I watched part of the council meeting at home on channel 22 (meeting started at 6:15 p.m.), then came downtown to see it in person. So, here I am! I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so check back. So far, you haven’t missed much. Department heads are simply getting up and reiterating the cuts they’re recommending in this document:
(09-343) CONTINUATION of a POLICY SESSION Regarding DISCUSSION and REVIEW of the CITY’S SERVICES.
Overall, the plan is basically to reduce each department by 5%. Each department head has submitted their plan for a 5% reduction in their area of oversight. The plan is in written form (link above), but the department heads are here to explain it to the council and answer any questions they have.
So far, Police, Fire, and Emergency Communications have given their presentations. Police and Fire departments have each made wage concessions already, giving up their raises. And, it was reported in the council packet, so have exempt city staff.
- The Police Department are suggesting cutting 12 people: 1 officer from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, 1 Metropolitan Enforcement Group officer (impacts multiple-jurisdiction narcotics investigations), 4 street crimes officers, 1 records position, 4 specialist (1 lab, 1 intelligence, 2 traffic) officers, and 1 sargeant; also, reduce saturation patrols by 50%.
- The Fire Department is reducing training and delaying purchase of equipment. Barbara Van Auken (2nd District) has asked just about everyone so far if they’ve looked closely enough at management reductions, and so far each director has said yes and defended the number of upper managers they’re retaining.
- John Kunski, director of the Inspections department, explained they’re suggesting eliminating temporary employees and overtime.
- Dave Barber, director of Public Works: His biggest recommendation (over $1 million) is that yard waste no longer be picked up for free, but that it be changed to a “pay as you throw” system, also called a “tag” system (meaning you’d have to purchase tags for each bag of yard waste). Van Auken asked if this would result in any additional costs to code enforcement (people letting it pile up instead of paying to throw it away, throwing it in gulleys that could result in storm sewer backups, etc.). Barber said there will be an adjustment period, but that most issues can be addressed through education. Van Auken is continuing to protest that this would be too expensive for citizens.
George Jacob (At-Large) asks where Barber got the $1.2 million figure, since we just put that out for bid. Barber based it on the current contract — could change when we get bids back. He points out that, if the council decides not to take this recommendation, it has a significant impact on how much Public Works reduces their budget, and on how much the overall budget cut is. Ryan Spain (At-Large) doesn’t think this belongs in the policy discussion; would like to see it removed from tonight’s agenda and discussed in the context of the waste hauling contract.
Jim Montelongo (At-Large) said he attended a neighborhood association meeting last night and landscape waste was an important service to his constituents; agrees with Spain. Gary Sandberg (At-Large) agrees with the previous comments. [This appears to be a very unpopular item!] Also suggests that perhaps we’re not cutting the contract with the Park District enough — perhaps we should bid those services out instead of just giving them to the Park District automatically. Clyde Gulley (1st District) asked about using the landfill to increase revenue. Barber says it’s a legal issue that is being investigated. City Attorney Randy Ray said he was optimistic that the problem will be resolved by 2010.
Jim Ardis (Mayor) brought up the possibility of selling the city-owned downtown parking decks. Barber said he’s been contacted by a vendor interested in buying them, but has been unsuccessful in calling them back (left many messages). Spain moved to remove lawn waste component from this proposal and have him come back with other cuts to make up for the removal, seconded by Dan Irving (5th District). Passed unanimously.
- Pat Landes, director of Planning and Growth Department, wants to cut the budget for neighborhood cleanups by about two-thirds, cut litter campaign by two-thirds, and eliminate the Harrison Impact Zone Special Project completely. Van Auken asked if Landes had looked at reducing the costs associated with commissions; answer: yes. However, not much savings there. [Funny, because I was under the impression that eliminating the Heart of Peoria Commission saved all kinds of money and time, or so we were told then.] Van Auken asked if she considered reducing management staff; Landes said there’s just her and an assistant director.
Gulley shocked that they would suggest eliminating the Harrison Impact Zone. Is there any way to get funding elsewhere for this project? Or get stuff done with no money? Landes: mapping, copies, mailings, working with community all costs money [didn’t really answer question]. Gulley would like to see at least some money included for this project — at least $5,000 — rather than do nothing. Gulley moves, Van Auken seconds, to direct staff to give the Harrison Impact Zone some consideration to be included this year, in the hopes that through the waste hauling contract we get some costs for neighborhood clean-ups (e.g., dumpster dumping fees) transferred, freeing those monies for this project. Bill Spears (4th District) asks which streets will be included in the impact zone; Gulley listed about a dozen, but Landes said the streets haven’t been identified — it would be part of the impact zone project to identify which streets would be included. She also pointed out that no capital funds have been budgeted for that. Spears moves (substitute motion) to use $15,000 in federal money (CDBG funds) instead of corporate money, seconded by Spain.
