Steve, apparently there never was an election called for. When one of our officials called the election board to inquire about it, they were told that nothing had ever been started in reference to this election.

Alright then....

Steve, you know we dont get much more than wages, insurance and job security. There are no bonuses for workers like us. I do wonder what a Christmas bonus would be like? And Job security is a benefit I suppose.

Um... if I answer that Mike you're gonna get mad at me. So I'll stay quiet and we'll remain cool. I'm betting when we both retire you'll be the guy who can afford to buy us both a meal at Mickey Mantle Steakhouse.
;)

Might be a toss up. I don't see any of us getting wealthy in our chosen fields. Maybe Texas Roadhouse. I'll buy.

See, here's the deal: you spend all your time online criticizing any effort to bring retail into Bricktown, but are you even visiting the stores that open? And if you're frustrated with how things are going, have you considered getting involved and finding out how to play a role in getting it all changed?
(oh wait - that's a flashback - post traumatic digital stress syndrome)

You might need some sleep.LOL

Nope. Can't sleep yet. Watching Thunder game. What the heck do you guys at the station have on? If it's a cooking show, I'll be really, really disappointed.

Going back to the election, if we could take anything they say at face value it would make dealing with them a lot simpler. It seems to be a pattern that we hear one thing on the news and a completely different thing face to face. Very frustrating.

No cooking show. Thunder all the way. Up by 1!

Disappointing loss. Great season.

Loved how the crowd gave a standing ovation after game loss. Reminds me why I love this city.

Agree completely. The people are one of the biggest selling points this city has IMO.

Didn't see that report. Intriguing. There's an item on the council docket tonight - apparently the May 11th contract election is canceled, but since I'm not covering all this, I'm just an avg guy trying to figure this whole thing out. Looks like city staff and/or council is not happy with the ballot that they feel was being forced on them.


Steve, apparently there never was an election called for. When one of our officials called the election board to inquire about it, they were told that nothing had ever been started in reference to this election.


Oklahoma City pushes election back on fire union (Oklahoman, 11/11/09) NewsOK (http://newsok.com/feed/oklahoma-city-pushes-election-back-on-fire-union/article/3416425?custom_click=pod_headline_news)

The election was scheduled for February, but council members changed the date to May 11 to allow time for a lawsuit to play out over the language on the ballot.
...
...the election needed to be postponed because of the litigation. The city and the fire union continue to negotiate over the contract, with the city making a new offer last week. If they reach an agreement, the election would be canceled.

The article also explains the Ballot language debate.

Since the election was canceled, does that mean an agreement was reached? If so, what was the agreement?

Steve, I always say I'm a blessed man 3 kids, 2 jobs and 1 wife. So I may buy you a steak. I would probably go to Cusacks or Wheelers and pick up some T-bones cause I'm cheap like that.

Larry OKC, there is no agreement. The city has said they will not agree to anything until we remove any and all language about them being found guilty of an unfair labor practice. The arbitraitor found them guilty and it is in their ruling. The city is scrambling now to get some kind of concessions, but the economy is getting better and soon they wont be able to justify that or lay offs. Another day in paradise!!

Like Mikemarsh said, there has been no agreement reached. They have turned down the FF's offer to settle, without the raise awarded in arbitration, at least 3 times now.

I think the point your missing about the election is that there are deadlines to meet in order to have the election put together. There are ballots to approve and print, and machines to program, test and deliver before an election can take place. They have apparently not even attempted to start this process with the election board, let alone meet these deadlines. If the election board hasn't even been contacted about an election, let alone postponing one, what are we supposed to believe?

The ballot language issue was a foregone conclusion. The city broke the law, plain and simple. They then went to court and tried to get the judge to overlook the fact that they broke the law and allow them to put illegal language on the ballot. I can't believe they really expected to prevail in this. Quite the waste of taxpayers money.

(Bold print for emphasis, not shouting.)

Ok, not my town, but I do find it fascinating at times. So the newest twist is the city dropped the ball on setting up the election ... and no one knew?

That seems a bit egg on the face. Not just folk in city govt., but also the the union, and the press.

Rather odd.

Ok, not my town, but I do find it fascinating at times. So the newest twist is the city dropped the ball on setting up the election ... and no one knew?
The twist is that even though they have put out two dates for the proposed election(the original date and the posponed date) they apparently haven't taken the first steps to make them happen. When they put out dates for elections, you take it for granted that they have taken the initial steps to make it happen. We've been taking them at their word since it didn't seem to be in their best interest to put it out there if it wasn't true. And yes, someone knew. They knew.


