Facebook
RSS![[Masthead]](http://www.fstribune.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (26)
The mood in the room during Tuesday evening's meeting of the Fort Scott City Commission quickly turned somber when Commissioner Jean Parker made a motion to instruct Fort Scott City Manager Joe Turner to eliminate the Fort Scott Human Resources Director position currently held by Robert Johnson.
The position has not yet been eliminated because Turner has the legal right to go against the commission's request and keep the position, according to Fort Scott City Attorney Robert Farmer. Turner is the only person who works for the commission, which is why the commission cannot eliminate the position on its own, Farmer added.
Parker said her reasoning for the motion was because the city's budget remains in dire straits and the city could be looking at increasing water rates to pay for state mandated improvements to the dam at Lake Fort Scott.
"I just feel we are in trouble," Parker said. "We need to do something."
City of Fort Scott Director of Finance Susan Brown informed the commission that while the budget currently has the recommended three month's worth of operating costs in reserves, it is projected to finish the year with less than one month's worth of operating costs.
Following Commissioner Jim Adams' seconded the motion. Commissioner Dick Hedges said he would like to see an assessment and recommendation from Turner as to the advantages and disadvantages of eliminating the position.
After Hedges' comments the issue went to vote and passed 3-2 with Hedges and Mayor Gary Bukowski opposing.
Turner was unavailable for comment following the meeting.
Other business conducted by the commission included:
* Sept. 24-27 was proclaimed as Pioneer Harvest Fiesta Weekend.
* Pioneer Harvest Fiesta was granted a parade permit for Sept. 24.
* Approved the closure of Main Street between First and Second streets from 4-9 p.m. on Oct. 1 for the Friends of the Fort's movie premiere.
* Approved the closures of streets for the Ropin' & Rockin' for Pennies for the Park event on Nov. 7 (See information, here.).
* Approved the closure of Gunn Park; June 1-5 for the Gunn Park birthday celebration in conjunction with Good 'Ol Days, July 2-5 for Freedom Fest, Oct. 21-24 for Halloween in the Park, and Dec. 1-4 for Christmas in the Park.
* Agreed to terms with USD 234 for the trading of land to be used for the construction of the Fort Scott Skate Park.
* Approved amendments to the city's garbage ordinance and litter ordinance.
* Postponed the consideration of bits for the demolition of five structures to allow time to assess the budget impact.
* Approved the 10-year agreement with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks in which the city will be paid $23,900 to allow fishing in the city-owned waters and to stock Fern Lake at Gunn Park with trout.
* Authorized Turner to sign an agreement with Agriculture Engineering Associates to prepare required information to the State of Kansas, Division of Water Resources to obtain a permit for modification of the dam at Lake Fort Scott to meet new state dam safety standards. The agreement is to cost no more than $25,000 witch will be funded from the Water Fund.
Comments
HR people are fairly expendable in tough times. Seen it before. Nothing against ours, just stating facts that's all.
Look what's being spent on codes enforcement the last few years;
City spent 74,000 on codes enforcement in 2007
City spent 148,222 on codes enforcement in 2008
city spent 149,804 on codes enforcement in 2009
city plans to spend 169,804 on codes enforcement in 2010. Source city of fs 2010 budget assuming I'm reading it correctly.
http://www.fscity.org/index.php?option=c...
Also budget for 2007 was 11 million dollars
budget for 2008 was 12 million dollars
Actual money spent in 2008 was 13.3 million dollars, so it "looks" like there was a lot of spending in 2008 that wasn't budgeted.
I commend the commissioners and city govt for trying to cut costs now, but still it's closing the barn door after the horses got out to me.
Too many new projects at once in a time of the worst economic difficulties since the depression.
Who can say they didn't see it coming?
just my opinion.
It is good that they're trying to fix the problem. I would hope they'd look at other places to save some $$. Every little bit helps and will add up over time. Hate to keep bringing it up but I'm glad we don't have an aquatic center or golf course to be paying for right now.
Just curious-
What criteria was used by the council to determine that the city needed to cut the HR postion? How will his position be covered by current personnel? Will this actually effect any real savings?
Was the need to hire an assistant to the Finance Director reviewed as well? (couldn't those duties have been shared by current personnel in these tough times?)
Has anyone reviewed how much money is being paid to the city attorney? Where does all the diversion money go?
