ChangeDecatur

Staff Claims Outrageous re Negotiation Costs

In today's Herald & Review, the city staff "blamed" the firefighters union and other city workers for large legal expenses incurred for contract bargaining and related labor disputes. The article can be read by clicking here.

The sub-headline reports that the city has spent $156,000 for legal fees. We believe that the actual amount may be greater than that if all expenses are included. We further believe that these legal fees could have been avoided with more openness and more “good faith” bargaining.

The contentiousness is not due to the firefighters or any other city workers. This is completely the result of an acrimonious approach taken by the Osborne/Garman regime and continued to date by John Smith, the interim city manager. More importantly, it is directly due to the city attempting to unreasonably push down high health insurance costs onto the the city workers when the Osborne/Garman regime virtually refused to manage these costs for years.

The failure of Osborne/Garman to effectively manage these costs since 2004 has cost the city and its taxpayers millions of dollars. The Osborne/Garman regime have resisted every effort to control these costs and bargain in good faith. We believe that when health costs are known for the current calendar year, utilizing a different claims administrator/process, the city will save $1 to $2 million (or more). Recall that the Osborne/Garman regime recommended retaining the prior health administrator and presented erroneous analysis to support their flawed recommendation. It was city workers and their leaders that brought the errors to light and were publicly rebuked by the Osborne/Garman regime for revealing the flawed analysis. In the end, truth prevailed and the Council voted to award the administration to a new firm.

City workers have merely tried to persuade the city to bargain in good faith regarding the employees’ share of health costs. The amount of legal fees incurred by city staff in fighting with city workers is a substantial portion of the remaining differences in the city's workers position and the Osborne/Garman position related to sharing health costs.

Don’t overlook the pattern established in the Osborne/Garman regime. They spent three years or more disputing the cable franchise agreement with Insight and were only bailed out through the corporate takeover of Insight by Comcast. They also spent a year or more in acrimonious negotiations with Macon County over Animal Control services (a $350,000 agreement). They are now two or more years past the end of the last employee contract with firefighters and city workers. The uncontrolled city staff, and the remnants of Osborne/Garman, plague us with ineffective and wasteful city spending.

This is what “professional city management brings”? NO it is what unaccountable leadership brings.

We have to stop this abuse of power by the city staff successors to Osborne/Garman. Call your councilperson (if you know them) and ask that they rein in staff and bargain in good faith.

FYI. The city’s negotiating team includes Jerry Bauer, Wendy Morthland and a Chicago based law firm. Is there truly no one in Decatur that could represent the city? Why send hundreds of dollars per hour to other cities?

Foster and Elitism?? Insulting Decaturites? - See Opinion Blog

A recent blog post from Eric Johnson raises a thoughtful question regarding the implications of an assertion by the recently appointed Council member Larry Foster. Mr. Fostered stated that having more representation in city government (instituting some districts/wards) in Decatur could be typified as a "corrupt" form of government. Many of us were distrubed by these false assertions when they were made. But, Mr. Johnson seems to have put his finger on something. Is Mr. Foster "in all due respect" insulting the citizens of Decatur as not being able to self-govern? Please read on at Mr. Johnson's essay. Thanks Eric for permission to post your ideas here. To see the entire post got to our opinion blog by clicking here. Other opinions are welcome.

One of Eric's more focused concerns is repeated here:

I think Aristotle gives the answer in his discussion of oligarchies(basically the concept claims  those who gain power seek to retain that power and are reluctant to relinquish that power, many times at the expense of the greater majority) .......

........Further and continuing, following Mr. Foster's logic to it's illogical conclusion, ( and I hope he will correct me if I misstate the obvious?) should we presume that [if] Decatur [were] to change forms of City government to a form he(Foster) publicly claims is corrupt, should we then assume that Councilman Foster believes those Decatur citizen's who would participate in that system would be corrupt or corruptible by virtue of the nature of the system itself? Should we assume Mr. Foster believes only criminals would seek these positions in city government? Personally, I am offended by Mr. Foster's remarks and his insinuation that there are no qualified persons available for public office/service in our inner-city neighborhoods.......

........On my block alone live a retired librarian ,a school teacher, a small business owner.  I don't know about anyone else but I find it a direct insult to the residents of Decatur to suggest no qualified persons live in Decatur's varied/diverse core neighborhoods. There are accountants, attorneys, postmen and women, nurses, pastors, librarians, small business owners and many other (more than qualified) civic minded citizen's who would jump at the chance to participate in local government ......