That seems a bit egg on the face. Not just folk in city govt., but also the the union, and the press.
I'm not sure how the union has egg on their face since it's not incumbent on them to follow through on the citys announced intention to have an election. They're just waiting to be told when. In their defense, they did start doing some calling when things started to sound screwy.


Rather odd.
Not really. Not if you've ever dealt with them from our side of things. Fairly typical, sad to say.

I get your points Wambo, but from a distance, there does seem enough egg to go around.

The union folks, at least my understanding of it from prior articles and active members posting here, have a need to educate the public regarding the election, at least if they want to influence the vote they do.

Frankly, they seem to have missed a nice PR moment on their side.

Envision if you will, rather than multiple proposals pressing the language that they knew was a stumbling block if the union called a presser and took the city to task for announcing an election to the public, and apparently changing its date, but having never taken the proper steps to hold an election. Might of made a nice little seize the day moment, and a stronger one than is available at this late date.

To say the union relied on the city to have done what it said, when most comments are the union doesn't feel it can rely on the city, to do what it says in lots of other ways, just seems odd.

I can agree that's not as odd as the city having way more egg on its face by botching the whole process, but it is still a tad odd, at least to me.
mileage can vary and all that I suppose.

I have a hunch the next time the city announces an election, of just about any sort, but especially one that impacts the PS folks, there will be one less presumption by the PS leadership.

I have a hunch the same is true for the 4th estate. After all, to be reporting on an election that isn't even going to happen .... not their finest hour either.

The twist is that even though they have put out two dates for the proposed election(the original date and the posponed date) they apparently haven't taken the first steps to make them happen. When they put out dates for elections, you take it for granted that they have taken the initial steps to make it happen. We've been taking them at their word since it didn't seem to be in their best interest to put it out there if it wasn't true. And yes, someone knew. They knew.


I'm not sure how the union has egg on their face since it's not incumbent on them to follow through on the citys announced intention to have an election. They're just waiting to be told when. In their defense, they did start doing some calling when things started to sound screwy.


Not really. Not if you've ever dealt with them from our side of things. Fairly typical, sad to say.

Wow, Wambo36 spewing how the City is totally at fault/wrong, and the Union is right, who would have guessed. I know for a fact that the City did file a request with the Election Board, it might be time to find a new source for your information, if it's coming from the Union Officers, maybe something to remember at the next election.

Well danielf, maybe you can share where your info is coming from. You see, I question whether they ever really had any intent of going to an election in the first place. Maybe that's why, when called, the election board hadn't heard anything about it. Or maybe, it was dependant on getting a judge to overlook the illegal ballot language they wanted to use. Or maybe, they keep turning down the offers to settle because they secretly want to give us the raise and back pay instread. Why don't you ask your super secret and reliable source with the city to answer those questions dan. Ask them why the Firechief is calling people in to advise them of their impending layoff while the mayor is still promising, not only no layoffs but, even more FF's on tv. That would be some interesting info to hear. Let us know when you get those answers dan.

Please let me know how the FF's are at fault, or to blame, for anything to do with the canceling of the citys election.

By the way, are you still planning to address the council if/when they begin layoffs?

Both the City and Fire of publicly stated that neither wants an election as they see it as a bad PR all the way around. It publicly pits "us against them" and with the recent bad feelings over MAPS 3, neither side seems anxious to repeat. It is in the best interests of all involved to handle it in the usual manner. But if they can't do that, an election seems to be the option of last resort. And from what I have read, the next legal step in the process if they haven't come to an agreement. That said, if the election has been canceled (rather than postponed), it implies that an agreement has been reached??

Well danielf, maybe you can share where your info is coming from. You see, I question whether they ever really had any intent of going to an election in the first place. Maybe that's why, when called, the election board hadn't heard anything about it. Or maybe, it was dependant on getting a judge to overlook the illegal ballot language they wanted to use. Or maybe, they keep turning down the offers to settle because they secretly want to give us the raise and back pay instread. Why don't you ask your super secret and reliable source with the city to answer those questions dan. Ask them why the Firechief is calling people in to advise them of their impending layoff while the mayor is still promising, not only no layoffs but, even more FF's on tv. That would be some interesting info to hear. Let us know when you get those answers dan.

Please let me know how the FF's are at fault, or to blame, for anything to do with the canceling of the citys election.

By the way, are you still planning to address the council if/when they begin layoffs?

Absolutely, and not just Public Safety layoffs. You do understand that all departments are taking hits, the one I'm most connected to (Parks) is eliminating 20 positions. In turn, it would be nice if the Police and Fire would support all City employees, not be so self serving and support all City Employees, Union and Non-Union.

