Layoffs Revisted

PART ONE

Last December, I posted several articles concerning the 2004 layoffs by the City Manager. If you would check the December Archives and the last one dated 12/26/05 in particular, it will put this one in perspective.
-
Recently one of the employees laid off contacted us because she was attempting to secure a part-time position with the City. Prior to the lay off she had served in the identical full-time position for over 15 years. When the Interim City Manager was asked about the City’s rehiring policy, she replied as follows:
-
“We do not have any current policy regarding re-hiring. We currently hire the best candidate for the position. Experience in the city would be a factor in looking at the best person for the position. I know we have re-hired people in the past but we have no requirement to do so. It is based on what is best for the city and the best person available to fill the position.
-
With this type of disregard for those laid off, three members of the Council have sponsored a resolution establishing a procedure addressing their plight. They are Susan Clyne, Sheri Paiz and Jim Miller. The resolution requires that such former employees be given a preference in seeking reemployment with the City. As a safeguard there are reasonable restrictions. The resolution will be considered at the Council meeting scheduled for Thursday March 23rd.

PART TWO

The reason for the 2004 layoffs has recently been in the news because they were mainly unjustified due to an accounting error that was just revealed to the public. I say recently because the staff, with the knowledge of a select few on the Council, withheld the information from the public until after the last Mayoral and Council election. I recently received an email that addresses this and other problems with the layoffs; including their true motivation. The following is hard hitting but valuable in that it is the truth and it helps to put the Interim Manager’s statement into perspective. I offer it with minor editing and some redactions.
-
“The truth is that City Manager Phil Nelson saw the fund balance that had been developed over the years for the next rainy day( in retail sales) and went nuts over hiring staff until the finance forecast came back from Bob Eichem that the City could not afford the extra bodies. Yes, some of the forecast included the lost sales tax deposited in the utility fund but that in itself was not the cause of the massive layoff. It was Phil Nelson’s over hiring.
-
Then came the choice of who had to go. Would it be the seasoned, loyal and experienced employees who didn't embrace the new philosophy or the new hires that were eager to be paid high salaries and follow the Nutcase to the Promised Land? The decision was easy and the old crew had to go. The "retirees" were given a simple choice, leave with a severance package or wait for layoffs and maybe get nothing. So seventeen good souls bailed because they wanted something for all their hard work and dedication plus they needed a financial assist to make it to the replacement job.
-
Then, when the number of takers were not enough, next comes the orchestrated layoff of another selected group of seasoned and experienced employees so Phil Nelson could keep his over hires to kiss his feet. The Council, not aware of any of this, let Phil destroy decades of dedicated, hardworking, and experienced staff so as to have the new-hires follow him to the Promised Land.
-
Now that the City has little depth of staff, no experience and has ignored the service needs of the community for several years, the Finance Director comes out to straighten the record on the layoffs. It's a bunch of xxxxxxxx! Good people have been screwed over by this and somebody needs to skewer the xxxxxxxx who did it, continue to hide it, and propagate the xxxxxxxx for daily consumption by misguided Kathie and her moronic followers.”
-
I have been hitting hard on the senior staff at City Hall for two reasons: 1) Their direction and lack of knowledge and experience is adversely affecting the services we are receiving, and 2) The Mayor and her devotees on the Council have thus far refused to accept the truth or even look into the information I have presented. I personally know that they are absolutely convinced that all is well. Until present and former employees or you come forward anonymously or else wise, nothing is going to change until the election in November 2007 when hopefully Mayor Novak looses her devotees on the Council.