If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times…I’m no financial expert. I could stare at the North Miami Beach budget and all the slide presentations given by the various department heads, and my eyes literally glaze over. It reminds me of the time I mentioned a certain bodily function to my then teenage son, when he screamed while running out of the room, “WTMI, MOM!”
Likewise, I consider going line by line through a city budget WTMI – Way Too Much Information. It’s not as if I’m not intelligent enough to figure it out if I put my mind to it. But, why should I? Why risk straining a brain cell if others are willing to put on their thinking caps, boil it down to a bottom line, and spell it out to me in plain English so I can then simply write about it? It’s so much easier to pretend to be a dumb blonde and let everyone else do the hard work. Works for me, he he he.
As fate would have it, I was sitting here minding my own business when I received an email from a person who was questioning the Procurement Budget Presentation. The writer wondered why something fishy that he believed was so obvious had escaped the attention of the entire council and the city manager. Of course, I was intrigued and decided to put on my own thinking cap and concentrate on figuring out what he was talking about. Once I was able to understand what the writer was talking about, it made perfect sense to me that it appears there is a problem, hence my WTF Moment of the Day. I’ll break it down for you here in plain English as best as I understand it.
For starters, as you can see by this document called “Apportionment Table” (page 21 of the Procurement Management 2012 Budget Presentation), the Procurement Department is claiming that it has made a 33% budget cut in the amount of $144,847, by eliminating the position of Buyer I at a salary of $43,083, and also by a Transfer of utility charges to Legislative Fund in the amount of $53,040:
Now these two items total $96,123, so I’m not quite sure where the alleged 33% cut of $144,847 comes from. But more importantly, the transfer of utility charges from the Procurement Department to the Legislative Fund doesn’t appear to be an actual budget cut, but simply a movement of an expense from one department to another. That’s the same concept as my picking up my cat from the living room chair and putting her down on the bed. I just moved her. I did not eliminate her. (No animals were hurt in this demonstration!)
However, even more interesting than that is what is found on page 24 of the said 2012 Budget Presentation called “Staffing Changes:”
This chart shows that for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the Procurement Department had six employees, two of which were apparently eliminated, the Admin I and the Admin II. I say “apparently” because they are in red and have lines drawn through them. For the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Procurement Department had whittled its staff down to three by eliminating the Admin III position, again by drawing a red line through it. For the current 2011-2012 proposed fiscal year budget, the Procurement Department added a position, Buyer I, then eliminated that position with the same red line, and so they are back down to three employees.
Okay, so here’s the thing. Several things, actually. Here goes:
1. Adding a position and then eliminating it is not the same thing as eliminating a position. I’m just saying.
2. The definition of “procurement” is “buying stuff.” The Procurement Department is trying to convince the city council that it needs a Buyer II (how is this different from a Buyer I?), someone to supervise the Buyer II (Procurement Supervisor), and someone to babysit the other two employees (Chief Procurement Officer). WTF?
3. The Buying Stuff Department needs $291,432 a year to do what any smart shopper could do with an internet connection and a subscription to Consumer Reports for comparison shopping, and could do the whole job for probably less than $50,000 a year. Maybe I’m missing something, but can anyone please tell me why they need three freaking employees to make a list, check it twice, point, click and shop? Heck, give my daughter a credit card and I guarantee you she can buy stuff, too. She’s the Queen of eBay!
Yes, I get that in order to avoid another Marty King situation, there needs to be oversight in the Buying Stuff Department. But with an entire Finance Department at the disposal of the city, not to mention not one, but two assistant city managers, are you gonna tell me there’s no one else at City Hall who could possibly oversee the person in charge of buying equipment, materials and office supplies? Really? Even my cat is Rolling On Floor Laughing Out Loud.
This is just a perfect example of how government on every level is just one big bloated mess. This is also a perfect reason of why it might be advantageous to privatize the freaking Procurement Department and eliminate all this unnecessary expense. And, this is only ONE department in the entire City of North Miami Beach. I can’t even begin to imagine how badly overstaffed all the other departments are and how much could be cut from the budget by paring down and cutting off the dead wood.
At last night’s budget workshop, the Mayor had it right when he said, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING PROBLEM!” What I would do if I were in charge, is I’d tell all the department heads to either get rid of the dead wood, or pack their own bags and hit the road. Maybe that’s the plain English they’d understand.
