At the council meeting tonight the mayor said that the layoff of four police officers would be discussed on April 1st. Here is where I am confused, he said no layoffs were planned and that they were discussing how to avoid them. He was then asked by Ptl. Hagerty if they had followed proper procedure and filled out the paperwork correctly then the pink slips would have gone out today. So, I ask, were you lying then or or you lying now?
A correction to my post. Ptl. Hagerty asked him if the paperwork had been filled out correctly would the pink slips have gone out today, and the mayor said yes.
Oh but it's all good! The Mayor also said that we lost 330,000 from the state, 300,000 pension liability, 225,000 health insurance increase, 200,000 is lost revenues which totals 1 million dollars lost. He and his brother both said we have a 10 million dollar surplus so 10 - 1 = 9 million. So what's the problem? I'm sure the people still won't believe we are broke. They also said in addition to the layoffs they want all employees to take a 10% pay cut in addition to 45 days a year furlough for each employee!!!! I also heard that a secretary who has been their almost 23 years is targeted for the layoff. I guess seniority means nothing with the town. I guess they are also targeting Officer Haggerty wasn't he the one out with cancer? What a huge mess. I wonder how many more people will be laid off if the employees don't agree to the 10% reduction in pay plus the 45 days furlough. This should be interesting to watch play out for a town that is in the best position to weather the storm!!!
Hey I have some ideas 1) shut down the court and hold it in Folsom it would be a heck of a lot cheaper 2) no Chief of Police before the present one ever had his own highly paid private secretary. She probably makes almost as much as a patrolman and that would save 1 patrolman's job. 3) eliminate the tax office window and require that all tax payments be made by mail or online 4) eliminate the police funeral escorts and presence at school and church crossings. So what do you think?
Last year and the year before didn't they target all the low paid employees and keep all the high paid employees? I guess they figured out that that served no purpose because they didn't save a lot of money by doing that so now they have to layoff more people. Here's another idea.... get rid of all the high paid employees and keep all the low paid employees that way they have have twice as many employees and the taxpayers won't be affected by the lack of workers. Plus people with a lot of seniority also get a lot of time off so they are never at work anyway. That's what big companies are doing.