Sandberg doesn’t think that the tool (impact zone) that was used in the Glen Oak School neighborhood should be used everywhere just because they got that tool and other neighborhoods didn’t. Sandberg supports the substitute motion because the original motion just pushes the decision out to October when the garbage hauling bids come back. Landes suggested bringing a report back to the next meeting so she can verify there is enough CDBG money available (without hitting a federal cap). Substitute motion passes unanimously.
Gulley pointed out that garbage tax/fee was supposed to go to projects that are now being cut, such as neighborhood clean-ups and POP (problem-oriented police) officers. Tim Riggenbach (3rd District) asked if cutting neighborhood clean-ups would have unintended consequences, for example, for code enforcement, similar to Van Auken’s concern with eliminating free landscape waste pickup. Answer: who knows? It might.
- Interim City Manager Henry Holling spoke on behalf of the Municipal Band, that they’re simply cutting band expenses by 5%. Van Auken moves to recategorize this service as a “quality of life” service rather than an “add on,” seconded by Spain; passes unanimously. Van Auken speaks in favor of keeping this amenity (with the 5% cut).
- Craig Hullinger, director of the Economic Development Department, gave his recommendation to cut EDC (Economic Development Council) budget by $10,000 (out of $45,000). Hullinger explained that this is basically a cut in marketing, and a cut in the data/statistics we receive. Irving asked about other cuts, which Hullinger elucidated.
- No questions for Equal Opportunity Office budget cuts. They mostly cut subscriptions, training, and travel.
- Cathy Roger, director of Information Systems Department, recommends cutting Project Leader position and some software update/maintenance dollars. At suggestion of Ardis, Van Auken moves to remove the Project Leader cut, seconded by Gulley. Ardis believes that this position is vital and should be retained even if it means I.S. cannot meet its 5% budget cut. Sandberg asks if these I.S. services can be consolidated in any way with the County. Motion passes unanimously.
- Mayor Ardis spoke to the City Council line item. No questions.
- City Treasurer Patrick Nichting is out of town, so Chris Setti spoke to the City Treasurer line item. Because of requirements for good audits and bond ratings, the treasurer department cannot meet its 5% reduction. Ardis said that Nichting has been signed up for this class in Chicago for some time and apologized for not being able to attend; he can answer questions next week.
- City Clerk Mary Haynes spoke to the City Clerk line item. She also indicated that most of the clerk’s duties are required by law. She also pointed out that more duties have been added to the clerk’s office due to the recent FOIA bill signed by Governor Quinn. She simply can’t meet her obligations with any fewer people. Some small cost savings can be made in postage and supplies, but not 5% of her budget.
- Holling spoke to the City Manager line item. He is reducing special events funding and updating/printing of the city services booklets. However, these are just suggestions since we’re getting a new city manager — he may have other priorities.
- Kimberly King, director of Human Resources, recommends postponing the hiring of a permanent HR director until April 2010, reducing training classes, and not engaging outside vendor to track certificates of insurance.
- Randy Ray covered the Legal Department line item. Eliminated a temp employee and other various small reductions. Wants to reduce outside counsel and county recording fees (liens), but that’s not on the list currently. New FOIA law will add expenses to not only the legal department, but all departments. The State legislature has indicated that providing documents to citizens is a core service of municipal government.
- Jim Scroggins spoke to the Finance Department line item. Plans to reduce training and layoff one employee who has not yet been identified.
Believe it or not, that was all just the introduction! It’s now 9:33 p.m., and the council will now start deliberating and making recommendations to the administration.
Van Auken requests that staff come back with $8 million in total reductions (we’re less than halfway to that goal after the presentations tonight). She would like to see voluntary and involuntary furloughs explored.
Spears was disappointed that city staff just took the low-hanging fruit, but didn’t really dig down. “They’ve all built up their own silos.” He suggests that working with the county could provide additional savings by sharing services. That would allow us to reduce the number of total employees without reducing the level of service. Requests that staff bring back such recommendations. Irving agreed with Spears. Spain: Me too.
Spain says we can’t ask staff to cut a certain percentage more across the board; instead we need to set our priorities as a council. “Economic development” and “neighborhood stabilization” are his priorities. [Ooh, that narrows it right down. Let’s see, what doesn’t fit under those two categories?] Ardis: “no sugar-coating it” (i.e., the budget cuts); we’re going to have to make some brutal cuts. Our cutting is going to look “more like a chainsaw…than a scalpel.”
