Is the City of Lakewood on a Hiring Binge?

[Bill Call]

When you point out that the City of Lakewood is experiencing deteriorating parks, streets, housing and basic infrastructure the excuse given by some is that "We just don't have the man power to do the job".

Really?

According to the City's 1987 annual report the City employed 590 people in 1987.

According to the City finance department the City employed 768 full and part time people in 2006.

As recently as 2003 the City employed 658 full and part time employees. What did those extra 110 people actually do? Did we get along fine without those jobs in 1987 or are they really necessary?

Perhaps the new Citistat department can benchmark City staffing and performance for the years 1987 and 2006.

Or, how about hiring some college interns to follow city workers around for a week? They could do a detailed analysis of how time is used throughout the day. Maybe we need 1,000 City employees.

Anyway, at current rates of population decline and city employement increases by 2027 the City will have 1,768 employees and no residents.

[David Anderson]

Bill -

Are you able to identify specifically the number of full time and the number of part time employees for the years you site? In other words, can you fill in the "#'s" below?

2006 - # of full time employees; # of part time employees - total 768
2003 - # of full time employees; # of part time employees - total 658
1987 - # of full time employees; # of part time employees - total 590

Maybe these numbers could get us closer to determining whether the same amount of work is being completed in the same amount of hours.

Thanks

[David Scott]

The standard measurement bais is Full-Time Equivalents (FTE). Two part-time employees working twenty hours a week each equates to one FTE. Also, if employees are seasonal they can skew the numbers. Regardless the trend is upward which is concerning.

Also, does this include fire/police also ?

[ryan costa]

Most of the additional employees or FTE units work in I.T. doing the jobs of the 21st century.

[Bill Call]

2006 - # of full time employees; # of part time employees - total 768
2003 - # of full time employees; # of part time employees - total 658
1987 - # of full time employees; # of part time employees - total 590

The earlier years don't separate full and part time status.

2006 full time - 536, part time 232 total 768

2003 full time - 555, part time 103 total 658

1987 total number of employees - 590

There are slightly more police officers and firefighters in 2006 than there were in 1987. In 1987 the EMS were part of the Hospital and not counted as City employees.

Even given those changes there has been a substantial increase in the total number of City employees over the last 20 years.

[DougHuntingdon]

I don't have the FTE info for Lakewood. Generally speaking, though, for anyone who has been hiding in a closet the last 20 50 100 years, government has been growing. I think Bill is the only one who recognizes this.

Doug

[David Anderson]

Thanks for providing the additional information, Bill.

- 129 more part time employees in 2006 than 2003.
- 19 less full time employees in 2006 than 2003.
- 178 more total employees in 2006 than 1987.

While it's difficult to go back 20-years and develop an apples to apples comparison, your point that there has been a substantial increase over the last 20-years seems to hold water.

There appears to be an obvious HR policy shift by the more than doubling the number of part-time and slightly decreasing the number of full-time employees since 2003. Are there benefits issues here?

By applying David Scott's definitions (40 hrs. full-time; 20 hrs. part-time):

2003 hours worked per week - 24,260.
2006 hours worked per week - 26,080. + 1,820 clock hours/week

2003 hours worked per year - 1,261,250.
2006 hours worked per year - 1,356,160. + 95,000 clock hours/year

In a separate thread, I believe Councilman Demro argued that the total employment numbers provided by Bill were overinflated by more than 100. Bill, subsequently, reinforced his original findings and cited a certain city source/report to which I believe the Councilman has not replied. So, I'm left to assume Bill's employment numbers are correct.

What's the mean hourly wage for a city employee (knowing that many are on salary)? $30. $40. More, with benefits?

The question is why did it conceivably take 95,000 more clock hours to do Lakewood's work in 2006 than it did in 2003?

[Gary Rice]

Doug, m'boy,

You're durn tootin' right, the government's gotten bigger.

I'm sure Bill knows it, as do we all.

Now ask yourself why.

Ever hear of "unfunded mandates"?

The Federal boys and girls in the beltway come along, all too often, with a bunch of goody-two-shoes programs that, on their face, sound good.

They put 'em in place, like ducks in a row. Most of them Fed folks have pet programs for their own districts as well, as do we (i.e. NASA-Glenn)

Most of these programs do good for at least some folks. Some too, may waste millions, but I don't have to preach to the choir, do I?

The big problem for local governments, state governments, and schools, is that the Feds can put a mandate up, without enough money to back it up.

I know in the schools, we struggled with dictate upon dictate, with ever-diminishing resources.

Therein, I would have to believe, lies the bulk of your big-government problem.

As to a solution? Well, you or Bill could try and run for office?

[DougHuntingdon]

Gary unfunded mandates are a reality but it's not like the federal government has shrunk while passing items over to the states, cities, etc. No, I would never think of running as I strongly believe (especially in Lakewood and surrounding communities) that most everyone wants bigger government. The people are getting what they want. There really is no point to a lot of discussion that occurs but sometimes I get sucked into it at least on this message board.

Doug

[David Anderson]

All -

The question remains: Why did it conceivably take 95,000 more hours (equivalent to 45 full time employees) to do Lakewood's work in 2006 as opposed to 2003?

Unfunded federal/state mandates - possibly
Mayors/officials running on platforms that they/Lakewood will do more for its citizens - possibly
Additional infrastructure to develop and manage - possibly

My hypothesis it that it's likely a combination of many factors.

Much more study would have to be conducted to determine the reasons why and whether Lakewood is less efficient/effective. However, Doug, Gary, Bill, others, shouldn't the numbers provided at least raise the need for further study?

