McGinn Outlines Cuts; Half Unrelated to Budget Shortfall

Perhaps the Mayor doesn’t know they’re not all general fund jobs? And no cuts from the Mayor’s office. Nice.

Perhaps the Mayor doesn’t know they’re not all general fund jobs? And no cuts from the Mayor’s office. Nice.

I read this on Seattletimes.com last night.

I read this on Seattletimes.com last night.

@2: Not true — yesterday’s Times story was about a memo saying this was coming down today. This is about the details of the cuts, which went out to departments this afternoon.

@2: Not true — yesterday’s Times story was about a memo saying this was coming down today. This is about the details of the cuts, which went out to departments this afternoon.

@2: Funny, I didn’t see any analysis, local e-mail gossip, or follow-up reporting w/ McGinn’s spokespeople on that Times report. I must’ve missed it.

This is completely INSANE. If he wants to save a certain amount of money, say so — and find ways (reduce lower priority contracts, delay projects, cut positions based on the value they add regardless of whether they are senior management or SAs, etc.). If he wants to end certain programs, then pick the programs and end them and cut those staff.

This is totally ass backwards.

@2: Funny, I didn’t see any analysis, local e-mail gossip, or follow-up reporting w/ McGinn’s spokespeople on that Times report. I must’ve missed it.

This is completely INSANE. If he wants to save a certain amount of money, say so — and find ways (reduce lower priority contracts, delay projects, cut positions based on the value they add regardless of whether they are senior management or SAs, etc.). If he wants to end certain programs, then pick the programs and end them and cut those staff.

This is totally ass backwards.

Has any elected official failed so miserably so quickly? Even Bush had a few months when he didn’t look like he’d completely ruin the country. McGinn seems to have absolutely no idea what he is doing.

Has any elected official failed so miserably so quickly? Even Bush had a few months when he didn’t look like he’d completely ruin the country. McGinn seems to have absolutely no idea what he is doing.

Since he took office, McGinn has done nothing but re-enforce the impression that he’s an incompetent boob.

I bet Mallahan has his e-mail set up so every time he replies it automatically enters the text “I told you so!”

Since he took office, McGinn has done nothing but re-enforce the impression that he’s an incompetent boob.

I bet Mallahan has his e-mail set up so every time he replies it automatically enters the text “I told you so!”

So glad the ambassadors are doing such a great job. Wow…Seawall, now this. George W. Bush of the Left.

So glad the ambassadors are doing such a great job. Wow…Seawall, now this. George W. Bush of the Left.

The word that City employees have been hearing is that it was a campaign promise to cut employees, and so that is what he is doing. If that’s the case, then say that! But instead, the written message is that this is a budget cut exercise, but it obviously is not since the Utilities are so greatly affected. This is very frustrating and seems not to be based on any logical arguments or reasoning. The focus is that ‘we need to get back to 2006 staffing levels’? Why??? Has Seattle not changed since 2006? McGinn spent his ‘transition’ time soliciting feedback from citizens after his campaign. He should spend at least that much time getting to know City Departments before making changes.

The word that City employees have been hearing is that it was a campaign promise to cut employees, and so that is what he is doing. If that’s the case, then say that! But instead, the written message is that this is a budget cut exercise, but it obviously is not since the Utilities are so greatly affected. This is very frustrating and seems not to be based on any logical arguments or reasoning. The focus is that ‘we need to get back to 2006 staffing levels’? Why??? Has Seattle not changed since 2006? McGinn spent his ‘transition’ time soliciting feedback from citizens after his campaign. He should spend at least that much time getting to know City Departments before making changes.

@3 In other words, the Seattle Times story was like a typical Publicola report?

@3 In other words, the Seattle Times story was like a typical Publicola report?

Dear Erica. Who is Chris Bushnell and what is he doing at City Hall?

What is a “@2″?

Anyway, having seen this in my industry it is not a shock to see it.

Not knowing who us actually leaving has an impact on the entire group. This is a distraction that may cause more talented people to leave on their own in better economic times.

Dear Erica. Who is Chris Bushnell and what is he doing at City Hall?

What is a “@2″?

Anyway, having seen this in my industry it is not a shock to see it.

Not knowing who us actually leaving has an impact on the entire group. This is a distraction that may cause more talented people to leave on their own in better economic times.

Seattleite’s comments are spot on. McGinn’s a novice, a babe playing politics without a clue as to what he’s doing. Doesn’t know protocols, fired everyone in the previous MO office (like the administrative assistant who could have helped his staff figure out where everything is and how it works). As has been pointed out, no one from the MO is getting the axe, but somehow he needs not one but two deputy mayors to help him run the city into the ground.

Just plain sad to see him on the path to strip the City of it’s institutional memory. The SA positions represent some of the best talents in the City and we will regret losing them. On the other hand, to get a job in the current administration’s circle of idiots, you only need to know the words to Kum Ba Ya, have next to zero experience in actually running something, and have volunteered for his campaign. My prediction is that McGinn will be a one term and out mayor, leaving the City in a complete shambles. By the time he and his staff figure out where the toilets are and how to work the copy machine, it’ll be time for them to start looking for another job. Pity the next administration who will have to pick up the pieces and put the City back together.

Seattle, its going to be a long, long 4 years.

Seattleite’s comments are spot on. McGinn’s a novice, a babe playing politics without a clue as to what he’s doing. Doesn’t know protocols, fired everyone in the previous MO office (like the administrative assistant who could have helped his staff figure out where everything is and how it works). As has been pointed out, no one from the MO is getting the axe, but somehow he needs not one but two deputy mayors to help him run the city into the ground.

Just plain sad to see him on the path to strip the City of it’s institutional memory. The SA positions represent some of the best talents in the City and we will regret losing them. On the other hand, to get a job in the current administration’s circle of idiots, you only need to know the words to Kum Ba Ya, have next to zero experience in actually running something, and have volunteered for his campaign. My prediction is that McGinn will be a one term and out mayor, leaving the City in a complete shambles. By the time he and his staff figure out where the toilets are and how to work the copy machine, it’ll be time for them to start looking for another job. Pity the next administration who will have to pick up the pieces and put the City back together.

Seattle, its going to be a long, long 4 years.

It is sad to see the Publicola comment threads filling up with the everything-anyone-does-is-wrong Eeyores that have long since driven all of the sane people away from the Seattle Times commenting system. Why do I get the feeling that if McGinn wasn’t cutting positions right now, the same people would be here complaining that he’s leading us into fiscal disaster?

It is sad to see the Publicola comment threads filling up with the everything-anyone-does-is-wrong Eeyores that have long since driven all of the sane people away from the Seattle Times commenting system. Why do I get the feeling that if McGinn wasn’t cutting positions right now, the same people would be here complaining that he’s leading us into fiscal disaster?

Dear troll, Chris Bushnell has been discussed on this very blog. Perhaps you should do a search?

Dear troll, Chris Bushnell has been discussed on this very blog. Perhaps you should do a search?

You’re doin’ a heckofa job, Mikey!

Way to alienate Council. Way to alienate all City employees (for vague and undefined reasons). Way to shut down all productivity in the City as all your top people spend their days trading rumors about the cut procedure and who may face the axe. What kind of employer says “We’re going to whack 200. Stay tuned and keep doing what you’re doing for a few months while we figure out who”? Imagine if that happened at your office.

Pointing out confused and silly aspects of this action is like shooting fish in a barrel.

My favorite at the moment is the fact that after tons of write-ups and analyses get compiled to describe each department’s functional priorities, after all those priorities are associated with the Executive/Manager/Strategic Advisors positions on the chopping block, after reasoned and learned decisions are made on who and what to cut . . .

the whole shebang is then thrown into the pachinko machine that is bumping rights / order of layoffs. Whoever you fire, with whatever analytic basis you have for doing so, bumping rights makes sure someone else (working on something else) will actually leave City employment. It’s all based on seniority.

Crazy!

And I still think Erica needs to get on Chris Bushnell’s role in all this. He’s calling the shots on 7, running the numbers, holding them close, directing staff to produce the very document you posted, Erica. Yet he’s not part of the Mayor’s cabinet. Is he even drawing a salary? How’s he getting paid? Why is the Mayor keeping him in the shadows? The employees facing the axe deserve to know.

You’re doin’ a heckofa job, Mikey!

Way to alienate Council. Way to alienate all City employees (for vague and undefined reasons). Way to shut down all productivity in the City as all your top people spend their days trading rumors about the cut procedure and who may face the axe. What kind of employer says “We’re going to whack 200. Stay tuned and keep doing what you’re doing for a few months while we figure out who”? Imagine if that happened at your office.

Pointing out confused and silly aspects of this action is like shooting fish in a barrel.

My favorite at the moment is the fact that after tons of write-ups and analyses get compiled to describe each department’s functional priorities, after all those priorities are associated with the Executive/Manager/Strategic Advisors positions on the chopping block, after reasoned and learned decisions are made on who and what to cut . . .

the whole shebang is then thrown into the pachinko machine that is bumping rights / order of layoffs. Whoever you fire, with whatever analytic basis you have for doing so, bumping rights makes sure someone else (working on something else) will actually leave City employment. It’s all based on seniority.

Crazy!

And I still think Erica needs to get on Chris Bushnell’s role in all this. He’s calling the shots on 7, running the numbers, holding them close, directing staff to produce the very document you posted, Erica. Yet he’s not part of the Mayor’s cabinet. Is he even drawing a salary? How’s he getting paid? Why is the Mayor keeping him in the shadows? The employees facing the axe deserve to know.

@Jon Stahl
Publicola isn’t the Seattle Times message boards at all with its right wing cranks and other fools. Not everyone, but a good deal of people who comment here are “smarter than the average bear” they are people who know something about politics and govt and pr etc… so when you see a whole bunch people saying things are truly fubar — you should actually listen. And things are really fubar at City Hall. Publicola knows it too and their job is to find it out… follow the emails at City Hall Publicola.

@Jon Stahl
Publicola isn’t the Seattle Times message boards at all with its right wing cranks and other fools. Not everyone, but a good deal of people who comment here are “smarter than the average bear” they are people who know something about politics and govt and pr etc… so when you see a whole bunch people saying things are truly fubar — you should actually listen. And things are really fubar at City Hall. Publicola knows it too and their job is to find it out… follow the emails at City Hall Publicola.

Yes, the mysterious Chris Bushnell. He spent last week skiing. Clearly he’s the root of this!

What bullshit.

Yes, the mysterious Chris Bushnell. He spent last week skiing. Clearly he’s the root of this!

What bullshit.

I’m trying to understand why McGinn is approaching this with such poor leadership skills. If he doesn’t know how to be a leader than he should hire a coach to help him out. It’s not too late. Maybe it is because of his inexperienced staff – they have lots of energy but haven’t tapped into the expertise availble to them. This makes them look very foolish – too bad this will follow them in their careers. The City of Seattle has many very intelligent and strategic thinkers who could have helped him do cuts and still not completely alienate everyone at the City. Assuming that a reorganization can be done in two weeks is OK for small organizations of 50 or so employees but impossible for a complex city as large as Seattle. Shame on McGinn and his staff for acting so hastily and assuming that this will solve anything. What a waste of time, and money.

I’m trying to understand why McGinn is approaching this with such poor leadership skills. If he doesn’t know how to be a leader than he should hire a coach to help him out. It’s not too late. Maybe it is because of his inexperienced staff – they have lots of energy but haven’t tapped into the expertise availble to them. This makes them look very foolish – too bad this will follow them in their careers. The City of Seattle has many very intelligent and strategic thinkers who could have helped him do cuts and still not completely alienate everyone at the City. Assuming that a reorganization can be done in two weeks is OK for small organizations of 50 or so employees but impossible for a complex city as large as Seattle. Shame on McGinn and his staff for acting so hastily and assuming that this will solve anything. What a waste of time, and money.

I always figure the one plus of a McGinn administration was it it would be amusing. I just didn’t think it would be so soon.

@1 Of course there isn’t. They are all well compensated and have some shiny new phones!

I always figure the one plus of a McGinn administration was it it would be amusing. I just didn’t think it would be so soon.

@1 Of course there isn’t. They are all well compensated and have some shiny new phones!

You are seriously oversimplifying if you think that the general fund is the only problem. The city faces deficits in essentially all its funds. City Light had to increase rates by 13.8 percent this year and still is looking at a shortfall in 2011. Two of the divisions in SPU face deficits. And DPD is in terrible with the contraction in construction causing a huge budget deficit.

Criticize McGinn if you like on the approach, but you can’t argue that the city doesn’t face serious financial problems.

You are seriously oversimplifying if you think that the general fund is the only problem. The city faces deficits in essentially all its funds. City Light had to increase rates by 13.8 percent this year and still is looking at a shortfall in 2011. Two of the divisions in SPU face deficits. And DPD is in terrible with the contraction in construction causing a huge budget deficit.

Criticize McGinn if you like on the approach, but you can’t argue that the city doesn’t face serious financial problems.

And one question for Erica. Why are you only showing part of the document? I saw the original — it has several paragraphs of text that you cut out.

And one question for Erica. Why are you only showing part of the document? I saw the original — it has several paragraphs of text that you cut out.

I’ve been around the City in construction and permitting for over 15 years and have seen a lot in that time. How many of the previous posters know the increase in the number of senior staff vs. the workforce at large? Or are they the beneficiaries of these salary inflated promotions? There are too many managers and “executives” and why would any organization need almost 200 “strategic advisors”? Are there “non-strategic advisors”? How about “tactical advisors”? Many of these folks are left over from previous directors, and were moved out of the direct function of their department and now work on “special projects”.

Fee supported Departments, will be looking for even more staff reductions as permit volumes drop. Maybe being force to cut management positions will save staff level jobs, who have already been cut disproportionately.

The good managers, do the work of three others. SA’s are only overhead and their contributions are minimal (and also a way for technically unqualified people to be promoted over those that meet existing personnel specifications). Executive’s have been increased across the board, where functions are duplicated by each department.

It’s about time to cut the fat at the top.

I’ve been around the City in construction and permitting for over 15 years and have seen a lot in that time. How many of the previous posters know the increase in the number of senior staff vs. the workforce at large? Or are they the beneficiaries of these salary inflated promotions? There are too many managers and “executives” and why would any organization need almost 200 “strategic advisors”? Are there “non-strategic advisors”? How about “tactical advisors”? Many of these folks are left over from previous directors, and were moved out of the direct function of their department and now work on “special projects”.

Fee supported Departments, will be looking for even more staff reductions as permit volumes drop. Maybe being force to cut management positions will save staff level jobs, who have already been cut disproportionately.

The good managers, do the work of three others. SA’s are only overhead and their contributions are minimal (and also a way for technically unqualified people to be promoted over those that meet existing personnel specifications). Executive’s have been increased across the board, where functions are duplicated by each department.

It’s about time to cut the fat at the top.

McGinn must have no idea how destructive this whole thing has been on the city people who must now carry forth his vision. Whacking SPU and City Light will not save a penny on anyone’s utility bill, and do nothing for the general fund. To do this cutting for budget reasons is completely disingenuous. To simply “cut fat at the top” is to listen to the mob before making informed decisions. And then to say “Well, we might not do this after all” just makes things worse. Management 101: people want certainty. These people shouldn’t be allowed to run a popsicle stand.

McGinn must have no idea how destructive this whole thing has been on the city people who must now carry forth his vision. Whacking SPU and City Light will not save a penny on anyone’s utility bill, and do nothing for the general fund. To do this cutting for budget reasons is completely disingenuous. To simply “cut fat at the top” is to listen to the mob before making informed decisions. And then to say “Well, we might not do this after all” just makes things worse. Management 101: people want certainty. These people shouldn’t be allowed to run a popsicle stand.

Flight To Mars, what do you mean cutting senior staff at SPU and SCL will do nothing to reduce utility rates?

Our utilities face big deficits that will result in big rate increases. Reducing costs, reduces the deficit, reducing the upward pressure on rates.

Pretty simple, really.

Flight To Mars, what do you mean cutting senior staff at SPU and SCL will do nothing to reduce utility rates?

Our utilities face big deficits that will result in big rate increases. Reducing costs, reduces the deficit, reducing the upward pressure on rates.

Pretty simple, really.

Flight to Mars – where does the City hide their printing press? The money for those salaries comes from somewhere. Even if this savings doesn’t reduce rates, it frees up money to 1) address deficit (why did SPU have to get 1.8% rate increase), or 2) fund their capital projects (hint look at the CSO program and the EPA consent decree). It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Flight to Mars – where does the City hide their printing press? The money for those salaries comes from somewhere. Even if this savings doesn’t reduce rates, it frees up money to 1) address deficit (why did SPU have to get 1.8% rate increase), or 2) fund their capital projects (hint look at the CSO program and the EPA consent decree). It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Budget geek, There are what, like 3-400,000 households served by city light? If each of those cut was making 100,000 and if every dollar went to rate reduction with no efficiency lost you are talking a reduction to each household of 10-15 dollars per year.

And that’s some pretty optimistic numbers.

Budget geek, There are what, like 3-400,000 households served by city light? If each of those cut was making 100,000 and if every dollar went to rate reduction with no efficiency lost you are talking a reduction to each household of 10-15 dollars per year.

And that’s some pretty optimistic numbers.

McGinn’s approach is flawed in so many ways. First, despite what Mark Matassa says above, McGinn has not at all reached out to city employees in any meaningful way. We found out about the position cuts, the rolled back COLAs and all other executive orders through the press. He uses cutting our jobs as an applause line in his speeches, as if he’s still on the campaign trail and not our actual boss now. Every city employee I’ve talked to, whether in this targeted group or not, feels alienated and demoralized.

As far as these cuts go, McGinn and company have been clear that they are not interested in cutting any position to save money, nor do they seem open to suggestions for other budget savings for that matter. They didn’t give a dollar figure to cut, they gave a position count. They want the heads of people within these pay classification titles because he made a campaign promise to cut the people he thought were Nickels political appointees, despite the truth that the vast majority of these people worked their way up through the city or were found through competitive hiring processes because of the value they could bring to the city. Either he still erroneously believes this or he doesn’t care about the impact this will have on morale and services.

And McGinn has done nothing to refute the mischaracterizations by people such as XRcris above who makes a sweeping generalization that SAs make only minimal contributions. Most people would never know if they were interacting with an SA because it is a pay classification only, not a position title. Not all SAs are management. And not all SAs make more money by being in that classification compared to if they were in another (in fact, some of these people currently targeted would be making more money in other classifications and not be in the crosshairs right now).

Yet while McGinn continues to publicly villify many people who have years of experience, a wide range of skills and who essentially keep many city functions going, he hires a his own team of strategic advisors whose only experience is working for free on his campaign.