Then again, what do I know? I’m no financial expert. Maybe the so-called experts can ‘splain it for us.
Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”
This is the same thing they did in the finance department. They said they cut two positions but they have the same amount of employees as they did for the 2010-2011 budget.
It is my understanding that the finance department is run by hamsters. Not my Doc, of course. He’s got a real job. He’s a Special Forces Hamster!
On a serious note, how can you “cut positions” that never were never filled in the first place. Does any of this make sense to you? I’m perplexed as all heck.
Stephanie, I am disturbed you are peeking into government, fine tuning it from your lap top. You continue at this rate and we would no longer have government. We would have a well oiled functioning private enterprise. Heck gurl, what would we do without you. LOL!!!!
I resent that remark. Let the record reflect that I do not have a laptop! I’ll have you know that I use a desktop with a full-size keyboard and mouse, thank you very much.
As for your question about what would you do without me? You’d inherit a bunch of cats. Be careful what you wish for. 🙂
“Always Love Your Country, But Never Trust Your Government”
This would hold true at the local level. Love your City but again never trust its government!
One thing I’ve noticed on slide 2 here is the comment that “Buyer II position was not initially in the budget but was added back in October 2010”.
So AFTER the procurement budget was adopted and approved at the end of September 2010 and all budgets are set; Procurement added back in a position? Why was it removed in the first place if it was going to be added back in? This goes back to what Phyllis brought up about Finance. If the council adopts a budget as is presented, how does anyone go in and add positions after the fact? I can see if a need arises and an adjustment has to be made, but it just seems like this buyer II was removed and or otherwise not in the initial approved budget of last September, but got put back in immediately after the budget was adopted?
Frank, that’s a very good question. I’ll see if I can find out anything. As much as I hate to admit it, Phyllis has been asking some very good questions during this budget process, which is why I’ve refrained from making fun of her. She still talks too much and is constantly saying “from my chair,” but she seems to be really paying attention and trying search for real answers. I have to give credit where it’s due. She’s even toned down the squawking and the meandering stories. It’s actually quite impressive.
Just give her some time. I’ll wager that within 1 meeting after the 2012 Budget is adopted, she will bring back “chair-gate”. Any takers?
Not taking the bet since you’re probably right!
I think “impressive” is a bit of a stretch. “Long overdue” might be more accurate. I’m just saying.
In answer to Frank’s inquiry, I imagine the Buyer II was vacated at some point in FY10 and slated for elimination in FY11 as part of an overall elimination of vacancies, but the vacancy was preserved due to the department’s needs. All adopted budgets are online, so the question is easily researched.
And yes, changes are made to the budget after it is passed, due to changing circumstances.
Wow…i have never seen so much dancing around questions in my life. Last nights budget workshop was an excercise in endurance and the council members who could obviously see that things did not make sense lost. The winner…..the city manager and the one council member who interupted questions and tried to bail the manager out when he got caught up. Funny how some speakers were interupted and cut short. Maybe council and others should call Okeechobee county and ask them how they really feel about Bonner. Let them hear how he almost destroyed Okeechobee county before the board realized it and got rid if him. Now is the time for them to step uo before he destroys this city!!! How disappointing……
Here is what is going on. Back when the budget process first started for the upcoming year, the city manager asked all the departments to submit their proposed budgets for the year 2011-2012. The cuts that have been made have been off of these proposals not off of this years budget. So let’s take the finance department for example. They have 13 employees in this years budget. For next year they added two new positions in their budget request. So when it came time to make their cuts all they did was cut the two positions that they were requesting and never had. And if you look at their budget for next year they have they same amount of people they have for the 2010-2011 budget. Yet they will try and tell you that they cut two positions. And this is going on in other departments as well.
Now matter what side you take in these police lay offs, it is not fair that people are getting let go in one department when other departments are playing games and not really making cuts. Is this what they consider transparency.