[/COLOR]

Absolutely, and not just Public Safety layoffs. You do understand that all departments are taking hits, the one I'm most connected to (Parks) is eliminating 20 positions. In turn, it would be nice if the Police and Fire would support all City employees, not be so self serving and support all City Employees, Union and Non-Union.


(My first thought.....Parks cant put my house fire out, or catch the guy that beat my neighbor up....). How do they not support city employees? They have this monumental fight in their own areas, why would they take on the fight of the other city employees....(why cant those city folks do that themselves?). I would think its because they CANt speak for the other departments. Each one has its own rules, bylaws, ways of operating, policies and procedures, pay scales etc...Why should another department step in to fight for a city department that is almost completely different from them?

Good to hear. I'll tell you what, you give me some ideas an how to help support the employees in the other departments and I'll see what we can do. The cuts to the parks and rec dept. seem terribly deep to me. They've already done away with pretty much every pool the city operated and now the shutting down of the fish hatchery against the advice of the state wildlife biologist. Seems a little deep to me but honestly I don't hear anyone standing up to say enough. Like NikoNurse said, why is there nothing but silence from AFSCME? Before they can be helped by anyone else, they have to try and help themselves. Maybe that should be your first trip before the council. It might help if the council thought someone cared, other than the employees losing their jobs.

You didn't answer my question, how are the FF's at fault, or to blame, for the citys inability to call for an election properly?

Actually, you pretty much skipped all of the questions but the last one. That's no way to have a conversation.

Both the City and Fire of publicly stated that neither wants an election as they see it as a bad PR all the way around. It publicly pits "us against them" and with the recent bad feelings over MAPS 3, neither side seems anxious to repeat. It is in the best interests of all involved to handle it in the usual manner. But if they can't do that, an election seems to be the option of last resort. And from what I have read, the next legal step in the process if they haven't come to an agreement. That said, if the election has been canceled (rather than postponed), it implies that an agreement has been reached??

I think what it implies is that they have given up on getting a court to overlook the law and allow them to use the illegal ballot language they want to. At least for now.

As of this moment there has been no agreement reached. The election was pretty much the last ditch effort they're afforded by the process, unless I'm missing something. They've lost at every other turn provided to them. That being said, their next move should be interesting.

(My first thought.....Parks cant put my house fire out, or catch the guy that beat my neighbor up....). How do they not support city employees? They have this monumental fight in their own areas, why would they take on the fight of the other city employees....(why cant those city folks do that themselves?). I would think its because they CANt speak for the other departments. Each one has its own rules, bylaws, ways of operating, policies and procedures, pay scales etc...Why should another department step in to fight for a city department that is almost completely different from them?

I think a better question is why shouldn't they. I have yet to speak to one of several friends/acquaintances that still work for the Parks Department that doesn't feel the same as I do (support the Public Safety Employees). The key is that they are all City Employees, and as such they should back and support each other.

Good to hear. I'll tell you what, you give me some ideas an how to help support the employees in the other departments and I'll see what we can do. The cuts to the parks and rec dept. seem terribly deep to me. They've already done away with pretty much every pool the city operated and now the shutting down of the fish hatchery against the advice of the state wildlife biologist. Seems a little deep to me but honestly I don't hear anyone standing up to say enough. Like NikoNurse said, why is there nothing but silence from AFSCME? Before they can be helped by anyone else, they have to try and help themselves. Maybe that should be your first trip before the council. It might help if the council thought someone cared, other than the employees losing their jobs.

You didn't answer my question, how are the FF's at fault, or to blame, for the citys inability to call for an election properly?
Actually, you pretty much skipped all of the questions but the last one. That's no way to have a conversation.

Where did I say the Firefighters were at fault ? As a matter of record, the City did file proper notice with the State Election Board, there is something in the works and they have decided to withdraw that request for the time being. I don't doubt for a minute that if things don't progress, a new request will be filed.

As for AFSCME, I have spoken with William Bryles on a few occasions re: this matter, and just because they don't call every radio or TV station, or attend every council meeting that they are not actively fighting the layoff proposals.

I think what it implies is that they have given up on getting a court to overlook the law and allow them to use the illegal ballot language they want to. At least for now.

As of this moment there has been no agreement reached. The election was pretty much the last ditch effort they're afforded by the process, unless I'm missing something. They've lost at every other turn provided to them. That being said, their next move should be interesting.

I don't have the info handy but it was my understanding that taking it to an election is the City's last resort in response to the Arbitrator's ruling that didn't go in the City's favor. If the City has indeed canceled the election (rather than postponing it to get the ballot language issue resolved as mentioned in the article), that means an agreement would have been reached or they agreed to accept the Arbitrator's ruling. Which IMO should have been the final say mainly because what is the point of even having an arbitrator involved (other than to avoid an expensive/time consuming court process) if you end up going to court anyway. Also, it would seem that this election process is completely one-sided (only the City can call it if they aren't happy, the opposing side doesn't have that option...they have to accept the arbitration ruling). Is my understanding of any of this incorrect? Either side?