Where is the surprise in the funding shortfall? How can the council or citizens believe that they can get pay raises for staff and maintain services while revenues decrease! Surely there are efficiency improvements that should and could be made- but they must be made with sound information- not knee jerk reaction!
No decision like this is an easy one, but I think this sends the message that the Commission is serious about making tough decisions in the face of a serious financial crunch, and that politics is not a deciding factor in making those tough decisions.
Knowing a few members of the Uniontown school board, they had some similar tough decisions to make, and made them for the long run despite taking a hit for it in the short run. In that case the employee in question landed on their feet, and I feel confident this will be no different.
It was a very ballsy move for Comm. Parker to make, though, and I tip my hat off to her for making it. Knowing all involved, in the end I think all parties involved will be just fine.
My questions remain the same-
What evaluation criteria was this based on? The financial situation faced by the city cannot be solved effectively by making knee jerk responses. It would seem that when other employees have taken on responsibilities beyond their job description- I believe that they have gotten raises and/or assistants. Will that happen in this case as well?
If the commission is serious about making tough desicions, then make them based on sound evaluation of the entire picture and share that with the citizens they are there to represent.
Knowing the Commissioners involved, I doubt this motion came out of nowhere or was any kind of kneejerk reaction. Commissioner Mason in particular is not one to vote on an issue like this without having vetted it at length. In the end only the Commissioners in question can answer your question definitively.
My initial concern is that the HR position requires specific knowledge of complicated employment laws. There are so many things that employers (city of Fort Scott as an example) can and can not do to or for their employees. Employment law is a mine field that I hope can be navigated by existing personnel should Mr. Turner decide to abide by the city commission's vote. A lawsuit might trump the savings of eliminating the position.
Thanks
Craig, while I think your points are valid, HR for a small municipality likely has significantly less hoops and minefields and regulations than HR for a business in the healthcare field. Granted I am speaking strictly based on assumption here.
1)Most business's in the USA operate without an official Human Resources Director.
2)Mr Turner and Mr Bunn have extensive experience in human resource management.
3)We have an attorney on the city payroll for legal matters.
Craig, Kansas it an "at will" state. Which ironically is what I'm sure Bob Johnson tells all employees when they first started working for the city.
This means the an employer can terminate your employment without cause.
I understand what you are saying but if we keeo loosing jobs we are going to be a ghost town. We need to support our families and now because of all the cuts we have to go out of town to work so we might as well move to the town we are working in.How can we support our town by shopping and eating here when there is nothing here.
Geez, after reviewing the budgets I'm surprised that Nick Graham has the guts to armchair quarterback this problem on any public forum.
There has been so much money spent and we have gotten ourselves into so much debt that I can see why Ms Parker is so concerned.
Now they want to cut the HR guy out, Ha Ha that's putting a bandage on a shotgun wound.
Nick, now that I'm done, it's your turn to once again explain how taking on massive amounts of new debt that will drive us into negative cash flow without punitive and overlyburdensome taxation of your fellow citizens is ultimately "progressive", otherwise known as the,"Yes we CAN tax and spend ourselves into prosperity theory".
Here is another way and just one example of how to look at the scenario of laying off the HR guy compared to other expenses that should be looked at(and lets not protect any pet projects please) and how it will impact(slightly) the budget problem; The HR salary is an estimate.
2007 HR salary $45,000 codes expenses $74,000
2008 HR salary $45,000 codes expenses $148,000
2009 HR salary $45,000 codes expenses $149,804
2009 HR salary $45,000 codes expenses $170,000
Do you see where I'm going yet? Look at the budget and then look at the HUGE increases in spending in some areas that are defended and protected by appealing to your emotions.
In the end, this is what happens to entities like this. They overspend on everybodies pet projects and then instead of admitting it(oh the ego's around here) or scaling back(being realistic) the first thing they do is cut personnel!!
