I think that charging 40.00 to have handicapped parking signs put up in front of residences is just crazy. Just when we are trying to eliminate meters downtown to make Davenport a more friendly place, we start charging a challenged population for a couple signs? This is a population that may be limited in the ability to work, and likely have prescription expenses and medical bills that make most people’s premiums look like pocket change.
According to the article in the Times, Justin and Ambrose are against this. Now, call whomever you want, your mom, book of world records, your senator, but I’m definitely with Ambrose on this one. Quite frankly, if you want to control something with handicapped parking permits, start regulating who gets them and who doesn’t. To this day it amazes me that someone has to have a parking tag, but will pay a physical therapist 600.00 an hour to walk on a treadmill. (No offense to the people that actually need them.)
I see one point with merit, that we should look at these placements every couple years to perform a needs assessment. Other than that, I think this needs to go away.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Malin and the Golden Parachute... Yes, a fantasy story come true...
I usually watch some portion of CNN or their Headline News channel during the day, and with the economy the way it is there is a myriad of discussion about bonuses and golden parachutes. It got me thinking about our own local golden parachute poster boy, Mr. Malin. I couldn’t remember the exact drama that unfolded in 2007, but I remember it being part of the foundation of my arguments that if Keith Meyer was better at communicating, we may have noticed that some of his ranting had merit. That being said, a little advanced search on the QC Times website led me to memory lane.
It seems that Mr. Malin’s contract expires in December of 2009, and I want to start the conversation now about what I think should happen in the revision of this document.
In the article ‘Malin lays out options for his possible departure’, back when the council was looking to oust him, it is clear that no matter how this guy leaves, he gets a parachute. And that parachute, is about what I would have to work between 2 and 6 years to make at my current rate of pay. The article reads:
“Although firing Malin, maintaining the status quo and opting to change the city ordinance to take power away from the manager and put it into the hands of elected officials have been discussed often, the “succession agreement” option is relatively new.
Such an agreement would require six votes to pass, and Malin’s agreement to a “graceful exit.” According to the document, that option would cost the city $156,000 — compared to the $416,000 if he’s fired or the $234,000 if his powers are stripped.”
*This, all of course, just prior to him getting a glowing performance review from the council… Who knew.
Here are the ridiculous numbers according to the document provided to the council which seem to differ from the article a little bit. (Here’s the link)
He’s Fired – 234,000
His position is changed or deleted – 416,000
And here’s the one that just pisses me off…. Administrator resigns without council control – 156,000. And wait, there’s more. He actually wrote the following statement: “… creates extraordinary impediments to future recruitments for professional staff (especially if City Administrator speaks unreservedly following separation.)” What the ?#!**!? Do I take that as, even after paying him 156,000, there’s no line in there about him keeping his pie hole shut??
With the political nature of his position and the ability of an elected body to remove him from his position, I am all for the severance package idea. But I think the package should be appropriate, and not a winning lottery ticket. I think a severance package similar to industry, like a week’s pay for each year worked, or even a months pay for each year worked, would still be far more appropriate than the fleecing of the taxpayer than what is currently in place. And I hope that there is a clause in there that in a case of blatant negligence, insubordination or illegal activity, etc., that would eliminate any compensation for termination.
And as far as leaving on your own, “making a graceful exit”, I think he should get what everyone else does. If you go to a restaurant and you eat, pay for your meal and then you leave, the restaurant doesn’t owe you a steak. Cash out your vacation, clean out your desk and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
It seems that Mr. Malin’s contract expires in December of 2009, and I want to start the conversation now about what I think should happen in the revision of this document.
In the article ‘Malin lays out options for his possible departure’, back when the council was looking to oust him, it is clear that no matter how this guy leaves, he gets a parachute. And that parachute, is about what I would have to work between 2 and 6 years to make at my current rate of pay. The article reads:
“Although firing Malin, maintaining the status quo and opting to change the city ordinance to take power away from the manager and put it into the hands of elected officials have been discussed often, the “succession agreement” option is relatively new.