It would be easier to accept this “do as I say, not as I do” mentality if they had bothered to find out what anyone does or made any analysis that showed these cuts will serve any financial purpose or reduce inefficiencies. Instead, he’s disrupting every single department, even those that have continued to be highly functioning and nearly self-sufficient during these tough times, plus alienating nearly every single employee, when the benefits of what he calls this “exercise” will be at best negligible.

McGinn’s approach is flawed in so many ways. First, despite what Mark Matassa says above, McGinn has not at all reached out to city employees in any meaningful way. We found out about the position cuts, the rolled back COLAs and all other executive orders through the press. He uses cutting our jobs as an applause line in his speeches, as if he’s still on the campaign trail and not our actual boss now. Every city employee I’ve talked to, whether in this targeted group or not, feels alienated and demoralized.

As far as these cuts go, McGinn and company have been clear that they are not interested in cutting any position to save money, nor do they seem open to suggestions for other budget savings for that matter. They didn’t give a dollar figure to cut, they gave a position count. They want the heads of people within these pay classification titles because he made a campaign promise to cut the people he thought were Nickels political appointees, despite the truth that the vast majority of these people worked their way up through the city or were found through competitive hiring processes because of the value they could bring to the city. Either he still erroneously believes this or he doesn’t care about the impact this will have on morale and services.

And McGinn has done nothing to refute the mischaracterizations by people such as XRcris above who makes a sweeping generalization that SAs make only minimal contributions. Most people would never know if they were interacting with an SA because it is a pay classification only, not a position title. Not all SAs are management. And not all SAs make more money by being in that classification compared to if they were in another (in fact, some of these people currently targeted would be making more money in other classifications and not be in the crosshairs right now).

Yet while McGinn continues to publicly villify many people who have years of experience, a wide range of skills and who essentially keep many city functions going, he hires a his own team of strategic advisors whose only experience is working for free on his campaign.

It would be easier to accept this “do as I say, not as I do” mentality if they had bothered to find out what anyone does or made any analysis that showed these cuts will serve any financial purpose or reduce inefficiencies. Instead, he’s disrupting every single department, even those that have continued to be highly functioning and nearly self-sufficient during these tough times, plus alienating nearly every single employee, when the benefits of what he calls this “exercise” will be at best negligible.

Giffy, City Light has added 61 senior positions since 2002. At $100k per year, that’s $6.1 million, plus another $2 million for benefits. $8 million is a rate increase of about 1.5 percent. If you don’t think that’s real money, you need to attend more council hearings.

Giffy, City Light has added 61 senior positions since 2002. At $100k per year, that’s $6.1 million, plus another $2 million for benefits. $8 million is a rate increase of about 1.5 percent. If you don’t think that’s real money, you need to attend more council hearings.

Insurgents don’t become good administrators. Mikie has started to hammer on his own head now that he is The Man. He can’t help himself.

Insurgents don’t become good administrators. Mikie has started to hammer on his own head now that he is The Man. He can’t help himself.

So to Budget geek and XRcris

There would be some utility rate savings if these cuts were enacted 100% as layoffs — on the order of 1%-2%, maybe.

But you also have to consider the fact that many of these people are managing the utilities’ substantial capital programs, hundreds of millions worth each year. The alternative to doing that work with City employees is to hire outside consultants to manage your projects, and that generally costs more than an employee.

So you’re back to square one on that front.

So to Budget geek and XRcris

There would be some utility rate savings if these cuts were enacted 100% as layoffs — on the order of 1%-2%, maybe.

But you also have to consider the fact that many of these people are managing the utilities’ substantial capital programs, hundreds of millions worth each year. The alternative to doing that work with City employees is to hire outside consultants to manage your projects, and that generally costs more than an employee.

So you’re back to square one on that front.

Another Geek, SCL senior staff are way up, consultants are up almost as much, and the only thing that is down are rank and file employees. It seems to me that we can do better.

Another Geek, SCL senior staff are way up, consultants are up almost as much, and the only thing that is down are rank and file employees. It seems to me that we can do better.

Budget Geek, “added” is not necessarily accurate. Many of these SA positions are people who were already employed by the city but because of restructuring or adding of duties or simply moving up, they were reclassified to the SA title because that was the only option in the city’s classification system. I’d love to see an analysis of how many of these “added” positions between 2002 and now were actual new positions created vs. reclassifications. And SAs, managers and executives don’t get automatic step increases like all other positions. So in tough times, these people don’t get annual raises (and were stripped of their COLAs this year) while others move up on the “step” ladder. Not saying the step increases are bad, just saying it’s one benefit of not being an SA, manager or execitive.

Budget Geek, “added” is not necessarily accurate. Many of these SA positions are people who were already employed by the city but because of restructuring or adding of duties or simply moving up, they were reclassified to the SA title because that was the only option in the city’s classification system. I’d love to see an analysis of how many of these “added” positions between 2002 and now were actual new positions created vs. reclassifications. And SAs, managers and executives don’t get automatic step increases like all other positions. So in tough times, these people don’t get annual raises (and were stripped of their COLAs this year) while others move up on the “step” ladder. Not saying the step increases are bad, just saying it’s one benefit of not being an SA, manager or execitive.

Cosmopolis, I don’t disagree that this is true with some of the positions.

But my understanding is that most of the added senior positions in SCL were not only new hires, they were also vacant lower level positions that were reclassified outside of the budget process. Which means SCL was hiring brand new people into highly paid positions and did it all without approval from Council.

Cosmopolis, I don’t disagree that this is true with some of the positions.

But my understanding is that most of the added senior positions in SCL were not only new hires, they were also vacant lower level positions that were reclassified outside of the budget process. Which means SCL was hiring brand new people into highly paid positions and did it all without approval from Council.

And I think everyone would rather have the extra $40k of being an executive/manager/strategic advisor versus not getting a step increase… making the difference $39k per year.

And I think everyone would rather have the extra $40k of being an executive/manager/strategic advisor versus not getting a step increase… making the difference $39k per year.

Not sure where you’re getting the extra $40k figure from. If it’s your analysis of SCL specifically, well I can’t really refute that, not knowing that much about SCL’s position/pay structure, though I have a hard time believing that’s the average increase given by a reclass to SA. Or maybe I’m just working in the wrong department…

Not sure where you’re getting the extra $40k figure from. If it’s your analysis of SCL specifically, well I can’t really refute that, not knowing that much about SCL’s position/pay structure, though I have a hard time believing that’s the average increase given by a reclass to SA. Or maybe I’m just working in the wrong department…

Budget Geek: you either don’t know all the facts or you are withholding information in your posts to support your opinion.

Cosmopolis: your requested statistics follow:

For SCL:
The number of “senior level positions” went from 106 in 2002 to 156 in 2010.
Of this increase, ONLY 7 are NEW positions. The new positions were necessary for reasons such as:

The Asset Management Program that was approved by City Council so that SCL can be more proactive in repairing and replacing aging equiptment.
NERC Compliance which is a NEW set of federal laws that SCL must comply with – NERC violations run up to $1M per day.
A 5-year conservation plan.
The Alaskan Via-Duct project – there are massive amounts of electrical infrastructure that will be impacted.
Security & Emergency Preparedness – if a disaster strikes, I suspect that Budget Geek would be the first to bitch about no emergency plan when he doesn’t have power.
I-937 Renewables
ETC….

The rest of the positions were EXISTING positions that were reclassified for various reasons, including the support of many of the above initiatives. Many of these positions require subject matter expertise and specialization. The only way that the city could get this talent was to make the positions closer to what industry pays. Even with the reclassification – there are lawyers working as strategic advisors for less than $100k when they could be elsewhere making much more. They chose the City because the work is rewarding (well, it was.)

The budget shortfall for SCL was a result of reduced prices on the wholesale market. Much of SCL’s revenue is from the sale of extra power on these markets.

Budget Geek – can you share with us who the highest paid individuals are in the city? I bet you can, but you won’t. Here’s a hint to everyone….they are not “senior level” employees. They are union workers.

Budget Geek: you either don’t know all the facts or you are withholding information in your posts to support your opinion.

Cosmopolis: your requested statistics follow:

For SCL:
The number of “senior level positions” went from 106 in 2002 to 156 in 2010.
Of this increase, ONLY 7 are NEW positions. The new positions were necessary for reasons such as:

The Asset Management Program that was approved by City Council so that SCL can be more proactive in repairing and replacing aging equiptment.
NERC Compliance which is a NEW set of federal laws that SCL must comply with – NERC violations run up to $1M per day.
A 5-year conservation plan.
The Alaskan Via-Duct project – there are massive amounts of electrical infrastructure that will be impacted.
Security & Emergency Preparedness – if a disaster strikes, I suspect that Budget Geek would be the first to bitch about no emergency plan when he doesn’t have power.
I-937 Renewables
ETC….

The rest of the positions were EXISTING positions that were reclassified for various reasons, including the support of many of the above initiatives. Many of these positions require subject matter expertise and specialization. The only way that the city could get this talent was to make the positions closer to what industry pays. Even with the reclassification – there are lawyers working as strategic advisors for less than $100k when they could be elsewhere making much more. They chose the City because the work is rewarding (well, it was.)

The budget shortfall for SCL was a result of reduced prices on the wholesale market. Much of SCL’s revenue is from the sale of extra power on these markets.

Budget Geek – can you share with us who the highest paid individuals are in the city? I bet you can, but you won’t. Here’s a hint to everyone….they are not “senior level” employees. They are union workers.

Ready. Fire. Aim.

RECALL!
http://www.ehow.com/how_2093099_recall-city-mayor.html

Ready. Fire. Aim.

RECALL!
http://www.ehow.com/how_2093099_recall-city-mayor.html

A bit more information regarding SCL.

For 2010, before the Mayor started these cuts, SCL already did the following:

Cut 60 positions including 8 “senior level” employees and $28M (coming to a 14% overall cut.)

To all of the people that are claiming “too much fat” at the top….

The current inventory of the top at SCL is:
35 executives which account for 1.9% of all SCL staff.
60 managers which account for 3.2% of all SCL staff.
61 strategic advisors which account for 3.3% of SCL staff.

If you look at management profiles of similar power utilities, you will find that SCL is already running very lean in terms of management numbers.

A bit more information regarding SCL.

For 2010, before the Mayor started these cuts, SCL already did the following:

Cut 60 positions including 8 “senior level” employees and $28M (coming to a 14% overall cut.)

To all of the people that are claiming “too much fat” at the top….

The current inventory of the top at SCL is:
35 executives which account for 1.9% of all SCL staff.
60 managers which account for 3.2% of all SCL staff.
61 strategic advisors which account for 3.3% of SCL staff.

If you look at management profiles of similar power utilities, you will find that SCL is already running very lean in terms of management numbers.

Looking at the chart, Utilities and Transportation account for 75 percent of the cuts.

Looking at the chart, Utilities and Transportation account for 75 percent of the cuts.

McGinn is an incompetent ass. What exactly is the policy priority he is trying to accomplish with this meat-axe approach –

I also suspect that by focusing only on “senior level positions” – as opposed to positions that are duplicative or where there is only a one to one reporting relationship or something that is rational – he is targeting older workers.

And, dumbo that he is, the strategic advisors and managers are the ones that DON’T get automatic pay increases. I guarantee you, you wreck morale, you reduce productivity. And every miss-step he takes and makes, he undermines any confidence in him the workforce may have had. Not good.

McGinn is an incompetent ass. What exactly is the policy priority he is trying to accomplish with this meat-axe approach –

I also suspect that by focusing only on “senior level positions” – as opposed to positions that are duplicative or where there is only a one to one reporting relationship or something that is rational – he is targeting older workers.

And, dumbo that he is, the strategic advisors and managers are the ones that DON’T get automatic pay increases. I guarantee you, you wreck morale, you reduce productivity. And every miss-step he takes and makes, he undermines any confidence in him the workforce may have had. Not good.

From the accuracy and specificity of these comments, it’s pretty clear that a bunch of city employees who probably know one another quite well are all debating here anonymously. Hillarious!

For those others reading at home, this is the real deal, folks. Fubar, indeed.

From the accuracy and specificity of these comments, it’s pretty clear that a bunch of city employees who probably know one another quite well are all debating here anonymously. Hillarious!

For those others reading at home, this is the real deal, folks. Fubar, indeed.

I can personally attest to the fact that productivity at SMT has been near non-existent for the past 2 weeks. I don’t expect it to change anytime in the near future. I imagine that this will eventually impact the quality of services that we provide to you, our wonderful citizens. I’m not sure what the avenues are, but I encourage everyone to reach out city council, the mayor’s office, and the media to voice your concerns. The mayor, as far as I know, does not have deep industry experience in any of the city services such was waste management, power generation, or police and fire. Yet, he is confident enough in his abilities to blindly cut staff. These cuts, if they go through, will cripple many of the departments and will take years to repair. This wonderful city does not deserve this treatment. Where are the checks and balances in this city government?

I can personally attest to the fact that productivity at SMT has been near non-existent for the past 2 weeks. I don’t expect it to change anytime in the near future. I imagine that this will eventually impact the quality of services that we provide to you, our wonderful citizens. I’m not sure what the avenues are, but I encourage everyone to reach out city council, the mayor’s office, and the media to voice your concerns. The mayor, as far as I know, does not have deep industry experience in any of the city services such was waste management, power generation, or police and fire. Yet, he is confident enough in his abilities to blindly cut staff. These cuts, if they go through, will cripple many of the departments and will take years to repair. This wonderful city does not deserve this treatment. Where are the checks and balances in this city government?

So this was leaked to me by a nameless source that really highlights the bottom line of today’s news. I don’t know I think its a little much. What do you think?

Dear Department Directors:

I know this is bad news for you. I am sorry. But come on, I made over 100 campaign promises! So, I don’t really know what your work functions are or what these strategic advisors and managers do, so instead, I am asking you to narrow the list for me. Oh by the way some people think that “0″ next to the Mayor’s Office is an error by Chris and Phil. Let me clear that up. It’s not. I just felt I really need all the people I can get in my Office. And besides HELLO it IS the General fund, ain’t I the one in charge? It’s mine. Boy, let me tell you for all the hype in the name, there is nothing generally fun about it. Well, that’s not important. The important thing is that I know that you are all there for me. This way, when you hand out the pink slips they will blame you and not me! Alright! Good chat.

Yours in whatever,

Michael Patrick McGinn

By the way the average SA starts at 59-60k a year so all those 100k numbers can be cut in half

So this was leaked to me by a nameless source that really highlights the bottom line of today’s news. I don’t know I think its a little much. What do you think?

Dear Department Directors:

I know this is bad news for you. I am sorry. But come on, I made over 100 campaign promises! So, I don’t really know what your work functions are or what these strategic advisors and managers do, so instead, I am asking you to narrow the list for me. Oh by the way some people think that “0″ next to the Mayor’s Office is an error by Chris and Phil. Let me clear that up. It’s not. I just felt I really need all the people I can get in my Office. And besides HELLO it IS the General fund, ain’t I the one in charge? It’s mine. Boy, let me tell you for all the hype in the name, there is nothing generally fun about it. Well, that’s not important. The important thing is that I know that you are all there for me. This way, when you hand out the pink slips they will blame you and not me! Alright! Good chat.

Yours in whatever,

Michael Patrick McGinn

By the way the average SA starts at 59-60k a year so all those 100k numbers can be cut in half

Aren’t some departments mainly run by SAs? I mean some of the smaller depts like Civil Rights and Housing?

Aren’t some departments mainly run by SAs? I mean some of the smaller depts like Civil Rights and Housing?

I’m not a city employee – but I do want the best for the city. I’m genuinely concerned about what is happening.

I don’t see how alienating the workforce is hilarious. I REALLY don’t see how pissing off a bunch of people who are responsible for the electric system, our water supply, our streets, public safety, analyzing bond sales, etc is hilarious.

I’m not a city employee – but I do want the best for the city. I’m genuinely concerned about what is happening.

I don’t see how alienating the workforce is hilarious. I REALLY don’t see how pissing off a bunch of people who are responsible for the electric system, our water supply, our streets, public safety, analyzing bond sales, etc is hilarious.

Perhaps the Mayor should his young eager beavers to redraft his “Norms” list.

Norms – Office of Mayor McGinn
Jan 3, 2010

1. Clean up after yourself
2. Have fun
3. Don’t break any laws
4. Help each other
5. Listen
6. Always work when volunteers are present
7. Don’t pass the buck
8. Start on time & end on time
9. Share information
10. Be careful what you write – everything is public
11. Always remember we are here to serve the public
12. Trust in the seaworthiness of your vessel
13. Everybody works & helps
14. Anticipate others’ needs
15. Loose lips sink ships
16. Be clear about from whose perspective you are speaking (on behalf of the Mayor or not)
17. Elevate problems liberally
18. Ask for help
19. Don’t be the highest ranking person with a secret
20. Keep the big picture in mind
21. Always try to make your coworkers look good
22. Talk to each other
23. Always thank each other
24. You are an ambassador of the Mayor and the City of Seattle
25. If you are on it, say you’re on it on
26. If you say you’re on it, you’re on it
27. Take a pause for clarity
28. Emphasize collaboration & teamwork
29. Everyone is important
30. Take time to think about how you can help others succeed
31. Be honest
32. Be cool. Don’t overreact & do the right thing
33. Reduce, reuse, recycle
34. Be aware questions can be construed as orders
35. Communicate openly
36. Resolve conflicts early
37. Pause (briefly) to celebrate successes
38. Earn your taxpayer dollars
39. Small actions have big meanings
40. Have a “do-it-yourself” ethic
41. Do more with less
42. Treat everyone with respect, dignity, and honor
43. Treat adversaries with respect & disagree agreeably
44. Challenge ideas, not people
45. Make measurable goals
46. Honor diversity

Perhaps the Mayor should his young eager beavers to redraft his “Norms” list.