What Does 41% Voting for Change Mean?

The recent discussion about the relevance of “only 41% of voters that called for change” reminds me of an adage “figures lie and liars figure.”

Let’s first not overlook the obvious: In the American model of democracy, only those that vote decide elections. Of course, all are entitled to government services and representation. All have the right to vote.

In the last several presidential elections, less than 130 million “voters” decided the president of the United States on behalf of over 300 million Americans. (For those seeking fault in this logic – I’ll stipulate that popular vote selects electors to the electoral college who then select the president; an irrelevant nuance to this issue.)

ChangeDecatur got more votes in Decatur than Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards combined got in all of Macon County. ChangeDecatur was within 1,500 votes of the votes received by Barack Obama in Macon County.

To those that complain that only 7,500 voted to change, those voters represent a greater number of citizen/voters than Mr. Osborne received when he was reelected Mayor in the last election. It is also more than each recently reelected Council member received in that same election (none had more than 5,000 votes-ChangeDecatur received 50% more).

The Decatur Herald & Review (no supporter of ChangeDecatur) in its February 10, 2008 editorial said:

"It's also safe to assume that at least some of the 59 percent, 10,605 voters, who voted to retain the council/manager form of government also have issues with city government and concerns about the future of the city."

While math may be challenging, if only 1,570 more voters out of 18,000 voted for change, the commission referendum would have passed.

Also important and most troubling about the critics is their intellectual inconsistency. These same critics insisted that the ChangeDecatur referendum should only be held at a municipal election. (We won’t note that they also opposed that this time around.) Yet, the general primary election in Decatur turned out over two times the voters as the last municipal election. The February 5, 2008 election/referendum turned out more than 3,000 (that’s about 20%) more voters than the contested municipal election when Paul Osborne was first elected in 2003.

If the critics are sure that there is no broad support for government reform in Decatur, then perhaps they can answer one question: “Why are you opposed to letting voters simply vote?”

Ask them!

District Representation Builds Consensus

We encourage everyone to look at history for perspective and insight. One editorial in the Herald & Review on February 10, 2008, caught our eye for its relevance to the debate about having districts/wards in Decatur and the merits of a strong mayor form of government. See the recap of the Herald & Review Editorial here.

What we found interesting was:

"In order to progress and solve any of the issues facing the city of Decatur, there needs to be a larger majority pulling in a common direction. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree in lockstep, but it does require an end to the wasteful in-fighting that was part of this election. It requires a unified sense of purpose or, as Decatur School Superintendent Gloria Davis says about education, the willingness to speak with "one voice."

and

"It's also safe to assume that at least some of the 59 percent, 10,605 voters, who voted to retain the council/manager form of government also have issues with city government and concerns about the future of the city."

and

"Bringing more unity to the community will require some compromises. Maybe it's council members elected by districts, while retaining the city manager form of government. Maybe it's an agreement on the type of successor to City Manager Steve Garman. Maybe it's making sure more people have a voice on community issues. Most likely, it's all of those things and more."

There is much to agree with in this editorial. While having a broader community consenus is desirable, no community in a democracy accomplishes this with "one voice". Nothing is more fundementally an antithesis to democracy than the idea that only one voice speaks for the community, unless that voice effectively represents all segments of the community and can be held accountable to them.

One reason to empower multiple segments in Decatur with district representation is to help build consensus and accountability. Providing each discrete group of voices (i.e. neighborhoods) effective advocates that live with, and understand, their needs and concerns strengthens the consensus. By aligning the voices of many into a cohesive plan for all of Decatur will strengthen consensus for appropriate actions.

The debate this week is whether individuals closely aligned with a business organization and living mostly in one or two parts of the city, effectively represent all of Decatur. We think not. More importantly, why do four of these people think their judgement should deny 7,000 voters, 18,000 voters or more the right to consider and decide this very important issue of representation in a democracy? Please ask them.

It is also noteworthy that "compromises" suggested by the Herald & Review have received limited traction in Decatur since the election. We wonder when the H&R will ask for accountability from those that ignore their counsel.

An Opinion - See Opinion BLOG

See Sue Barharts opinion piece on the ChangeDecatur Opinion blog.