I don't have the info handy but it was my understanding that taking it to an election is the City's last resort in response to the Arbitrator's ruling that didn't go in the City's favor. If the City has indeed canceled the election (rather than postponing it to get the ballot language issue resolved as mentioned in the article), that means an agreement would have been reached or they agreed to accept the Arbitrator's ruling. Which IMO should have been the final say mainly because what is the point of even having an arbitrator involved (other than to avoid an expensive/time consuming court process) if you end up going to court anyway. Also, it would seem that this election process is completely one-sided (only the City can call it if they aren't happy, the opposing side doesn't have that option...they have to accept the arbitration ruling). Is my understanding of any of this incorrect? Either side?The process is one-sided in favor of the City. The City gets two bites at the apple. Your understanding is clear, not incorrect.

Andy157, Thanks for the reply...I have further questions but this thread seems to have gotten off topic (imagine that)...LOL...so have posted in a Public Safety No Layoff thread....

Where did I say the Firefighters were at fault ? As a matter of record, the City did file proper notice with the State Election Board, there is something in the works and they have decided to withdraw that request for the time being. I don't doubt for a minute that if things don't progress, a new request will be filed.

In post #199 you said "Wow, Wambo36 spewing how the city is totally at fault/wrong, and the union is right, who would have guessed."
Your implication is that there is blame on both sides and I'm asking you to provide some clarification as to how we're to blame in this.

As for AFSCME, I have spoken with William Bryles on a few occasions re: this matter, and just because they don't call every radio or TV station, or attend every council meeting that they are not actively fighting the layoff proposals.

How is this working out for them? And how are we supposed to help them in this endeavor?

[/COLOR]

I think a better question is why shouldn't they. I have yet to speak to one of several friends/acquaintances that still work for the Parks Department that doesn't feel the same as I do (support the Public Safety Employees). The key is that they are all City Employees, and as such they should back and support each other.

So you are saying that because police and fire are concentrating on THEIR issues, and not everyone's, they aren't supporting all city employess? Why would they negotiate or whatever on anyone else's contracts but their own? I'm still confused at what you are saying.

So you are saying that because police and fire are concentrating on THEIR issues, and not everyone's, they aren't supporting all city employees? Why would they negotiate or whatever on anyone else's contracts but their own? I'm still confused at what you are saying.

What I'm saying is that All City Employees, Mid-Management, AFSCME, Police and Fire should stand up for and support each other. I have a hard time understanding and/or throwing much support toward the Police and Fire when all you hear is we need this, this is old, this is worn out, we were promised this and that, when every single department is making deep, severe cuts, it's a case of simple math, if the moneys not available, you can't pull it of of The Mayors, City Managers or Council Members Behind.
I wonder why Mid-Management and AFSCME aren't constantly complaining about having to do with less, maybe they understand simple math!!!

Junkie or Dan, I don't mean to hurt your feelings. The essential services of the city take precedence. Police, fire, sanitation, sewer and water. Everything else kinda takes a back seat.

The question, of course, is whether public safety is as lean budget and staffing wise as the other departments are since public safety has traditionally been held harmless the longest. (I'm not pretending to know the answer to this question)

Junkie or Dan, I don't mean to hurt your feelings. The essential services of the city take precedence. Police, fire, sanitation, sewer and water. Everything else kinda takes a back seat.

How would this hurt my feelings. I've never once said essential services don't have priority over the wants (Parks and Recreation), it just gets tiresome that when the City has no choice but to make cuts to essential services (Public Safety), all you hear is how the City is doing them wrong and they don't have the manpower or equipment to do their job. Suck it up like ever other department and do the best you can with what you have--at least until things improve.

You also mention essential services, as Police, Fire, Water, Sewer and Sanitation, it's funny how the only ones whining about having to take cuts and make do are Police and Fire

JunkieDan1935, So standing up for yourself is called whining?

JunkieDan1935, So standing up for yourself is called whining?

No, but the constant "we need this, we need that, we were promised this, this is broke, this is down" is whining in my book. I was taught/raised to do your job the best you can with what you have, if this means making do with less, then so be it.

I'm positive the City wouldn't do anything they thought was a safety hazard or that would put citizens in harms way.

I'll close again with "if the moneys not there, the moneys not there" and constant complaing will not make it magically appear.

