Forty six years ago, I chose to settle in the new city of Pacifica. I found the people to be enthusiastic and very much involved. Election time was an exciting event in which the whole city took part. Today, I am wondering where all that enthusiasm and involvement has gone, and (why) apathy seems to have taken over. For at least the last four years, this City Council has spent our taxes recklessly and with abandon, with seemingly little or no oversight. Outside of Safety Services, the highest budgeted department seems to be that of the City Attorney, Cecilia Quick. Members of the City Council have done little or nothing to rein her (spending) in. The (city) attorney's salary for this year is $255,300, with a retirement benefit of $70,000 and other benefits of $41,900. In addition, her budget contains $180,000 for an outside contract attorney this year. In the last three years, this City Council has signed off on $1,989,913 to hire outside contract attorneys. This averages over half a million dollars a year. This is insanity. I assure you that all these figures come directly from the City's Finance Department. Perhaps the reason the City Council seems reluctant to curb this spending is because the Council has been too busy adding to their own pay package and thus (it) becomes a case of the fox guarding the hen house. Next week I will be further dissecting the City budget. Stay tuned. Please become informed and involved. The life of the City depends on participation and awareness.
Vi Gotelli, former City Council Member
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Funny how Vreeland as of late has been pulling his usual misdirection scheme and given the naive amongst us the illusion that he is throwing City Attorney Quick under the bus. Vreeland is now calling for serious consideration with respect to outsourcing Quick's entire department -- which had it been done in good faith, is indeed the right thing to do. But don't be fooled for a nanosecond. Vreeland and Quick have always been the best of buds. How many times have we witnessed Vreeland calling upon Quick in a City Council meeting to get her expert legal position on a matter? And how many times have we seen the well orchestrated dialog between the two conclude with Quick making a strong legal recommendation that backs Vreeland's undisclosed but obvious position on the matter?
So, why did Vreeland go after Quick (in house city attorney) agressively and repeatedly during the 2009-10 budget sessions in favor of an outsourced attorney corporation? Something different must have happened this year or last. Was it the biodiesel wrap-up or employee lawsuits?
Just another election coming up, Kathy. That's all. Not to worry. Things will return to normal after Vreeland has fooled the voters.
For the record, Vi's letter was returned to her by the Pacifica Tribune, which refused to publish it!
A note was enclosed by the editor, who told Vi what she SHOULD be writing about.
Amazing. Maybe this blog should be called "Fix Potemkin Village".
how far gone is the radical environmental movement in Potemkin Village? Their labeling of Councilman James Vreeland as an unruly drunk actually makes me want to defend him.
I truly appreciate Vi's years of service and committment to our community. In the interest of fairness I will share here my comments about this letter as I have with others.
If we are going to discuss salaries and budgets, we must work with accurate information. The numbers reported in this letter reflect the budget for the department that contains two people. Ms. Quick's salary, which you can review at http://www.contracostatimes.com is actually $174,540, with $12,974 in medical and other benefits. In the 2009-2010, the City Attorney budget was cut by 42%. This budget is actually 8th out of 11 department budgets in the General Fund, and Ms. Quick's salary is by contract second in the city behind the City Manager, although she is actually the 4th-highest-paid when overtime is included. This is all public information that anyone can check in the Contra Costa Times. All budget information is available on the City of Pacifica website.
Putting this information into perspective, on an hourly basis (removing four weeks for vacation), 40 hours per week for 48 weeks equals 1920 hours divided into Ms. Quick's salary; that's a little more than $90 per hour.
As for the City Council, our compensation was rolled back to the 2006 level resulting in about a $100 per month per council member cut. And, the benefit increases were separated from the automatic increases of the management contract so that any increase would come before the public.
Please join us on the second and third Thursdays for the Financing City Services meetings as we review department by department how money is spent in our City.
Thanks for your interest.
Mary Ann
Post a Comment