The Observation Deck

A long time Lakewood resident liked to tell the story about the BIG SCANDAL in Lakewood. When the new city hall was being built people wondered, "What are they going to do with all of that space?"

Little did they realize that 40 years later that that building would be full and that little mini city halls would be springing up around town like mushrooms after a summer rain.

Here are some more numbers on City employment levels:

Full and part time:

1983 - 616
1987 - 590
2001 - 818
2005 - 746
2006 - 768

I was curious about staffing levels in earlier years because I believe that those early years can serve as a base line for an acceptable level of service and staffing in future years.

In 1983 there were 616 employees. Compared to that year the City now has 38 fewer full time employees in the refuse and waste water departments. That gives us a base line of 578 full and part time employees.

Add 37 EMS and other employees added for new departments and the base line becomes 615 full and part time employees in 1983.

In 2006 the City had 768 full and part time employees. The mission for Mayoral candidates, should they decide to accept it, is to find out what those extra 153 people do and why it didn't need to be done in 1983.

Why is this important? Because this time next year, when millions of dollars in pension payments are do, the City will have no cash and no borrowing authority. Perhaps the new Citistat department can meet with the new Main Street Department to discuss staffing levels in the offices of the new income tax department.

Bill:

Can you obtain the numbers for full-time equivalent employees for these years?

As I mentioned the FTE filter would make the comparisons more meaningful.

Kenneth Warren

Kenneth Warren wrote:Can you obtain the numbers for full-time equivalent employees for these years?

Kenneth Warren

The City is not required to compute FTE's so it doesn't. The numbers are not available.

Your point is valid regarding the usefulness of the FTE number. Since that number is unavailable we have to work with what we have.

Someone else pointed out to me that the City has a lot more departments than it had 20 years ago. Some, like EMS and Winterhurst are simply transfers from other local government subdivisions. Others are new administrative positions.

Given the City's financial condition it wouldn't hurt to examine each "new" job and evaluate its necessity.

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.

However, the longer it takes the current administration to deal with pre-existing conditions the more those conditions become its "problem".

It shouldn't be a news flash that government, in the aggregate, is growing. Sometimes, though, I think Bill Call is about the only one who recognizes this trend. However, I feel the vast majority of citizens, at least in this area, want bigger government so they are getting what they want.

Doug

Bill:

If it is true that the city does not compute FTE totals, as your post suggests, then I would suggest the first managerial test of any mayoral candidate should be to demonstrate the ability to obtain that number by department for 2006 and post it on the LO Deck.

Kenneth Warren

DougHuntingdon wrote:It shouldn't be a news flash that government, in the aggregate, is growing.

I guess I am genetically disposed to favor smaller less "helpful" government. I don't see the value in sending billions to Washington or Columbus in the hopes that millions will be returned.

The City of Lakewood's government has continued to expand as its population has declined. Over the last 20 years the City did a good job of increasing the efficiency of the waste water plant and refuse collection departments. I would have thought they would have taken those savings and made investments in the City's infrastructure, instead they added layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

If a bigger government in Lakewood means a new arts district, a new park across from the library, better streets, a dynamic Rockport Square, a true shopping district along Detroit or a cafe district on Madison sign me up.

If a bigger government in Lakewood means 60,000 sick hours a year, another new department, more meetings and studies and surveys and another round of raises include me out.

If a bigger government in Lakewood means a new arts district, a new park across from the library, better streets, a dynamic Rockport Square, a true shopping district along Detroit or a cafe district on Madison sign me up.

If a bigger government in Lakewood means 60,000 sick hours a year, another new department, more meetings and studies and surveys and another round of raises include me out.

Well said Bill. All to often I see the government taking more money and adding more jobs, yet I see no return. If you want more of my money, I need something tangible in return. But honestly I'd rather them take less of my money and let me spend it myself. Seems like common sense to me.

What if it also includes replacing sewers in a timely fashion?

Not as sexy as some ideas, but it is required that it be done or the city will be fined.

What if it also includes replacing sewers in a timely fashion?

Not as sexy as some ideas, but it is required that it be done or the city will be fined.

Yes that falls under the tangible category to me. But I think the key word of your sentence is "timely" and honestly I don't know that that's happening.

dl meckes wrote:What if it also includes replacing sewers in a timely fashion?

Last years huge increase in water rates will be used (mostly) to fund improvements to the water delivery and sewer system. The administration showed good sense in planning the Detroit Road improvements to coincide with the State's resurfacing plan.