A.J. Smith

acclaro - like the lady on the AARP commercial: Sign Me Up!!!! Toga, toga, TOGA, TOGA!!!!!!

Do you thaink that AJ has been put on "double secret probation"?

Without question spider, without question. By Ms. G, Larry, Dan, and Mike. The problem is they don't have any authority to make him leave school, so they try to humiliate him each council session. Shhh....don't tell council, but we have put THEM on double secret probabtion as well. Good lord, what does Cincinnati State think of Middletown. Probably think its great, Greg Pratt flying around town with them in his nice white Lexus two seater, telling them they'll have free golfing at Weatherwax. But poor AJ, he's costing the city SOOOOOO Much $$$$$, all that security needed to guard LM around the clock, cruisers on standby awaiting his second draft beer. Shameful isn't it. 

Acclaro, why do you hope things in Middletown fail?  You really want to defend the likes of AJ?  You're wondering what Cincinnati State thinks of Middletown; I'm just hoping none of them have met you.

SidebarVOR. I did not pick up your other point. You are a clone of the Larry Mulligan leadership. Get the hell out of Middletown if you don't like it right? I'd love to. This city is ritten to the core with its leadership and floudering. People like you defending it and its direction, or lack thereof.

I'm so happy to hear someone else pick up on the fund formerly known as the "rainy day fund" percent changes. I thought I was making things up in my head talking about it one day. That number changes like the stock market. If I recall it was 25% at one time we could not fall below or the state would come in and invade the finance department and put the directors head on a stake Sparticus style, and burn his awards in effogy. I'm sure that number will change again if the infrastructure measure gets legs. Take a page out of history FDR and the WPA. People workin and bridges and roads gettin fixed.

Bill - you have an excellent point on the how. Whether passed by council thru legislation or by referendum,  it still would need to be implemented and 1/5 of the income tax revenues going to this will affect other services. I don't see selling assets and I'm opposed to privatization of government services because companies should not be profiting from taxpayer funds. If there is any bloat in city staff it will be used to keep police and fire (I hope).

TonyB- out of curiousity, what do you perceive the function of a city government to be if you don't agree with selling assets? A city is supposed to be in the hosuing business, run 36 hole golf courses, and aurports? I don't think so, A city protects, provides basic services, and does so at the most economical rate possibile. How these assets fall into that arena I disagree, So by your thinking, its more important to maintain te greens at Weatherwax and its asphalt, thanour streets? I see why we have many problems in Middletown.

The City could easily get out of the golf business through a number of options. Gilleland is afraid to take on the tough issues.

She punts on the big difficult decisions.

Bill, TonyB......on the subject of where to cut in city government....

I would be willing to bet that one could examine the entire hierarchy of the city building, reviewing each department and each position within that department, and find some duplication of effort, find some situations where there is glorified "paper-pushers" up and down the line and people retained where the position could be eliminated and the job incorporated into someone else's job who remained on the payroll.

An example:

When I was a participant on Billy Becker's street repair committee several years ago, Ginger Smith (now retired by force) was the Director of Public Works. We received a handout of the hierarchy of the Public Works Department. I saw first hand, the positions within this department. It had eight people.

A Director (G. Smith)

An Assistant Manager

A Supervisor

A Team Leader

That's your management people

Three operators

One admin.

The workers

Now, you tell me why any department needs four management positions to monitor the activities of three workers plus an admin.?

Waste- big time!



There's an example of money- savings- cut three of the four management positions saving on salaries and benefit/retirement costs and have the remaining manager a working manager at that.

When I questioned Smith about this structure and suggested eliminating several management positions for cost savings, Gilleland, who was sitting two people away, had this "incredulous" look on her face, Smith, the Director got all defensive, Marconi,sitting across the room from me had this grinning "cat that ate the canary look" on his face, Becker had this look of anger that I would even mention such a thing, and I was in my glory , that I had pissed most of them off. How dare I suggest that they downsize their little kingdom at the mention of a mere unimportant citizen. Dam I loved irritating them!

