Full-time Glenville supervisor is nothing new, and fully justified
The Gazette [Nov. 18 editorial] and political operatives [in Glenville] are wrong to suggest that the move to full-time supervisor is something new. Anyone engaged in the campaign and even before know that I have often suggested that the supervisor’s job is a full-time one and should be compensated appropriately.
I did say it during the public forum of the campaign, when I said, “You need a full-time supervisor here.” I did not say that I was going to become one necessarily, because [Operations Director] Jamie [MacFarland] did not decide to retire until Nov. 6, when he informed the board.
I did not feel it was appropriate for me to call for his job while he was still in it just to score political points and give myself “cover.”
The timing is difficult because state law requires the budget to be filed by Nov. 20, and once filed, elected positions can’t have their compensation changed.
Once the board got the news and made a decision, I called the Gazette to inform them so that people would know about it before it was brought up at the meeting on the 20th. I am the one who informed the media before the vote, so there was full disclosure.
Everyone seems to agree that it’s the right move; some have just suggested that they have had more time to think about it. If I could alter the budget schedule, I would, but I can’t. I can only make the best decisions possible under the circumstances provided.
This is actually a budget-saver, and we cut costs under this proposal, both in the short term and in the long run. When I came into office four years ago, we had three people in this role: town administrator; human resources director, who oversaw parks, seniors, and information technology too; and the part-time supervisor. All told, the town paid three people about $200K to do this work. We changed the model and eliminated the town administrator and saved over $150k when you factor all of his benefits, and paid the HR director and the part-time supervisor just $103,000 in salary to do the same work. We consolidated three jobs into two.
Now, all we’re doing is replacing the director of operations with a full-time supervisor at no new costs. If the supervisor doesn’t go full-time, then someone will have to be hired.
Some have wondered why I would want to bring the director of operations back in a part-time capacity. As I have been saying since the start of the budget process, a full quarter of our staff is up for retirement sometime in 2014. That is going to create tremendous organizational change in the town. I asked the board for Jamie’s help during this transition because nobody knows this town, its departments and staff better, and we can benefit from his expertise.
This has been a difficult decision for me and one that I have not taken lightly. I have always made the decisions that are best for this town, even if it meant I was criticized at the time. This is one of those occasions.
If Jamie leaves and the supervisor isn’t full-time for some unknown reason, then what? Who fills that position? How do we manage so much change with no director of operations and no full-time supervisor? Someone has to fill that position, so why not the elected supervisor, who’s directly accountable to the people?
Help the people help themselves
New concept: School district, social services [and] workforce development collaborate on a curriculum to train and find resources to pay public assistance, unemployment insurance beneficiaries, and returning vets to work in all school hallways, monitoring and modeling behavior.
I’m sure a bit of collaboration could come up with funding to sustain such positions. Doing this provides skill training and income to adults. It provides identifiable, trusted role models and safety for kids.
No single demographic or funding stream can do what’s needed. I wish city and county power brokers would look into doing this.
Obama’s remedy won’t cure patient’s sickness
When is enough enough?
President Obama falsely sold the American people on Obamacare. As a fix, he is willing to extend your health care options for another year. This is still not in line with his promises.
Now Congress wants to make sure the American people get what they were promised, and the president says he will veto that. How can you conclude anything other than he was not sincere from the beginning?
The longer this goes on, the more dramatic the hurt is to the American people.
That wouldn’t be a Christmas tree, would it?
The Nov. 12 Gazette featured an article about a tree that was donated for the purpose of decorating the Empire State Plaza. The Gazette referred to the tree as a holiday tree.
To which holiday were you referring?
The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.
There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.
All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.
Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.
For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.