Municipal Idiocy: The Blind Leading The Halt
The nation's capital has a businessman-entrepreneur for a mayor, one tainted by a criminal investigation into election wrong-doing, whose inability to understand how a city should be run has resulted in sclerotic responses to taxpayers' needs. And now, the latest, a closed-door council meeting where city manager Kent Kirkpatrick has laid out his plans to pink-slip city employees. For the purpose of serving the citizens of Ottawa in a manner which they deserve.
The City of Toronto, in contrast - and in recognition of current financial straits affecting more and more of its residents, despite its own fiscal disabilities - has decided to hire more municipal employees, retaining what they already have, in planning for the future of greater stresses to meet the needs of Torontonians. Which of the two municipal decisions makes more sense, given that urban populations are steadily rising, thanks in part to immigration.
The greater need for city services to meet the challenges of integrating newcomers to the country and the cities, the increasing numbers of recently-unemployed people requiring assistance through welfare and other social benefits is not diminishing, but increasing, given these troubled economic times. The recent transit strike has left many small businesses in transition between hanging in there and declaring bankruptcy.
And Ottawa is cutting back on those who deliver services? "We're now focusing on the client, instead of the organization" boasts this pitiful mayor of all the people who would dearly love to see him depart, and will, shortly, to face criminal charges. But he's still in the driver's seat and as he says "I'm confident now that the overall goals of transformation I put on the table 600 days ago will be accomplished."
The city manager claims that the new management structure he has designed will result in greater efficiency, a streamlined, focused organization, resulting in a better plan for the citizens of the city. Is that likely? Has it ever worked, cutting staff and raising the workload of those remaining to produce a more streamlined, efficient workforce? When the federal government tried it a decade ago, they ended up hiring more people than they let go, finally.
The goal is to save $113-million in operating costs for the city, from its current $2.1-billion of operating expenses. According to the city manager, severance payouts for those dismissed will cost the city an immediate $5-million. But smile! the cuts will result in a $3.7 million annual saving. Will that be before or after the city finds itself short-staffed and begins a hiring spree?
One level-headed councillor, the sole and perpetual 'trouble-maker' on council who always seems to agitate against the majority on behalf of those whom they purportedly serve and whose taxes pay their salaries, left the meeting in utter disgust. Capital Councillor Clive Doucet had no good words for the restructuring. It makes no good sense to him.
"We're seeking half a billion dollars in funding from upper-tier governments to create jobs, and we're laying people off at the same time", he fumed. "Finding employment is hard now, and if we get the government money, we'll need to hire more staff because there will be more work. It's hard for me to see the coherence in all of this."
Bravo.
The City of Toronto, in contrast - and in recognition of current financial straits affecting more and more of its residents, despite its own fiscal disabilities - has decided to hire more municipal employees, retaining what they already have, in planning for the future of greater stresses to meet the needs of Torontonians. Which of the two municipal decisions makes more sense, given that urban populations are steadily rising, thanks in part to immigration.
The greater need for city services to meet the challenges of integrating newcomers to the country and the cities, the increasing numbers of recently-unemployed people requiring assistance through welfare and other social benefits is not diminishing, but increasing, given these troubled economic times. The recent transit strike has left many small businesses in transition between hanging in there and declaring bankruptcy.
And Ottawa is cutting back on those who deliver services? "We're now focusing on the client, instead of the organization" boasts this pitiful mayor of all the people who would dearly love to see him depart, and will, shortly, to face criminal charges. But he's still in the driver's seat and as he says "I'm confident now that the overall goals of transformation I put on the table 600 days ago will be accomplished."
The city manager claims that the new management structure he has designed will result in greater efficiency, a streamlined, focused organization, resulting in a better plan for the citizens of the city. Is that likely? Has it ever worked, cutting staff and raising the workload of those remaining to produce a more streamlined, efficient workforce? When the federal government tried it a decade ago, they ended up hiring more people than they let go, finally.
The goal is to save $113-million in operating costs for the city, from its current $2.1-billion of operating expenses. According to the city manager, severance payouts for those dismissed will cost the city an immediate $5-million. But smile! the cuts will result in a $3.7 million annual saving. Will that be before or after the city finds itself short-staffed and begins a hiring spree?
One level-headed councillor, the sole and perpetual 'trouble-maker' on council who always seems to agitate against the majority on behalf of those whom they purportedly serve and whose taxes pay their salaries, left the meeting in utter disgust. Capital Councillor Clive Doucet had no good words for the restructuring. It makes no good sense to him.
"We're seeking half a billion dollars in funding from upper-tier governments to create jobs, and we're laying people off at the same time", he fumed. "Finding employment is hard now, and if we get the government money, we'll need to hire more staff because there will be more work. It's hard for me to see the coherence in all of this."
Bravo.
posted by Pieface @ 6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home