Junkiedaniel1935, We are doing more (76000 responses last year) with 60 fewer pesonnel than 10 years ago. And by the way we do our own yard work too. And thanks to a former fire chief, Alan Benson. The city thinks they can run our department with 600 people total. That is what he told them he could do. The only problem with that is any salary savings would be quickly eaten up by overtime. His plan would have everybody working maximum overtime. The bottom line is you have to have enough personnel for when the next wacko acts or the next 5/3/99 event happens.

So, hey buddy, why were you banned from the message board? You can tell me I wont tell anybody.

Junkiedaniel1935, We are doing more (76000 responses last year) with 60 fewer pesonnel than 10 years ago. And by the way we do our own yard work too. And thanks to a former fire chief, Alan Benson. The city thinks they can run our department with 600 people total. That is what he told them he could do. The only problem with that is any salary savings would be quickly eaten up by overtime. His plan would have everybody working maximum overtime. The bottom line is you have to have enough personnel for when the next wacko acts or the next 5/3/99 event happens.

So, hey buddy, why were you banned from the message board? You can tell me I wont tell anybody.

Who's banned from the message board ?

danielf1935, and I'm pretty sure you know who that is.

Uh, so much for that...courtesy of KOCO...

City Council: Cut Pay Or Lose Jobs
City Says Either Salaries Or Jobs Must Be Cut To Balance Budget For FY 2010

POSTED: 10:05 am CDT May 4, 2010
UPDATED: 12:31 pm CDT May 4, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY --
Oklahoma City's council has told police and fire union leaders to either prepare for cut salaries or lost jobs.

Budget Director Craig Freeman gave the council the bad news on Tuesday, noting that tax collections for the year are expected to finish at about the same amount as fiscal year 2007.

Freeman said Option 1 involves all employees taking cuts in compensation. However, those cuts must be approved by the unions. The option also calls for adding 20 police officers and 10 firefighter positions while cutting 21 non-uniformed positions.

Option 2 calls for eliminating 100 positions, including 22 police officer positions, 29 firefighter positions and 49 non-uniformed positions. Option 2 also calls for reducing programs and operation hours at municipal gyms and at Foster Indoor Pool. It would close a fish hatchery and Carson Pool. The Metro Link service that provides rides during evenings and on Sundays would be eliminated.

City Manager Jim Couch says the city prefers option one but says "that does include some compensation modification by all of their employees." That would require negotiating with the cities three unions.

Couch also said the city can adopt option 2 without union approval.

By state law, the city must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

Mike, how much of the increase in call volume is due to fire response calls and how much of it involves duplicating ambulance response to medical calls? Do you think the unions will agree to the salary cuts to keep staffing up (money isn't the issue, right?)

Anyone know whether all three unions would have to agree to pay cuts for option 1 to be a viable option for the city?

Steve,
I beg to differ, money is the issue (to the city) The City has the funds in the contingency fund readily available and unincumbered to fund this year entirely without any cuts. And before the nay sayers claim that this would deplete the contingency fund, let me point out that OKC has one of the highest contingency fund balances in the nation percentage wise for emergencies. Well, times are tough , but seem to be improving, so why not dip into the contingency fund a little more, while maintaining still, a higher percentage available for future needs than most other Cities. Also, before we cut ANY employee benifits or salaries, lets look at not giving the Chamber of Commerce another $5 million dollars this year like we did last year.
Seriously, does anyone out there believe that there aren't other pet projects or programs that could be cut or delayed in order to get to that magic budget number prior to reaching into the pockets of the employees? Again, does the Chamber of Commerce really need the City's money to stay afloat this year, more than the employees need their paychecks to make the house payment, child care, food, clothing, etc....? Just to make it simple, this is the perfect year to try to cut employee pay and benefits due to the econemy. It is a great arguement if you don't look at the other available funds or non-essential expenditures in the city budget. Junkie, I agree, you do what you can with what you have and if the money isn't there then you do without. However, the money is there, if they would just get off of the agenda of cutting pay and benefits and let loose a little of it.

Ah... now that brings up some additional questions. Will there be cuts to the amount allocated to the chamber? How about the subsidy to the Oklahoma River cruisers?
Still, I'd be curious what police and fire unions would be willing to put up on a bet that things will get better. If they get worse next year, will police and fire unions accept the bigger hit as a consequence the following year?

Kevinpate- Yes, all three unions would have to agree to pay cuts or other "concessions" before the Option 1 is viable.

