Press release from the ChooseCOO group:
UNIONS AND MAYOR MAKE CONVINCING CASE FOR COO
If ever there was a time for a COO, this is it. Local union leaders, by their actions, have made a convincing case for the COO (aka ‘Chief Operating Officer’ or ‘City Manager’).
The Mayor needs help. This is a given. Our present Mayor and past mayors have acknowledged this fact. However, while the unions and their Mayor are saying in words that they are all about the taxpayer, their recent actions paint a different picture.
Local union leadership is against the COO, but all they want to talk about is the cost, not the benefits. In fact they are running the anti-COO campaign. Of course they’re against the COO – do you really think they want someone hired to focus on the efficient delivery of City services? Do you really think they are going to put the best interest of the taxpayers ahead of their own self-interest? Let us give you an example: A new city committee is looking into the possibility of using money from overfunded pension accounts to pay for retiree health benefits instead of asking taxpayers to pay the tab – a move that would lower property taxes by nearly half a mill. Nine of the 19 members of this new ‘GASB 45 Committee’ are union representatives and some others are friendly to the unions. Do you think union leaders are ready to throw their support behind a decision that will save taxpayers $1.8 million now and much more in the future? Wouldn’t that alone more than pay for the COO position?
Further, union leaders have the Mayor in their hip pocket. How do we know? Well, first the Mayor loaded this GASB 45 Committee with union members. Then, the Mayor issued a press release parroting the unions’ argument against the COO. Do you believe that his actions are not politically motivated? Whose turf is he protecting? Do you think there is any conflict of interest here? After all, when the COO position is introduced, doesn’t that lessen his job duties and, perhaps, his pay?
This community may be facing the greatest economic challenges in our history in the coming years. Our present system is laden with cronyism and lacking accountability. Taxpayers, this is your chance to say, “Enough politics!” and get the professional leadership we need -- someone with the expertise of a Chief Operating Officer – by voting ‘Yes’ to Question #5 on Election Day.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
36 comments:
Hire an assistant for the mayor, hell hire two. It would still cost a lot less than a COO. The last thing we need in these tough economic times is another very expensive level of bureaucracy. Vote no COO!!!
Enough about the big bad boogie union!!! They aren't the only ones who don't want the COO. The tax payers don't want one either!!! The COO backers have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with saving the tax payers money. It's all about revenge. Get even on your own dime children. Bristol doesn't need, nor can we afford a COO.
Mr. Johnson, Cockayne and Co.:
As a voter of Bristol and not in a Union I implore you to please address some of the questions we all have regarding the COO. Tell us what we need to know! Mayor Stortz, Steve Collins and many of Steve's bloggers have asked very relevant questions that have not been answered by the proponents.
I know your position on the Unions. Now give me some substance so I can make an informed decision on Tuesday and not just make a leap of faith. Without that, how can anyone possibly vote for the position.
Joe the Plumber
Vote Yes to the COO on November 4, 2008.
Proffessionalism, accountability and transparency are all by-products.
Plus we won't have to worry about the big bad boogie unions.
wow, imagine that the mayor's letter has put these proponents on edge, i think that he must have offered up some very good . Thank you Mayor.reasons to Vote NO on COO
"Proffessionalism"....or at least maybe someone who can spell?
Transparent: The motivation behind the COO (and the ONLY thing about this messy concept that's clear)....
Vote no COO
have you seen the misleading signs that the COO proponents are putting up saying - taxpayers - as though those of us who are VOTING NO for COO aren' taxpayers too?
somewhat sleazy but what can you expect, they haven't provided any amswers so they must mislead the voters.
VOTE NO for COO.
I hate to use cliche's but this one fits - "ignorance is bliss" . The sponsor of this blog continues to allow false information and half truths about the "GASB" situation to be posted here. He has no interest in the truth , only in promoting controversy. Here is a direct quote from Mr. Collins that proves my point -
"I didn't stir the pot. Ken called me and I wrote what he said. Then I called Art and when he called back, Jackie wrote down what the mayor said. Then I printed it all. No need to stir. I just watched it bubble on the stovetop."
I have given Mr. Collins a lot of information and he has done NO research. I appeal to sensible, responsible people such as Craig Yard to look into this GASB issue. He is pretty well off, he must have some cash socked away into trust funds, enough to know how an irrevocable trust works and who has control of the funds. He should be able to explain to others in his group that there is a lot more involved here than meets the eye. As a taxpayer, I realize there is a lot at stake here. I hope cooler heads will ultimately prevail and if there is a way to improve this system in a manner that benefits all the stakeholders, it will be done with a spirit of cooperation and common purpose.
too bad that these elitist supporters of the COO don't respect us "normal" people, union members or not, as taxpayers. must think that they are above us which is why they don't care what this COO position will cost.
5:01
The proposed change s) weren't done very professionally.
And I do not see where the proponents are providing any accountability.
It is very transparent that they are confused and out of their league.
"Do you think union leaders are ready to throw their support behind a decision that will save taxpayers $1.8 million now and much more in the future? Wouldn’t that alone more than pay for the COO position? "
Having a COO is irrelevant. He will have to follow the same laws and honor the same contracts that are in place. I don't care if you are a mayor, coo, ceo or an eieio, you can't wave a magic wand, open up a trust fund and use funds in manner that violates the law.
man are these yes people running scared trying to confuse people or what? now they are mixing up yhe coo and gasb45, talk about trying to smoke the people - VOTE NO COO.
The transfer of funds can occur. It has already been ruled upon by the state.
Would the COO appoint members to this committee or will that person make the decision him/her self?