Norms – Office of Mayor McGinn
Jan 3, 2010

1. Clean up after yourself
2. Have fun
3. Don’t break any laws
4. Help each other
5. Listen
6. Always work when volunteers are present
7. Don’t pass the buck
8. Start on time & end on time
9. Share information
10. Be careful what you write – everything is public
11. Always remember we are here to serve the public
12. Trust in the seaworthiness of your vessel
13. Everybody works & helps
14. Anticipate others’ needs
15. Loose lips sink ships
16. Be clear about from whose perspective you are speaking (on behalf of the Mayor or not)
17. Elevate problems liberally
18. Ask for help
19. Don’t be the highest ranking person with a secret
20. Keep the big picture in mind
21. Always try to make your coworkers look good
22. Talk to each other
23. Always thank each other
24. You are an ambassador of the Mayor and the City of Seattle
25. If you are on it, say you’re on it on
26. If you say you’re on it, you’re on it
27. Take a pause for clarity
28. Emphasize collaboration & teamwork
29. Everyone is important
30. Take time to think about how you can help others succeed
31. Be honest
32. Be cool. Don’t overreact & do the right thing
33. Reduce, reuse, recycle
34. Be aware questions can be construed as orders
35. Communicate openly
36. Resolve conflicts early
37. Pause (briefly) to celebrate successes
38. Earn your taxpayer dollars
39. Small actions have big meanings
40. Have a “do-it-yourself” ethic
41. Do more with less
42. Treat everyone with respect, dignity, and honor
43. Treat adversaries with respect & disagree agreeably
44. Challenge ideas, not people
45. Make measurable goals
46. Honor diversity

The majority of these positions are civil service, right? I’m pretty sure that means that the positions cannot be cut without cause, and the cause cannot be for political reasons. I seem to recall that McGinn, during his campaign, claimed that Nickels increased the number of senior positions to increase his campaign contributions. Now it looks like McGinn is targeting these people for this reason. I see two expensive risks here 1) lawsuits against the city for unfairly cutting positions and 2) more lawsuits against the city when the positions are recreated in 6 months and filled by someone else because the city realized that they actually need to functions. Just a thought….This could make our trash pickup cost $500 a month! But then I’d probably care more about recycling

The majority of these positions are civil service, right? I’m pretty sure that means that the positions cannot be cut without cause, and the cause cannot be for political reasons. I seem to recall that McGinn, during his campaign, claimed that Nickels increased the number of senior positions to increase his campaign contributions. Now it looks like McGinn is targeting these people for this reason. I see two expensive risks here 1) lawsuits against the city for unfairly cutting positions and 2) more lawsuits against the city when the positions are recreated in 6 months and filled by someone else because the city realized that they actually need to functions. Just a thought….This could make our trash pickup cost $500 a month! But then I’d probably care more about recycling

Following up on “Wow” and “hey”. It’s true that layoffs will follow seniority, just like any other non-senior staff at the City. So as Wow says, they’re not going to be able to selectively choose who they want to keep and who is “the fat.” There’s also a budget problem here: the people who will get bumped are the ones who have been in their positions the least time, and are likely to be lower on the pay scale.

So in the example hey used, your going to be cutting the $60K employees to save the $100K+ employees. Not so effective as a cost-saving tactic.

It’s not clear if McGinn and co. understood bumping before they put this forward, but I doubt it based on the memos they’ve been sending.

Following up on “Wow” and “hey”. It’s true that layoffs will follow seniority, just like any other non-senior staff at the City. So as Wow says, they’re not going to be able to selectively choose who they want to keep and who is “the fat.” There’s also a budget problem here: the people who will get bumped are the ones who have been in their positions the least time, and are likely to be lower on the pay scale.

So in the example hey used, your going to be cutting the $60K employees to save the $100K+ employees. Not so effective as a cost-saving tactic.

It’s not clear if McGinn and co. understood bumping before they put this forward, but I doubt it based on the memos they’ve been sending.

How about:
47. If you’re in over your head admit it and get help.

How about:
47. If you’re in over your head admit it and get help.

I see “52 comments” but can only view 2 – how do i see the rest?

I see “52 comments” but can only view 2 – how do i see the rest?

yeah! where are the rest of the comments??!

yeah! where are the rest of the comments??!

Trying to find the other comments?

Trying to find the other comments?

does anyone else find it odd he brought in someone from the County to be in charge of the budget? I mean the County;s finances were a joke compared to Seattle’s and he let the City person go. Is this good management…firing people who actually do a great job in favor of people who don’t? That is one big reason these cuts bother me….there doesn’t really seem to be a actual plan behind it.

does anyone else find it odd he brought in someone from the County to be in charge of the budget? I mean the County;s finances were a joke compared to Seattle’s and he let the City person go. Is this good management…firing people who actually do a great job in favor of people who don’t? That is one big reason these cuts bother me….there doesn’t really seem to be a actual plan behind it.

http://www.publicola.net/news-politics/city-hall/mcginn-outlines-cuts-half-wont-impact-budget-shortfall/comment-page-1/#comment-1583

http://www.publicola.net/news-politics/city-hall/mcginn-outlines-cuts-half-wont-impact-budget-shortfall/comment-page-1/#comment-1583

McGinn did not let Dwight Dively go. He is running the new Finance Department which includes Fleets and Facilities and Executive Administration. And the rumor is that he is the only department director who wasn’t asked by McGinn to take a salary cut, so he must be doing something right.

Beth Goldberg, the new budget director from the county, has gotten good reviews so far. She had difficult tasks at both the county and the monorail and handled them competently. And for what it’s worth, my boss says she did a very good job covering this process at cabinet.

McGinn did not let Dwight Dively go. He is running the new Finance Department which includes Fleets and Facilities and Executive Administration. And the rumor is that he is the only department director who wasn’t asked by McGinn to take a salary cut, so he must be doing something right.

Beth Goldberg, the new budget director from the county, has gotten good reviews so far. She had difficult tasks at both the county and the monorail and handled them competently. And for what it’s worth, my boss says she did a very good job covering this process at cabinet.

I know it sounds good to say you are cutting “senior management” but in reality these are the people that make sure that Seattleites have basic services. These are the few people at the City that don’t earn overtime. If this really happens good luck with getting anything out of the City without paying for the work on OT at time and a half or double time. Most of the unionized employees make more than most of the people being targeted for cuts.

The public should find out what they will be giving up if the Mayor’s follows through on his “campaign commitments.”

I know it sounds good to say you are cutting “senior management” but in reality these are the people that make sure that Seattleites have basic services. These are the few people at the City that don’t earn overtime. If this really happens good luck with getting anything out of the City without paying for the work on OT at time and a half or double time. Most of the unionized employees make more than most of the people being targeted for cuts.

The public should find out what they will be giving up if the Mayor’s follows through on his “campaign commitments.”

Great, we’ve got a mayor who doesn’t know the difference between soft and hard money.

Great, we’ve got a mayor who doesn’t know the difference between soft and hard money.

The City needs to be very aggressive about the next couple of budget years, and it will be painful to employees and reduce services even if it’s done right. However, what is occurring with McGinn is random, thoughtless destruction of the City’s ability to do anything effectively for several years to come.

It’s hard to really believe the new administration is this much of a disaster. I would like to see the Times or someone with an unbiased opinion take a close look at how McGinn is systematically alienating everyone he needs to effectively run this City and expose the facts to the public for their own assessment.

The City needs to be very aggressive about the next couple of budget years, and it will be painful to employees and reduce services even if it’s done right. However, what is occurring with McGinn is random, thoughtless destruction of the City’s ability to do anything effectively for several years to come.

It’s hard to really believe the new administration is this much of a disaster. I would like to see the Times or someone with an unbiased opinion take a close look at how McGinn is systematically alienating everyone he needs to effectively run this City and expose the facts to the public for their own assessment.

This is rich – I don’t work for SCL but have partnered with many staff over the years. The challenges facing utilities the size and complexity of SCL increase by the day. I-937 is a perfect example, mandates significant renewables and conservation targets under a complex set of rules (see WAC 194-37 if you are interested). I’m sure of few of those SA were placed to support meeting those goals. I’m sure a few consulting firms around the area are quite pleased right now.

This is rich – I don’t work for SCL but have partnered with many staff over the years. The challenges facing utilities the size and complexity of SCL increase by the day. I-937 is a perfect example, mandates significant renewables and conservation targets under a complex set of rules (see WAC 194-37 if you are interested). I’m sure of few of those SA were placed to support meeting those goals. I’m sure a few consulting firms around the area are quite pleased right now.

It is apparent with some of the departments that the Mayor and his team are trying to push out senior level managers and existing contractors in order to position their “friends” in the private sector to takeover these contracts; they are most certainly cleaning the slate of senior level managers so in the near future they can also fill in those roles with their “friends.” It’s all backdoor politics and favortism.

It is apparent with some of the departments that the Mayor and his team are trying to push out senior level managers and existing contractors in order to position their “friends” in the private sector to takeover these contracts; they are most certainly cleaning the slate of senior level managers so in the near future they can also fill in those roles with their “friends.” It’s all backdoor politics and favortism.

I hereby move that we annoint our new Mayor “PINK SLIP McGINN”.

Do I have a second?

I hereby move that we annoint our new Mayor “PINK SLIP McGINN”.

Do I have a second?

I think most of the posters here are senior staff themselves, and sure are patting themselves on the back a lot…..

And if you think that employees don’t know who the SA’s are, you’re delusional. As for productivity, I got my permits done? I will say that employees I’ve talked with, are happy (not happy to see people lose their job) that the cuts are now happening at the top. DPD eliminated one manager position as part of their layoff, while reducing regular staff by over 60. You think that’s not noticed?

I think most of the posters here are senior staff themselves, and sure are patting themselves on the back a lot…..

And if you think that employees don’t know who the SA’s are, you’re delusional. As for productivity, I got my permits done? I will say that employees I’ve talked with, are happy (not happy to see people lose their job) that the cuts are now happening at the top. DPD eliminated one manager position as part of their layoff, while reducing regular staff by over 60. You think that’s not noticed?

@XrChris I am not sure about DPD specifically but in most big departments that is close to the ratio of managers to staff. Many of the employees you are talking to will likely get extra money or OT if these positons go away (so I would be happy too).

As far as senior staff patting themselves on the back in most cases these are people that do good work for Seattle residents and don’t get a whole lot of respect from their employees or the public until there is a problem that they need help with.

@XrChris I am not sure about DPD specifically but in most big departments that is close to the ratio of managers to staff. Many of the employees you are talking to will likely get extra money or OT if these positons go away (so I would be happy too).

As far as senior staff patting themselves on the back in most cases these are people that do good work for Seattle residents and don’t get a whole lot of respect from their employees or the public until there is a problem that they need help with.

The Seattle Times called McGinn a B list candiate; he is now a C list Mayor. Even after cutting him some slack for being so green, his decisions after the first few weeks in office are an embarrassement. The seawall fiasco? An arbitrary decision to cut 200 of the top City staff – based on what? The fact that there was growth over the last 8 years? What hasn’t been provided is the city’s growth in budget, general fund, population, etc. – all the meaures and rates that should be applied during this little exercise. None of it makes sense to me, and I worry that the City will suffer as a result. Mayor Nickels left this city in fine shape. I, too, fear that McGinn will be a one term Mayor, and will ruin all the progress that has been made over the last 8 years. McGinn has never run anything, never operationalized anything, and had NO experience managing people when he was elected. How quickly his lack of ability has come to light. Someone, please, (the City Council?) save this man from himself!

The Seattle Times called McGinn a B list candiate; he is now a C list Mayor. Even after cutting him some slack for being so green, his decisions after the first few weeks in office are an embarrassement. The seawall fiasco? An arbitrary decision to cut 200 of the top City staff – based on what? The fact that there was growth over the last 8 years? What hasn’t been provided is the city’s growth in budget, general fund, population, etc. – all the meaures and rates that should be applied during this little exercise. None of it makes sense to me, and I worry that the City will suffer as a result. Mayor Nickels left this city in fine shape. I, too, fear that McGinn will be a one term Mayor, and will ruin all the progress that has been made over the last 8 years. McGinn has never run anything, never operationalized anything, and had NO experience managing people when he was elected. How quickly his lack of ability has come to light. Someone, please, (the City Council?) save this man from himself!

Both SCL and SPU should be removed from mayor and council oversight, and placed under the jurisdiction of a utility commission that would oversee their budget and allow them to set rates rationally, based on business conditions, not on political whims. It would also ensure that we don’t have a return to the City Light of the 50′s and 60′s, which was a mess of cronyism and nepotism. We’re extremely lucky to have both of these citizen-owned utilities, and they are too important to be manipulated like this.

Both SCL and SPU should be removed from mayor and council oversight, and placed under the jurisdiction of a utility commission that would oversee their budget and allow them to set rates rationally, based on business conditions, not on political whims. It would also ensure that we don’t have a return to the City Light of the 50′s and 60′s, which was a mess of cronyism and nepotism. We’re extremely lucky to have both of these citizen-owned utilities, and they are too important to be manipulated like this.

I haven’t heard any mention of enticing city employees to retire. Many are at or near retirement age and might jump at the chance to get out now, if you catch my drift. One idea would be to offer to pay health insurance for those close to Medicare age. The city would save money on salaries, eliminate positions, and decrease animosity. At least they could be looking into other options than just cutting positions by firing loyal employees who have spent their careers with the city. The mood is getting nasty.

I haven’t heard any mention of enticing city employees to retire. Many are at or near retirement age and might jump at the chance to get out now, if you catch my drift. One idea would be to offer to pay health insurance for those close to Medicare age. The city would save money on salaries, eliminate positions, and decrease animosity. At least they could be looking into other options than just cutting positions by firing loyal employees who have spent their careers with the city. The mood is getting nasty.

The Times must be paying attention to something . . . the mayor has an op ed in there this morning (seawall).

One of the mayor’s other first-day executive orders requires all city consultant contacts to be approved by the mayor. (And all new hires too). So the paranoia about crony-ism may not be so unfounded.

The Times must be paying attention to something . . . the mayor has an op ed in there this morning (seawall).

One of the mayor’s other first-day executive orders requires all city consultant contacts to be approved by the mayor. (And all new hires too). So the paranoia about crony-ism may not be so unfounded.

One of the local City unions should make a move (if they have not started already) to organize both the non exempt managers and strategic advisers. This would be a quick and easy win for the union and send a message that increadably flawed decision making has real work force implications. A poll of many of my peers yesterday indicated that they would sign a union card in a heart beat.

And please, only a few of these people are truly “senior leadership”, most are hands on managers or deep subject matter experts. Having these people on board saves the City from having to hire consultants with similar expertise and pay them $200 – $400 an hour.

One of the local City unions should make a move (if they have not started already) to organize both the non exempt managers and strategic advisers. This would be a quick and easy win for the union and send a message that increadably flawed decision making has real work force implications. A poll of many of my peers yesterday indicated that they would sign a union card in a heart beat.

And please, only a few of these people are truly “senior leadership”, most are hands on managers or deep subject matter experts. Having these people on board saves the City from having to hire consultants with similar expertise and pay them $200 – $400 an hour.

The irony about targeting positions titled “strategic advisor” is that the classification was intended to rid the personnel process of its rigidity – i.e., allow the City to be more flexible and nimble in hiring – and to more easily adapt positions to changing needs. And at the time – the late 90′s – the people who were reclassed into those positions were enticed with the promise of “pay for performance” instead of automatic step increases – a promise that was kept for exactly one year.

So now this inept administration wants to: A) rid departments of the people with the most indepth and broad experience (i.e., the senior positions) just at a time when the City demonstrably needs that experience the most; B) target positions that provide the bureaucracy the most flexibility; C) convince the remaining work force that organizing might be a good idea; D) because of bumping rights, shuffle real people among jobs they may not be ready for, furthering anger and loss of productivity.

And the Office of Sustainability and Environment? Go ahead and bury the remaining staff in other departments and just see how much gets done on the issues the Sierra Club and other environmental and sustainability interests favor.

Message to Sierra Club: you broke it, you own it!

The irony about targeting positions titled “strategic advisor” is that the classification was intended to rid the personnel process of its rigidity – i.e., allow the City to be more flexible and nimble in hiring – and to more easily adapt positions to changing needs. And at the time – the late 90′s – the people who were reclassed into those positions were enticed with the promise of “pay for performance” instead of automatic step increases – a promise that was kept for exactly one year.

So now this inept administration wants to: A) rid departments of the people with the most indepth and broad experience (i.e., the senior positions) just at a time when the City demonstrably needs that experience the most; B) target positions that provide the bureaucracy the most flexibility; C) convince the remaining work force that organizing might be a good idea; D) because of bumping rights, shuffle real people among jobs they may not be ready for, furthering anger and loss of productivity.

And the Office of Sustainability and Environment? Go ahead and bury the remaining staff in other departments and just see how much gets done on the issues the Sierra Club and other environmental and sustainability interests favor.

Message to Sierra Club: you broke it, you own it!

This is all really sad. There is so much to say, I don’t know where to start. I wish we all had the guts to be public and not feel that we have to hide behind anonymous handles on Publicola. But, we all fear the repercussions.

I am a Strategic Advisor. I do good work. I work with a team of SAs that are dedicated to making Seattle a better place. We are all mature adults who understand the problems of budgets and the need for budgetary cuts. But this is NOT the way to do it. The monetary savings that will be realized in this year are not worth the damage that is being done. Morale has been destroyed. Destroyed. Confidence has been shattered. People are rooting for the Mayor to fail. There will be lawsuits. There is talk of unionizing the SAs. Work has all but stopped.

If you read the fine print, the final decisions about cuts will be may “towards the end of the second quarter.” That would be May or June. The amount of money lost due to wasted time, extended use of sick time and over-utilization of health care benefits PLUS the lawsuit danger outweigh any possible budgetary savings.

It did not have to be this way. All of these cuts, and more, could have be done during the normal course of developing the next biennial budget. That work starts in April-May anyway. Many of the SA’s and Managers that are being targeted for cuts now would be responsible for the cruclal analytical work of a critical, sober look at overall programs and budgets. But they are being marginalized as “fat.”

There is so much more. This is critically bad.

I invite the Ambassadors to speak on record. I may have to come out from behind the cover of anonymity myself. I hate what this is doing to my friends, my colleagues, my self, my city.

This is all really sad. There is so much to say, I don’t know where to start. I wish we all had the guts to be public and not feel that we have to hide behind anonymous handles on Publicola. But, we all fear the repercussions.

I am a Strategic Advisor. I do good work. I work with a team of SAs that are dedicated to making Seattle a better place. We are all mature adults who understand the problems of budgets and the need for budgetary cuts. But this is NOT the way to do it. The monetary savings that will be realized in this year are not worth the damage that is being done. Morale has been destroyed. Destroyed. Confidence has been shattered. People are rooting for the Mayor to fail. There will be lawsuits. There is talk of unionizing the SAs. Work has all but stopped.

If you read the fine print, the final decisions about cuts will be may “towards the end of the second quarter.” That would be May or June. The amount of money lost due to wasted time, extended use of sick time and over-utilization of health care benefits PLUS the lawsuit danger outweigh any possible budgetary savings.

It did not have to be this way. All of these cuts, and more, could have be done during the normal course of developing the next biennial budget. That work starts in April-May anyway. Many of the SA’s and Managers that are being targeted for cuts now would be responsible for the cruclal analytical work of a critical, sober look at overall programs and budgets. But they are being marginalized as “fat.”

