deputy positions, saving the city a significant amount in salary and benefits. 

And before I sign off, I have to comment on the title:  “Mayor Daniel Drew’s Bi-partisan Task Force”?  Isn’t that a little grandiose?  In the past, it was sufficient to say “The Mayor’s Task Force”.

Thanks,

Ken McClellan

Chairman, Middletown Republican Town Committee
-------------------------------------

B.S.

Editor's note:  Want to know more about the Government ReOrg?
Read the Insider Staff's analysis of the Government ReOrg here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/city-governmen-re-org-part-ii.html  

The misleading merge of City Legal & BOE Legal: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/apple-oranges-boe-budget-hikes.html
John Milardo spoke of the downsides of the Governmnet ReOrg in a previous Guest Blog piece here: ://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/guest-blog-his-town.html
Councilmember Linda Salafia also comments on negative aspects here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/letter-editor-government-reorg-costly.html

Read the full report for yourself here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/mayors-task-force-on-efficiency-report.html and packages here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/who-gets-what-drew-cleans-house-with.html

Letter the Editor: Government ReOrg Costly In Many Ways

Letter to the Editor from Councilwoman Linda Salafia

Letters to the editor are published as courtesy and not necessarily reflect the opinions of Insider Staff.  Government ReOrg report his here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/mayors-task-force-on-efficiency-report.html

I voted against the incentive plan offered to the Teamsters and the non-bargaining directors because I feel that it's not a good move for the City.  However, I also believe that  the employees that opted to retire should not be blamed or faulted in any way for making their decision to retire.  I'm actually surprised that more didn't take the offer!!  Even though there is an MOU between the City and the union, retirement incentives are not generally negotiated; it's usually offered to the union by the administration as a take it or leave it situation; and since unions are in the business of looking out for their members' best interests, they agree.

Now, I feel that the incentive was not a good move because for the City to save money, they need to not replace the retiring employees at the same level that they were at.  Mayor Drew has said that he's only replacing those employees that are required by law and those in key positions.  Also, he promised that for the January Common Council meeting he would bring forward his plans for the reorganization that he has in mind.  However, so far, most of those positions vacated have been replaced by employees appointed in the acting capacity including the Deputy Personnel Director being appointed as Acting Personnel Director.  I realize that employees were promoted so that down the chain of command there are vacancies; however, this was not what was presented as the reason for the incentive:  the incentive was presented to allow for reorganization.  So tell me:  if you put people into the vacant positions with the exact same job descriptions and duties as the retiring employee had, how are you going to change those positions or eliminate those positions through a reorganization without affecting the employee in the position.  Seems to me that you're back to the same status that you were at before the incentive: an active employee in the position that you wanted to modify????  Seems to me that prior to the incentive, if you'd modified the job and the active employee didn't want to do the modified job, they could have retired; now you've got employees in the position that you want to modify that it's eligible to retire and will have to take a new job, reduced pay or something - I just don't see that happening.  That's why I think that the reorganization should have come before any retirement incentive.

By the way, we were promised that the plans would be presented at the January meeting but nothing.  I'll add it to the list of things I'm waiting for:  the report on the outcome of the China trip; the actions taken after the report on the Water and Sewer Department issues.  Although I have read the report by the committee on government efficiency, it has not been actually presented to the Common Council for approval and implementation.  Simply the administration could share with the whole council a flow chart of proposed hierarchy of departments and reorganization.  Hopefully, one has been done by now.

Another, reason that I've problems with the incentive that was offered:  it's huge brain drain on the City.  There were quite a few 466 employees who retired over the last few years and now with these retirements, the City is losing much of it's historical knowledge.  Seems to me that you're going to be repeating mistakes already made; these are the people who know what's been tried before and worked and what didn't.  Not to say that things can't necessarily be done differently, but you just extended the learning curve significantly and can we as a City afford that???

I certainly do not in any way shape or form, blame those employees who accept this incentive and wish them all well!!!  They all serve the City well and the City is in debt to their years of service.  I for one am sorry that they retired.

Linda Salafia

Common Council Member (R)