I would imagine this same scenario could be played out in most every department in the city building. Bet any of us could go in and find many instances of waste and places to cut people from the city payroll. Hell, you could fire half of the Directors for incompetence right now including the Law Director and the Planning Director. Should have fired the Econ. Dev. Director but he beat us to the punch by quitting.

Mr. Laubach thank you for your post .

TonyB....

"Yes, you can always bid out services but you lose control once the contract is signed"

Not ncecessarily. Actually the city just demonstrated that you can get rid of a poor performer (CONSOC with the Section 8 program) and replace it with another private company who may do a better job and possibly for less money.

"The public sector is different. The idea is not profit, but service"

Just because the public service is in the business of providing a service rather than making a profit, doesn't mean that they shouldn't require operating at the best value for the dollar. IMO, whether private or public, especially in these tough economic times, the city should be constantly shopping for the best deal for the money. The city is also suppose to be in the business of providing the taxpayer the best return for the dollar on all services provided or contracted out but sometimes they fail miserably in this category.

Oh, by the way TonyB, Bill is correct about the golf course. The city has been plowing $200,000 in it each year to keep it operational for years. Don't think it turns a profit at all. Must keep it open for their buds, certainly not because it is an excellent value for the money.

Bill is also correct in saying that the people occupying the city building don't care to operate in an economical way. I believe they are certainly capable of tightening the belt, Gilleland has said she is tightening the belt, but when you read in the help wanted ads that they are hiring an admin. assist. in the Public Works Department, it appears the city manager is about to see her nose grow a little longer. What they say and what they do are two different things most of the time. They have not been schooled in the art of bs very well.

TonyB-

"Vet - my contention is that elected officials should be the ones managing the services provided, not shopping them out".

Not if the shopped out services can be done cheaper, more efficiently and a better deal for the taxpayer. Everyday here at work, working at Wright-Patt around government people as a DOD contractor, I see the horrific waste from within the government ranks. I would imagine, if they gave me a clipboard, gave me the authority and let me go around to monitor the day to day activities of all these government jobs, I could clear out half this base of inefficiency, duplicate paper-shuffling jobs, too many passing papers for signatures from desk to desk, etc. Typical government environment. Happens at the city level here in Middletown too.

"The very fact that the city had to take the time to find someone else when if they were in charge it could have been handled more efficiently"


Tony, Tony, Tony......think about the quality of the city leaders abilities in this town. From a commonsense standpoint, these same people who hired CONSOC in the first place, and replaced them later, are the same people who are screwing up this city. Did you actually think they wouldn't screw this decision up also? They rarely make the correct decision on anything. Commonsense is not on their agenda....ever.

"The best deal for the money; return on investment, is exactly why government should provide those services"

NO!!!!!!! The best deal for the money/return on investment is exactly why the government should STAY OUT OF providing those services. They are constantly screwing up a sure thing on anything they do!!!! The government is the WORST JUDGE OF VALUE because they live in a world where accountability of value does not exist. Hence the term GOVERNMENT WASTE.

"That is the mandate of government and if they fail, you VOTE THEM OUT!!!"

And replace them with ..........who? Another candidate that is just as bad or worse? That's the problem Tony, when we all go to the polls to replace the clowns we originally voted for, we find that in most cases, we have no real choices. Example: City council......We want to replace the clowns (aka The Four Horsemen of the Apocalyse)...Becker, Mulligan, Picard, Allen.....problem is, when we go to the polls, we see their names as incumbants running again and we also see .......no other name on the ballot to vote for change. The same old faces win by default as they have no competition or, the MMF'ers mount such a blitz at the polls for their candidate, the challenger doesn't have a prayer's chance in hell of overcoming the onslaught. Competent people with a commonsense agenda, with adequate funding, with enough people going to the polls to overcome the MMF candidate is the only way we will weed these MMF candidates out.