There is so much more. This is critically bad.

I invite the Ambassadors to speak on record. I may have to come out from behind the cover of anonymity myself. I hate what this is doing to my friends, my colleagues, my self, my city.

That list is friggin hilarious.
I am with one of the comments above (that will have to be my level of specificity since there are no longer any GD numbers on the comments) — I suspected McGinn and his staff of asshole ambassadors/advisors/Whatever TF they are supposed to be would be funny to watch, but this is really turning out to be too good to be true.

That list is friggin hilarious.
I am with one of the comments above (that will have to be my level of specificity since there are no longer any GD numbers on the comments) — I suspected McGinn and his staff of asshole ambassadors/advisors/Whatever TF they are supposed to be would be funny to watch, but this is really turning out to be too good to be true.

I am consultant that does business with SPU. Did I hear the McGinn is having ALL new hired for the ENTIRE City go through his office? WTF

Oh and all contacts too? SPU and SDOT have millions of dollars of contracts..Unless the Mayor’s Office is turning them around within the hour the city process that already takes a long time to maneuver will now be even long.

Wow. I don’t have anything new to add, but this is just bad. Lots of good people who work very hard will be gone. The knowledge of history and process will be gone. McGinn is not doing a good job creating trust in others that he is up for this job. It is not just the people posting here who are worried. He is creating a situation where leaders of other jurisdictions are worried about what this means for projects requiring collaboration with Seattle

Wow. I don’t have anything new to add, but this is just bad. Lots of good people who work very hard will be gone. The knowledge of history and process will be gone. McGinn is not doing a good job creating trust in others that he is up for this job. It is not just the people posting here who are worried. He is creating a situation where leaders of other jurisdictions are worried about what this means for projects requiring collaboration with Seattle

This comments thread is whatcha call “good blog” – digging behind what the Man is saying, showing on-the-ground effects of bad budget theory put into inept practice, showing us the extent to which this bad early misstep may turn out to be a signal fuckup.

I’ll cross my fingers that the guy I voted for can see the harm of following through on his pronuncamiento, but I won’t hold my breath. Because it’s such early days he still feeling his oats politically – I rather think he’ll remain in the excitiing “my shit don’t stink” phase as long as he can, plowing forward regardless.

This comments thread is whatcha call “good blog” – digging behind what the Man is saying, showing on-the-ground effects of bad budget theory put into inept practice, showing us the extent to which this bad early misstep may turn out to be a signal fuckup.

I’ll cross my fingers that the guy I voted for can see the harm of following through on his pronuncamiento, but I won’t hold my breath. Because it’s such early days he still feeling his oats politically – I rather think he’ll remain in the excitiing “my shit don’t stink” phase as long as he can, plowing forward regardless.

I wonder how long it will take McGinn to realize that if he’s going to be an effective mayor, he needs departments that are willing to mobilize behind him and carry out his goals. Instead, McGinn’s first interaction with city staff is to say that he’s going to arbitrarily cut 200 staff. Productivity is going to plummet at all the departments as staff spend the next 2 months going through this useless exercise; wondering if they are going to be the ones losing their jobs; and looking for work elsewhere.

What is so frustrating is that this cut of 200 employees is being done solely because of an uninformed campaign promise. Only 25% of the positions are general fund positions. The other 75% are in the utilities, transportation, or are supported by the fire levy, fee revenues (DPD), or grants. Cutting them won’t reduce general fund expenses.

At some point, McGinn is going to realize that he’s no longer a community activist – he’s the person that needs to get things done in the City. And if he’s alienated (or eliminated) most of the staff, he’s not going to be able to get anything done.

I wonder how long it will take McGinn to realize that if he’s going to be an effective mayor, he needs departments that are willing to mobilize behind him and carry out his goals. Instead, McGinn’s first interaction with city staff is to say that he’s going to arbitrarily cut 200 staff. Productivity is going to plummet at all the departments as staff spend the next 2 months going through this useless exercise; wondering if they are going to be the ones losing their jobs; and looking for work elsewhere.

What is so frustrating is that this cut of 200 employees is being done solely because of an uninformed campaign promise. Only 25% of the positions are general fund positions. The other 75% are in the utilities, transportation, or are supported by the fire levy, fee revenues (DPD), or grants. Cutting them won’t reduce general fund expenses.

At some point, McGinn is going to realize that he’s no longer a community activist – he’s the person that needs to get things done in the City. And if he’s alienated (or eliminated) most of the staff, he’s not going to be able to get anything done.

I’m surprised to see these cuts being made. This is just like what is going on in the private sector.

I’m surprised to see these cuts being made. This is just like what is going on in the private sector.

City Light has recently invested millions of dollars in new software, which is desperately needed to control costs, keep better track of inventory, and – most importantly – meet regulatory requirements.

SA’s and Managers are the people who are guiding this process, some of which is in the configuration stage, and some of which is about to go into user testing. Disrupting this process right now will cause immediate problems, delays, and unneeded expense.

Looking down the road, it may mean that the software will never do what it is intended to do, because the input from the users was never interpreted correctly, and the systems were not configured properly.

Like the combined utility billing system – a Rice-era boondoggle that is still causing thousands of dollars in incorrect billing and additional headcount to do manual processes that were formerly handled by computer – we will have to live with the results for decades.

I say all this as a both a ratepayer and a union employee, who has no dog in this particular fight, but wants to see the utility run efficiently, with good value for the customers. In my opinion, this is just political grandstanding on the part of the Mayor. That’s nothing new, but it’s a particularly bad time to be doing it.

City Light has recently invested millions of dollars in new software, which is desperately needed to control costs, keep better track of inventory, and – most importantly – meet regulatory requirements.

SA’s and Managers are the people who are guiding this process, some of which is in the configuration stage, and some of which is about to go into user testing. Disrupting this process right now will cause immediate problems, delays, and unneeded expense.

Looking down the road, it may mean that the software will never do what it is intended to do, because the input from the users was never interpreted correctly, and the systems were not configured properly.

Like the combined utility billing system – a Rice-era boondoggle that is still causing thousands of dollars in incorrect billing and additional headcount to do manual processes that were formerly handled by computer – we will have to live with the results for decades.

I say all this as a both a ratepayer and a union employee, who has no dog in this particular fight, but wants to see the utility run efficiently, with good value for the customers. In my opinion, this is just political grandstanding on the part of the Mayor. That’s nothing new, but it’s a particularly bad time to be doing it.

After reading some the entries in the blog, I decided to follow Dear Troll’s advice and research Chris Bushnell. This is what I found in the 9-22-09 Morningfizz archive regarding Chris Bushnell (formelly Chris Haugen):

“2. A pollster who has done work for McGinn’s campaign was convicted in 1995 of bank fraud and possession and utterance of counterfeit securities. Between 1992 and 1994, the pollster, Chris Bushnell (then Chris Haugen), and a friend forged nearly $38,000 in money orders; acting alone, Bushnell circulated another $55,000 in counterfeit money orders.

He was ordered to pay around $65,000 in restitution, given a suspended four-month prison sentence, and required to perform 250 hours of community service. In 1997, Bushnell lost his position as director of national affairs for the Associated Students of the University of Washington when the felony conviction came to light.

“I made a number of mistakes when I was a teenager, and that was certainly at the top of the list,” Bushnell says. “It’s not something I’m proud of. It was a really stupid mistake.” Both Bushnell and McGinn say Bushnell mentioned the conviction to McGinn a couple of years ago, when Bushnell did polling for the 2007 campaign against the “roads and transit” ballot measure. McGinn says “I kind of put it away in my irrelevant file” because it happened so long ago.

Bushnell worked as the chief economic forecaster for former county executive Ron Sims for about six years (he left in 2008); during that time, he spent one week a month for “about a year and a half” telecommuting from Hawaii, where his wife was going to graduate school. (Later that year, he presented a controversial report showing that the county’s massive budget shortfall was the result of overspending, not a structural or Tim Eyman-related problem, winning him the ire of just about everyone at the county.)

Bushnell took his wife’s name in 2006, a decision he says had nothing to do with his past trouble with the law. “We flipped a coin and that was that,” he says.”

Now I feel so much better about the people advising this Mayor.

After reading some the entries in the blog, I decided to follow Dear Troll’s advice and research Chris Bushnell. This is what I found in the 9-22-09 Morningfizz archive regarding Chris Bushnell (formelly Chris Haugen):

“2. A pollster who has done work for McGinn’s campaign was convicted in 1995 of bank fraud and possession and utterance of counterfeit securities. Between 1992 and 1994, the pollster, Chris Bushnell (then Chris Haugen), and a friend forged nearly $38,000 in money orders; acting alone, Bushnell circulated another $55,000 in counterfeit money orders.

He was ordered to pay around $65,000 in restitution, given a suspended four-month prison sentence, and required to perform 250 hours of community service. In 1997, Bushnell lost his position as director of national affairs for the Associated Students of the University of Washington when the felony conviction came to light.

“I made a number of mistakes when I was a teenager, and that was certainly at the top of the list,” Bushnell says. “It’s not something I’m proud of. It was a really stupid mistake.” Both Bushnell and McGinn say Bushnell mentioned the conviction to McGinn a couple of years ago, when Bushnell did polling for the 2007 campaign against the “roads and transit” ballot measure. McGinn says “I kind of put it away in my irrelevant file” because it happened so long ago.

Bushnell worked as the chief economic forecaster for former county executive Ron Sims for about six years (he left in 2008); during that time, he spent one week a month for “about a year and a half” telecommuting from Hawaii, where his wife was going to graduate school. (Later that year, he presented a controversial report showing that the county’s massive budget shortfall was the result of overspending, not a structural or Tim Eyman-related problem, winning him the ire of just about everyone at the county.)

Bushnell took his wife’s name in 2006, a decision he says had nothing to do with his past trouble with the law. “We flipped a coin and that was that,” he says.”

Now I feel so much better about the people advising this Mayor.

@Jhenga – yes, all new contracts, hiring decisions, transfers and pay increases now must go through the Mayor’s Office. How’s that for efficiency and trusting your staff?

You can thank our shadow Deputy Mayor for all of this.

@Jhenga – yes, all new contracts, hiring decisions, transfers and pay increases now must go through the Mayor’s Office. How’s that for efficiency and trusting your staff?

You can thank our shadow Deputy Mayor for all of this.

Check lbloom.net for the 2007 city of Seattle employee costs.
The average for full time SA is north of $80,000 per year.

There were about 11,000 employees in 2007.

If Mcginn’s cuts are enacted, that will be a reduction of about 500 employees in 2009 and 2010 in total.

Perhaps, the workers should present a wage reduction proposal that would keep all workers serving the city.

It would be refreshing to have the public employees help identify people and projects that should be eliminated to make the government more efficient instead of just threatening that any reduction will result in chaos.

Check lbloom.net for the 2007 city of Seattle employee costs.
The average for full time SA is north of $80,000 per year.

There were about 11,000 employees in 2007.

If Mcginn’s cuts are enacted, that will be a reduction of about 500 employees in 2009 and 2010 in total.

Perhaps, the workers should present a wage reduction proposal that would keep all workers serving the city.

It would be refreshing to have the public employees help identify people and projects that should be eliminated to make the government more efficient instead of just threatening that any reduction will result in chaos.

No one wants McGinn to fail, we all want to support our City gov’t as we all have to live with it. Obviously, there are budget problems at the City, including at the utilities, so making cuts seem to be a good move. However, I agree with an earlier poster that these budget issues probably could have been handled less erratically through the existing budget process. I hope that the Mayor will hear all the concerns and see the service impacts that cutting important positions will have on his tenure as Mayor.

No one wants McGinn to fail, we all want to support our City gov’t as we all have to live with it. Obviously, there are budget problems at the City, including at the utilities, so making cuts seem to be a good move. However, I agree with an earlier poster that these budget issues probably could have been handled less erratically through the existing budget process. I hope that the Mayor will hear all the concerns and see the service impacts that cutting important positions will have on his tenure as Mayor.

The media have been surprisingly silent (or perhaps unaware) of the real Deputy Mayor in City government. A guy named Chris Bushnell, who I now read above is a felon. Great. That’s exactly who our Mayor needs advising him at $125,000 a year! Is this who you want to replace the old management with? Now, my City friends tell me that Mr. Bushnell was the one interviewing all the Dept Directors for their jobs, making the Seawall decisions, and instrumental in a number of other significant city decisions. However, he’s not even on the Mayor’s staff list??! Who is this guy and why is a non-public employee making decisions for the Mayor? Wow.

The media have been surprisingly silent (or perhaps unaware) of the real Deputy Mayor in City government. A guy named Chris Bushnell, who I now read above is a felon. Great. That’s exactly who our Mayor needs advising him at $125,000 a year! Is this who you want to replace the old management with? Now, my City friends tell me that Mr. Bushnell was the one interviewing all the Dept Directors for their jobs, making the Seawall decisions, and instrumental in a number of other significant city decisions. However, he’s not even on the Mayor’s staff list??! Who is this guy and why is a non-public employee making decisions for the Mayor? Wow.

I think a lot of people were hopeful that the McGinn Administration would breathe a new vitality into the city. Somebody with fresh ideas. Somebody of the people. Somebody who would open up City Hall and make government for the people.

This kind of vision takes a leader, someone with administrative skills and an understanding or a willingness to learn how a large organization functions before making effective changes. McGinn demonstrated during the campaign that he had vision (he was elected) but unfortunately, has demonstrated he lacks the adminstrative skills to be effective in executing his vision. He alienated the city council almost immediatley with an ill advised, ill prepared, amateur news conference about the seawall. He is alienating city staff with ham handed, ineffectual cuts to staff. Reorganizing and reducing an organization with 40? 50? lines of business, while preserving it’s ability to be effective, takes a scalpel not a baseball bat.

The City faces a 41 Million dollar shortfall next year and I think most reasonable people would agree that cuts need to be made among city staff and city services. Every organization, public or private, has fat and the city is no exception. You don’t remove fat by cutting off your arm. In an attempt to meet uninformed campaign promises McGinn is cutting off the City’s arm.

To make effective staff cuts, he should direct his Department Directors to cut staff over the next 8,12,15? months by some percentage. Let the professional staff figure out how to implement the Mayors goals and give them time to do it. The departments work for the Mayor, he should use their knowledge and experience of their line of business to meet his goals. In this way, a Mayor can efffectively reduce staff while maintaining city services.

Mcginn skipped having to play for the team and jumped right to being a manager. Good on him. He worked hard on his campaign and earned the right to lead. He made a decision to not keep any coaches with experience- not even as an advisor. Fine- his call. Now he, as manager, and his new coaching staff need to learn how to play or he risks a losing season.

So far, not so good.

I think a lot of people were hopeful that the McGinn Administration would breathe a new vitality into the city. Somebody with fresh ideas. Somebody of the people. Somebody who would open up City Hall and make government for the people.

This kind of vision takes a leader, someone with administrative skills and an understanding or a willingness to learn how a large organization functions before making effective changes. McGinn demonstrated during the campaign that he had vision (he was elected) but unfortunately, has demonstrated he lacks the adminstrative skills to be effective in executing his vision. He alienated the city council almost immediatley with an ill advised, ill prepared, amateur news conference about the seawall. He is alienating city staff with ham handed, ineffectual cuts to staff. Reorganizing and reducing an organization with 40? 50? lines of business, while preserving it’s ability to be effective, takes a scalpel not a baseball bat.

The City faces a 41 Million dollar shortfall next year and I think most reasonable people would agree that cuts need to be made among city staff and city services. Every organization, public or private, has fat and the city is no exception. You don’t remove fat by cutting off your arm. In an attempt to meet uninformed campaign promises McGinn is cutting off the City’s arm.

To make effective staff cuts, he should direct his Department Directors to cut staff over the next 8,12,15? months by some percentage. Let the professional staff figure out how to implement the Mayors goals and give them time to do it. The departments work for the Mayor, he should use their knowledge and experience of their line of business to meet his goals. In this way, a Mayor can efffectively reduce staff while maintaining city services.

Mcginn skipped having to play for the team and jumped right to being a manager. Good on him. He worked hard on his campaign and earned the right to lead. He made a decision to not keep any coaches with experience- not even as an advisor. Fine- his call. Now he, as manager, and his new coaching staff need to learn how to play or he risks a losing season.

So far, not so good.

Erica – The e-mail from the Director of City Light did not just say “sorry”. The e-mail with the text explaining the cuts was sent without the attachment and another e-mail was sent shortly thereafter with sorry relating to not attaching the reduction target list.

If these cuts really happen the Mayor’s office and the City are going to be wrapped around the axel for years addressing the complaints and lawsuits.

The people in these job classifications are by no means “stupid bureaucrats.” They are educated and know far more than the Mayor and his very “junior staff” does about what it takes to make the City work. Whether they know it or not these are the people that could have helped the Mayor’s office achieve the goals that they set out during the campaign. Now all they have is a lot of smart pissed people off on their hands.
.

Erica – The e-mail from the Director of City Light did not just say “sorry”. The e-mail with the text explaining the cuts was sent without the attachment and another e-mail was sent shortly thereafter with sorry relating to not attaching the reduction target list.

If these cuts really happen the Mayor’s office and the City are going to be wrapped around the axel for years addressing the complaints and lawsuits.

The people in these job classifications are by no means “stupid bureaucrats.” They are educated and know far more than the Mayor and his very “junior staff” does about what it takes to make the City work. Whether they know it or not these are the people that could have helped the Mayor’s office achieve the goals that they set out during the campaign. Now all they have is a lot of smart pissed people off on their hands.
.

I’m not a big fan of the Mayor’s but I’ve worked for the City in the past and I think he’s onto something here. City departments tend to have a lot more layers of management than comparable private sector organizations and there’s also a tendency to find places to promote people who aren’t capable supervisors but who have been around a while and who are out of promotional opportunities. I think that many of the strategic advisors would fit this category.

I’m not a big fan of the Mayor’s but I’ve worked for the City in the past and I think he’s onto something here. City departments tend to have a lot more layers of management than comparable private sector organizations and there’s also a tendency to find places to promote people who aren’t capable supervisors but who have been around a while and who are out of promotional opportunities. I think that many of the strategic advisors would fit this category.

Wow, I have never seen soo many “the sky is falling” comments regarding layoffs.

The city worked fine with the work force ala year 2000, most posts here think that the situation will now implode!

Really, after the 200+ jobs are gone… Seattle will still be there on the map. Honest, how did you people become to believe that once you are gone everything will come to a screeching halt?