the last 2009 line should read year 2010
Craig--you are right on. Nick--employment lawsuits show no favor to the size of a company or governmental entity. Please read below statistics from Employment Law Attorney Charles Kruger:
The average jury verdict award for an employment discrimination case, from 1998-2004, was $990,000 in the manufacturing, industrial and high tech sectors; $486,000 in the service and retail sectors; $445,000 in the transportation sectors; and $581,000 overall (all sectors including government). From "Risk Management--Why Train?" 2006, http://www.emtrain.com/risk_manage_ why_train.shtml, citing Jury Verdict Research's "Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics," 2005 Edition.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), they filed 328 lawsuits in fiscal year 2000, 430 lawsuits in fiscal year 2001, 364 lawsuits in 2002, 393 lawsuits in 2003, 415 lawsuits in 2004 and 417 in 2005. The monetary benefits paid over all of these suits averaged $51.3 million from 2000-2002. However, in 2003, the amount awarded jumped to $148.7 million, and in 2004 it increased to $168.1 million. In 2005, it fell to $107.7 million (From http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/litigation.htm...; this depicts complete litigation statistics from FY 1992 -- FY 2005). Regarding money paid on all complaints, not including lawsuits, from 2000-2005 (fiscal years), an average of $251.8 million was paid by businesses (www.eeoc.gov/stats/all.html).
It's much cheaper to prevent these problems from arising via proactive or preventive human resources. For example, according to Jury Verdict Research, it costs $5,000 to train 200 employees at $25 each on employment issues such as harassment and discrimination. If that same company is sued, the cost to litigate the case is approximately $155,000, and the cost to settle is about $85,000. Yet, the cost to litigate or settle an individual case, when no training occurs, is $960,750 to litigate and $304,000 to settle. From "Risk Management--Why Train?" 2006, http://www.emtrain.com/risk_manage why_train.shtml, citing Jury Verdict Research's "Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics, 2005 Edition.
In addition, the only person who has authority to hire and fire is the City Manager, with the exception of his position, which in turn is the only position the City Commission can hire and fire. Hopefully Mr. Turner will have the good sense not to expose the taxpayers of this community to the risk described above. Talk about eating your seed corn!
The codes department was given the least amount of resources and staffing humanly possible for well over a decade, which is why Fort Scott has a reputation as being a dump by many who live in neighboring cities, and by a good deal of its own citizens citizens. Making up for 15 + years of utter neglect and trying to catch up on all that isn't cheap. You'll notice the money going to streets is increasing greatly as well for the same reasons.
This was done because of complaints (justified ones) from all corners of the community except those causing it that the town in general looked like crap and was getting worse. Common sense dictated the need for major action from just about every citizens living in Fort Scott with functional vision.
Have you ever considered leaving Fulton and moving to Fort Scott and spending some of the considerable time you spend online pontificating and criticizing from afar (the irony in you using the term "armchair quarterback" is astounding) being actively involved in the decision making process in Fort Scott? Actually educating yourself in what's going on as opposed to making educated (and sometimes uneducated) guesses on the motives behind every decisionfrom 15 miles away? Most people I make that challenge to I do simply to point out that at least I put myself on the line while they are anonymous cowards. You on the other hand I think could very much actively contribute if you jumped in, and you might feel differently about some things once you did.
Indeed only the City Manager can hire and fire, which is why the motion was to direct the CM to eliminate the position, in the same way positions from public works were also eliminated due to budget constraints.
I did live in FS, and I was born and raised here too.
when i moved here the post office gave me the option of choosing a fort scott or a fulton address because of my location in bourbon county. I put down Fulton for the novelty of it.
in fact I did live in FS, but cannot conduct my business within the city limits, and I must make a living.
I am actively involved in FS, because the questions I raise are relevant and sometimes provide much more information to the public that the local paper or the city provides.
What county do you live in now Nick? You don't even live in this county anymore, and I wouldn't pat myself on the back if I were you for your involvement in the city, as you proudly voted for ALL of the increased expenditures that are sinking our ship now.
Crawford, though I am still a property owner in Bourbon - we rent the house. I also don't think Fort Scott is the only city going through financial difficulties right now - I don't think what is going on in Fort Scott is very different than what is happening in a lot of cities, so to blame the city's current situation on the apparent spend-craziness of me begs the question as to what insane expenditure happened with my vote? Increasing the street budget when the vast majority of the town felt the streets were a wreck? Increasing the codes budget when the vast majority of the town felt it looked like a dump?
and I'm "not" a property owner??
Doesn't matter what is going on in other cities. The fact of the matter is those entrusted with the welfare of THIS city indebted the taxpayers beyond the capacity for the taxpayers to properly fund THIS city, and you don't need to say,"me" because you certainly didn't single handedly make these decisions.
As to your everybody is going thru this right now; Remember the kindergarten lesson scenario where it is pointed out that if everybody is jumping off a cliff is it acceptable for you to do it?