Can an agreement be reached with all three prior to the June deadline for budget approval? I wouldn't bet a nickel on that happening. More than likely all three will go to arbitration. The CM is well aware of this and the only reason I saw for presenting Option 1 was to have a fallback bad guy(s) "that if only they would have agreed to concessions no one would be laid off." JMO

Steve-as to your question I would have to check the latest and greatest data on number of fires. Statistically each year OCFD has increased in call volume of fire, EMS and other. We provide First Response EMS (ALS & BLS) and not duplicate ambulance calls. I've never heard a valid argument of too many helping hands on needed calls such as the Full Arrest I made today. We had to wait an additional 10 min. for the ambulance to arrive. A total of 6 personnel from both agencies were money well spent. You are correct in your insinuation that OCFD and EMSA both make several thousand rides each year, such as non emergency transfers, that would be better served with only the ambulance responding. Both agencies are working to correct this redundancy but it lies in the CAD system and will not be a quick fix. As has been discussed in other threads the EMS system in OKC is far from perfect and there are many opinions as to how the citizens would best be served. Speaking of that.....where's Betts in all of this?

Still, I'd be curious what police and fire unions would be willing to put up on a bet that things will get better. If they get worse next year, will police and fire unions accept the bigger hit as a consequence the following year?

Well when things were better, 1995 to 2008, the city fought tooth and nail to reduce and take from the fire department. We have done more with less for the past 10+ years and faced cuts even in those banner years. Now that everyone is seeing OKC is NOT recession proof as was touted, the city has never agreed in writing to making it right when leans times are over; even though the fire side has said "we don't want a raise, we don't want anything but to keep what we've got". 3 times the local fire has tried to give back the 1% raise awarded by the arbitrator if they would just leave us status quo for last year 2009. They wouldn't accept because they would have to admit they tried to cheat in the arbitration process. Staffing is something that is fought for every year and is always at the top of the negotiations list as are wages. We're not some money grubbing idiots who don't realize we are in an economic crisis. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip! but we're tired of being squeezed by the city.

As a journalist, you have still never answered the hard question "Did the Mayor lie when he publicly stated MAPS 3 would hire an additional 20 police and 10 firefighters?" I know.....you don't cover that beat anymore. Pretty sure no one does. :LolLolLol JMO

Barnold, you've clearly not read the thread. I answered the question you cite.
Is all this starting to sound like General Motors and the UAW stuck in the 1950s as the industry was facing dramatic change at the start of the 21st century? How archaic is this whole system anyway? Would anyone truly set up a modern city to operate under these rules in 2010? (yeah, I'm questioning whether either side knows what the heck is going on in the real world)

Steve,
Perhaps I've read too many posts and you could refer me to the page where you answered it and I'll gladly apologize for putting your feet to the fire so to speak.

As to the archaic system, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately I've been involved with trying to change it from the inside for more than 15 years now and I can tell you the opposition is more political than most realize. Public Utility model? Now that's archaic! You would think someone such as a former fire chief turned councilman would know the in and outs but then that seat on the EMSA trust opened up......conflict of interest? You decide.

There is a large contingency fund, no doubt. Is anyone thinking about the political risk of terminating police officers and firefighters? After everything Mayor Cornett said, whether authorized by the city council or not, I would think it career suicide to vote to fire anybody with $90,000,000.00 sitting in the bank!

The options are pretty much a PR move IMO.

How can they cut pay AND add the positions? That makes no sense.

If you dont cut pay...all the OTHER things will be affected..The math isnt right. Plus if the unions reject the paycut, then they are made to look like the bad guys again because all these other things are affected.

I would bet the unions say...option 2 and let the city deal with the fall out.
Decrease response times to calls(fire and medical), decreased police(already 200 short) -higher crime: customer service affected

The options are pretty much a PR move IMO.

How can they cut pay AND add the positions? That makes no sense.



Pretty simple math really. The most simplistic formula would probably be something like N = S x R; where N is the number of positions for a given field, S is the Salary for the employees in those positions and R represents the amount of Revenue available to the organization.

Again, this is probably 8th grade math; If N is fixed at 950 positions and the value of R decreases, you have a problem. Since R can not be controlled by the City, and you want to maintain "N' at 900+ positions in Fire, you have to look at the S variable. The public would choose this option, maintain service levels and in this economic situation that means that the S variable need to be adjusted downward to match R.

The Police employees in this revenue situation want to maintain their salary rate and Fire wants to increase their salary rate. So either the N or R variables have to be addressed. Again, you can't really control R in the public sector like can in the private sector. So, you have to reduce N, the number of employees, to maintain or increase the value of S = salaries. Problem is of course the unions want to increase the value of the N and S variable and want to pretend that R grows on trees or in the words of one of our fine OCFD uniformed employees the other day...R "...is not my problem."

But to respond to your question, yea the math works if you want cut pay (S), you can add positions (N) in the overly simplistic formula of N = S x R. Of course, there are more complexities to it than that, but that's a whole other thread!