Montelongo challenges Holling and the directors to reach $8 million in savings. Sandberg challenges directors to empower staff to “think outside the box” — not just in cuts, but in changing the ways Peoria delivers services so they’re delivered in the most cost-effective fashion. “It’s going to be bloody.”
Jacob wants staff to “drill further into expenses.” “We can’t take our eyes off what will happen in 2011 either; we can’t be like the Chicago Cubs, ‘wait til next year.'” We need to position ourselves for the long term.
Ardis suggests these requests come back at the first regular meeting in September (9/8/2009).
Motion to adjourn by Montelongo, seconded by Eric Turner (At-Large); passes unanimously. Adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
Thanks for doing this.
I believe Councilman Spears has a good idea and should be expanded to elected officials. There is no need for the number of elected officials since representation is provided on both the City and County level (and township for that matter) over similar election boundaries. The Mayor and the County Board Chairperson should look at consolidating services thereby reducing elected official salaries and support costs. (sarcasm starts) But, they may have built their silos up and aren’t thinking out-of-the-box. (ends)
Thanks CJ. Ah yes, thinking outside the box — how about city council and the county board memebrs well how about all elected officials, and directors and staff and and and obtaining and reading a copy of “Leadership and Self-deception”. Gary is correct — staff needs to be empowered to help to provide solutions.
We define self-deception as not knowing – and resisting the possibility – that one has a problem.
Most conflicts are perpetuated by self-deception. So are most failures in communication. And most breakdowns in trust and accountability.
Clearly, as long as the problem of not knowing one has a problem remains … so will all other problems.
The Peoria Police Dept. is looking to cut 12 jobs?
That’s damned weird people!
The number [12] is exactly the same number of full-time employees the new museum plans to hire when [if] the museum is ever built!
Don’t you see?
Come into the light foolish Peorians!
What ‘they’ plan to do is take the guy from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and give him Richerson’s [Richerdsen’s, Richieson’s?] job! and so on……………………. This is THE plan.
You are welcome.
“The Police Department are suggesting cutting 12 people: 1 officer from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, 1 Metropolitan Enforcement Group officer (impacts multiple-jurisdiction narcotics investigations), 4 street crimes officers, 1 records position, 4 specialist (1 lab, 1 intelligence, 2 traffic) officers, and 1 sargeant; also, reduce saturation patrols by 50%.”
This should not even be on the table. We should be adding 12 officers.
I received and started reading Anatomy of Peace yesterday… this is what I have been trying to get straight in my mind for years. These guys are brilliant and have put into a few words and concepts the Gospel of The Kingdom of God.
I love the discussion at the beginning of chapter 7: Have you ever been in conflict with someone who thought they were wrong? … no conflict can be solved as long as all parties are convinced they are right… If you are not wrong, then you will be willing to consider how you could be mistaken…
The paradox of that last statement is the key, of course. Both parties are wrong or there would be no conflict. Both parties are right or there would no attempt or consideration of resolution. So the ideas of right and wrong are irrelevant to solving problems.
A joint terrorist in charge of the museum????
kcdad,
I don’t know. Maybe ‘terrorist’ is too strong a word, but………………………….
I am sure that at least half of Peoria County feels like they have been abducted by the ‘tax terrorist,’ and are now being FORCED to pay for ridiculous things like a regional museum.
Taxes/fees raised, services cut or reduced, wage cuts or downright loss of employment, etc. Of course, there are a number of ‘public servants’ who are under-worked and overpaid, but as usual, the innocent will pay the ultimate price.
Don’t you all feel a bit………….’terrorized?’
Check the YAHOO HOME PAGE!
Peoria made it big time!
• Peoria police use ‘armadillo’ truck to quiet noisy neighbors
So they now show everyone what it looks like (not that anyone would wonder why an armored car is parked in front of a crack house…
At least we are admitting that we have a problem and some sort of solution! 🙂
For budget cuts, now about everyone except police and fire taking 1 furlough day off per month. Do like Chicago did on Monday. Close down all city offices for 1 day per month. How much would that save?
I think the Armadillo truck is a great idea. I have seen it on different streets and love seeing it.
Peoria Journal Star article:
“Ardis: Budget ‘only gets uglier'”
– Why don’t we just wait until the new museum is built, then the MILLIONS will just start rolling in!!!!!!
Karrie,
Good book. But, isn’t one of the core messages of “Leadership and Self-deception” that people respond to how they perceive we really feel about them?
If so, how can any entity under as much public scrutiny as local government change their behavior, if the behavior is driven by the perception of a disapproving public? It’s the very nature of government to be under blame, so I’m not sure I understand how you would lead them to a different conclusion. I’d be interested to hear.
