Mitzy Rowe, the housing director, may be in line for a decent pay raise -- months after everyone else at the authority got a pay freeze.
Here's the meeting agenda:
DATE: October 2, 2009
TO: All Commissioners, City Liaison and General Counsel
The Special Meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2009. The Commissioners of the Housing
Authority of the City of Bristol will meet as follows:
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: Cambridge Park Community Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Public Participation Related to Agenda Item
3. Executive Session to discuss Personnel Matter Involving Pay Raise Issue Relative to
Executive Director.
4. Any Action necessary as a result of Executive Session
5. Adjournment
Respectfully Submitted,
Mitzy Rowe
Executive Director
If you do go and you're not used to these things, here's the deal. They can -- perhaps -- meet in executive session about the possible pay raise, but they must come out of the the secret part of the meeting to take any votes on the record. There may even be some dissent on the issue.
If anyone goes, I know I'm not alone in wanting to find out what happens and if anyone says anything.
*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
Let me guess Mayor Ward doesn`t know anything about this what a surprise, We need a change I `AM SURE HE WILL STAY AWAY FROM THIS ISSUE.GO Mary
ReplyDeleteAtta bot Schaffrick!
ReplyDeleteBristol Housing Authority is not part of the city. Even if the housing director gets a raise that has nothing to do with the Mayor or city.
ReplyDelete12:41
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the MAYOR appoints the Board members and does NOT need council approval.
They are his board now, no matter when they got on!
12:41 is correct. BHA is a public housing authority, established by federal law. the city has nothing to say about the BHA's personnel decisions. how is this juicy? am i missing something??!
ReplyDeleteHow is this juicy? Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure they're in any kind of pay freeze... They're funded by rents and federal aid, and with public housing in higher demand than ever, they don't have any kind of revenue shortfalls like the cities and states do. Might wanna double-check on that one, Steve.
ReplyDeleteSence when did it become a crime for someone to get a raise? Executives are usuelly on their own contract and there's no expectation for equity between the chief exec and line staff. Doesn't exaclty send a great message to staff, but that's a mnagement decision they have to make.
ReplyDelete"The Executive Director stated that the budget does not include pay increases." - June 2009 BHA minutes
ReplyDeleteI suppose, though, that raises may have been given later anyway, or may be on the table. I'm actually more interested in raises that may have been given but never recorded or dealt with in public as the law mandates.
TIP: The budget presented in June doesn't include pay increases because the raises are added after labor negotiations are completed, and once the board ratifies a labor contract, a revised budget with all the personnel increases then goes to DECD and HUD.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor appoints the board because the laws says he has to. Does not mean "its" his issue. The issue will lay with the Housing Director if there is any wrong doing. The Director reports to the Housing Commissioners not the Mayor.
ReplyDeleteIf there is an FOI violation, what happens then? I'd imagine it would depend on the details... did the board purposefully cover something up? Were they misguided? Did the director or staff act to keep something out of public record? Was it a mistake, a misunderstanding, misguided advice, or intentional? Does it even matter?
ReplyDeleteAll serious questions... anyone know?
1:37
ReplyDeleteWho do YOU think appoints the Board?
Hey Steve - this is what the June minutes had: The Executive Director stated that the budget does not include pay increases. This will be further discussed in Executive Session. Sal Vitrano, General Counsel stated that we need to have a preliminary approval with the understanding of wage issue being revisited after Union negotiations.
ReplyDeleteSo how is that juicy?
And the Housing Commissioners report to the MAYOR.
ReplyDeleteCase Closed.
That is like you saying that the Budget is the BOF issue, not the mayors!
12:23 PM
ReplyDeleteAtta butt Schaffrick!
Is this all Schaffrick doing?
What else is new...
Republicans Play
ReplyDeleteI Act..create turmoil..
II Act..Mary comes with the Answer.............III Act..Schafrick (or Mocabee) itching to get in the front page
It's so obvious. Mary keep your eyes on the prize!!!
Seems like Schaffrick is involved with a lot of screw ups.
ReplyDeleteHe and his partner Mocabee will be out ruination!
Schaffrick wasn't at the meeting, Look at the minutes.
ReplyDeleteIts amazing that two people who couldn't get elected to anything can do so much damage.
ReplyDeleteSchaffrick isn't chair anymore... regardless, last I checked the board has 5 members, and it takes all 5 (or at least 3 out of 5) to take action. I'd resist pinning this on any one person, unless it was something the director pulled.
ReplyDelete1:37 - Commissioners report to HUD and state guidelines. The Mayor can only remove a commissioner based on a recommendation that person be removed. Which would be from HUD - DECD or a consensus of the other remaining commissioners.
ReplyDeleteDespite Schaffrik being on the board he is no longer chair of the board. Incompetent, yes. Responsible for this one, probably not.