[Bill Call]

The question remains: Why did it conceivably take 95,000 more hours (equivalent to 45 full time employees) to do Lakewood's work in 2006 as opposed to 2003?....

......However, Doug, Gary, Bill, others, shouldn't the numbers provided at least raise the need for further study?

I like the way you think.

Take the problem with the parks. If you have 35 park employees that's 70,000 or so hours to pick up the trash and mow the lawns. It seems like plenty of time.

The City has signed on to a lot of studies over the last few years. How about a manpower study? Match each employee to job of 1987. What you have left are the added employees. Are the remaining jobs necessary? Maybe, maybe not.

What effect has the use of sick time as vacation time had on the need for additional employees? 60,000 sick hours each is a lot of sickness. How many days were you sick last year?

What effect has poor management had on employment levels?

This sounds like a job for the City's new Citistat Department.

The big problem for local governments, state governments, and schools, is that the Feds can put a mandate up, without enough money to back it up.

I know in the schools, we struggled with dictate upon dictate, with ever-diminishing resources.

First, I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful responses to my posts.

Unfunded mandates do have a detrimental affect on schools and cities.

The recent water rate increases were made necessary by the EPA and the need to replace infrastructure. However, those mandates require the spending of money on infrastructure not on employment. Am I wrong? Maybe, a manpower study would tell us.

The schools are under immense pressure from the state and federal governments. The unfunded mandates do not improve education but they do increase costs. However, the schools are not mandated to pay the employee portion of the retirement plan and they are not required to offer gold plated health plans.

I have a sense that asking for a reasoned analysis of manpower and spending is a waste of time. I get the feeling the City has reached the point of no return.

[Jeff Endress]

However, the schools are not mandated to pay the employee portion of the retirement plan and they are not required to offer gold plated health plans

Unless, of course, it's a part of that pesky contract......

Jeff

[Bill Call]

However, the schools are not mandated to pay the employee portion of the retirement plan and they are not required to offer gold plated health plans

Unless, of course, it's a part of that pesky contract......

Jeff

Good point. Howwweeevver..

If the contract requires the board members to stand on their heads and fart the star spangled banner then that's what has to be done. But they don't have to keep agreeing to do it.

[Jeff Endress]

they don't have to keep agreeing to do it.

Equally true. It's a problem of prospective application at the time of creation, anticipating what events are likely to occur versus a retrospective review of the impacts during the term once the unknowns are revealed. I would suggest that at such time that there are future contract negotiations, the concerns that you raise are legitimate and need to be addressed. I suspect, and hope they will be. My problem has always been finding fault with an agreement put in force years ago as a result of circumstances (perhaps unanticipated) that occur during its term.

Reminds me a favorite quote of my favorite History Professor, Rhichard Kirkendall. "Those who view history with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and discuss what should have been done are, themselves, myopic"

Jeff

[Gary Rice]

Wow Bill,

You've got a few good zingers in you too, don't you?

Thanks for your kind words as well. Believe it or not, many of us in (and recently out of) public education share many of your concerns about wise use of dollars. The vast majority of us want the needs of children put first.

I'd like to address public education for a bit, if I may.

In the last few years, public education has been so politicized that all kinds of things are going on that are great for some people, and make little sense to others. In one local district, they bought thousands of dollars in new textbooks, based on anticipated standards- only to have to sell them used soon thereafter, when the official state standards book finally came out.

Expensive proficiency tests are forcing virtually every child through the same cattle chute, with predictable results

We can't seem to figure out what to include in a science curriculum, a history text, or an English book, because powerful forces are at work on all sides of the educational debate, pulling us every which ways.

Additionally, people believing in private schools or home schooling want a part of the public dollar too. Charter schools have eaten into the public purse, as well.

As to retirement or health care dollars? At nearly every contract, teachers have had to assume a greater percentage of these expenses. Teachers have been forced to help fund those underfunded mandates out of their own pockets.

Gold-plated health plans, my petunia!

Even after we teachers retire, STRS (teachers' retirement) reminds us that our group health program is a courtesy, and not a legal obligation on their part.

And if it ever ended, most of us teachers would not have enough quarters for Social Security. As it is, we'll have to pay Medicare part A at 65 from our own pocket.

Don't talk to me about gold-plated health care, Bill. I respect you, but you are way over the line with this one. We are fortunate to have what little we do.

As for the community?

Sitting on the Community Development Block Grant Committee, I'll tell you that I've gained a great deal of insight into how the community is run.

Nobody is getting rich here in Lakewood government. There are so many needs, so many mandates, so many hoops to jump through that it is staggering.

I've seen much good in what the various city departments, including Parks and Recreation have done. Let's not hit them with the broad brush. It's just not fair.

Let's be specific as to our concerns. Then we can look for concrete results.

Like that running urinal at the Womens' Pavillion. Is it STILL running?

If so, let's SING!

Ode to a Urinal
(To melody: Battle Hymn of the Republic)

Mine eyes have seen the splatter, and
the dampness on the ground.
Mine ears have heard the rush of
mighty waters falling down.
My shoes, they squeak beyond belief,
with such a seasick sound,
Our toilet gurgles on...

The urinal at Lakewood Park can
really make you squirm.
It can pass more water than a
nervous pachyderm.
The silly thing has got us all up
standing on the berm.
Our toilet gurgles on

Refrain:

Lakewood urinals forever! (3 times)
Our toilet gurgles on!


My wallet thins from water bills,
too soggy to ignore,
Yet still, we dream of better days,
beside the mens' room shore.
Politicians hear us,
or we'll show you to the door.
Our toilet gurgles on!

(to Refrain)