The public is in collusion with the government. Being “in the box” simply means an entity behaves in a way that elicits from the public the very behavior that the entity doesn’t want to see. Conversely, the public is “in the box”, behaving in a way that elicits from the government the very behavior the public doesn’t want to see.
If I remember correctly, you can’t change government by changing government. You have to change you. Government can only change government. I think it’s do-able on the local level, but I infer from your initial post you feel it’s up to them.
Paradox, no? 🙂
Armadillo: If they park it in front of my house, I’ll flatten their tires and paint over their cameras and windows… I don’t appreciate the intimidation tactics. This America, land of the free, liberty and justice for all. We don’t want or need big brother.
Dangling Participle: The disapproval is of their jobs and performance not of them personally. If it was personal, they would have be run out of town long ago. The sarcastic title “King Hinton” is more about the changes that came over “Teacher Hinton” when he took this position, than it is about character flaws. He is way over his head and he knows it. He can’t admit it, because although the public and teachers would probably rally to his support, it would be a admittance of failure to which NO BUREAUCRAT can afford to ever succumb. (It is the same about George W Bush as President and probably Obama as well.)
Dangling Participle:
Thank you for your comments. It is a great book!
If I remember correctly, you can’t change government by changing government. You have to change you. Government can only change government. I think it’s do-able on the local level, but I infer from your initial post you feel it’s up to them.
I can see who one could infer that inference??? — lol — it would be helpful that for all community members to read the book. I do not feel it is up to them. I do feel that the individuals all have a part in the problem and solutions — whether or not that individual holds a public office.
I am part of the problem too — we are all part of the problem as we move in and out of the box as we move toward and interact with this or that person.
I agree with what you wrote —
I think it’s do-able on the local level.
Why do you think that is is do-able on the local level? What would you suggest? Thanks for the dialogue.
Clarification:
DP wrote: But, isn’t one of the core messages of “Leadership and Self-deception” that people respond to how they perceive we really feel about them?
Yes, people do respond to how they perceive we really feel about them —- if that person makes the choice to stay in the box.
And there is always the choice to stay out of the box, otherwise, there would be no hope, no way to actually change ourselves.
“people do respond to how they perceive we really feel about them”
Charles Horton Cooley… The Looking Glass Self… good Sociological stuff!
Add him to George Mead’s concept of the dual nature of the self: I-Me and Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical Presentation of Self and you got it all right there in front of you.
Karrie wrote
“Yes, people do respond to how they perceive we really feel about them —- if that person makes the choice to stay in the box.”
so you’re saying it’s my responsibility to frame how i perceive how you feel about me, by how i choose to perceive how you feel about me?
in other words, are you saying i am responsible for staying in the box if my perception of how you feel about me (which is influenced by my interactions with you) doesn’t change because your behaviour toward me doesn’t change?
if you continue to hypothetically hate on me, then i’m staying in the box by perceiving you as hating on me, even if you are hating on me?
ed:
Okay — I think that I left out some words and did a poor job of explaining. Sorry.
People can or cannot respond to how they perceive we really feel about them. Victor Frankl wrote in Man’s Search for Meaning that a person has freedom of choice in each moment of his/her life. There is time between the stimulus (incoming information) and response (your chosen action). The amount of time between the stimulus and response and how you choose to respond is your choice.
If you respond to how you perceive they feel about you — you can be in the box or out of the box.
If you do not respond to how you perceive they feel about you — you can be in the box or out of the box.
Your perception may or may not be accurate. You are responsible for your actions or reactions to people and you can either be in or out of the box.
It is not just behavior modification. I can interact with you and do all the correct actions but if my heart is not in it — then I am still in the box.
At home, let’s use an example with a spouse. You have a disagreement with your spouse and then you say you are sorry and give him/her a kiss goodbye. You said you were sorry — words coupled with the actions of your kiss. In reality, you didn’t mean it perhaps because you just wanted the conflict to be over and to get to work on time or whatever. Does that make sense?
So your behavior was modified and looked appropriate but at the deeper level — you really didn’t mean it and you were still in the box.
Have you read either book? Leadership and Self-deception or The Anatomy of Peace?
The principles are clear in the book — sorry that I am not able to explain better. I probably just muddied the waters. I am trying to be helpful! 🙂
i know you’re trying to be helpful karrie. let’s get that out of the way.
what i am exploring is a tome written to an individual in an effort to shape the way they interact with others. you bring up the example of “the kiss” of Bob & Nancy.
my point was the principles passed along in L&SD were to a person. it’s difficult to apply them to an organization that, as was said earlier, is faced or ensconced in a culture of blame. no individual can bring that entity’s culture to the level of self awareness an individual may claim using the principles explored in L&SD.
ed… but an organization is people. It when we think of the organization as anything other than people that we lose our humanity in our interactions… CEOs act as CEOs not people, Policemen act as law enforcers, not people, and teacher and/or administrators act in their roles not as themselves.