ReplyDeletePlus who said it was a union related issue. I'm sure the Executive Director is unionized but this sounds like this is an issue related to her pay raise. Meaning her contract may be on different terms than other employees. As Steve said, what would be interesting is how they come out of executive session and resolve the matter, if at all.
And for the record. Yes Bristol Housing Authority is not part of the city, and yes the board is appointed by the mayor. But since BHA's budget includes funding from federal, state, and local tax dollars I don't see how any of this discussion evades the fact that BHA owes some responsibility to the city that has it's name in their title.
why is this city so afraid of change? name 3 things art ward has done good for this city? give mary a chance, i do not see how she can be any worse.
ReplyDeleteIs this the same Schaffrick that is Alfords treasurer?
ReplyDeleteInteresting!
TO the person who complained that we didn't cover the meeting, whose post I accidentally deleted - Yesterday, I was the only person available to go to it. I had lots of other things that took priority, including the courthouse story and trying to organize questionnaire answers from 15 city candidates. You can bemoan the lack of bodies at the Press, but the only way we'll get more reporters is if advertising and circulation rise. Otherwise, it is what it is.
ReplyDeleteSteve - the BHA is a non story. No law was broken and the raise was given on strong financial and strong leadership from within.
ReplyDeleteTo the person above that stated that local tax money is used at the BHA is incorrect and misinformed. Not one dime of local tax payer money funds any portion of the Housing Authority.
They received an advisement from the FOI Commission that the unanimous approval of a chief executive's pay increase does not require a public vote. So it seems that the FOI side of this issue is resolved... even if that point was debatable, they came out in public and ratified it with a vote regardless, so that's a case closed. The 5% issue is what it is... it's up to the board to determine how their director is performing and what kind of raise is warranted. But there's no law saying no one can get a raise over 3% in a bad economy... just like nothing prevents giving less than 3% in times of inflation.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm sure glad I don't have a job where I'd be subject to public outcry for receiving any kind of bonus or merit raise. I work in the private sector and execs get bonuses all the time. Good luck finding quality people to run your agencies if this is what you subject them to!
12:55- the Director is not union. She serves at the board's pleasure, with an individual employment contract.
ReplyDeleteNo tax dollars??
ReplyDeletePolice protection HIGH
Fire protection
Waste pickup
Schools
Snow removal
ETC ETC
The mayor has a lot more authoroty and responsibility than is being put into play!!!
The Mayor stays out of BHA business when it comes to millions of dollars worth of union negotiations, all the tens of thousands of dollars in service contracts, professional services, equipment purchases, etc, etc... but you expect him to be all over one $2,000 merrit increase? That is what we're talking about here... the 2% above the standard 3% that nobody would have questioned. $2,000. The Mayor is loose with taxpayer money because he didn't spot a $2,000 merrit bonus for an agency that receives no direct tax subsidy... only standard services every property owner receives, which BHA compensates the city for every year in the form of a payment in lieu of taxes. Don't make this a political issue... that just evidences the fact that you've got nothing substantial to pin on Art.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I think you should rethink your priorities.
ReplyDeleteNo tax dollars?? - No City tax
ReplyDeletedollars
Police protection HIGH - paid for by grants
Fire protection - not sure what you mean by this
Waste pickup - BHA pays for their own waste removal
Schools - schools receive money from the state and feds to school kids from projects
Snow removal - BHA pays for their own snow removal
The point is they did this behind closed doors, and they didn`t vote on this sounds very funny to me.
ReplyDelete10:02
ReplyDeleteBut not enough to cover all cost!
BHA DOES have a negative cost impact on the city, accept it.
Gary, good Republican like move
ReplyDelete12:30: If you want to account for all the services provided to BHA properties in terms of cost impact, you'd also have to factor in all of the property taxes collected on personal property (e.g. cars) from the residents. And net out the services BHA provides that the city would otherwise have to provide to that population. So I don't think it constitutes a "negative cost impact."
ReplyDeleteOctober 7, 2009 12:30 PM - so does all the crappy 3 family houses, and your point is?
ReplyDeletePersonal property tax amounts to very little, pehaps only motor vehicles.
ReplyDeleteAlso, three family houses pay more in taxes than the city gets from the state, AND, that goes up when the mill rate or value goes up.
Not so with PILOT.
But what did she do to warrant an increase way above the average, the going rate? If it can be justified, show us how.
It is still taxpayer dollars, mine included.
Steve: Which Commissioners voted for this raise?
ReplyDelete11:17- all but Schaffrick, who wasn't present for the review and abstained when brought to a vote.
ReplyDeleteschafrick stop attending meetings after he wasn't voted chair of the Board. He showed up again before he was disqualified as a commissioner. Let's check his previous records of accomplishments... wait a minute...No, false alarm, I don't see anything...
ReplyDelete