Ludington City Hall Makes a Resolution Before New Years...

[XLFD]

... They Will Raise Their Pay, Keep Their Fringe Benefits Amazingly High, and Opt Out of a State Measure Meant to Reform Public Employee Benefits

On Monday November 26, 2012, tomorrow, the Ludington City Council will have a public hearing on the 2013 budget, and then likely pass the proposed budget unanimously as has been the case over previous years.  This was presaged in the previous meeting on 11-12-2012 as the minutes show:

This was translated by the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) two weeks ago, and then that same source provided this link just yesterday which is the complete story you will find in the printed Saturday edition of that 'news source', which details a little more.  http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news.php?story_id=68119

John Shay explains a few aspects of the budget, but the budget is particularly interesting  in what he doesn't tell you what is in it.  This budget  contains a pay raise for city employees as described here:

So the City of Ludington is once again poised to give raises, but apparently they don't want to tell the people about it this year, perhaps fearing the backlash from citizens who have had to take pay cuts or lose a significant portion of their benefits over the last couple years.  If they still have a real job.

I find it rather sneaky of John Shay to not mention this significant addition to the budget which will raise the average full time City worker's wages by over $500 next year.  Around 300 people are annually employed by the City.  Could this significant chunk of amending the budget been overlooked as insignificant.  Not likely.  But this is only part of the greedy grab that he envisions.

People in the private sector are lucky if they see their job's fringe benefits amount to about 30% of their wages.  As has been noted previously in 2011, the fringe benefits of administrative employees of Ludington City have theirs amount to a whopping 53% of their wages, this has gone even higher with the health insurance reimbursement, pushing John Shay (and Asst. CM Steckel) to the 54% mark ((72,000+2400/ 136,700):

The Clerks have been the best beneficiary of these fringes-- probably because of the stress of having to do a FOIA request once a week-- their fringes amount to 56% of their wages:

Pretty nice gigs, and only getting better, but the secret raises and the incredible amount of fringes aren't good enough for our overpaid City Hall crew.  They think their jobs are so rough that they are covertly planning to opt out of one of Governor Snyder's government reforms made to make the outrageous benefits public employees of local governments have voted for themselves over the years (significantly superior to the average benefits of private sector employees) more in line.  Never heard of that?  Apparently, neither did our City Hall staff creating last year's budget.

On December 5, 2011, the City Council adapted the budget for 2012, which made City employees, for the first time, pay a small portion of their health care premium.  This amount is slated to be kept by them for this year as seen in this part of the budget preamble of this year:

Note that these rates first became effective January 1, 2012.  It was fairly big news when Snyder passed the law back in September 2011, the law went into effect immediately.  This article posted on 9-27-2011 states it succinctly:

"Gov. Rick Snyder has signed legislation that will force many public employees to pay more for their health insurance by limiting the amount public employers may pay for government employee medical benefits.

“These changes result in a fair and equitable approach that brings public employee benefits more in line with the private sector,” Snyder stated in a written release. “Getting these currently unsustainable costs under control now helps ensure Michigan’s long-term future and allows us to all move forward together.”

According to the Governor’s office, “beginning on Jan. 1, 2012, a public employer such as a city, county or township will be limited from paying more than $5,500 for health benefits annually for a single employee, $11,000 for an employee plus spouse or $15,000 for family coverage.”

Under the new law, a public employer could split the cost of medical coverage with its employees, but can only pay up to 80% of the annual cost.

Local governments can become exempt from this law if they receive two-thirds vote from their own governing body."

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=667904

But on Jan. 1 2012, the public employer known as the "City of Ludington" was still paying not 80%, but at least 90% of its employees premiums.  And there was no vote by the City council to exempt itself from this law.  The article's representation of the law is accurate, as can be seen from reviewing the law here in its totality.

The City of Ludington has operated outside this law for the whole year, and in their own secretive way, they finally have decided to comply with the Act for this next year.  They have scheduled a resolution to opt out of the act at tomorrow's meeting, but have not broadcast that resolution to the community beforehand, except a brief note on their agenda for this meeting

If 5 of the 7 councilors vote for this exemption from this state reform, the City worker and officials will once again have an unfair advantage of the people who pay their wages, benefits, and health care premiums by paying their taxes each year.  If this opt-out is approved, it will show that they believe they deserve better benefits than their bosses, the people of Ludington.

This is pure greed, and to do it in such a furtive manner, should make one wonder whether these public servants are only looking out for number one, not the public they serve.  Even more brazen is the sick manner in which they word this resolution-- as if they are doing the people such an excellent favor by dodging this reform measure:

In that first clause, if the City Council wants to be answerable directly to the City's voters, why are they acting like cockroaches, doing their business in the dark to the detriment of the residents of the City?  The second clause seems to confirm the audacity of the City's actions in the Letter of Trespass it issued last year that was definitely against State and Federal law-- the City operates under the State's laws, and our elected and unelected officials better realize that at some point.  The third clause flies in the face of what the people of Ludington want, which is for their city officials to receive fair compensation for their work-- not 56% fringe rates, annual pay raises, and the ability to dodge needed reforms for workplace fairness in the public sector.

So in conclusion, let me first apologize to any City of Ludington employees who follow this website, and object to getting special treatment and special favors above the rest of us private sector stooges and are against such favors being considered by the council, fed to them by City Manager Shay.  But let us all agree that we should be expecting a bit more in openness, honesty, and fairness from our City's administrators, and our elected lawmakers.  This should not be passed hastily as a resolution without any discussion, it shouldn't be passed at all.  Private sector employees are lucky if they pay less than 25% of their health care premiums, 20% is a good step for fairness.

[Jane]

I should work for COL I would make way more than I do now with no benefits.

[XLFD]

Where else can the people send a clear mandate to City Hall by voting down a city proposal designed to keep the status quo by a 2 to 1 margin (despite a one sided campaign for the proposal and strong backing by City Hall officials, the Chamber of Commerce and conspicuous business leaders), and then have City Hall come back and raise their salaries for the second year in a row and try to exempt themself from reform meant to rein in the runaway costs of local governments on personnel spending. 

But there is plenty in the budget that shows City Manager Shay is either inept or somehow benefits from spending more than he needs to on contracts that haven't been bid out.  This would suggest kickbacks, something I believed was very possible in the watertowergate scandal, and other unbid projects that had high price tags.