Reply of the month
The reply of this month is by I got out…
He or she was responding to a post I wrote on May 8 titled, Help solve Kirkland’s serious budget problem.
The post includes a reader poll on options to balance the City budget.
It is your right as the owner of this blog to create a survey but let’s acknowledge that the wording and layout of your survey will lead to predictable results. The term “raid” on the fleet suggestion will reduce people that chose that answer. I agree that is not a good source to find money, but the wording could have been more neutral.
You are misunderstanding the numbers related to wages and benefits. The percentages you reference relate to the City’s COSTS not the wages and benefits received by the employees. Remember, these numbers reflect all employees and include overtime. When I worked for the City, the employees I supe
rvised never came close to a 6% raise each year. The first year you are employed you receive a significant bump (at most 10%) but that reflects your increasing worth as you pass your training (for public safety) or pass probation. Most “office workers” only receive a cost of living raise each year that is tied to the CPI. Some of the contracts have limits on the min and max for the COLA that could be questioned, however, since there are NO other options available to supervisors to increase an employees pay after 3 years (for most employees) of employment the COLA is important to keep wages in line with the market. There is no option for the supervisor to give the employee any other raise for great work. The benefits and secure pension is what keeps people in public service - NOT the wages. If you start cutting the benefits (which rarely increase - it is the cost of providing the same benefits that increases) you are going to lose employees. That might be OK to you - but don’t complain when you get what you pay for… No one questions City wages when the economy is good and people could leave for a larger wage (which many people don’t because they know when the bad comes they stand a better chance weathering it with the City than in the private sector).
This is an excellent reply from I got out… Thank you for commenting on this poll. Your points are well taken and I do not disagree with a single one of them. It is exactly this sort of informed discussion that I think is great for our community. I will take this opportunity to make a few observations.
To address your comment, let me say that the wording I chose in the poll was intentionally provocative. Should I have used a more neutral term other than “raid” on the fleet suggestion? Perhaps. And does the wording and layout of the poll lead to predictable results? You bet. That is exactly the point I wanted to make by posting the poll.
You see, the citizens of Kirkland will never get the opportunity to take such a survey by the City (I know, I’ve asked for one). If the City were to survey the citizens, their survey would indeed be worded differently. That is my point.
Every citizen and every organization has a point of view which is conveyed through the use of words and communication strategies. I have observed how the City sets a spin on a story many times. I do not begrudge the City for doing so. That is what they are supposed to do. But there are often other views of the same data that the City chooses not to emphasize, and it is the roll of citizens and organizations outside of government to make sure all sides of the story are presented to the public.
This roll has traditionally been left to the press. Unfortunately, in the past, our local press has too often abdicated that roll, at times acting as the de facto public relations wing of City Hall. Kirkland has been subjected to far too many single-source stories and little interest in printing opposing views. The status quo has not served our community well.
The point made by I got out… about City employee wage and benefit increases is well made and I thank you for your pointing this out. My intent was to reference the increased cost to the City, and I did not intend to imply that the cost of supplying wage and benefit increases is the same as employees actually receiving wage and benefit increases. If I left this impression, it was my omission.
Another point I would like to address is that these are serious issues the City is dealing with and they will have a direct impact on our taxes and service levels, yet we, as citizens are to be kept out of the loop The City Council will decide, as is their charge, which strategy Kirkland will take going forward. One can only hope they can develop a plan that is palatable to the people of Kirkland. I have seen some of the budget numbers and they are not pretty.
The public also needs to be aware of the connection between the budget and annexation. It is no coincidence that the vote on whether to proceed with, or to end annexation was delayed until after the budget is completed. The vote by the City Council on annexation was originally to take place in the Fall of 2007. However the cost to Kirkland residents was too high to consider. So they delayed it and re-worked the numbers and tried again last month.
Again, in April the costs of annexation were too high so now the City has devised a different strategy: cut Kirkland’s service levels and raise Kirkland’s taxes thus making the difference between Kirkland and the Potential Annexation Area minimal… so that annexation will pass.
This is the story line I doubt you will hear from City Hall. I hope they are open and that they will level with the citizens when they produce the budget plans later this year.
Thank you for your comments, I got out… and thank you for your candor. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
Related Articles
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
