Question for Haddix

Sorry I put this in two places so hopefully Mr. Haddix will read this.

First of all I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to these tags. It helps the people understand your view, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Haddix, I have a few questions that hopefully you can answer.

A. Why didn't you discuss or consider the 23 positions be selected by seniority? I believe the PTC Personnel Policies state that individuals should be reduced by class in their specific department, via seniority and merit. (not job function).

B. Why are public safety employees untouchable (as stated by the City Manager in the meeting?) In 2005 the Fire Dept had 47 full time and 15 part time and in 2009 they have 59 Full Time and 21 Part Time??? (18 More bodies since 2005!!!) Thats 18 more people to sit around the TV at the fire station, and 18 more people that we pay while they are sleeping, and 18 more people that will get a pension. Police went up from 62 to 68. (that is a little more reasonable) but how can these departments see increases in these departments (not to mention new cars and trucks) when there haven't been any tax increases and any projected sources of revenue to offset these positions? By the way Pub works and Recreation (the two departments affected by these potential layoffs) haven't had an increase in staff at all.

C. Moving Violations/ Nepotism (see below)

So if you are elected Mayor can you explain how you would handle

a. current and future layoffs (seniority/merit as opposed to job function)

b. would public safety be off limits on your watch, or even now for that matter? Why or why not???

c. do you think that in any municipality a City Manager with a DUI should still be allowed to keep his job and also be able to get his son a job at the Fire Department???

Thanks for your time

Haddix: nepotism

Submitted by Don Haddix on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 10:05pm.

On point A. we did discuss it, many times. For a more full and complete answer, please contact City Hall. I would rather the City Manager, HR and such offices reply. There are layers of legal and other issues I do not even want to attempt to explain fully. I know I will end up stating something incorrectly, which I most assuredly do not want to do. But there are reasons.

On point B in 2005 trucks and such were undermanned. They still are not fully staffed at every station.

Police have increased because we need them for safety. We added a presence on cart paths. We are now with/becoming part of the DTF, a very good thing.

Also, fire and police calls have increased.

We need more police on the paths, but cannot do it now. And we need another fire station that we cannot even build.

On C.a. there is not a single answer to cover all issues. It varies according to the nature of the reductions. We must abide by law and policy.

Read up on employment law. It is a nightmare to deal with because of its complexity. Some protections actually turn into pain for workers.

Personally, I believe seniority and merit must count wherever it can be done.

Tax increases and revenue source issues are things I inherited when elected. That is why I took on DAPC right out of the gate to get an arm of PTC actively seeking tax income sources.

On tax increases, there was wishful thinking late 2008 and 2009 would turn the economy around and increase tax income.

b. Public safety is off limits for me, unless something incredible happens to reduce need. Why? Because safety is a fundamental need for our homes and families.

c. With all due respect, I am going to decline answering that question.

I hope that answered some of the issues.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

login to post comments

Thank You

Submitted by nepotism on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 11:22pm.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. One thing I disagree with is Safety vs. Excess. You can still have quality staff, and still remain safe, still have the same response time. Its one of those political things that get garbled in translation. I know this is a bad example but the airlines are and always were short staffed but they always have coverage because they would cut people to the bare minimum but pay overtime, because over time is still much cheaper than paying somebody benefits, fica, retirement. It happened after Sept 11th when the airlines took a hit (similar to the cities current situation.)
So I think you should look at Public Safety a little more before you just dismiss it without really doing the numbers. Most employees would love the OT.

I don't have data on National Standards per capita but I'm sure we are way above that standard. If not then I stand corrected.

Since you said that you wouldn't look at Public Safety, and you are against raising the Mil, what departments, or other ways are you looking at to fix this budget situation???

login to post comments

Don sums it up

Submitted by PtcFF on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 10:37pm.

You are completely right on part "B". Thanks for identifying the facts on how important safety is to the city. You are appreciated!

login to post comments