I’m still trying to get to the bottom of the finance department situation, which I hear is a total mess. I think it was Phyllis last night who said she wanted to revisit this issue. I spoke with Marlen Martell a few days ago and she also confirmed that other departments are playing this game that you mentioned (cuts to proposals and not actual budget cuts). She is not happy. I just wrote a new blog about some of last night’s meeting, but I couldn’t watch the whole thing because I was exhausted. One thing I wanted to write about and just didn’t have time yesterday, was that at the Mayor’s town hall meeting, he displayed a pie chart that showed the police department’s share of the budget was actually 42 or 43 percent (can’t remember which), and not the 52 percent that’s been bandied about. Can someone explain the discrepancy? The Mayor also stated that a police department in every city does take the lion’s share of the budget, although he did not mention any typical percentages. If it’s 42 or 43 percent, that may be more in line with other municipalities than 52%, but I don’t know for sure. If his presentation is online yet, it’s worth watching. He did an excellent job and should help explain a lot of what we’re not hearing on the street.
The problem is that you shouldnt be the only one trying to get to the bottom of it. There are 7 council members that should not have allowed the city manager to go to print on a budget based on cuts to wish list budgets and not actual budgets. WTF!!! Except for the pd every other dept was allowed to submit a wish list budget. They determined the deficit of the city based on wish lists with the exception of the pd and then told the pd to cut from their budget from the previous year. Hellooooo is anyone paying attention…
You’re right! It’s not my job to get to the bottom of it, but I am a very concerned and involved resident so I’m doing the best I can. I’m also doing the best I can with what I do understand, which is really more than I ever wanted to learn!!
I hear you. I’m paying attention. I will contact the four council members who speak to me and bring this to their attention. I happen to know for a fact that Marlen Martell and Barbara Kramer are on top of this and they are getting to the bottom of it. I will contact the other two and push the issue.
What you are describing, if this is what’s going on (and I’m pretty sure you’re on the right track) this is not right. Also, to my understanding the budget is not “going to print” just yet because Phyllis wants the finance department revisited, and both Marlen and Barbara are in discussions with the manager about several other items. Not sure about the others, but I’m guessing there are at least one or two council members up there who are not concerned with the budget as a whole, but only certain aspects. I’m just guessing, but I’m pretty sure I’m right. Once this whole budget thing is over with, I’ll get into all those other issues. Right now, the most important thing is to get the budget finalized and passed, and done as right as humanly possible.
Every other department has been making cuts for five years: cuts in staff, cuts in operating expenses, and cuts in benefits. You have not, or not to the same degree. Some departments, finance included, don’t have any more cuts to be made. The hamsters are all gone, nothing left but real people who do real work. Whether or not Phyllis Smith can grasp the concept, a vacancy eliminated is a position that was at one point held by a person.
What I see being posted here are lots of typical union employees (in this case PD union) pointing their fingers at management (and other departments) now that an opportunity arises to do so. The message is loud and clear: we are important, no one else is. Wait, this is the same message we always hear!
There is only one elected official with a modicum of an excuse for not understanding every nuance of the budget and the city’s daily operations, and that is newly elected Mayor George Vallejo (and he seems to have grasped the big picture fairly quickly). As a longtime former employee, including a stint in the city manager’s office, Ms. Martell should know everything coming in. The rest of them have been there long enough that they also should know it all by now. Yet until this year, no one bothered to really scrutinize the budget, let alone learn a damn thing about the city’s real day-to-day operations. As I’ve suggested many times before, it’s time to disband the useless feel-good citizen boards and committees and assign elected officials to departments, if the residents really expect their elected officials to address organizational issues in any intelligent fashion.
It will not, and cannot, all be made perfect by October 1. There is a huge legacy of mismanagement to be addressed, as well as issues such as pensions, staffing, compensation, benefits and union contracts. Stephanie is right on the money in pointing out that most of the existing staff have inherited these problems.
As far as staffing goes, I’ve said all along that in a complex organization such as a municipal government, with widely diverging services, one cannot discern an individual’s worth by reading a name, title and salary in a budget. A supervisor in customer service may have quite different responsibilities than a supervisor in an administrative support department. Some supervisors (or managers) are actually working in the field, doing the same work as their subordinates, with some additional oversight responsibilities. And some supervisors or managers have a much more administrative function, depending on the administrative requirements of their division. Again, if the residents expect to understand these differences, then their elected officials need to understand them as well.
BTW, NoMiBePO, my employment hinges upon this as well. But you’ll never see my crying and begging for it in public. I have some dignity.