Wow, I have never seen soo many “the sky is falling” comments regarding layoffs.

The city worked fine with the work force ala year 2000, most posts here think that the situation will now implode!

Really, after the 200+ jobs are gone… Seattle will still be there on the map. Honest, how did you people become to believe that once you are gone everything will come to a screeching halt?

Erica, are you going to follow-up on the Chris Bushnell story? He has been hiring and firing for McGinn ever since he was elected. It appears that you have been promised something from this administration by your refusal to call him out. The rest of us are waiting or do we go to another new source?

Erica, are you going to follow-up on the Chris Bushnell story? He has been hiring and firing for McGinn ever since he was elected. It appears that you have been promised something from this administration by your refusal to call him out. The rest of us are waiting or do we go to another new source?

Hey “close to tears” hang in there. You are NOT alone. We’ll get through this. Remember, we’re the ones who really care about citizens and ratepayers, who care about social justice, and ratepayer equity, about restoring in-city habitat, safe drinking water, and bicycle safety, about providing value to our taxpayers, about sustainability, conservation, and our carbon footprint, about good policy, and about future generations. And we know how to T-up the policy trade offs of service levels vs. cost of service. We’re in it for the long haul, about what’s best for Seattle, not just what it takes to get elected again. We live in and work for a great city, and we’re going to make it through this.

Hey “close to tears” hang in there. You are NOT alone. We’ll get through this. Remember, we’re the ones who really care about citizens and ratepayers, who care about social justice, and ratepayer equity, about restoring in-city habitat, safe drinking water, and bicycle safety, about providing value to our taxpayers, about sustainability, conservation, and our carbon footprint, about good policy, and about future generations. And we know how to T-up the policy trade offs of service levels vs. cost of service. We’re in it for the long haul, about what’s best for Seattle, not just what it takes to get elected again. We live in and work for a great city, and we’re going to make it through this.

Kevin in Wallingford, I think you said it… some of the jobs that were needed are now gone. Why do we continue to keep these people on the payroll.

I can’t believe this is so much of a shock to gov workers. Get in line at the unemployment line. Ask for retraining, here is an opportunity to have your masters degree paid for. Take advantage of the situation. Milk the state for every dollar.

Kevin in Wallingford, I think you said it… some of the jobs that were needed are now gone. Why do we continue to keep these people on the payroll.

I can’t believe this is so much of a shock to gov workers. Get in line at the unemployment line. Ask for retraining, here is an opportunity to have your masters degree paid for. Take advantage of the situation. Milk the state for every dollar.

He works for Gogerty Stark Marriott: http://www.gsminc.com/the_team.htm

He works for Gogerty Stark Marriott: http://www.gsminc.com/the_team.htm

The biggest issue to me is not that positions are being cut – that happens. How the cuts are being accomplished is where there is an issue. McGinn’s people seem to believe the axiom about all middle management being bad and also are acting as if all hires before him will oppose him – and they may after he has done all this. He should pay attention to the way Dow is handling staff changes and transitions. It seems much calmer and a lot less news-worthy (in a good way).

The biggest issue to me is not that positions are being cut – that happens. How the cuts are being accomplished is where there is an issue. McGinn’s people seem to believe the axiom about all middle management being bad and also are acting as if all hires before him will oppose him – and they may after he has done all this. He should pay attention to the way Dow is handling staff changes and transitions. It seems much calmer and a lot less news-worthy (in a good way).

Chris Bushnell may not be officially on the City’s payroll as an employee but he has an office on the 7th floor (Mayor’s Office; a city of seattle email address; and is the driving force behind a lot of decisions coming out of the Mayor’s Office. It doesn’t seem particularly “open and transparent” to have someone who is not a city employee but is making so many decisions coming out of the mayor’s office.

Chris Bushnell may not be officially on the City’s payroll as an employee but he has an office on the 7th floor (Mayor’s Office; a city of seattle email address; and is the driving force behind a lot of decisions coming out of the Mayor’s Office. It doesn’t seem particularly “open and transparent” to have someone who is not a city employee but is making so many decisions coming out of the mayor’s office.

My understanding is that Chris Bushnell is joining the mayor’s staff in February. And sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but he says he’s working on immigrant/refugee and safety net issues, not the budget.

My understanding is that Chris Bushnell is joining the mayor’s staff in February. And sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but he says he’s working on immigrant/refugee and safety net issues, not the budget.

To Dorothy: You would be the first person I would cut.

To Dorothy: You would be the first person I would cut.

Has a single person even been fired/laid off/demoted yet?

Has a single person even been fired/laid off/demoted yet?

Um sorry Doug, but I don’t work for the City

Um sorry Doug, but I don’t work for the City

Doug, you seem bitter. Many of these people have advanced degrees they are not trying to “take advantage of the situation” to get retraining. They have worked hard and developed knowledge and expertise in specific areas and are not looking for a career change.

They have marketable skills and chose to work at the City in many cases because they wanted to work for an employer that served a public purpose. The outrage is because these cuts are arbitrary and many of the projects that these folks work on and care about will not come to fruition if the positions are cut.

Doug, you seem bitter. Many of these people have advanced degrees they are not trying to “take advantage of the situation” to get retraining. They have worked hard and developed knowledge and expertise in specific areas and are not looking for a career change.

They have marketable skills and chose to work at the City in many cases because they wanted to work for an employer that served a public purpose. The outrage is because these cuts are arbitrary and many of the projects that these folks work on and care about will not come to fruition if the positions are cut.

Someone was kind enough to post a link to all city employee salaries for 2007. Here is a snapshot:

Of the 200 highest paid Seattle City employees for 2007, only 30 of those people are what McGinn is calling “Senior Employees” (Executives, Managers, Strategic Advisors.) Of these 30 in the top 200, 2 are from the Mayor’s office, and the remaining 28 are Executives. There are not any Managers or Strategic Advisors.

My open question to those of you have been very vocal, how does this change your opinion of McGinn’s cuts? If this exercise is truly about reducing spend, wouldn’t be more effective to evaluate a pool that is larger than 14% of the highest paid city employees?

Someone was kind enough to post a link to all city employee salaries for 2007. Here is a snapshot:

Of the 200 highest paid Seattle City employees for 2007, only 30 of those people are what McGinn is calling “Senior Employees” (Executives, Managers, Strategic Advisors.) Of these 30 in the top 200, 2 are from the Mayor’s office, and the remaining 28 are Executives. There are not any Managers or Strategic Advisors.

My open question to those of you have been very vocal, how does this change your opinion of McGinn’s cuts? If this exercise is truly about reducing spend, wouldn’t be more effective to evaluate a pool that is larger than 14% of the highest paid city employees?

If a job that’s cut was being funded by a levy or some other source than general funds, wouldn’t it be easy to move a remaining worker over to the dedicated funding source?

Obviously, cutting jobs at the utilities won’t help with the city budget, but holding down rates would make raising more city revenues that much easier.

We’re only talking about 1 3/4% of the workforce. The methods approved by the current employees for reductions would delay any reductions for years.

If a job that’s cut was being funded by a levy or some other source than general funds, wouldn’t it be easy to move a remaining worker over to the dedicated funding source?

Obviously, cutting jobs at the utilities won’t help with the city budget, but holding down rates would make raising more city revenues that much easier.

We’re only talking about 1 3/4% of the workforce. The methods approved by the current employees for reductions would delay any reductions for years.

oops, somebody needs to reset the comment thingy again. You should really adjust things so that more than 50 comments can show on a page, or have links to previous comments….

oops, somebody needs to reset the comment thingy again. You should really adjust things so that more than 50 comments can show on a page, or have links to previous comments….

All of those top 30 employees, other than the mayor, are executives. Job title isn’t necessarily the same thing as job classification.

All of those top 30 employees, other than the mayor, are executives. Job title isn’t necessarily the same thing as job classification.

http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/a-review-of-senior-positions-in-city-government/

http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/a-review-of-senior-positions-in-city-government/

Please let us get to the old comments. Seems to be no way to link back to the first 100! The intelligent discussion thread was the biggest draw to read Publicola — sorry crank, not your reporting, but the discussion it prompted — and the new design is making that impossible. And will one of you please give us an indication that you are reading and adopting –or rejecting– our complaints about the new site??? Still waiting for more “meat” and comment counts to be put on the home page. …or, pretty soon I’ll give up and go back to the SLOG, where the layout is still user-friendly. Even if the comments there are goofy most of the time, at least I can find them.

Please let us get to the old comments. Seems to be no way to link back to the first 100! The intelligent discussion thread was the biggest draw to read Publicola — sorry crank, not your reporting, but the discussion it prompted — and the new design is making that impossible. And will one of you please give us an indication that you are reading and adopting –or rejecting– our complaints about the new site??? Still waiting for more “meat” and comment counts to be put on the home page. …or, pretty soon I’ll give up and go back to the SLOG, where the layout is still user-friendly. Even if the comments there are goofy most of the time, at least I can find them.

WTF! Where are the comments indeed?

WTF! Where are the comments indeed?

And since the Executives’ salaries have been frozen for two years, there are probably fewer in the top 200 now.

And since the Executives’ salaries have been frozen for two years, there are probably fewer in the top 200 now.

Unfortunately, it looks like this strategy will not produce any meaningful thinning-out of middle management, considering that middle managers will be the ones largely determining the cut plans for each department. Instead of redundant, paper-pushing middle managers, Strategic Advisors will take the brunt of the cuts.

I predict that middle managers will focus on the Strategic Advisors below them, rather than deciding to cut their own jobs, no doubt…this is true at SDOT at least…even though Strategic Advisors are the experts in individual fields and middle managers in many cases are more expendable. Not that a hell of a lot of fat exists to start with. Some, but not much.

Rob

Unfortunately, it looks like this strategy will not produce any meaningful thinning-out of middle management, considering that middle managers will be the ones largely determining the cut plans for each department. Instead of redundant, paper-pushing middle managers, Strategic Advisors will take the brunt of the cuts.

I predict that middle managers will focus on the Strategic Advisors below them, rather than deciding to cut their own jobs, no doubt…this is true at SDOT at least…even though Strategic Advisors are the experts in individual fields and middle managers in many cases are more expendable. Not that a hell of a lot of fat exists to start with. Some, but not much.

Rob

While they work out the bugs on handling over 50 comments, here are links to the earlier comments (h/t to whoever did a similar thing on the last page):
Comments 1-50 on this post:
http://www.publicola.net/news-politics/city-hall/mcginn-outlines-cuts-half-wont-impact-budget-shortfall/comment-page-1/

Comments 51-100 on this post:
http://www.publicola.net/news-politics/city-hall/mcginn-outlines-cuts-half-wont-impact-budget-shortfall/comment-page-2/

While they work out the bugs on handling over 50 comments, here are links to the earlier comments (h/t to whoever did a similar thing on the last page):
Comments 1-50 on this post:
http://www.publicola.net/news-politics/city-hall/mcginn-outlines-cuts-half-wont-impact-budget-shortfall/comment-page-1/

Comments 51-100 on this post:
http://www.publicola.net/news-politics/city-hall/mcginn-outlines-cuts-half-wont-impact-budget-shortfall/comment-page-2/

Comments all visible now! Congrats to Publicola on a blockbuster comments thread so soon after the site redesign and Hugeasscity er, absorption and regular KOMO gig and horizontal-striped sweater photos and, ooh, everything.

Comments all visible now! Congrats to Publicola on a blockbuster comments thread so soon after the site redesign and Hugeasscity er, absorption and regular KOMO gig and horizontal-striped sweater photos and, ooh, everything.

It would be a loss for the city if this process pushes out the brightest people. McGinn risks it if the cuts are made with an eye only to position reductions instead of employee qualifications. Once the bumping starts it is crucial that senior employees have their resumes evaluated before they are allowed to assume a position. This move is already hurting morale among the senior ranks, but it will set the organization back years if it is the internal hires, staff sent over by the council or mayor’s office, old executive loyalists, and others who have some hold on a job not related to their skills who remain at the end.

Some in the union positions are taking pleasure in this. Many have suffered through years of mismanagement and know the mayor is justified. Don’t be smug. Bad managers aren’t necessarily bad people and job losses will hurt a lot of families. The economy sucks and tax revenues are down. This is the start. Union jobs are next.

It would be a loss for the city if this process pushes out the brightest people. McGinn risks it if the cuts are made with an eye only to position reductions instead of employee qualifications. Once the bumping starts it is crucial that senior employees have their resumes evaluated before they are allowed to assume a position. This move is already hurting morale among the senior ranks, but it will set the organization back years if it is the internal hires, staff sent over by the council or mayor’s office, old executive loyalists, and others who have some hold on a job not related to their skills who remain at the end.

Some in the union positions are taking pleasure in this. Many have suffered through years of mismanagement and know the mayor is justified. Don’t be smug. Bad managers aren’t necessarily bad people and job losses will hurt a lot of families. The economy sucks and tax revenues are down. This is the start. Union jobs are next.

why are we missing the point that the reason McGinn is going after the 200 slots is because these are the positions that were hired in the Nickels’ Administration? this is a political witch hunt to rid the city of “loyalists”. Wow, it’s morning in Seattle again isn’t it?

why are we missing the point that the reason McGinn is going after the 200 slots is because these are the positions that were hired in the Nickels’ Administration? this is a political witch hunt to rid the city of “loyalists”. Wow, it’s morning in Seattle again isn’t it?

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the top 200. These are not the top 200 found on http://www.lbloom.net. as it appears on the site. If one wants to use that resource, it should be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet and then sorted by total cost with police and fire deleted. Then take a look at the list with City Light and Utilities removed.

It would nice in the transparency spirit for the city to publish current employee wage information

It wasn’t just Nickels but Schell and even Rice that have placed their staff favorites in the utilities just before leaving office.

Many of the SA’s and middle upper managers are overdue to leave and test their value somewhere else.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the top 200. These are not the top 200 found on http://www.lbloom.net. as it appears on the site. If one wants to use that resource, it should be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet and then sorted by total cost with police and fire deleted. Then take a look at the list with City Light and Utilities removed.

It would nice in the transparency spirit for the city to publish current employee wage information

It wasn’t just Nickels but Schell and even Rice that have placed their staff favorites in the utilities just before leaving office.

Many of the SA’s and middle upper managers are overdue to leave and test their value somewhere else.

I find the claim that political appointees were placed in the utilities – or at least City Light – extremely dubious. Every manager and SA I know either came up from the trades, or has a job that requires advanced degrees. There are instances where people started out at low level positions (meter readers, etc) and worked their way up, but isn’t that something they should be commended for? The city really pushed that back in the 80′s – “Upward Mobility”, they called it.

I find the claim that political appointees were placed in the utilities – or at least City Light – extremely dubious. Every manager and SA I know either came up from the trades, or has a job that requires advanced degrees. There are instances where people started out at low level positions (meter readers, etc) and worked their way up, but isn’t that something they should be commended for? The city really pushed that back in the 80′s – “Upward Mobility”, they called it.

hmmmm… you may well be right about SCL but Chuck Clarke was put in charge of SPU and Ray Hoffman was also placed there by Schell –

Susan Sanchez has recently been moved to SPU from SDOT.

The latter two seem like fine city employees – whether we should be paying them $150,000+ per year is another question.

In general, if people accepted exempt positions and received higher pay, they should have known that their jobs were less secure.

It is unfortunate that Nickels and the SCC didn’t start much bigger layoffs a couple of years ago when it became to all that a very bad economy was here and that revenues for the city would be dropping.

hmmmm… you may well be right about SCL but Chuck Clarke was put in charge of SPU and Ray Hoffman was also placed there by Schell –

Susan Sanchez has recently been moved to SPU from SDOT.

The latter two seem like fine city employees – whether we should be paying them $150,000+ per year is another question.

In general, if people accepted exempt positions and received higher pay, they should have known that their jobs were less secure.

It is unfortunate that Nickels and the SCC didn’t start much bigger layoffs a couple of years ago when it became to all that a very bad economy was here and that revenues for the city would be dropping.

Fizzy, you may be onto something: The water department (or SPU, if you insist on using the fancified name) has always called the shots when it came to intra-utilitiy operations (The joint billing system, the combined call center, etc), and pretty much does their own thing with very little opposition when it comes to raising rates. I always wondered why that was.

Yet they are only targeted to get rid of 43 positions, while they have nearly double what they were “supposed” to have. Riddle me that one…..

Fizzy, you may be onto something: The water department (or SPU, if you insist on using the fancified name) has always called the shots when it came to intra-utilitiy operations (The joint billing system, the combined call center, etc), and pretty much does their own thing with very little opposition when it comes to raising rates. I always wondered why that was.

Yet they are only targeted to get rid of 43 positions, while they have nearly double what they were “supposed” to have. Riddle me that one…..

What is so frustrating about McGinn’s proposal to cut 200 managers is that it’s so arbitrary. I agree that budget cuts need to be made. But he’s targeting these positions because he doesn’t like the title “strategic advisor” without having a clue about what any of these positions do. It’s like saying he’s going to make reductions in all job classes that have the letter “t” in them. If McGinn had said he wanted to thoroughly review all of these positions and then set targets based on his understanding of what they do, that would have been one thing. But the 200 number was completely made up and not based on anything. For example, it would have made sense to exempt positions that are funded by outside grants. Did McGinn do this? No.

Also, did anyone notice that the Council wasn’t included in this exercise? I bet McGinn is hoping if he doesn’t include them, they will give him a free pass.

What is so frustrating about McGinn’s proposal to cut 200 managers is that it’s so arbitrary. I agree that budget cuts need to be made. But he’s targeting these positions because he doesn’t like the title “strategic advisor” without having a clue about what any of these positions do. It’s like saying he’s going to make reductions in all job classes that have the letter “t” in them. If McGinn had said he wanted to thoroughly review all of these positions and then set targets based on his understanding of what they do, that would have been one thing. But the 200 number was completely made up and not based on anything. For example, it would have made sense to exempt positions that are funded by outside grants. Did McGinn do this? No.

Also, did anyone notice that the Council wasn’t included in this exercise? I bet McGinn is hoping if he doesn’t include them, they will give him a free pass.

I don’t know if people remember the floods in Madison Valley or the wind storm in 2006 but many of the people that learned big lessons during those incidents have bee promoter to leadership roles and “booting” a lot of them out the door all at the same time will certianly cause a brain drain at the utilities when 50% of all of the emloyees are eligible to retire.

I don’t know if people remember the floods in Madison Valley or the wind storm in 2006 but many of the people that learned big lessons during those incidents have bee promoter to leadership roles and “booting” a lot of them out the door all at the same time will certianly cause a brain drain at the utilities when 50% of all of the emloyees are eligible to retire.