Such an agreement would require six votes to pass, and Malin’s agreement to a “graceful exit.” According to the document, that option would cost the city $156,000 — compared to the $416,000 if he’s fired or the $234,000 if his powers are stripped.”
*This, all of course, just prior to him getting a glowing performance review from the council… Who knew.
Here are the ridiculous numbers according to the document provided to the council which seem to differ from the article a little bit. (Here’s the link)
He’s Fired – 234,000
His position is changed or deleted – 416,000
And here’s the one that just pisses me off…. Administrator resigns without council control – 156,000. And wait, there’s more. He actually wrote the following statement: “… creates extraordinary impediments to future recruitments for professional staff (especially if City Administrator speaks unreservedly following separation.)” What the ?#!**!? Do I take that as, even after paying him 156,000, there’s no line in there about him keeping his pie hole shut??
With the political nature of his position and the ability of an elected body to remove him from his position, I am all for the severance package idea. But I think the package should be appropriate, and not a winning lottery ticket. I think a severance package similar to industry, like a week’s pay for each year worked, or even a months pay for each year worked, would still be far more appropriate than the fleecing of the taxpayer than what is currently in place. And I hope that there is a clause in there that in a case of blatant negligence, insubordination or illegal activity, etc., that would eliminate any compensation for termination.
And as far as leaving on your own, “making a graceful exit”, I think he should get what everyone else does. If you go to a restaurant and you eat, pay for your meal and then you leave, the restaurant doesn’t owe you a steak. Cash out your vacation, clean out your desk and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Promise and the S**tstorm...
I am glad to see promise under the rug. I wasn’t overly for or against the idea, but I think it was poorly pitched. I see where the benefits would have been, and I find it hard to believe that anyone that wasn’t college material to begin with would have anything to do with it. Oh well, I’m sure there’s other ideas out there to stimulate the economy around here, say infrastructure for example.
I am more interested in the s**tstorm that ensued before and continuing after the voting. This Mark Nelson thing just plain pisses me off. I am starting out with saying I would like to see an image of the actual document. Until then, I can’t say that it’s worth all that much heart burn. Rumor has it that both the bank and the Gills have signed off on having the document released, and it’s Mr. Nelson that has not allowed this to proceed so far. In that case I would begin to speculate that Mr. Nelson has something to hide. In fact, if the document is not eventually released, it will likely cement in my mind that the accusations are nothing but true and that this guy belongs among the likes of the other Davenport morons that appear to attempt sabotage on anything resembling progress.
My other concern is the mayor. I wasn’t sure if I was watching Mayor Gluba on TV or if it was the gaff master himself, Joe Biden. I understand that Gluba was mad, and so was I when I heard some of the allegations, but you have to be a little politically correct. That kind of riled response is part of what made the council a circus to begin with. Take a breath, stop the name calling, and stop whining. Make a case with hard evidence and move on.
The timing of the Times article to me is suspect, but I do take the follow-up by the Times in the comments at face value that they were checking facts and would have run it earlier if they could verify what the Gills were saying. Who knows. What I do know is that regardless of the timing, the content of the appraisal, or the outcome of the overall project, someone is leaving this with egg on their face.
I am more interested in the s**tstorm that ensued before and continuing after the voting. This Mark Nelson thing just plain pisses me off. I am starting out with saying I would like to see an image of the actual document. Until then, I can’t say that it’s worth all that much heart burn. Rumor has it that both the bank and the Gills have signed off on having the document released, and it’s Mr. Nelson that has not allowed this to proceed so far. In that case I would begin to speculate that Mr. Nelson has something to hide. In fact, if the document is not eventually released, it will likely cement in my mind that the accusations are nothing but true and that this guy belongs among the likes of the other Davenport morons that appear to attempt sabotage on anything resembling progress.
