July 2, 2010
ANALYSIS: A Convoluted Council Option Set Off Discussion of City Hall Closure, 4 Day Work Week, Union Issues, and Retaining Three Employees
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – The three job saving budget revision by the Wolfe Administration and council’s approval on Monday, June 28, had extenuating ramifications beyond that which was written on paper. Council found itself caught in a potential union busting squabble intertwined with their own designs to provide input on the shortened work week and Friday closing of City Hall. The executive branch (the mayor) made that decision.
Although some council members have criticized the administration for lack of input into the 4-day work week, it allowed the administration to reduce layoffs from nine to six. Six employees --- three from the motor pool and one from finance, IT and human resources are to be let go.
(Members of the police, fire, sanitation and trash departments, plus the Municipal Parking board are unaffected by the four day work schedule. Neither are positions that receive funding from grants, such as CDBG.)
NON NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL
Council had previously expressed their beefs --- non-notification of the major work week decision and no one in the administration consulting them.
At large councilman Steve Williams stated, “I don’t agree with the policy [of closing]; it’s poorly crafted.” However, he acknowledged that the administration was not obligated to bring the decision before council.
“We have been able to work together [in the past] due to an open dialogue,” Williams lamented, adding his concern that “we have tough times in front of us.”
Williams originally would have voted ‘no’ on the resolution as a symbolic gesture , but decided that his “heart” made him reconsider when balancing mere symbolism versus three people in the unemployment lines.
Fellow council member Russ Houck reminded members , that by charter, “Council is not allowed to be involved in personnel matters,” he said.
City Attorney Scott McClure also advised it is within the providence of the executive [branch] to operate within the budget approved by council. The budget revision neither increased nor decreased spending, it simply made “changes within divisions,” Ms. Jacobs-Jones explained.
Councilman Nate Randolph pushed agreements and disagreements aside concluding, “I’m not crazy about the four day week [but this vote] doesn’t have to do with the four day week…”
Councilwoman Frances Jackson agreed. “It doesn’t matter how we vote; we have the four day work week.”
Since some members of council are working on a securing consensus for a tax reform package that would include a restructured occupation tax, council member Jim Ritter, grumbled that although council voted to increase the service fee from $2 to $3, the administration did not include one or more council representatives in the controversial paving policy , Friday City Hall closing, and the 36-hour work weeks.
A slightly baffled Ritter repeated out loud, “No one on the governing body [was] included,” then concluded, “It seems like somebody is trying to force my hand.”
He did not state how his hand (or vote) would be forced, but speculatively one could presume his comment related to the upcoming reintroduction of city tax reforms.
HOW WE GOT HERE
When council approved the 2010-2011 budget, current revenue reductions forced an austere financial plan that included furloughs, layoffs, and ten percent pay cuts for most city employees. Council excluded the police and fire departments from these cuts, although overtime and other areas were trimmed.
At the time of passage, council member anticipated adopting a one-per-cent occupation tax proposed by Mayor Kim Wolfe. However, following strong public opposition and opposition from Marshall University and the Chamber of Commerce, council tabled the occupation tax as proposed. Instead, council has been working on tax reform packages that could add an occupation tax (with caps) and a 1% city sales tax along with removal of the user fee and a decrease or elimination of some business and occupation tax burdens on business.
After council could not obtain a consensus to add new revenues, Mayor Wolfe announced June 4 how the executive branch would implement the serious budget cutbacks. Those changes included the closure of City Hall on Fridays, 36 hour work weeks compressed in four days (to achieve a 10% pay cut), and other measures.
Three days later at the June 7 Finance Committee meeting, City Finance Director Deron Runyon revealed an estimated $100,000 carryover and utilization of $325,000 from contingency for regular expenses to wrap the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Proposed contingency uses resulted in Council Finance Committee Chair, Steve Williams, asking Runyon, “why have we not seen the numbers before?”
Afterwards, the committee session continued in a carryover/contingency dispute widening to whether council had been bypassed in making the decisions announced by the Mayor June 4.