Fly

Pretty simple math really. The most simplistic formula would probably be something like N = S x R; where N is the number of positions for a given field, S is the Salary for the employees in those positions and R represents the amount of Revenue available to the organization.

Again, this is probably 8th grade math; If N is fixed at 950 positions and the value of R decreases, you have a problem. Since R can not be controlled by the City, and you want to maintain "N' at 900+ positions in Fire, you have to look at the S variable. The public would choose this option, maintain service levels and in this economic situation that means that the S variable need to be adjusted downward to match R.

The Police employees in this revenue situation want to maintain their salary rate and Fire wants to increase their salary rate. So either the N or R variables have to be addressed. Again, you can't really control R in the public sector like can in the private sector. So, you have to reduce N, the number of employees, to maintain or increase the value of S = salaries. Problem is of course the unions want to increase the value of the N and S variable and want to pretend that R grows on trees or in the words of one of our fine OCFD uniformed employees the other day...R "...is not my problem."

But to respond to your question, yea the math works if you want cut pay (S), you can add positions (N) in the overly simplistic formula of N = S x R. Of course, there are more complexities to it than that, but that's a whole other thread!

Fly


Not to be critical of your math, but I think you meant to say

R= S x N,

R= Revenue for the city.
S= Salaries for employees.
N= Number of employees in a given dept.

You are right though, it is very simple math.

The city instituted a hiring freeze in March 2009. That means that we havent hired any firefighters since that time. We have had plenty retire since then and more leaving as we speak. The city has enjoyed that budget relief and salary savings for 14 months, but who is counting. The fire dept
was 51 positions down in March 2009 from March 1999. So we have been doing a hell of a lot more with a whole lot less for a long time, just as others have in this city.

The city has said it will hire 10 more firefighters from the use tax if the firefighters agree to reduced pay and to reduced benefits. If you do the math on that, the firefighters are the ones paying for these 10 firefighters out of their own pockets. They want you to believe that they are going to use the use tax to hire these 10 additional firefighters. The concessions that they are wanting from us will pay for those firefighters without the use tax coming into play. HMMM. Like BArnold said, the council meeting on May 4, was nothing more than a well versed game of smoke and mirrors and a glorified shell game. Believe it or not, we actually have some educated guys in our profession who can see right through the BS.

You know the funny thing is that the council, not one of them asked a question that tried to disect any of the budget directors info.

The way that I see it, we the fire dept are still under a hiring freeze with more retirements upcoming. Those 10 firefighters that we are going to be paying for out of our own pockets, will not even make a dent in what we are down. Another funny thing, is that we have more than 10 guys or so due to retire from now until the end of the year.

Concessions are not an option to me at all, when they throw us a bone in the media in the form of 10 firefighters supposedly paid for out of use tax.
Really???? lol, No thanks, in actuality we will be paying for them in concessions and our numbers are still going to diminish well below where they are today. No thanks. Lets have the layoffs and we will hire them back as the others retire with no concessions. Thats the simple math.

Geez. Hypothetical math, is what I was refering too...
And the "math" I was referring to is more supported by smokeandfire's post.

Not to be critical of your math, but I think you meant to say

R= S x N,

R= Revenue for the city.
S= Salaries for employees.
N= Number of employees in a given dept.

You are right though, it is very simple math.


Yep, you're right that is what I meant to say. But, again, my point is this; the revenues in the City have fallen. They may not reach 2007 levels until 2013 or so (I'm speculating). It is difficult to accept that you have a Police and Fire union asking for more positions or more compensation in those conditions. All the finger pointing about the politics is moot. You can't stand up in front of the media and talk about how concerned you are about response times when the truth is it's about money or power. And the latter is what really is at play here...the union wants to win - something.

If the Public Safety unions were really concerned about response times, they would acknowledge that more market forces should come into play in salaries structures. Could you cut the average compensation of a Fire employee by 10% and face any recruitment issues? There would be no impact at all. The average comp would go from 75K to 67K. That is not too bad for a career field that primarily requires physical ability and a High School diploma. The savings would be just over 7 million dollars in salary cost. That buys about 100 more Firefighters serving the citizens of OKC; many of whom would love to have a 67K annual income right about now. Fire and Police compensation per employee is higher than all of the pay groups in the City except for the Executives. Higher than engineers, chemists, analysts, legal, etc. Not too shabby!

Aside from more realistic compensation; the much vaunted staffing study that is often quoted to have concluded more Police and Fire employees are needed also indicated that additional Police and Fire positions would NOT be needed if suggested changes in shift structures were implemented. That option curiously is never mentioned by any of the union spokespersons.