My other concern is the mayor. I wasn’t sure if I was watching Mayor Gluba on TV or if it was the gaff master himself, Joe Biden. I understand that Gluba was mad, and so was I when I heard some of the allegations, but you have to be a little politically correct. That kind of riled response is part of what made the council a circus to begin with. Take a breath, stop the name calling, and stop whining. Make a case with hard evidence and move on.
The timing of the Times article to me is suspect, but I do take the follow-up by the Times in the comments at face value that they were checking facts and would have run it earlier if they could verify what the Gills were saying. Who knows. What I do know is that regardless of the timing, the content of the appraisal, or the outcome of the overall project, someone is leaving this with egg on their face.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I'm Back...
As I have more time on my hands, I think it’s time to fire this thing up again. I miss blogging, but my work has been crazy, especially with this economy and job cuts.
I guess I fell off the face of the blogosphere a while back because there wasn’t much to complain about. I usually only complain when there is some genuine complaining to do. There have been a few temptations, but nothing that I had an overwhelming opinion on.
Well, here it is, Pachino at it again. There have been the usual comments on the Times, mostly continued worthless drivel. However, some make sense. I would point out the 3-Strikes rule that Hamerlinck suggested be proposed at the state level. I think it truly is what we need to curb some of this crap, for lack of a better term. (Well, maybe there is a better term, I’m sure there are plenty of more colorful suggestions.)
I would like to take note at the jabs at Judge Dalton. I am completely on the fence about the church sentence. On one side, I believe that since the charge was only a misdemeanor, and she could have let him go completely, that someone who wants to be rehabilitated should have that opportunity. For example, you can’t quit smoking if you don’t want to quit. If Pachino wanted to quit being a menace, he should have the opportunity to quit and be rehabilitated. Nothing in Pachino’s history would have led the judge to believe that he wasn’t seriously willing to grow up, and to give it a try on a misdemeanor may not have been that bad of a move.
Now the flip side, which I think most people would believe in more, and that is once a menace always a menace. To let someone rehabilitate themselves is one thing, but why not supplant probation or parole with the church sentence. Granted, the sentence for the misdemeanor would have been minimal, but at least let him serve that stent, then commit to his rehabilitation. So, I can’t really fault the judge for trying rehabilitation, I just think the judge should be less lenient on someone with a rap sheet longer than my nieces Christmas list.
I have some other things to drum on over the next few weeks, so I’ll leave it at that…
I guess I fell off the face of the blogosphere a while back because there wasn’t much to complain about. I usually only complain when there is some genuine complaining to do. There have been a few temptations, but nothing that I had an overwhelming opinion on.
Well, here it is, Pachino at it again. There have been the usual comments on the Times, mostly continued worthless drivel. However, some make sense. I would point out the 3-Strikes rule that Hamerlinck suggested be proposed at the state level. I think it truly is what we need to curb some of this crap, for lack of a better term. (Well, maybe there is a better term, I’m sure there are plenty of more colorful suggestions.)
I would like to take note at the jabs at Judge Dalton. I am completely on the fence about the church sentence. On one side, I believe that since the charge was only a misdemeanor, and she could have let him go completely, that someone who wants to be rehabilitated should have that opportunity. For example, you can’t quit smoking if you don’t want to quit. If Pachino wanted to quit being a menace, he should have the opportunity to quit and be rehabilitated. Nothing in Pachino’s history would have led the judge to believe that he wasn’t seriously willing to grow up, and to give it a try on a misdemeanor may not have been that bad of a move.
Now the flip side, which I think most people would believe in more, and that is once a menace always a menace. To let someone rehabilitate themselves is one thing, but why not supplant probation or parole with the church sentence. Granted, the sentence for the misdemeanor would have been minimal, but at least let him serve that stent, then commit to his rehabilitation. So, I can’t really fault the judge for trying rehabilitation, I just think the judge should be less lenient on someone with a rap sheet longer than my nieces Christmas list.
I have some other things to drum on over the next few weeks, so I’ll leave it at that…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)