Then, on June 25, Mayor Wolfe told the council work session that Local 598 of AFSCME had sued the city to block the new work schedules.
The City of Huntington has not negotiated new contracts with the police, fire or AFSCME employees; however, the police and fire department employees have civil service protections that AFSCME employees do not. Contacts were extended in 2008 by Mayor David Felinton , excluding the health insurance benefit package, which was altered, resulting in a raise in premiums and a reduction in cost to the city.
LOOKING AHEAD
Meanwhile, visions of a worsening 2009-2010 carryover emerged. A negative $100,000 was voiced, but with revenues continuing to drop, the possibility for a greater deficit exists.
After the meeting, a frustrated Steve Williams figuratively shook his head. Essentially, he did say ‘I told you so,’ related to his own financial savvy worries that continually questioned rosy city financial projections in the Fall of 2009. He had expressed a philosophy and/or management style that reacting to bleeding at the earliest would have meant less pain than having larger cutbacks absorbed in fewer months.
On the other hand, in Mid May , Mayor Wolfe, who was not present at the Monday council meeting, provided insight into the city’s fiscal future decisions after council tabled the administration backed occupation tax. Wolfe told HNN the ball was in council’s court.
“Council has it now; I can voice my opinion, but they will ultimately make the decision,” the Mayor said in the May 19 article. Read the full version by clicking here: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/100519-rutherford-localsalestax.html.
Despite all the disagreements over HOW to continue improving the City of Huntington, both the administration and council members are all on record for moving the city forward. Thus, a comment from the Monday meeting by at large member, Rebecca Thacker stands out: “Working together must be a two-way street.”
Perhaps, it will take the wisdom of the court to solve the decision dilemma on length of work weeks, but council and the administration have already obtained word from the state’s Home Rule committee that they will expedite consideration of approval (or rejection) of a tax reform package should council agree on one.
Unless the court intervenes the new hours for City Hall will be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Some office hours vary.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
ANALYSIS: A Convoluted Council Option Set Off Discussion of City Hall Closure, 4 Day Work Week, Union Issues, and Retaining Three Employees
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – The three job saving budget revision by the Wolfe Administration and council’s approval on Monday, June 28, had extenuating ramifications beyond that which was written on paper. Council found itself caught in a potential union busting squabble intertwined with their own designs to provide input on the shortened work week and Friday closing of City Hall. The executive branch (the mayor) made that decision.
Although some council members have criticized the administration for lack of input into the 4-day work week, it allowed the administration to reduce layoffs from nine to six. Six employees --- three from the motor pool and one from finance, IT and human resources are to be let go.
(Members of the police, fire, sanitation and trash departments, plus the Municipal Parking board are unaffected by the four day work schedule. Neither are positions that receive funding from grants, such as CDBG.)
NON NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL
Council had previously expressed their beefs --- non-notification of the major work week decision and no one in the administration consulting them.
At large councilman Steve Williams stated, “I don’t agree with the policy [of closing]; it’s poorly crafted.” However, he acknowledged that the administration was not obligated to bring the decision before council.
“We have been able to work together [in the past] due to an open dialogue,” Williams lamented, adding his concern that “we have tough times in front of us.”
Williams originally would have voted ‘no’ on the resolution as a symbolic gesture , but decided that his “heart” made him reconsider when balancing mere symbolism versus three people in the unemployment lines.
Fellow council member Russ Houck reminded members , that by charter, “Council is not allowed to be involved in personnel matters,” he said.
City Attorney Scott McClure also advised it is within the providence of the executive [branch] to operate within the budget approved by council. The budget revision neither increased nor decreased spending, it simply made “changes within divisions,” Ms. Jacobs-Jones explained.
Councilman Nate Randolph pushed agreements and disagreements aside concluding, “I’m not crazy about the four day week [but this vote] doesn’t have to do with the four day week…”
Councilwoman Frances Jackson agreed. “It doesn’t matter how we vote; we have the four day work week.”