If McGinn had said he wanted to thoroughly review all of these positions and then set targets based on his understanding of what they do, that would have been one thing..

Yes, and in a couple of years we might be able to do something, but by then it would need to be redone as the economy would have changed. Watch Yes Minister the Big Brother episode.

The memo tells the department to pick those that need to go. The mayor is not hand picking the reductions. The departments should already know from whom they are getting the most and least for their money. Obviously, if the upper management is given the choice, they rarely recommend laying off their office mates but choose the line workers that they barely know.

If the weakest worker is currently being paid from a non-general fund, can’t a better worker, now being paid out of the general fund, be moved to that position and thereby cut the GF deficit? Where the funds come from is a red herring.

If McGinn had said he wanted to thoroughly review all of these positions and then set targets based on his understanding of what they do, that would have been one thing..

Yes, and in a couple of years we might be able to do something, but by then it would need to be redone as the economy would have changed. Watch Yes Minister the Big Brother episode.

The memo tells the department to pick those that need to go. The mayor is not hand picking the reductions. The departments should already know from whom they are getting the most and least for their money. Obviously, if the upper management is given the choice, they rarely recommend laying off their office mates but choose the line workers that they barely know.

If the weakest worker is currently being paid from a non-general fund, can’t a better worker, now being paid out of the general fund, be moved to that position and thereby cut the GF deficit? Where the funds come from is a red herring.

Thanks, Josh, for letting us know you’re still working on our site complaints! Re the cuts, it is important that special qualifications/skills be taken into account in cutting the SA ranks. What should be the priority is cutting mid level managers and executives. These departments are way too top-heavy, and it’s not the SA’s. Managers often squash the knowledge and skills that lower employees can bring to the table. Lower-rank employees usually know how to solve problems and can rise to the occasion if mid-level managers don’t exert authority and undermine their skills. The SA classification is not the problem, and as others have correctly said, is simply a classification tool, in almost all cases.

Thanks, Josh, for letting us know you’re still working on our site complaints! Re the cuts, it is important that special qualifications/skills be taken into account in cutting the SA ranks. What should be the priority is cutting mid level managers and executives. These departments are way too top-heavy, and it’s not the SA’s. Managers often squash the knowledge and skills that lower employees can bring to the table. Lower-rank employees usually know how to solve problems and can rise to the occasion if mid-level managers don’t exert authority and undermine their skills. The SA classification is not the problem, and as others have correctly said, is simply a classification tool, in almost all cases.

To “morning fizzy”, departments obviously do know which managers are providing the least value for money, but Civil Service Laws do not allow layoff decisions to be based on this. It’s a seniority based system and if not done strictly based on seniority then it will take years to get through the Civil Service complaints and lawsuits. Welcome to the tip of the iceberg in government work. Those of us busting our butts EVERY DAY to make government efficient and effective in meeting citizen desires have this sort of rule and MANY MORE working against us constantly.

To “morning fizzy”, departments obviously do know which managers are providing the least value for money, but Civil Service Laws do not allow layoff decisions to be based on this. It’s a seniority based system and if not done strictly based on seniority then it will take years to get through the Civil Service complaints and lawsuits. Welcome to the tip of the iceberg in government work. Those of us busting our butts EVERY DAY to make government efficient and effective in meeting citizen desires have this sort of rule and MANY MORE working against us constantly.

hey fizzy and mj heres another name for you from the Schell way back machine Anne Fiske Zuniga deputy director of transportation. riddle me this. how after the budget, streetlights, and snow disasters still pulling $140k+ as executive. falling upward the Seatle way.

hey fizzy and mj heres another name for you from the Schell way back machine Anne Fiske Zuniga deputy director of transportation. riddle me this. how after the budget, streetlights, and snow disasters still pulling $140k+ as executive. falling upward the Seatle way.

And what about the 1/2 million dollar investigation of SDOT in her dept. No problem, her husband gets a job with the law firm 6 months later but it’s not related, ha ha ha. I think she’s from the Rice era and came out of neighborhoods – no training in engineering. If she survives, the drill is rigged.

And what about the 1/2 million dollar investigation of SDOT in her dept. No problem, her husband gets a job with the law firm 6 months later but it’s not related, ha ha ha. I think she’s from the Rice era and came out of neighborhoods – no training in engineering. If she survives, the drill is rigged.

I don’t know if anyone else has commented on this, but Jorge Carrasco’s first message to Staff, which was intended to include the list of cuts, forgot the attachment. After someone apparently wrote back saying “you forgot…” he responded with an email WITH the attachment, and the single word “sorry.” In short, he was sorry for forgetting the attachment–it was in no way meant to be discourteous or unfeeling towards staff.

I don’t know if anyone else has commented on this, but Jorge Carrasco’s first message to Staff, which was intended to include the list of cuts, forgot the attachment. After someone apparently wrote back saying “you forgot…” he responded with an email WITH the attachment, and the single word “sorry.” In short, he was sorry for forgetting the attachment–it was in no way meant to be discourteous or unfeeling towards staff.

1) Even if I were to assume McGinn has a logical and well reasoned strategy behind his layoffs (and I don’t), his poor execution of that strategy is creating many consequences that he is not prepared to deal with. Most underestimate the organization and resolve of City employees to (justifiably or not) create havoc when they’re threatened or offended. Unified lack of productivity, unionizing threats, creative accounting, etc. Most City employees genuinely care about the citizens and take pride in doing their job well, but pissing them off is like stirring up a hornet’s nest. McGinn is not prepared for those problems.

2) Geez, it’s about time someone mentioned Anne Fiske-Zuniga in SDOT! How is it that her direct reports had several HR and performance complaints, but no action (even specifically recommended action) was taken by her? Why is it that she gave several poor performance reports, yet never sought to either remedy the performance deficiencies or fire the poor performers? Were there specific actions vetoed by her that were later cited as causes of the snowstorm problem and/or the basis of legal action taken again SDOT/the City? Have her family members financially benefited from her actions or inactions? Mrs. Fiske-Zuniga is one ambitious and savvy woman.

1) Even if I were to assume McGinn has a logical and well reasoned strategy behind his layoffs (and I don’t), his poor execution of that strategy is creating many consequences that he is not prepared to deal with. Most underestimate the organization and resolve of City employees to (justifiably or not) create havoc when they’re threatened or offended. Unified lack of productivity, unionizing threats, creative accounting, etc. Most City employees genuinely care about the citizens and take pride in doing their job well, but pissing them off is like stirring up a hornet’s nest. McGinn is not prepared for those problems.

2) Geez, it’s about time someone mentioned Anne Fiske-Zuniga in SDOT! How is it that her direct reports had several HR and performance complaints, but no action (even specifically recommended action) was taken by her? Why is it that she gave several poor performance reports, yet never sought to either remedy the performance deficiencies or fire the poor performers? Were there specific actions vetoed by her that were later cited as causes of the snowstorm problem and/or the basis of legal action taken again SDOT/the City? Have her family members financially benefited from her actions or inactions? Mrs. Fiske-Zuniga is one ambitious and savvy woman.

I don’t work for the City. I have no financial interests in City business. But I do know a lot of people who’ve worked there and some who work there now, and these opinions correlate pretty directly with what I’m hearing. That this is a colossal error. The kind of management screw-up that destroys private companies. Lord only knows what it will do to the City. Listen to the story this here comment conversation tells:

“No one wants McGinn to fail, we all want to support our City gov’t as we all have to live with it.”

“I find the claim that political appointees were placed in the utilities – or at least City Light – extremely dubious. Every manager and SA I know either came up from the trades, or has a job that requires advanced degrees.”

“They have marketable skills and chose to work at the City in many cases because they wanted to work for an employer that served a public purpose. The outrage is because these cuts are arbitrary and many of the projects that these folks work on and care about will not come to fruition if the positions are cut.”

“they were reclassified to the SA title because that was the only option in the city’s classification system.”

“The SA positions represent some of the best talents in the City and we will regret losing them. ”

“The City of Seattle has many very intelligent and strategic thinkers who could have helped him do cuts and still not completely alienate everyone at the City.”

“He uses cutting our jobs as an applause line in his speeches, as if he’s still on the campaign trail and not our actual boss now.”

“productivity at SMT has been near non-existent for the past 2 weeks.”

“The City needs to be very aggressive about the next couple of budget years, and it will be painful to employees and reduce services even if it’s done right. However, what is occurring with McGinn is random, thoughtless destruction of the City’s ability to do anything effectively for several years to come.”

“they are people who know something about politics and govt and pr etc… so when you see a whole bunch people saying things are truly fubar — you should actually listen”

This is not the way you deal with complex issues and complicated, large organizations. The City already has big problems. It needs smart people, new thinking, innovation based informed by historical memory, and etc. You don’t get that by terrifying employees, keeping people in the dark, picking random cuts targets and using secret criteria for making decisions.

I voted for McGinn. I want McGinn to do phenomenally well. This is opposite that. He needs a management intervention. Who knows him well enough to tell him he needs a big change, stat?

I don’t work for the City. I have no financial interests in City business. But I do know a lot of people who’ve worked there and some who work there now, and these opinions correlate pretty directly with what I’m hearing. That this is a colossal error. The kind of management screw-up that destroys private companies. Lord only knows what it will do to the City. Listen to the story this here comment conversation tells:

“No one wants McGinn to fail, we all want to support our City gov’t as we all have to live with it.”

“I find the claim that political appointees were placed in the utilities – or at least City Light – extremely dubious. Every manager and SA I know either came up from the trades, or has a job that requires advanced degrees.”

“They have marketable skills and chose to work at the City in many cases because they wanted to work for an employer that served a public purpose. The outrage is because these cuts are arbitrary and many of the projects that these folks work on and care about will not come to fruition if the positions are cut.”

“they were reclassified to the SA title because that was the only option in the city’s classification system.”

“The SA positions represent some of the best talents in the City and we will regret losing them. ”

“The City of Seattle has many very intelligent and strategic thinkers who could have helped him do cuts and still not completely alienate everyone at the City.”

“He uses cutting our jobs as an applause line in his speeches, as if he’s still on the campaign trail and not our actual boss now.”

“productivity at SMT has been near non-existent for the past 2 weeks.”

“The City needs to be very aggressive about the next couple of budget years, and it will be painful to employees and reduce services even if it’s done right. However, what is occurring with McGinn is random, thoughtless destruction of the City’s ability to do anything effectively for several years to come.”

“they are people who know something about politics and govt and pr etc… so when you see a whole bunch people saying things are truly fubar — you should actually listen”

This is not the way you deal with complex issues and complicated, large organizations. The City already has big problems. It needs smart people, new thinking, innovation based informed by historical memory, and etc. You don’t get that by terrifying employees, keeping people in the dark, picking random cuts targets and using secret criteria for making decisions.

I voted for McGinn. I want McGinn to do phenomenally well. This is opposite that. He needs a management intervention. Who knows him well enough to tell him he needs a big change, stat?

Seattle City Councilmember Jan Drago is questioning whether the Seattle Department of Transportation failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest with a Mill Creek law firm hired to investigate complaints of discrimination inside the agency.

The City hired MFR Law Group of Mill Creek in 2007, paying $515,000 to investigate discrimination complaints in SDOT’s street maintenance division. It found widespread perceptions of favoritism and discrimination in the division, and compiled an 8,000-page report after 185 hours of interviews with 114 employees.

Five months after the report was completed, MFR Law Group hired Marcos Zuniga, an employment law attorney who is married to Anne Fiske-Zuniga, SDOT’s deputy director.

Seattle City Councilmember Jan Drago is questioning whether the Seattle Department of Transportation failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest with a Mill Creek law firm hired to investigate complaints of discrimination inside the agency.

The City hired MFR Law Group of Mill Creek in 2007, paying $515,000 to investigate discrimination complaints in SDOT’s street maintenance division. It found widespread perceptions of favoritism and discrimination in the division, and compiled an 8,000-page report after 185 hours of interviews with 114 employees.

Five months after the report was completed, MFR Law Group hired Marcos Zuniga, an employment law attorney who is married to Anne Fiske-Zuniga, SDOT’s deputy director.

Trey, my significant other is an SA. When he/she started, he/she chaffed at always having to tow the line for the Mayor’s office. What McGinn doesn’t get is that city departments will get in line behind him because he is the boss. Whether they were hired by Nickels or not, they are no longer loyal to him because he no longer signs the checks.

Trey, my significant other is an SA. When he/she started, he/she chaffed at always having to tow the line for the Mayor’s office. What McGinn doesn’t get is that city departments will get in line behind him because he is the boss. Whether they were hired by Nickels or not, they are no longer loyal to him because he no longer signs the checks.

Interesting that Seattle journalists have not reported that City of Seattle’s Union employees have been laid off in force in a number of departments (DPD, SCL) and the Call Center (union) employees have had their works hours cut to 38 instead of 40.

Union employees have to take 2 weeks unpaid for 2010…and McGinn has just stated that for the next 3 months Apex or Executive level employees (Exec, Managers & Strategic Advisors) do not.

Performance Audit of SPU by WA State Auditor’s Ofc. “SPU managers supervise fewer employees than their peers in similar government agencies, a condition that increases costs.” The average manager makes $112,000. Receives not only vacation, sick leave, but also Merit or Exec leave. And the option of only working 4 hours a day. That’s right folks APEX employees…only have to be a work 4 hours a day.

If you doubt these comments contact the SPU Public Disclosure Officer. For example you can request who works at City, their date of hire, salary, overtime, work paid travel, and their job classification.

Interesting that Seattle journalists have not reported that City of Seattle’s Union employees have been laid off in force in a number of departments (DPD, SCL) and the Call Center (union) employees have had their works hours cut to 38 instead of 40.

Union employees have to take 2 weeks unpaid for 2010…and McGinn has just stated that for the next 3 months Apex or Executive level employees (Exec, Managers & Strategic Advisors) do not.

Performance Audit of SPU by WA State Auditor’s Ofc. “SPU managers supervise fewer employees than their peers in similar government agencies, a condition that increases costs.” The average manager makes $112,000. Receives not only vacation, sick leave, but also Merit or Exec leave. And the option of only working 4 hours a day. That’s right folks APEX employees…only have to be a work 4 hours a day.

If you doubt these comments contact the SPU Public Disclosure Officer. For example you can request who works at City, their date of hire, salary, overtime, work paid travel, and their job classification.

I worked for the city for 7 years. There are lots of real good people there at all levels. Under Nickels the managers were always telling us to “jump” even before the mayor told them to do anything. It was as though they wanted somebody to be in the air when the mayor cast his eye on our program. It was very top down and put a lot of unneeded pressure on our focus of serving the public.

Another observation I have is there are lots of middle managers at the city. Often these jobs were created when some program got cut or reorganized but they didn’t want to kick the people to the curb. Sometimes it was when someone screwed up but they were too afraid to fire them. Consequently, there are lots of folks that supervise a small amount of people and have to justify there job by scheduling meetings and stressing the front line people out. I read what McGinn is proposing and to be honest it makes sense to me. If we can cut some middle managers earning $80+ to save some front line staff I’m all for it.

I worked for the city for 7 years. There are lots of real good people there at all levels. Under Nickels the managers were always telling us to “jump” even before the mayor told them to do anything. It was as though they wanted somebody to be in the air when the mayor cast his eye on our program. It was very top down and put a lot of unneeded pressure on our focus of serving the public.

Another observation I have is there are lots of middle managers at the city. Often these jobs were created when some program got cut or reorganized but they didn’t want to kick the people to the curb. Sometimes it was when someone screwed up but they were too afraid to fire them. Consequently, there are lots of folks that supervise a small amount of people and have to justify there job by scheduling meetings and stressing the front line people out. I read what McGinn is proposing and to be honest it makes sense to me. If we can cut some middle managers earning $80+ to save some front line staff I’m all for it.

At the risk of going against the grain, here, don’t you think the duties of the Office of Sustainability are duplicative (and hence, not sustainable?). It seems to me that every department in the City should be thinking about how to ensure this neck of the woods is trying to be “greener.” But to then have a whole office?

And I agree, the redundancies are enormous. Our city has not grown so large that each department needs it’s own spokesperson, it’s own PR/spin flak.

While I am all for employment, as a taxpayer, I would rather see my money go toward direct services: fixing potholes, street lights, etc.

There are certainly a million things “strategic advisors” do, but perhaps we need to examine whether our city, given it’s priorities actually needs that work. I would suspect the recent Park Conduct Rules is Exhibit A of needless staff make work.

At the risk of going against the grain, here, don’t you think the duties of the Office of Sustainability are duplicative (and hence, not sustainable?). It seems to me that every department in the City should be thinking about how to ensure this neck of the woods is trying to be “greener.” But to then have a whole office?

And I agree, the redundancies are enormous. Our city has not grown so large that each department needs it’s own spokesperson, it’s own PR/spin flak.

While I am all for employment, as a taxpayer, I would rather see my money go toward direct services: fixing potholes, street lights, etc.

There are certainly a million things “strategic advisors” do, but perhaps we need to examine whether our city, given it’s priorities actually needs that work. I would suspect the recent Park Conduct Rules is Exhibit A of needless staff make work.

Wow. Mike “Hugo Chavez” McGinn. All nice talk, doesn’t know crap about econimics.

Wow. Mike “Hugo Chavez” McGinn. All nice talk, doesn’t know crap about econimics.

Looks like he is on the payroll now

http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/additional-staff-announcements/

Looks like he is on the payroll now

http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/additional-staff-announcements/

Well, if I was a new Mayor, coming into Government for the first time in my lifetime, not knowing ANYTHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT, I would assume the same thing – But after being in government for more than 20 years, If I was Mayor, I would relax. Go into the position, informing the City Council of my thoughts and desires (even if you don’t elaborate about the campaign promises), take some time to review what the 15,000 City employees and management are doing, their performance levels, and take a few minutes – if not several months – to comprehend how they were put into the positions that I was about to reduce. I would then make some adjustments based on actual fact. To come into an organization without any understanding of the culture, the need for any one position, is irresponsible. The new Mayor doesn’t even know where all the City assets are located yet – he does not even know the history of how PEOPLE came to be in the position they are in. Relax. Cut the heads off after a fair trial.

Well, if I was a new Mayor, coming into Government for the first time in my lifetime, not knowing ANYTHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT, I would assume the same thing – But after being in government for more than 20 years, If I was Mayor, I would relax. Go into the position, informing the City Council of my thoughts and desires (even if you don’t elaborate about the campaign promises), take some time to review what the 15,000 City employees and management are doing, their performance levels, and take a few minutes – if not several months – to comprehend how they were put into the positions that I was about to reduce. I would then make some adjustments based on actual fact. To come into an organization without any understanding of the culture, the need for any one position, is irresponsible. The new Mayor doesn’t even know where all the City assets are located yet – he does not even know the history of how PEOPLE came to be in the position they are in. Relax. Cut the heads off after a fair trial.