My boss can not carry on a conversation with me because as my boss, she is responsible for keeping me poor and underpaid, even though as a person she knows it is unjust. If she were to admit she was a human being to me, we could have a relationship and conversation, but she would lose all of her authority over me and have to either release me from my employment or risk her job by paying me fairly. So, to maintain her position, she can not treat me like a person or admit that she is a person… she is an administrator and I an employee.
The solution to humanizing organizations is to unincorporate them. It is the anthropomorphizing of organizations through incorporation and the alienation of profits to absent stockholders that created this monster. This whole 6 sigma concept of “stakeholder” has twisted the meaning of investment and interest in the welfare of a company. Nowadays. the only stakeholder in a corporation is the stockholder, not the customer, not the community and certainly not the employee.
kcdad
your post saddens me. i’ve been successful in humanizing my authority and not having it be diminished. i think my reaction to this conversation is bourne out of my reaction to the principles being discussed; that its an individual’s responsibility to shape the perception of how others feel i feel about them.
i said it was difficult, i didn’t say it wasn’t possible because organizations weren’t people. i tend to agree with you.
the problem is leadership; it is bourne in the fact that the mayor and city manager can’t demand a culture of awareness. some of the comments made by these “leaders” are outlandish (BVA asks why no police management were on the chopping block – with no knowledge of their span of control or responsibility, the clerk states outright, i can’t do with less)…they’re all wrong of course, but at the end of the day applying the lesson of L&SD is still difficult to an organization existing in a culture of blame. yes, i keep coming back to that because if you tell a child time and time again they’re bad and rotten buggers, guess what you get?
Kcdad is saying what I’ve long observed. I have always been amazed how a teacher turned administrator completely loses his/her perspectives as a teacher. Putting on a different “corporate” hat seems literally to affect the brain and the heart. Also, the power of the central adminstrators over the building administrators certainly plays a role in this metamorphosis. I am especially amazed how this process works with board members, also. They soon stop thinking independently–the impetus that caused them to run for the board in the first place–and become brain-washed by “administrative” think. They even start behaving as though they are the employees of the superintendent, instead of his bosses.
ed: I agree. Cultures of blame would tend to remain cultures of blame. Nevertheless, the cultures are comprised of individuals. Individuals and their interactions make differences along some type of spectrum. I recall a saying — yougottawanna — an inside out idea. However, if you do not even realize that you have a problem and/or are part of the problem, then any solution applied doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Just more of the same or some variation on the same theme.
Then there are cases where the child did not accept the label and internalize the message of being a rotten ….. what makes the difference?
In my mind, there is a disconnect between expenditures in different columns, needs vs. wants and sometimes just wanting to have it all in our city budget (other government budgets too). In talking with one of my neighbors, she shared that even when she and her husband were first married and times were rough, they paid their bills. She shared that one time, they had money for bills or food. The money was applied to the bill because she said that she and her husband had made a commitment and given their word to pay the bill. It meant living on PBJ and bread and then only PB and bread until their next paycheck.
I do not see the same type of behavior in our city leadership. It appears that our leaders have overcommitted us to wants vs. needs and now there is not enough money. I could be wrong about my analysis.
ed: sorry to be dense — I an not understanding what you wrote …. I need some of help.
that its an individual’s responsibility to shape the perception of how others feel i feel about them.
Thank ed, I think I understand. “guess what you get?” What we got. An adversarial system, competing for dollars, divided into two alternatives-right and wrong, and paranoid; constantly trying to maintain their hold on power against all enemies, real or imagined.
I don’t understand the sadness, though.
kcdad: Armadillo- it is not intended to be placed in front of law-abiding citizens homes, but rather in front of drug houses, known hoods, etc., to cut down the traffic, most of which is illegal. It works.
or in front of any house they want to intimidate… “NOT intended”… OMG! have you given up every ounce of independent thinking and natural inquiry you ever had?
Don’t you get it? This is a direct attack on liberty and freedom… this is government making the rules… this is Orwell’s worst nightmare…. WHO CARES IF IT WORKS OR NOT?!?!?!?!?! Mustard gas works, neutron bombs work, genocide works, Fox News works…
Do you think the armadillo will ever be parked in front of some rich white guy’s house who is having cocaine parties on Grand View Drive? (Only if they are not supporting the museum)