Since some members of council are working on a securing consensus for a tax reform package that would include a restructured occupation tax, council member Jim Ritter, grumbled that although council voted to increase the service fee from $2 to $3, the administration did not include one or more council representatives in the controversial paving policy , Friday City Hall closing, and the 36-hour work weeks.
A slightly baffled Ritter repeated out loud, “No one on the governing body [was] included,” then concluded, “It seems like somebody is trying to force my hand.”
He did not state how his hand (or vote) would be forced, but speculatively one could presume his comment related to the upcoming reintroduction of city tax reforms.
HOW WE GOT HERE
When council approved the 2010-2011 budget, current revenue reductions forced an austere financial plan that included furloughs, layoffs, and ten percent pay cuts for most city employees. Council excluded the police and fire departments from these cuts, although overtime and other areas were trimmed.
At the time of passage, council member anticipated adopting a one-per-cent occupation tax proposed by Mayor Kim Wolfe. However, following strong public opposition and opposition from Marshall University and the Chamber of Commerce, council tabled the occupation tax as proposed. Instead, council has been working on tax reform packages that could add an occupation tax (with caps) and a 1% city sales tax along with removal of the user fee and a decrease or elimination of some business and occupation tax burdens on business.
After council could not obtain a consensus to add new revenues, Mayor Wolfe announced June 4 how the executive branch would implement the serious budget cutbacks. Those changes included the closure of City Hall on Fridays, 36 hour work weeks compressed in four days (to achieve a 10% pay cut), and other measures.
Three days later at the June 7 Finance Committee meeting, City Finance Director Deron Runyon revealed an estimated $100,000 carryover and utilization of $325,000 from contingency for regular expenses to wrap the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Proposed contingency uses resulted in Council Finance Committee Chair, Steve Williams, asking Runyon, “why have we not seen the numbers before?”
Afterwards, the committee session continued in a carryover/contingency dispute widening to whether council had been bypassed in making the decisions announced by the Mayor June 4.
Then, on June 25, Mayor Wolfe told the council work session that Local 598 of AFSCME had sued the city to block the new work schedules.
The City of Huntington has not negotiated new contracts with the police, fire or AFSCME employees; however, the police and fire department employees have civil service protections that AFSCME employees do not. Contacts were extended in 2008 by Mayor David Felinton , excluding the health insurance benefit package, which was altered, resulting in a raise in premiums and a reduction in cost to the city.
LOOKING AHEAD
Meanwhile, visions of a worsening 2009-2010 carryover emerged. A negative $100,000 was voiced, but with revenues continuing to drop, the possibility for a greater deficit exists.
After the meeting, a frustrated Steve Williams figuratively shook his head. Essentially, he did say ‘I told you so,’ related to his own financial savvy worries that continually questioned rosy city financial projections in the Fall of 2009. He had expressed a philosophy and/or management style that reacting to bleeding at the earliest would have meant less pain than having larger cutbacks absorbed in fewer months.
On the other hand, in Mid May , Mayor Wolfe, who was not present at the Monday council meeting, provided insight into the city’s fiscal future decisions after council tabled the administration backed occupation tax. Wolfe told HNN the ball was in council’s court.
“Council has it now; I can voice my opinion, but they will ultimately make the decision,” the Mayor said in the May 19 article. Read the full version by clicking here: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/100519-rutherford-localsalestax.html.
Despite all the disagreements over HOW to continue improving the City of Huntington, both the administration and council members are all on record for moving the city forward. Thus, a comment from the Monday meeting by at large member, Rebecca Thacker stands out: “Working together must be a two-way street.”
Perhaps, it will take the wisdom of the court to solve the decision dilemma on length of work weeks, but council and the administration have already obtained word from the state’s Home Rule committee that they will expedite consideration of approval (or rejection) of a tax reform package should council agree on one.
Unless the court intervenes the new hours for City Hall will be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Some office hours vary.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