Whether the Mayor is right about there being too many “senior positions” or not, there’s a larger, ethical problem festering within the City’s employment system that Mayor McGinn should address.

In 1979, the citizens of Seattle voted to amend the City Charter in order to strengthen the City’s merit-based civil service system. The primary purpose of this amendment is to guarantee “fair treatment of [job] applicants and employees” and to ensure that City workers “are protected from coercion.”

In other words, the people of Seattle voted for a merit system in which job applicants and City employees are judged by their performance rather than their political affiliations, and in which City workers may discharge the duties of their position without fear of reprisal.

Seattle’s civil service protections do not extend to all City employees. The Mayor has the authority to hire whomever he wishes to be his closest advisors. And he can replace them without giving any reason whatsoever.

The Mayor also has the authority to hire the people who run the departments of City government, though a majority of the City Council must approve the Mayor’s choices.

All of this makes good sense from the standpoint of democracy. The Mayor should be able to choose the advisors who will help him formulate City policy and he ought to have the authority to hire and fire the department heads that are responsible for carrying out these policies.

But most Seattle citizens would be surprised to learn that there are hundreds of City employees who can be fired for no reason at all. These “exempt” positions extend well beyond the Mayor’s closest advisors and the City’s department heads.

For example, the City’s Geographic Information Specialists, who use complex computer software to map the location of City projects and like, are subject to arbitrary dismissal. If someone who worked in the Mayor’s campaign wanted the job of one of these Specialists, that City employee could be fired tomorrow even if he or she had more training, experience, and education than the campaign worker.

In addition to the problem of cronyism, consider the fairness issue that will arise when the Mayor starts cutting positions from the City’s payroll. If these positions were part of the civil service system, then, special circumstances apart, the workers who occupy them would be laid off according to their seniority.

But if the positions are exempt from civil service protections, then the Mayor need not apply any criterion, be it seniority, job performance, membership in a disadvantaged group, or any other standard in deciding who should be laid off.

The existence of so many “exempt” positions raises hard questions. Will employees who serve at the Mayor’s pleasure be inclined “to speak truth to power”? If the City Council requests information from “exempt” employees, will they answer forthrightly or will they respond in a manner they believe will be most pleasing to the Mayor? Should the spoils that fall into the hands of a victorious political campaign include jobs that involve electronic map-making and civil engineering?

Cynics will insist there’s no such thing as impartiality and that “merit” lies in the eye of the beholder. But the citizens who voted to add a civil service system to the City Charter didn’t believe this. They wanted the blessings of democracy to be combined with a system of rules that promotes fair play and constrains the exercise of raw power. The right to make employment decisions without justification is a recipe for arbitrary decision-making, not good government.

If our new Mayor were to take the lead in restoring the City’s merit-based civil service system, Seattle’s citizens and the employees who labor on their behalf would celebrate his commitment to reason and fairness.

Whether the Mayor is right about there being too many “senior positions” or not, there’s a larger, ethical problem festering within the City’s employment system that Mayor McGinn should address.

In 1979, the citizens of Seattle voted to amend the City Charter in order to strengthen the City’s merit-based civil service system. The primary purpose of this amendment is to guarantee “fair treatment of [job] applicants and employees” and to ensure that City workers “are protected from coercion.”

In other words, the people of Seattle voted for a merit system in which job applicants and City employees are judged by their performance rather than their political affiliations, and in which City workers may discharge the duties of their position without fear of reprisal.

Seattle’s civil service protections do not extend to all City employees. The Mayor has the authority to hire whomever he wishes to be his closest advisors. And he can replace them without giving any reason whatsoever.

The Mayor also has the authority to hire the people who run the departments of City government, though a majority of the City Council must approve the Mayor’s choices.

All of this makes good sense from the standpoint of democracy. The Mayor should be able to choose the advisors who will help him formulate City policy and he ought to have the authority to hire and fire the department heads that are responsible for carrying out these policies.

But most Seattle citizens would be surprised to learn that there are hundreds of City employees who can be fired for no reason at all. These “exempt” positions extend well beyond the Mayor’s closest advisors and the City’s department heads.

For example, the City’s Geographic Information Specialists, who use complex computer software to map the location of City projects and like, are subject to arbitrary dismissal. If someone who worked in the Mayor’s campaign wanted the job of one of these Specialists, that City employee could be fired tomorrow even if he or she had more training, experience, and education than the campaign worker.

In addition to the problem of cronyism, consider the fairness issue that will arise when the Mayor starts cutting positions from the City’s payroll. If these positions were part of the civil service system, then, special circumstances apart, the workers who occupy them would be laid off according to their seniority.

But if the positions are exempt from civil service protections, then the Mayor need not apply any criterion, be it seniority, job performance, membership in a disadvantaged group, or any other standard in deciding who should be laid off.

The existence of so many “exempt” positions raises hard questions. Will employees who serve at the Mayor’s pleasure be inclined “to speak truth to power”? If the City Council requests information from “exempt” employees, will they answer forthrightly or will they respond in a manner they believe will be most pleasing to the Mayor? Should the spoils that fall into the hands of a victorious political campaign include jobs that involve electronic map-making and civil engineering?

Cynics will insist there’s no such thing as impartiality and that “merit” lies in the eye of the beholder. But the citizens who voted to add a civil service system to the City Charter didn’t believe this. They wanted the blessings of democracy to be combined with a system of rules that promotes fair play and constrains the exercise of raw power. The right to make employment decisions without justification is a recipe for arbitrary decision-making, not good government.

If our new Mayor were to take the lead in restoring the City’s merit-based civil service system, Seattle’s citizens and the employees who labor on their behalf would celebrate his commitment to reason and fairness.

So cuts/reclasses with only some benefit to budget… is that the definition of “transparency”???

So cuts/reclasses with only some benefit to budget… is that the definition of “transparency”???

One part of Seattle’s City Government has recently (since 2003) began a comprehensive, redundant exercise to increase “management” (not intentionally) but it ended up being that way – after millions of dollars wasted. It started as a cost-efficient way to manage business in a common sense approach to asset management. As most government ventures end up, it has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare -multiple layers of management trying to perform what competent managers were already trying to accomplish. Get rid of the ones that are simply adding a layer. Efficiency in Government is not found in layers but in the one “person” responsible in making the decision they were hired to make.

One part of Seattle’s City Government has recently (since 2003) began a comprehensive, redundant exercise to increase “management” (not intentionally) but it ended up being that way – after millions of dollars wasted. It started as a cost-efficient way to manage business in a common sense approach to asset management. As most government ventures end up, it has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare -multiple layers of management trying to perform what competent managers were already trying to accomplish. Get rid of the ones that are simply adding a layer. Efficiency in Government is not found in layers but in the one “person” responsible in making the decision they were hired to make.

There appears to be a lot of assumptions made by the new Mayor. He assumes that a quota on eliminating jobs will solve the City Government’s deficit in some fashion. Eliminating positions will not a deficit make. He needs to 1) learn about the City Govt., 2) realize that what has taken years to create cannot be overturned by simply elimnating jobs, and 3) that there are a heck of a lot of cost-savings to be made by reducing inefficencies that have limited impact to do with positions (i.e. Fleet Management, Computer IT projects, and other projects that end up going nowhere after millions of invested tax-payer support)…find the backbone in the organization and you will discover the weakness.

There appears to be a lot of assumptions made by the new Mayor. He assumes that a quota on eliminating jobs will solve the City Government’s deficit in some fashion. Eliminating positions will not a deficit make. He needs to 1) learn about the City Govt., 2) realize that what has taken years to create cannot be overturned by simply elimnating jobs, and 3) that there are a heck of a lot of cost-savings to be made by reducing inefficencies that have limited impact to do with positions (i.e. Fleet Management, Computer IT projects, and other projects that end up going nowhere after millions of invested tax-payer support)…find the backbone in the organization and you will discover the weakness.

As the Mayor launches into his process for cutting 200 senior leadership positions (Executives, Managers and Strategic Advisors) from City government, I would encourage him and your readers to consider the following.

The statistics being cited by the Mayor’s staff iare misleading. First, the growth cited conveniently left out major cuts of Executives, Managers, and Strategic Advisors positions included in the 2010 budget. Had these been included the targets given to departments would in some cases be half of what has been imposed. Secondly, many of the positions included in the Mayor’s count are being underfilled as lower level classifications and should never have been included in the count in the first place.

Some of the increases cited are attributable to reclassifications to address equity liability issues and do not represent actual increases in staffing. The City is required by law to compensate staff at a level commensurate with the classified by of work
.
Some of the increases cited were deliberate reclassification decisions to enable the City to attract and retain hard-to-recruit and critical technical expertise. This in particular impacted the utilities. By reclassifying key positions, the City was able to pay comparable wages and retain/attract the technical skills and knowledge vital to our utilities.

In some instances, increases cited actually saved the City money. Some classifications such as planners could easily fall within the parameters of the Planning series or those of Strategic Advisor. Such positions often carry significant responsibility, perform functions critical to the delivery of cutting edge services or are pivotal in leveraging City dollars and bringing additional revenue sources and services into the City. This work traditionally requires more than a normal 40 hour work week. By reclassifying some positions to the Strategic Advisor series, the City was not only able to attract the talent they needed, but were able to avoid exorbitant overtime rates of $40-55 dollars per hour.

The suggestion that the Mayor may reclassify some of the positions in the Manager or Strategic Advisor series to a lower level classification will actually cost the City money. To do so would require modifying job responsibilities and scope to reflect the lower classification. However, under City Personnel and Civil Services rules, the incumbent’s salary would remain frozen at the higher level. Thus, the City would lose critical capacity for the same cost.

Most of the Executives, Managers and Strategic Advisors in the City are over 40 and are part of a protected class. Pledging to cut 200 jobs from these classifications may very well have a disparate impact on older workers and could result in costly litigation.

It seems particularly short-sighted to make grand promises to cut positions without any understanding of the impact of such decisions. In such difficult economic times, it seems particularly important for a leader to first take a methodical and thoughtful approach, to have a good grasp of the organization and a holistic understanding of the impact of cuts on services and our citizens/neighborhoods. In the absence of this, such dramatic pronouncements at best seem like political pandering and at worse, inexperience in the extreme. Most disturbing is to see a new Mayor fail to recognize that the very people he has placed under seige are not his adversaries but his own staff….the people most capable of carrying out his initiatives and making the City work for its citizens.
A very conerned citizen.

As the Mayor launches into his process for cutting 200 senior leadership positions (Executives, Managers and Strategic Advisors) from City government, I would encourage him and your readers to consider the following.

The statistics being cited by the Mayor’s staff iare misleading. First, the growth cited conveniently left out major cuts of Executives, Managers, and Strategic Advisors positions included in the 2010 budget. Had these been included the targets given to departments would in some cases be half of what has been imposed. Secondly, many of the positions included in the Mayor’s count are being underfilled as lower level classifications and should never have been included in the count in the first place.

Some of the increases cited are attributable to reclassifications to address equity liability issues and do not represent actual increases in staffing. The City is required by law to compensate staff at a level commensurate with the classified by of work
.
Some of the increases cited were deliberate reclassification decisions to enable the City to attract and retain hard-to-recruit and critical technical expertise. This in particular impacted the utilities. By reclassifying key positions, the City was able to pay comparable wages and retain/attract the technical skills and knowledge vital to our utilities.

In some instances, increases cited actually saved the City money. Some classifications such as planners could easily fall within the parameters of the Planning series or those of Strategic Advisor. Such positions often carry significant responsibility, perform functions critical to the delivery of cutting edge services or are pivotal in leveraging City dollars and bringing additional revenue sources and services into the City. This work traditionally requires more than a normal 40 hour work week. By reclassifying some positions to the Strategic Advisor series, the City was not only able to attract the talent they needed, but were able to avoid exorbitant overtime rates of $40-55 dollars per hour.

The suggestion that the Mayor may reclassify some of the positions in the Manager or Strategic Advisor series to a lower level classification will actually cost the City money. To do so would require modifying job responsibilities and scope to reflect the lower classification. However, under City Personnel and Civil Services rules, the incumbent’s salary would remain frozen at the higher level. Thus, the City would lose critical capacity for the same cost.

Most of the Executives, Managers and Strategic Advisors in the City are over 40 and are part of a protected class. Pledging to cut 200 jobs from these classifications may very well have a disparate impact on older workers and could result in costly litigation.

It seems particularly short-sighted to make grand promises to cut positions without any understanding of the impact of such decisions. In such difficult economic times, it seems particularly important for a leader to first take a methodical and thoughtful approach, to have a good grasp of the organization and a holistic understanding of the impact of cuts on services and our citizens/neighborhoods. In the absence of this, such dramatic pronouncements at best seem like political pandering and at worse, inexperience in the extreme. Most disturbing is to see a new Mayor fail to recognize that the very people he has placed under seige are not his adversaries but his own staff….the people most capable of carrying out his initiatives and making the City work for its citizens.
A very conerned citizen.

I want to know how the City Council feels about the Mayor single handedly eliminating or modifying significant programs without their input? Each City department went through a careful budget process to plan for the 2010 budget and it was approved by the Council. With the exception of CM Bagshaw and CM O’Brien the other 7 Councilmembers understand the magnitude of what the Mayor is proposing.

I hope that they get engaged soon and at least begin to ask the Mayor what are the impact of the proposed cuts. In additon, wouldn’t this reduction exercise be best conducted during the 2011-12 budget process that will be beginning soon?

I want to know how the City Council feels about the Mayor single handedly eliminating or modifying significant programs without their input? Each City department went through a careful budget process to plan for the 2010 budget and it was approved by the Council. With the exception of CM Bagshaw and CM O’Brien the other 7 Councilmembers understand the magnitude of what the Mayor is proposing.

I hope that they get engaged soon and at least begin to ask the Mayor what are the impact of the proposed cuts. In additon, wouldn’t this reduction exercise be best conducted during the 2011-12 budget process that will be beginning soon?

I imagine that the council is pretty happy to have the mayor doing this dirty work for them. I know lots of city employees are worked up about this, but the public really wants government to live within its means.

I imagine that the council is pretty happy to have the mayor doing this dirty work for them. I know lots of city employees are worked up about this, but the public really wants government to live within its means.

‘Cry me a river’ shovels disinformation. Employees with the classification of Strategic Advisor and Manager are required to take 7 furlough days and don’t get the 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA). That’s a fact. Employees with the classification “Executive” do not get the 2% COLA; that’s a fact. They are not furloughing; that’s a fact.

Here’s another interesting fact. In City Light alone, roughly 600 REPRESENTED (i.e. UNION) positions make OVER $100,000 per year. This includes base salary and overtime. This number of 600 is TWICE the number of NON-REPRESENTED employees who make over $100,000.

Here’s a second interesting fact. There are members of Local 77 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) who make MORE than $200,000 a year in base salary and overtime. That’s right … MORE than $200,000 per year in base salary and overtime. I’ll bet that’s a message that Local 77 doesn’t get out to the citizens and rate-payers.

Here’s a third interesting fact. Local 77 is NOT participating in furloughs or salary freezes. What makes them so special while other union and non-union employees take it on the chin with furlough days and/or no COLA? Way to be part of the team Local 77! Way to contribute.

‘Cry me a river’ shovels disinformation. Employees with the classification of Strategic Advisor and Manager are required to take 7 furlough days and don’t get the 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA). That’s a fact. Employees with the classification “Executive” do not get the 2% COLA; that’s a fact. They are not furloughing; that’s a fact.

Here’s another interesting fact. In City Light alone, roughly 600 REPRESENTED (i.e. UNION) positions make OVER $100,000 per year. This includes base salary and overtime. This number of 600 is TWICE the number of NON-REPRESENTED employees who make over $100,000.

Here’s a second interesting fact. There are members of Local 77 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) who make MORE than $200,000 a year in base salary and overtime. That’s right … MORE than $200,000 per year in base salary and overtime. I’ll bet that’s a message that Local 77 doesn’t get out to the citizens and rate-payers.

Here’s a third interesting fact. Local 77 is NOT participating in furloughs or salary freezes. What makes them so special while other union and non-union employees take it on the chin with furlough days and/or no COLA? Way to be part of the team Local 77! Way to contribute.

JoJack – Ssshhhh, the IBEW wants to keep that camel’s nose out of the tent.

JoJack – Ssshhhh, the IBEW wants to keep that camel’s nose out of the tent.

IBEW members are skilled labor in a trade that is in high demand, even in today’s economy. Plus, they are savvy, and know how to stand up to the city and negotiate, especially on the issue of the council’s politicization of electric rates. Lastly, most of their membership is loyal to the union, and engaged in it, unlike the membership of the other unions.

On the other hand, I don’t know why the city tiptoes around the IBEW. Most of them don’t live in Seattle, so they have little influence in the elections, and they will never, ever go on strike because most of the members can’t afford to.

But their work is hard and dangerous, performed many times under stressful conditions or inclement weather. A lot of past IBEW members suffered greatly for the benefits they have today. 85% of them are good, conscientious people, and hard workers, which is a pretty good average for any work place, unionized or not. And it takes two parties to enter into a contract: Management and labor, so you can’t blame a union for representing their members….

IBEW members are skilled labor in a trade that is in high demand, even in today’s economy. Plus, they are savvy, and know how to stand up to the city and negotiate, especially on the issue of the council’s politicization of electric rates. Lastly, most of their membership is loyal to the union, and engaged in it, unlike the membership of the other unions.

On the other hand, I don’t know why the city tiptoes around the IBEW. Most of them don’t live in Seattle, so they have little influence in the elections, and they will never, ever go on strike because most of the members can’t afford to.

But their work is hard and dangerous, performed many times under stressful conditions or inclement weather. A lot of past IBEW members suffered greatly for the benefits they have today. 85% of them are good, conscientious people, and hard workers, which is a pretty good average for any work place, unionized or not. And it takes two parties to enter into a contract: Management and labor, so you can’t blame a union for representing their members….

“Here’s a third interesting fact. Local 77 is NOT participating in furloughs or salary freezes. What makes them so special while other union and non-union employees take it on the chin with furlough days and/or no COLA? Way to be part of the team Local 77! Way to contribute.”.

Maybe they aren’t furloughed because they are working overtime.

“Here’s a third interesting fact. Local 77 is NOT participating in furloughs or salary freezes. What makes them so special while other union and non-union employees take it on the chin with furlough days and/or no COLA? Way to be part of the team Local 77! Way to contribute.”.