I don't see how having a COO will remedy this bad situation (the obviously partisan board). Albeit this appointed board is an insult to the people who pay these clown's salaries. Shame on you Mayor Ward.
The answer is elect a Republican mayor not a COO. That is what the misguided GOP Town Committee (by Johnson, Schaffrick and the rest idiots) should be doing.
I agree...COO no!
these COO backers are starting to sound like "little johnny who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and who blames his little brother for leaving the lid off the cookie jar" rather than admiting guilt.
Face it people, your scam is over, the people are a whole lot smarter than you give them credit of being.
VOTE NO COO.
Talk about spinning confusion. The only point Johnson made with bringing up the GASB 45 Committe with the COO was to use it as blatant example of how the Mayor panders to the unions. Of course the COO could not have any influence on who gets put on the committee.
10:50
We could have had a Republican mayor: it was Mocabee, Schafrick, Johnson and a few others that kept this from happening.
Sad, Johnson could not beat Ward, even with some democrat help.
And he wants to try again?
"The transfer of funds can occur. It has already been ruled upon by the state."
Then, WHY hasn't it been done?
Like I said, ignorance is bliss. No matter what the "state" says, (could you be more specific, with a quote or REAL information? Who at the "state", what agency, etc?).IRS code (401h 420, 520), state statute (7-450, 7-459) trust language and collective bargaining issues must be addressed. This far from a done deal.
November 1, 2008 10:25 AM:
I agree. Gary Schaffrick has been a festering sore on the Bristol GOP for years. And with this new batch of clue-less town committee leaders (with the exception of a few, like Ken Cockayne) you wonder if things can only get more pathetic.
cocked ken, whiney johnson and misguided minor should all be ready to apologize to the public for the waste of time and energy put into this ego driven sham.
3600 certified signatures proves it is not a scam regardless of whether or not it passes.
Would they have got that many signatures if they told the whole story, and told it truthfully?
if they told the whole story truthfully and put their egos aside, the question would not even be on the ballot.
VOTE NO COO!
NO COO
NO COO
NO COO
NO COO
NO COO
NO COO
"Would they have got that many signatures if they told the whole story, and told it truthfully?"
The whole story is: 1) the COO will cost a fraction of a fraction of what Bristol spends on salaries; 2) the city council can fire him anytime; and 3) the union bosses are scared because they won't be dealing with a former prison guard, clothing store owner, truant officer or VA case worker any more...they'll be dealing with a pro who's going to hold them accountable.
11:40pm - hey stupid, the cost and support of the COO position is over $250,000 MORE than we are paying NOW - stop petting your "MAD DOG" and tell the people the truth - which is that voting for this position ultimately means MORE TAXES and/or LESS SERVICES.
The whole story is: 1) The COO will cost a fortune - a huge salary, secretary, personal assistants, new office space, benefits, etc. There's a recession going on and there's just no way a COO is going to be able to find enough revenue to justify his salary, nevermind make money for the City.... 2) The city council can fire him at anytime - and then he can come back and file a huge lawsuit that will cost the city untold amounts in legal fees, etc. (this has happened on several occasions in different cities). 3) The union bosses really don't give a rat's butt either way. This is just COO propaganda.
Thanks but no thanks guys! I like dealing with the former prison guard, clothing store owner, truant officer or VA case worker....they're real people who walk in my shoes. People who live here, raise their families here. They have a vested interest in our City and it's in their best interest to make Bristol better....and if they don't live up to MY expectations, I can vote them out. That makes them accountable to ME! Vote NO to question #5 - NO COO!
It is amazing that a couple people in this blog speak of "the unions" in such a negative light. Don't forget, the people in their respective unions are your policemen; your firemen; teachers; city hall workers; and the people who pave your streets. These aren't lazy slouches looking for a handout, or making money hand over fist. These are normal people who are memebers of labor unions, just like everyone else in their respective professions across the nation. They receive their industry's standard for compensation, and rarely more. The fact is that the current mayor can be ousted after his term expires, a COO would be next to impossible to vote out of office. If you don't like the job being done, too bad. All you'll need is to get 2/3 of the council to vote him out, a daunting task. VOTE NO COO.
Ward sems intent on making a case for a COO.
Why?
Maybe it is because his workload would be reduced and he would still keep hi 110K salary, plus benefits.
Best of both worlds.
"I like dealing with the former prison guard, clothing store owner, truant officer or VA case worker....they're real people who walk in my shoes."
And you probably think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, because she is "real people".
as a matter of fact Odin, I do.
Maybe we should hire our next president instead of elect him....take away the peoples' right to actualy VOTE for our leader. That would be a sure way to keep those nasty little "real people" out of office, right?
9:32AM - so it is quite obvious that you are either blind or stupid -
hiring a mayoral aide for under $30,000 per year with no benefits, who could be eliminated at any time versus a coo positiion for over $250,000 a year, plus benefits, a four year contract and a bunch of encumberances to get rid of that person doesn't seem to be a mind-boggler to a realistic person.
How come that you people who want this COO haven't come out and told the public this information - something else to hide?
Why should we hire (again) anybodys friend with public dollars??
And the COO position, with assistant, and WITH benefits, would cost cost about $250,000/yr.
I am firmly against the COO COO position, and strongly believe that when the mayor doesn't micro manage, they can manage to do the job.
wish that ken johnson pushed the performance on that $10,000 street lighting project as hard as he pushed on this COO farce - then again, guess we'll have to wait and see if he is successful in bilking the city twice.
5:07
Johnson has already bilked the city twice:
As Real Estate Agent in evicting Bugryn ($25,000) and
Municipal Energy ($10,000).
What is this costing us?
Is he on Yards payroll?
Post a Comment