Thanks for all your comments and insight. You’re correct that most residents really don’t have an idea what goes on behind the scenes in government. Their only contact is usually with customer service if they have a complaint about the water or trash pick up. I would venture to say that the vast majority of residents in NMB have never even had to call the police for anything, and I mean that in a good way because they haven’t been a victim of a crime or involved in a dispute that needed the police. Most of them go about their business and don’t know and don’t even care what their government is up to. Those of us who do participate really are a rare breed, and there are relatively few of us so that we become known in the community as the STP, for better or worse. It’s hard enough to drum up interest at the voting polls, much less expect most residents to attend council meetings or write letters to their representatives. To be honest with you, there are times I wish I were blissfully ignorant. It would make my life much easier if I didn’t give a damn about politics.
I did hear something a couple days ago that really concerns me, which has to do with some shenanigans that the former CM played with the budget when he was in charge. I’m in the process of doing an intense investigation about this issue and as soon as I finish my fact finding I’ll hopefully be able to write a blog about it. The person who brought this to my attention is reliable and trustworthy, and I have no reason to doubt what I heard. The problem is proving it. If and when I can do that, I’m pretty sure it will be a game changer.
But, I just want to know one thing. How the heck did I become an investigative reporter? Seriously! All I ever wanted to do was follow in Dave Barry’s footsteps and be a humor writer. I never pictured myself as Nancy Drew. Funny how things turn out.
This cant be solved overnight but not for lack of trying.
The PD’s 42 or so percent is more reflective of the actual chunk of the General Budget taken by the PD based on last years budget numbers. When Bonner proposed a smaller general budget, the PD’s budget from last year now appears to take up 52 percent. This number got everyone in an uproar and was totally unfair to the police department, and former Chief Hernandez.
Well, the mayor and his charts set the record straight. That powerpoint is supposed to be uploaded to the city’s website, along with the mayor’s presentation. I couldn’t find it today, but I’m not sure where to look. If anyone knows or has the link please let me know.
I was a little busy on wed night so I look forward to seeing this online. Did the mayor make a correction on the police department percentage and point out the obvious for those attending/watching? To me if you just throw more numbers up without explaining what you uncovered it seems that you just become part of the problem.
Are these council people going to do the right thing or allow this non-sense to continue? I still cant get over last nights meeting. Its like they are in the twight zone….or maybe I am.
No, he did not make mention of the previous number, but the pie chart clearly showed the forty something percent, and he specifically mentioned the number. He followed that by stating something along the lines that in every municipality the police department has the greatest share of the budget because it’s a 24 hour operation and requires more manpower and funding. I was very happy he stressed that information for the audience.
I finally got in touch with several council members, and a financial person today. All of them are completely astounded by the mess that’s been dumped on them. Wading through the disaster has been extremely draining. None of us can even begin to imagine the tricks that Baker played, even with the PD’s budget, as well as all the other departments. I knew that guy was bad news from the start, but now I’m seeing just how bad he really was!
These budget workshops and executive meetings and even the negotiation meetings are intended to straighten out the huge mess of a budget and to try to sort out where everything is supposed to be. I think some of them are beginning to realize that it’s not a job that is going to be done overnight, as much as they would have liked to make it all perfect. The biggest problem is that by law they must pass a balanced budget in time for October 1st or they will be slapped with heavy fines by the state. They can’t extend the deadline, but one council person told me that it can be amended at any time. The intention (which they Mayor also said last night) is that they are going to work day in and day out until it’s completely right, no matter what it takes. I got the impression that none of them expect it to be perfect by the deadline, but they’re under the gun to produce something. I still have to make some more phone calls, but this is what I have so far. I’m tired watching this whole process, so I can’t imagine how they feel.
Thanks. Can you imagine if your employment hinged on this?
No, I absolutely cannot imagine it. But I have worked in offices where an employee was simply called in to the boss’ office and handed a pink slip, and told to clear out their desk and be gone in an hour. In the private sector, this happens all the time. Sometimes employees are fired for cause, sometimes they’re just told a vague “it’s not working out,” which basically means “I don’t like you and I don’t want you working here.” Getting fired is brutal, but I don’t know what’s worse – having it come out of nowhere or dealing with the whole budget process that public employees go through. The only equivalent I can think of between both sectors is that in larger companies the employees undergo annual reviews, which usually result in either a raise, no raise or termination. The employees that I know who face these annual reviews is the closest thing I’ve seen to what you all are going through. It’s uncertain and scary, and honestly, I don’t know how it feels at all.