7 thoughts on “Moore’s list of critical city positions”

1. Maybe the public should develop a list of “non-critical” positions in response?

   While this would cause many to simply take swipes at those positions they know little about, there are some opportunities under a different structure and increased use of technology (and in some cases reduced service levels) to make changes. What I find most interesting in all the cutting, is that the Council has never discussed (or required staff to fully disclose) detailed impacts that these cuts have on operations. Seems to me that they would make these decisions based upon the impact to current services.

   The following are simply for illustrative purposes. For example, closure of a Fire Station would save 11 positions at X dollars and have the following impact — increase in response time from X to Y for designated station closure. Elimination of XX Police Officers will save X dollars and result in Y. We don’t seem to have this important discussion before decisions are made but rather make cuts based upon non-relevant factors (who choose to assume pay freeze, etc.) rather than services to public. The elimination of the Econ Dir makes NO sense. They will fill from someone inside (claiming savings from internal promotion) when they should have simply eliminated a position in the Department – or merged it with another.

   The balance budgeting this year seems based on very little hard data compared to prior cuts the City undertook. I still think there are some services that are provided that the public would voluntarily take a reduction in (especially in the administrative areas) in lieu of the cuts that have been identified. I don’t have the data to make specific recommendations but don’t feel that the Council has made long-term wise choices in how they eliminated specific positions.

2. peo proud,

   good discussion. my thoughts are it didn’t occur because Henry Holling didn’t know how, Scott Moore came in too late, and you largely have a city council who thinks it needs to manage how decisions are made, instead of simply making decisions.

   Consider Garey Sandberg’s quote:

   “At-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg said there is some danger in allowing the administration to determine how the department might restructure.

   “All we know is there will be less police officers. We don’t know exactly how the smaller, trimmer Police Department’s responsibilities will be,” he said. “Will they stop doing ‘X’ to do ‘Y’? The danger in that answer is will the administration, when they do come up with that, will they cut the programs that are, quite frankly, the highest priority?”

   Highest priority to whom? Politically minded individuals, or hired professionals equipped to manage the problems set before them?

   The city council doesn’t want a city manager, doesn’t know how to manage a city, and hasn’t a clue how to drive change, yet, there you have it.

   What you’re assuming is the analysis your speaking of would matter. The fallacy is in thinking data-driven decision making can be achieved in political organizations.

   The second problem I see is how the issue of concessions was managed (Again, Holling, not Moore). I am not pro union, but believe in the value of a contract. Union contracts provided for individual property rights distributed to a collective body. If the collective cost is too much, then lower it by trimming individual beneficiaries. It’s that simple. Layoffs are entirely appropriate, and a result of having service sector unions. With a trade union, it’s straight forward, work available (revenue source), paid to work. Trade unions also have unspoken performance measurements as well. Service sector, not so much. With a service sector union, it’s not straight forward, no work available (revenue sources go away), still paid to work. How else would you manage the tension?

   You could argue crime is work, but again, that’s assuming the current structure of addressing crime is the best one. Staffing analysis to call volume would be the appropriate measure, yet with all the screaming of ‘you can’t cut police’, not once have we seen that study…sorry for the rambling.

3. Now I’m a little concerned (…i’m thinking like Councilman Sandberg 😉 )…didn’t watch the meeting or catch his quote but I agree with it 100%. That type of information needs to be presented in advance for public airing and vetting before decisions are made, otherwise staff has cover to say “this is the best we can do with the decision the Council made regarding staffing levels”. The Council SHOULD not be involved in daily operations in departments but setting the policy framework (including budget, staffing levels, service levels, etc) that the Administration is charged with implementing. I have NO idea how they can do that without more information than they were given.

4. Especially since they received the information approximately 30 minutes to the meeting — I think it was Spain that said that and Mayor Ardis did not even have a copy of at least one of the documents. First impressions were the type of decisions made at state and federal level where officials are not aware of what they are voting on let alone the fall out of the dominos falling once decisions are made.

   I would not want to be in the Administration’s shoes — rough spot to hit a continually moving target.

5. Dangling Participle,

   I’ve been in this rodeo many times before as well as being a Department Head for 10 years before being elected and more often than not the Administration brings se forward service cuts that they know are the citizens priorities. This “game” is to make the “elected politician” come to the conclusion that the only solution is more money is needed.

   Believe it or not, reading my quote and not understanding the context of a 9 minute and 17 second discussion with the reporter (I checked my cell phone record) was that there is danger in just approving position eliminations without knowing what programs or services will be impacted by those position eliminations. I used the example that your police chief could eliminate x number of positions and state that there would be reduction in gang or drug enforcement OR and this is the example I used with the reporter, those same reductions could mean the City does NOT provide security details for visiting dignitaries. One service is of a higher priority for more citizens than the other. I will let you determine which is which, as unfortunately, it you or anyone relies solely on the Journal Star for your knowledge base, you probably wouldn’t arrive at the same priority as most Peoria citizens. It never fails to amaze me how much reliance people have on quotes in paper instead of listening to Council meetings or contacting the individual that made the quote for understanding. But then, it’s much easier to jump to conclusions that the motivation is to micromanage.

   I suggest you run for City Council and just let the Administration do what they want, after all, thats the rodeo at SD 150 and we know how well that is working out. Just last month, your police chief stated he would rather spend $25,000 on new style LED light bars to replace exising light bars on some vehicles instead of using the money for salaries. The same police chief that wants to spend $252,000 on a sole source purchase of uniforms. The same police chief spends $9.900 on Badges in June of 2008 for 10,000 patches without securing competitive bids on 10,000 bids and claims used them all as 9 months later (March 2009) he orders 10,000 new logo police patches for slightly less than $10,000, AGAIN WITHOUT COMPETIVIE BIDS, but claims this 10,000 patches will last 3 years.

   Yep, Dangling Participle, what was I thinking, I should JUST BELIEVE ………………………… and click my heals together three times and the $14,500,000 deficit will be all right.

6. “It never fails to amaze me how much reliance people have on quotes in paper instead of listening to Council meetings or contacting the individual that made the quote for understanding. But then, it’s much easier to jump to conclusions that the motivation is to micromanage.”

   gary – there is no need for the pjs, folks can look at the historical record. you folks have zero credibility at setting policy. zero.

   your assumption is people aren’t watching. it amazes me that you think so little of the voting populace, but then again, you are you.

   “Just last month, your police chief stated he would rather spend $25,000 on new style LED light bars to replace exising light bars on some vehicles instead of using the money for salaries.”

   gary – there is a fundamental difference between one time asset purchases and adding to the largest proportion of your expense base. come on, you folks know this. like, um, 40m for a hotel, or salaries? you may argue all you want about whether you voted for it or not (voting, fully knowing the outcome, because you “rarely ask a question or make a statement without knowing the answer or understanding the outcome”.

   please.

7. If I have to choose between the administration and the council doing the right thing, I choose the administration every time.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.