For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers. It was a very long meeting, but we strongly urge people to take the time. As we said in our Monday post -- the agenda for this meeting was flush with consequential issues. And we feel strongly that these subjects deserve your attention.
14 comments:
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/parkridge/news/2796796,park-ridge-uhligjob-101410-s1.article
Sounds to me like Schmidt, Hock, and the Aldermen got played.
Anon@3:06 --
We were wondering if anybody was going to notice that.
What we find even more aggravating is the fact that, in the video, it appears the Mayor and the Council were at least informed of the payment but made no objections to it at the time -- which some may view as tacit approval.
It was only when other severance and separation payments were made to other employees did these things become an issue.
And the fact that Ms. Uhlig's severance and separation payments were not the bone of contention others were caused us to question the lack of mention a number of times.
PRUdos to our favorite reporterette for the digging.
Either Mayor Schmidt, the Council and the City Manager got played -- good and hard -- or they're not so much concerned with speding policy and the City Manager's authority as they are with personalities and individuals, which is decidedly bad government.
PRU,
Perhaps it was a simple case of out of sight out of mind, with Ms. Uhlig. Her departure was, after all, a couple of months before the other two in question.
Anon@4:36 --
Possibly. At first.
However, once the topic of severance and additional separation payments were made an issue, we could not help but note the lack of discussion about all former employees who were given these payments, in accordance with the conditions set forth in the agreements.
Additionally, only one of the former employees was offered a separate payment on the condition of actually producing work for the City.
We have found the entire matter to have been handled very poorly. And we cannot ignore our gut reaction to the idea that the inspiration for the displeasure on the part of the Mayor and the Council arose from who received these payments, versus whether the payments should have been made at all. And the discussions have been anything but limited to the $5000 over the currently $20,000 threshold at the City Manager's discretion.
After $20thousand goes out the door, out of sight out of mind?? Great!! That's just how I want to hear they are watching our money!!
The self appointed guardian of the people's money, Lord David, didn't protest the payment to the employee who left? He only protested when other employees got similar deals? In the article it says Lord David knew the first to leave had a new job right away and now he says the pay out was wasteful and bothers him?
Lord David, thou doth protest too much.
I do get the sense that if Ms. Uhlig had been the only employee to receive the extra payment, not a peep about the propriety of the payment would have been uttered. In my opinion, that is a very unfair way to deal with employees. I mention the unfairness since the mayor is worred about what is fair to employees.
None of these give aways should have been made.
We are cut back on cops and servics and socked with higher taxes. Finally we get rid of some of these seat warmers, they get giant bonuses to get out.
It's ridiculous. Hock should be fired.
I just get this sense that he states these positions or policies or "concerns" for political reasons rather than out of deep conviction. It appears he states reasons for not approving of something but does not apply these reasons fairly or equally to all. If these were really policy positions it would not matter who (person or organization) was involved.
I agree with 8:11. Paying these people to leave is outrageous but I don't know about firing Mr. Hock for what nobody told him was not okay to do.
When they were told about the first time they should have told him it wasn't okay.
They didn't say anything and then when he went ahead and did it again and again is when they finaly spoke up.
They should have spoken up right after the first payment to the first woman who left.
Stick to whatever severence is outlined in the contracts. Am I missing something, doesn't the city carry unemployment insurance? If so, it isn't a simple 1 to 1 on what is paid out to an ex-employee as to what it costs. It's a complicated formula based on many factors - number of employees, cost of claims, frequency of claims, etc. More importantly, you can't just take the biggest possible claim number and consider a settlement for less than that a victory.
So if you pay for insurance, then pay again to the employee whenever there is a mere potential of a claim, that is just plain stupid. A great example of bureaucratic thinking that is commonplace in city managers, but what should be prevented by the elected officials.
Schmidt wants REGULATIONS on the market for public employees?
That's unRepublican!
That's antiTeaBagger!
4:48:
You are assuming that Hock did not consider all of those factors you mention in his decision to pay. Do we know this for a fact?
8:15 - Hock has said that he was considering the longest possible payout time, 2 years. Basing your numbers on the worst possible case is foolish, as seen here.
Post a Comment