Maybe they aren’t furloughed because they are working overtime.

We are about to banish 200 of our fellow workers to the streets into one of the worst job markets in memory. These are people we have worked shoulder to shoulder with, and at times butted heads with, all in the hard and oft unappreciated work of delivering essential services to our citizens. Yes, many of these fellow workers get paid more than us, are non-union, and are imperfect as all humans are. However, they will find it very hard to find work to support their families; likely many will run out of money and lose their homes or worse. Many will naturally come to deeply resent the City and all associated with it; as all that are bumped in sequence, ultimately let-go or not, will. And a culture of fear will pervade. These are our fellow humans and fellow citizens; is this what we want? Are we so selfish , spiteful and narrow minded as to be party to this. Have we surrendered to greed, hate, fear and ignorance? We can we can tighten our belts; all of us, and turn this around. And perhaps help the new Mayor lead in a better direction. Almost all of us can get by with substantially less money than we believe. The power and the responsibility starts with you and you alone; but our collective actions as a nation will prove us out as the “free and the brave” who know what to truly value; or as “cowardly wage slaves” willing to sell our souls for a few trinkets and ephemeral political power… The choice is yours. Is there anyone willing to join me?

We are about to banish 200 of our fellow workers to the streets into one of the worst job markets in memory. These are people we have worked shoulder to shoulder with, and at times butted heads with, all in the hard and oft unappreciated work of delivering essential services to our citizens. Yes, many of these fellow workers get paid more than us, are non-union, and are imperfect as all humans are. However, they will find it very hard to find work to support their families; likely many will run out of money and lose their homes or worse. Many will naturally come to deeply resent the City and all associated with it; as all that are bumped in sequence, ultimately let-go or not, will. And a culture of fear will pervade. These are our fellow humans and fellow citizens; is this what we want? Are we so selfish , spiteful and narrow minded as to be party to this. Have we surrendered to greed, hate, fear and ignorance? We can we can tighten our belts; all of us, and turn this around. And perhaps help the new Mayor lead in a better direction. Almost all of us can get by with substantially less money than we believe. The power and the responsibility starts with you and you alone; but our collective actions as a nation will prove us out as the “free and the brave” who know what to truly value; or as “cowardly wage slaves” willing to sell our souls for a few trinkets and ephemeral political power… The choice is yours. Is there anyone willing to join me?

However, they will find it very hard to find work to support their families; likely many will run out of money and lose their homes or worse. Many will naturally come to deeply resent the City and all associated with it; as all that are bumped in sequence, ultimately let-go or not, will. And a culture of fear will pervade. These are our fellow humans and fellow citizens; is this what we want? Are we so selfish , spiteful and narrow minded as to be party to this. Have we surrendered to greed, hate, fear and ignorance? We can we can tighten our belts; all of us, and turn this around. .

Seattle has an unemployment rate of about 10%. What about those people? Perhaps the city should reduce the pay of all workers so the city can hire all of the unemployed.

Why should only the private sector worker bear the pain of the economy.

When you say tighten their belts, do you mean taxpayers should increase their taxes to keep all government workers at their jobs?

McGinn may well be doing this in an inelegant way and another approach should be taken, but we have a $40,000,000 budget hole that needs to be dealt with and it shouldn’t be by using reserve sub fund money that is put away for a purpose.

When the private sector started laying off did the city workers stand up and say this was cruel? Many good hard working people in the private sector have faced the very issues you say city workers should be exempt from and I don’t see why they should be.

However, they will find it very hard to find work to support their families; likely many will run out of money and lose their homes or worse. Many will naturally come to deeply resent the City and all associated with it; as all that are bumped in sequence, ultimately let-go or not, will. And a culture of fear will pervade. These are our fellow humans and fellow citizens; is this what we want? Are we so selfish , spiteful and narrow minded as to be party to this. Have we surrendered to greed, hate, fear and ignorance? We can we can tighten our belts; all of us, and turn this around. .

Seattle has an unemployment rate of about 10%. What about those people? Perhaps the city should reduce the pay of all workers so the city can hire all of the unemployed.

Why should only the private sector worker bear the pain of the economy.

When you say tighten their belts, do you mean taxpayers should increase their taxes to keep all government workers at their jobs?

McGinn may well be doing this in an inelegant way and another approach should be taken, but we have a $40,000,000 budget hole that needs to be dealt with and it shouldn’t be by using reserve sub fund money that is put away for a purpose.

When the private sector started laying off did the city workers stand up and say this was cruel? Many good hard working people in the private sector have faced the very issues you say city workers should be exempt from and I don’t see why they should be.

To summarize some consistent themes in the comments:
1. The number 200 was an arbitrary campaign promise. It does not reflect an accurate assessment of the fat that needs to be trimmed in city government.
2. It would have been much more efficient and less painful to include this process in the upcoming biennial budgeting process.
3. A certain class of employees is being scapegoated for the city’s budget problems, rather than taking the time and effort to understand the best ways to trim the budget.
4. McGinn should find out where the bathroom is before he starts pulling crap like this. What the Mayor does not yet know about city government, including some very important basic functions, could fill volumes. It’s similar to a debate we have about my ex-spouse. My friends and family contend that he/she is conniving and methodical in her treachery, while I insist that he/she’s too dumb to cook up conspiracies and is just crazy. We just don’t know for sure…

To summarize some consistent themes in the comments:
1. The number 200 was an arbitrary campaign promise. It does not reflect an accurate assessment of the fat that needs to be trimmed in city government.
2. It would have been much more efficient and less painful to include this process in the upcoming biennial budgeting process.
3. A certain class of employees is being scapegoated for the city’s budget problems, rather than taking the time and effort to understand the best ways to trim the budget.
4. McGinn should find out where the bathroom is before he starts pulling crap like this. What the Mayor does not yet know about city government, including some very important basic functions, could fill volumes. It’s similar to a debate we have about my ex-spouse. My friends and family contend that he/she is conniving and methodical in her treachery, while I insist that he/she’s too dumb to cook up conspiracies and is just crazy. We just don’t know for sure…

The following domain names are still available recallmikemcginn.com
recallmikemcginn.net
recallmikemcginn.org
recallmcginn.com
recallmcginn.net
recallmcginn.org
recall-mcginn.com
recall-mcginn.net
recall-mcginn.org

The following domain names are still available recallmikemcginn.com
recallmikemcginn.net
recallmikemcginn.org
recallmcginn.com
recallmcginn.net
recallmcginn.org
recall-mcginn.com
recall-mcginn.net
recall-mcginn.org

Nickels was a competent leader who eventually gained a reputation for being TOO effective and too strong-minded. Odd year election cycles are always rough on “the sane manager” politician.

Stoned Volvo driving Seattle voters delivered us Mike
McGinn – to make “change.”

We are getting exactly what a super-minority of the electorate wanted.

Those who voted for McGinn because his bike-riding / granola crunching persona was more appealing than that of a cell phone corporation suck-up…they probably aren’t even paying attention now.

At least Joe Mallahan probably knows the importance of institutional morale.

Nickels was a competent leader who eventually gained a reputation for being TOO effective and too strong-minded. Odd year election cycles are always rough on “the sane manager” politician.

Stoned Volvo driving Seattle voters delivered us Mike
McGinn – to make “change.”

We are getting exactly what a super-minority of the electorate wanted.

Those who voted for McGinn because his bike-riding / granola crunching persona was more appealing than that of a cell phone corporation suck-up…they probably aren’t even paying attention now.

At least Joe Mallahan probably knows the importance of institutional morale.

There are still a significant number of Contractors working at the City, why not examine some of those contracts before cutting regular staff? This seems incredibly arbitrary and amateurish.

There are still a significant number of Contractors working at the City, why not examine some of those contracts before cutting regular staff? This seems incredibly arbitrary and amateurish.

I know that many of the posts assume that the majority of the “senior level” employees don’t live in the City of Seattle and therefore the Mayor should not care because they can’t effect Seattle elections. I know for a fact that this is not true. Even the employees that don’t live in Seattle have friends and family members that do. The Mayor has single handedly deputized hundreds of disgruntled, “ambassadors” that will go out and tell their story of how they were treated by their employer over and over again.

Believe me I have personally talked with many of my friends and neighbors and they ask “is that guy crazy?” They all work organizations and could not ever imagine the CEO that they work for sending down an edict on his or her first day on the job threatening to fire much of the leadership in the organization. I think that most of the employees in this group can completely understand the need for budget reductions but this is using a hatchet rather than a scaple. If you look at the targets for some departments it is as high as 1 in 3 or 4 out of all of the targeted positions. This will definitely have a negative impact to the City’s ability to serve the public’s needs.

I know that many of the posts assume that the majority of the “senior level” employees don’t live in the City of Seattle and therefore the Mayor should not care because they can’t effect Seattle elections. I know for a fact that this is not true. Even the employees that don’t live in Seattle have friends and family members that do. The Mayor has single handedly deputized hundreds of disgruntled, “ambassadors” that will go out and tell their story of how they were treated by their employer over and over again.

Believe me I have personally talked with many of my friends and neighbors and they ask “is that guy crazy?” They all work organizations and could not ever imagine the CEO that they work for sending down an edict on his or her first day on the job threatening to fire much of the leadership in the organization. I think that most of the employees in this group can completely understand the need for budget reductions but this is using a hatchet rather than a scaple. If you look at the targets for some departments it is as high as 1 in 3 or 4 out of all of the targeted positions. This will definitely have a negative impact to the City’s ability to serve the public’s needs.

I agree Morning Fizzy, private sector or public, people should not have to suffer, struggle yes, but not suffer. I’m pretty new to the City and Union, but many of us have struggled to save private and public sector jobs alike for a very long time. And tossing more people into the street to slake a thirst for public employee blood, or shared pain, is not appealing to our better selves; two wrongs don’t make a right. I am saying, as a staff member, I should tighten my belt even more to help fellow staff members because I know I can make a valuable difference for them and for the long term effectiveness of our team. I am not suggesting the taxpayer or private sector bail out the City, rather they do the same in their own work places. As human with I should tighten my belt to help other humans; most of us have way more than we really need. There is no end to the need of others, only failure in giving up and blaming somebody else. And, we all know willing-away the giant budget hole will not fix the problem. But hard smart teamwork, and sacrificing a few big sacred cow projects and political trinkets, will. Please find ways to help the people you can in a real way; regardless of who they work for, or where they live. Only you know how you can make the world a better place. If you are already doing it, great; if not, please do. You are the difference you make in this world.

I agree Morning Fizzy, private sector or public, people should not have to suffer, struggle yes, but not suffer. I’m pretty new to the City and Union, but many of us have struggled to save private and public sector jobs alike for a very long time. And tossing more people into the street to slake a thirst for public employee blood, or shared pain, is not appealing to our better selves; two wrongs don’t make a right. I am saying, as a staff member, I should tighten my belt even more to help fellow staff members because I know I can make a valuable difference for them and for the long term effectiveness of our team. I am not suggesting the taxpayer or private sector bail out the City, rather they do the same in their own work places. As human with I should tighten my belt to help other humans; most of us have way more than we really need. There is no end to the need of others, only failure in giving up and blaming somebody else. And, we all know willing-away the giant budget hole will not fix the problem. But hard smart teamwork, and sacrificing a few big sacred cow projects and political trinkets, will. Please find ways to help the people you can in a real way; regardless of who they work for, or where they live. Only you know how you can make the world a better place. If you are already doing it, great; if not, please do. You are the difference you make in this world.

Here is how much Executive or Apex employees make. The last salary figure includes 26% benefits costs.

Strategic Advisor 1 $48, 67 hourly, $101, 622.96 annual; $128,044.93 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Strategic Advisor 2 $53.07 hourly, $110,622.96 annual; $139,620.80 (includes26% Benefits Costs)
Strategic Advisor 3 $58.06 hourly, $121,229.98 annual; $152,748.89 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Manager 1 $48.67 hourly, $101,622.96 annual; $128,044.93 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Manager 2 $53.07 hourly, $110,810.16 annual; $139,620.80 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Manager 3 $58.06 hourly, $121,229.28 annual; $152,748.89 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 1 $58.40 hourly, $121,939.20 annual; $153,643.39 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 2 $69.01 hourly, $144,092.88 annual; $181, 557.03 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 3 $81.49 hourly, $170,151.12 annual; $214,390.41 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 4 $96.19 hourly, $200,719.44 annual; $252,906.49 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)

What is not shown is a majority of these City of Seattle employees have City issued equipment: laptops, wireless aircard monthly service $39.99, Blackberry $86.11 (with data&voice), and/or cell phone $39.30. Which the City of Seattle pays for monthly (exception laptop) or I should say that the City of Seattle “rate payer” pays for salary, benefits and IT equipment.

Remember that you can request to see the Blackberry and cell phone records of any City of Seattle employee by filing a Public Disclosure Request. A number of SA’s, Execs and Managers continue to use City equipment for personal use.

Here is how much Executive or Apex employees make. The last salary figure includes 26% benefits costs.

Strategic Advisor 1 $48, 67 hourly, $101, 622.96 annual; $128,044.93 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Strategic Advisor 2 $53.07 hourly, $110,622.96 annual; $139,620.80 (includes26% Benefits Costs)
Strategic Advisor 3 $58.06 hourly, $121,229.98 annual; $152,748.89 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Manager 1 $48.67 hourly, $101,622.96 annual; $128,044.93 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Manager 2 $53.07 hourly, $110,810.16 annual; $139,620.80 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Manager 3 $58.06 hourly, $121,229.28 annual; $152,748.89 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 1 $58.40 hourly, $121,939.20 annual; $153,643.39 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 2 $69.01 hourly, $144,092.88 annual; $181, 557.03 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 3 $81.49 hourly, $170,151.12 annual; $214,390.41 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)
Executive 4 $96.19 hourly, $200,719.44 annual; $252,906.49 (includes 26% Benefits Costs)

What is not shown is a majority of these City of Seattle employees have City issued equipment: laptops, wireless aircard monthly service $39.99, Blackberry $86.11 (with data&voice), and/or cell phone $39.30. Which the City of Seattle pays for monthly (exception laptop) or I should say that the City of Seattle “rate payer” pays for salary, benefits and IT equipment.

Remember that you can request to see the Blackberry and cell phone records of any City of Seattle employee by filing a Public Disclosure Request. A number of SA’s, Execs and Managers continue to use City equipment for personal use.

Cry Me a River is giving you misleading information. S/he is posting the top of the scale for these positions. The Srategic Advisor 1 position does not start at $48.67, it tops out there. It starts at $32.48 or $67,747.67 annually. I bet most of these people are not at the top of their payscales. I’m pretty sure the “majority” are not given laptops and many do not have city-issued blackberries. And many managers who do have them also carry their own, personal cell phones (and iPhones). Many field and front line employees are issued phones and blackberries.

Cry Me a River is giving you misleading information. S/he is posting the top of the scale for these positions. The Srategic Advisor 1 position does not start at $48.67, it tops out there. It starts at $32.48 or $67,747.67 annually. I bet most of these people are not at the top of their payscales. I’m pretty sure the “majority” are not given laptops and many do not have city-issued blackberries. And many managers who do have them also carry their own, personal cell phones (and iPhones). Many field and front line employees are issued phones and blackberries.

My SO is a Strategic Advisor. You did a nice job inflating the salaries by including the benefits. He makes in the low 80′s. He worked hard to get there. He does not have a city-issued laptop or wireless air card. He does have a Blackberry, but uses it only for work. Unlike the Mayor’s staff, HE PAYS FOR HIS OWN IPHONE FOR PERSONAL USE.

My SO is a Strategic Advisor. You did a nice job inflating the salaries by including the benefits. He makes in the low 80′s. He worked hard to get there. He does not have a city-issued laptop or wireless air card. He does have a Blackberry, but uses it only for work. Unlike the Mayor’s staff, HE PAYS FOR HIS OWN IPHONE FOR PERSONAL USE.

Cry me a river…where are you getting your info? There is a range for each of those positions and the hourly rate you’re listing is more than the top end of it. The SA 1 pay range is $31.81-$47.72 per hour. And I suppose you would claim that everyone in one of these job titles is at the top of the range…

Cry me a river…where are you getting your info? There is a range for each of those positions and the hourly rate you’re listing is more than the top end of it. The SA 1 pay range is $31.81-$47.72 per hour. And I suppose you would claim that everyone in one of these job titles is at the top of the range…

Cry Me a River added 2% COLA, making the SA 1 range $32.48 to $48.67. But Cosmopolis, your range is correct for many — the exempt SA’s/manager/execs did not get COLA this year, in fact many directors (executives) took actual pay cuts.

Cry Me a River added 2% COLA, making the SA 1 range $32.48 to $48.67. But Cosmopolis, your range is correct for many — the exempt SA’s/manager/execs did not get COLA this year, in fact many directors (executives) took actual pay cuts.

I read a campaign story stating that McGinn thought that all Strategic Advisors were political appointments. This is so far from the truth. The upcoming cut of 200 positions is so frustrating. He’s doesn’t have all of his facts straight and he is not listening, he doesn’t have knowledgeable people around him, and he’s ruining people’s lives.

Today my SA lead was in tears and too vulnerable to conduct business. And this uncertainty will go on for another 2-3 months. Inhumane.

I read a campaign story stating that McGinn thought that all Strategic Advisors were political appointments. This is so far from the truth. The upcoming cut of 200 positions is so frustrating. He’s doesn’t have all of his facts straight and he is not listening, he doesn’t have knowledgeable people around him, and he’s ruining people’s lives.

Today my SA lead was in tears and too vulnerable to conduct business. And this uncertainty will go on for another 2-3 months. Inhumane.

This whole comment seems as overblown and generalized as the one he's replying too.

SA's ARE a position title. SA's are classified as non-supervisory MANAGERS, and get manager benefits. To say that some of the SA's would be making more money in “other” classifications–assuming they are not management or supervisiory, is laughable.

Not sure how this came out on my screen. But somehow, though very late, this might still be a way to express my sentiment. It's so demoralizing when a new 'commander' starts firing his officers on his first day of command and starts threatening to do the same with his rank and file. This is the tone of the email I got early morning at work from the mayor which made me asked myself 'who is McGinn?' Then I realized he's the new mayor. What a way to get introduced, I thought.

Not sure how this old news came out on my screen. But somehow, though very late, this might still be a way to express my sentiment. It's very demoralizing when a new 'commander' starts firing his officers on his first day of command and starts threatening to do the same with his rank and file. This is the tone of the email I got early morning at work from the mayor which made me asked myself 'who is McGinn?' Then I realized he's the new mayor. What a way to get introduced, I thought.