joeglow wrote:icejammer wrote:
Regardless of who's to blame for the current situation, aren't you glad that new controls are being put in place (or soon will be), so as to improve accountability? Or are you just so blinded by hate that you can't see the forest for the trees?
Honestly, I think it is lip service so as to avoid angering the fire union. If I, as an accountant, were in charge of this, I would have been fired immediately. Who has gotten canned over it?
How is it lip service when multiple controls have already been put in place and (presumably) more are forthcoming, per the report? I don't think an auditor had anything to do with the lack of process, bookkeeping was all done by civilian employees, presumably none of whom were accountants. As to who gets canned, if people weren't following procedures properly, and their was intent to defraud or commit a crime, then let the legal system take over, otherwise let City policy dictate personnel issues.
They have blown over their budget every year for MANY years in a row. Last year, they were $5M over budget. How can we have ANY confidence that the generous pension packages handed out in the last few years are at all reliable (as they are based on payroll records that are non-existent)?
It remains to be seen why they've blown their budget, and not to quibble, the payroll records lack documentation, they're not non-existent. Certainly it should be cause for concern that this payroll issue has been on-going for many years, and if there has been intent to defraud, then the legal system should step in.
Why, when private groups were able to simply at look documents made available to the public and brought their finances to his attention MONTHS ago did he not look into it? Why did he immediately dismiss them?
I'm not familiar with how many months ago this was brought to his attention, but from the report it appears that the administration has been looking into it for many months now. Whether it was dimissed at first glance, I don't know, but it has been taken seriously now for some time.
Why, instead of running to pass tax increases, did he not look into cost savings available in the fire department? Is he going to come out soon and say "give us some time and we will fix this, thereby generating many cost savings, allowing us to roll back some of these tax increases?"
Maybe he would, does anyone know for a fact that he won't? Probably the 2 biggest cost savings areas deal with pension and the number of firefighters per truck - both are going to require Council action (and the Council has looked at both, and not gone far enough, perhaps they should share in some of your wrath).
Aren't you hoping Suttle FINALLY listens to the public and scrutinizes the fire department, cleans house with the inefficient employees who have wasted our money for years, and rolls back tax cuts that will no longer be needed? Or are you just so blinded by partisan love that you can't see the forest for the trees?
Not blinded by partisan "love" at all, I'm looking at this from all angles without any preconceived ideas. If there are unnecessary employees, then by all means eliminate. If cost savings can be realized, by all means, reduce taxes. But do it in a manner that takes into account all factors, not as a knee-jerk reaction to one of Hal Daub's lapdogs trying to raise a stink.
I doubt Suttle is going to listen anymore than he already has - that doesn't mean he's disengaged from the process though. Certainly City Council weighs heavily in all of this, and I would go after them with suggestions to reduce waste and try to redirect energies to solving the City's problem, instead of looking out for their best (political) interest.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
--William Jennings Bryan