Your last question is exactly what i was talking about in my earlier post when I said,"Do you see where I'm going yet? Look at the budget and then look at the HUGE increases in spending in some areas that are defended and protected by appealing to your emotions." You see Nick, that is what you are doing now. Emotions and feel good projects must not given any credence when considering sound fiscal planning.
Last, I stand by this statement I made earlier today,"In the end, this is what happens to entities like this. They overspend on everybodies pet projects and then instead of admitting it(oh the ego's around here) or scaling back(being realistic) the first thing they do is cut personnel!!
The more I think about this(layoffs and hiring freezes) the angrier I get, as it didn't have to happen this way.
Mr. Graham needs to come to the realization that it was the city commission that has been approving the expenditures that has caused these budget problems not the human resources director. The city commission approved the expenditures of taxpayers money for new street lamps in the downtown area which basically illuminates a deserted downtown, matching funds for downtown businesses with improving the appearance of their shops is the responsibility of the business owners not the taxpayers of Fort Scott, and proposed expenditures of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for improvements at the airport is rediculous, now the city commission will state that the majority of the money is coming from state or federal agencies but the fact is that we are paying for this with our tax money and 99.99% of the population of Fort Scott never has, or never will use the airport.
"After 15 minutes in executive session the commission returned and voted and approved an ordinance regarding salaries of employees. The ordinance was to increase the salaries of all department heads to $65,000 per year." -12/18/08, FSTribune.
In the short amount of time that we have been managed by Mr. Turner he replaced a Public Safety Director position at less than $50,000 a year, with a Fire Chief at about $50,000 and a new Police Chief at $65,000, plus the former Commission decided to increase the City Manager pay from $68,000 a year to $80,000. So the reality is that in less than a year, there is about $90,000 in additional salary with the addition of only 1 position.
In a time when hundreds of thousands of folks are being laid off and losing their jobs.
Then if anyone recalls, the "shovel ready" grant we received to improve Linker to Wall street was to be 100% funded with a State Administered grant, UNTIL the "City Engineers" informed us that they accidentally forgot somehow to add into their assessment about $90,000 in engineering fees that we as a city will need to directly pay for.
But in just a few months after these "sweeping changes" we have Mr. Turner informing the Commission that we are experiencing serious budget problems. Should the decisions he made and recommendations to the Commission not be taken into account for part of this?
Making corrections to the above examples would have provided a savings of nearly $200,000, and that's only a couple of examples.
I also don't really get your negativity Nick, toward a county resident who to me has understandable concern about the largest and nearest City to him, as well as his hometown. How many of the Visioning Committees are lead by folks whom don't reside within the City, yet propose projects that do and would require the use of City tax dollars?
I also understand the concerns about the Airport. I wonder if the Airport Board sets the prices there for hanger rental. $45.00 a month seems pretty cheap for a 50' x 50' building equipped with utilities. Perhaps bringing those rents up to comparison with other cities would help, maybe not alot, but it all adds up right?
BTW, maybe in these times and tough decision-making it might be a good time to get the annexation issue back on the table.
Also just because Halloween is near, is it appropriate to spend $25,000 on a Witch using Water Fund money?
(-read last sentence of the above Tribune article.)
Rather personal question but perhaps food for thought. Does the HR person have other income? I wish somebody would 'worry' about the 'lower rank' jobs that were lost, increasing unemployment around here. Then in next breath talk about all the money spent on the projects that there are not many laborers left to do or perhaps finish. How you going to spend that money so fast if there is no one to do those jobs so timely?? circles........I feel like we are going in circles! Will the bottom drop out?
"I also don't really get your negativity Nick..... How many of the Visioning Committees are lead by folks whom don't reside within the City, yet propose projects that do and would require the use of City tax dollars?"
We can start with the HR guy Mr Johnson who lives in the country. Hmmmm lets see...who else...I think I will look all this up and post it so Nick can complain about them living in the country yet working for the city,or being involved in "city" politics. I bet it will be a sizable list, and with some interesting names. Then when Nick plays his "outside of city limits" card on me I will show my hand as well, because by his rationale since I don't have the right to voice my opinion then neither to they, and by the way, he now fits his own rationale that he used to judge me.
I obviously agree Dan... Makes no sense that it requires a city limit boundary to be allowed to have an opinion of this city, 'cept in Nick's opinion he and his friends, (or those whom agree with him) can have an opinion and he'll leave them alone.
And to think I thought the future growth and development of Fort Scott depended on thinking from the "Outside In." hunh, go figure.