Lakewood City Budget 2007 pdf link

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderator: Jim O'Bryan

Mike Deneen
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:02 pm

Post by Mike Deneen »

Thanks for the link.

I found page 6 of the executive summary very interesting.

The number of full time city employees has FALLEN from 2006 to 2002, from 563 to 536.

The number of part time employees has grown from 231 in 232 in 2006, with lower numbers in between.

This information contradicts another one of Bill Call's posts.

He made a post on March 23rd that insinuated the city is on a "hiring binge".
Bill Call
Posts: 3319
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

Nice try

Post by Bill Call »

Mike Deneen wrote:This information contradicts another one of Bill Call's posts.

He made a post on March 23rd that insinuated the city is on a "hiring binge".
Nice try.
Bill Call wrote:An honest reading of the numbers would not suggest that the current administration is solely responsible for the higher employment levels. Much of that existed prior to the current administrations election.
If you actually read the post you would have noticed that it was not a bash the Mayor post. I merely pointed out that in 1987 there were 590 full and part time employees and that in 1983 there were 616 full and part time employees.

It was also not a post about the last three or four years.

Given the City's fiscal problems I thought it might be helpful to examine employment levels in the 1980's with those of the 2000's. At the end of 2006 there were 178 more full and part time employees than there were in 1987. 178 more people seems like a lot to me.

Maybe they are all needed, maybe not. In any case it doesn't hurt to ask. Or does it?

Hats off to Doug for an informative post. Does anyone plan on reading it?
What kind of movie would it make?
Mike Deneen
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:02 pm

Post by Mike Deneen »

Your headline clearly insinuated there has been an increase in the shorter term.

Most people interpret the term "binge" as short term.....for example, "binge drinking" or "binge eating" is done in one sitting, not over a week. Noone ever says "he slammed that six pack in a week!".

Your disclaimers are not read by most people, but the post headlines are.
Bill Call
Posts: 3319
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

Post by Bill Call »

Mike Deneen wrote:Your disclaimers are not read by most people, but the post headlines are.
What!!!!!!

There is a lot of interesting information in the budget.

It looks like on any given day 20% of the work force responsible for maintaining the parks is absent. At your place of employment how many people are absent each day?
Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Post by Jeff Endress »

At your place of employment how many people are absent each day?
They're all present.....surfing the net, responding to Observer posts...you know, important stuff like that.

Jeff
To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Mike Deneen
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:02 pm

Post by Mike Deneen »

Looking over the report (page 199 and 210), the majority of the absence rate consists of vacation, holidays, funeral and injury time.

Are any of the injuries fake?
Are public employees not entitled to vacation, holidays or funeral leave?

Frankly, I think the use of the term "absent" in the report is a bit misleading....most of us don't consider vacation time or holidays as "absences". If so, every kid in school would be marked "absent" on Christmas.
Post Reply