There is much that could be done to put more officers (Fire and Police) on the street that would require minor salary adjustments or internal changes that don't require more revenue. You could start with the number of uniformed employees making 30 dollars an hour that are doing 10 dollar an hour clerical jobs, for example.

Don’t misconstrue any of this as something against Police and Fire. I love those guys, but you have to step back from emotions like respect and pride and look at the cold numbers and remember that the Citizens come first. A City does a lot more that provide Police and Fire services – a range of services and infrastructure has to be maintained FIRST, before those services can even function.

Fly

Flyonthewall,
You would think it would be simple math, but it seems to mired in things that are called salary savings, total budgets compensations packages for time not spent, etc. It's a nightmare to read through. You are correct that a cold hard look free of emotions and politics is what is needed to best server our city but I don't see that happening.

I would like to correct your statement about positions and compensation and give you a couple of things to think about in your simple math theory. Fire has not asked for additional positions, we have asked that they fill vacancies (below the 948). The mayor is the one who boldly stated he would hire 10 additional positions with MAPS 3 monies. The arbitrator awarded a 1% raise last year which firefighters volunteered to give back and the city would not accept. No raise was asked for the previous year or this year.

To the math- If 20 employees retire and you do not fill those positions and don't pay them a salary for that year, why is it included as part of your expenditures in that departments budget?

Similar accounting note, why does the city keep two separate ledgers for accounting purposes? One is for actual monies paid out- cold hard cash that employees can spend.

The other ledger projects total possible monies that the city would have to pay out if all employees could take all leave time they accrue during the year and also all salaries paid to the employee if they worked every possible shift during the year. This is what the departments budgets are based upon and reported to the general public. What sense does it make that I can work everyday in a calendar year while also taking off my max. vacation time? They budget for both these items every year but only have to pay out for one or the other. So where does the money go budget but not actually spent? It adds up to alot of money and has been common practice for at least the last 10 years. It's also public record and can be acquired thru the open records act but is not published on the cities web site.

I wish it were simple math and it would be much easier for all to understand.

Well, now that the Greek government has approved their "austerity law," reducing civil service salaries and raising consumer taxes...can the OKC City Council be far behind?All the while the stock market continues downward. Life goes on.

Barnold,
I can’t comment really on the double books, I don’t know if that is truth or rumor. In reality, there are many types of ledgers that any organization would keep, including perhaps one to track potential leave payout. However, the way you use that term is intended to imply a sense of duplicity or fraud, which isn’t the case. The City is routinely audited both by internal and external entities.

In so far as the leave payout, leave is accrued and paid out before a position generally is allowed to be filled. If an employee has 6 months of accrued leave to be paid out when they retire 1 July, then generally the position isn’t filled until 1 January. The salary savings for that six month period “pays” for the leave pay out. Leave accruals are tracked, but you hear some folks speak in hushed voices like this is some sort conspiracy. So, yea, someone could retire and you don’t fill the position right away for the time of the payout.

Other times you leave positions vacant for salary savings because of revenue shortfalls. If you have 950 firefighters who cost 81 million a year to fund (guessing) and your revenue projections slide to 78 million, one option is to leave 30 positions vacant, that closes the gap. But doing that is but sliver of a solution, overtime cost creep up, organizational effectiveness is impacted. You have to consider other measures, like merit and longevity raise freezes, etc. All of which are off the table with these unions which ironically should be the first thing on the table – as long as no one group is singled out, this is the least painful for both the employee and the public. The last two things you should be doing is cutting positions or leaving too many vacant.

And yes, Fire DID ask for a 1% increase and did offer to give it back, IF the City filled those vacant positions. Again, revenue shortfall impacts any pay raise and or the ability to hire. You could fill that shortfall with a 1% decrease in salaries and a freeze on longevity and merit increases. What do you think the chances are of that being accepted by the union? I’d wager none and get a diatribe about some conspiracy theory. Even if the union agreed to that measure to close the gap, that only gets you to fiscal year end. What if revenues don’t recover the next year?

It’s bad…seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel, unless a Greek tidal wave hits us.

Fly

And, I just wanted to add that, while the discussion is about Fire and Police, I'm really talking about all 4000 or so employees in the City.

They should be considering hiring freezes, merit/seniority freezes, furloughs, salary rollbacks, in that order, before talking about position cuts. Position cuts are the LAST thing that should considered. That hits the service and infrastruture hard, not to mention the poor person who loses their job.

I sit back and watch in amazement how the City and the Unions can't seem to recognize that. The City won't bring those other measures to the table because they either think the union won't agree (probably right) or the City leadership is just plain shortsighted. So, the first thing brought to the table is the the worst thing for everyone, employees and the public, causes the most bitterness and prevents any rational approach to riding out the recession storm from being implemented. Sad.