The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
Hoboken to Lay off 36 Employees
As posted on nj.com
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2010/07/hoboken_to_layoff_36...
Hoboken
Mayor Dawn Zimmer is holding a press conference at City Hall this
afternoon to announce the city is laying off 36 employees including 18
from the Police Department, which is being restructured.Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer is holding a press conference this afternoon to announce 36 city employees are being laid off.
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2010/07/hoboken_to_layoff_36...
Hoboken
Mayor Dawn Zimmer is holding a press conference at City Hall this
afternoon to announce the city is laying off 36 employees including 18
from the Police Department, which is being restructured.Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer is holding a press conference this afternoon to announce 36 city employees are being laid off.
The state Civil Service Commission must still approve the recommendation, which Zimmer said would save the city $2.5 million.
“This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision that had to be made, and my administration proceeded with extreme care to ensure that we have a responsible plan,” Zimmer said.
Among those being laid off are 18 members of the Police Department. The layoffs will occur after 19 senior officers are demoted, Zimmer said.
The other 18 layoffs will be spread across other departments within the administration.
Zimmer said she is working closely with the police chief.
“As we make this difficult decision, my administration is committed to protecting the public safety of our community,” she said. “Through redeployment and civilianization, there will be no reduction in the
number of patrol officers policing Hoboken’s streets.”
Zimmer said the cuts in the Police Department are based on an audit of the department prepared by the state Division of Local Government Services and the recommendations of Business Administrator Arch Liston.
Police Chief Anthony Falco criticized the audit when it was released in February saying portions of it were inaccurate.
“We have a responsibility to use our resources more efficiently,” Zimmer said. “By civilianizing non-police functions and moving police from behind desks and out on our streets, we can improve efficiency and
maintain the exceptional level of public safety our Police Department
has always provided our community.”
The demotions will change the department’s structure from one chief, four captains, 18 lieutenants and 30 sergeants to one chief, three captains, 12 lieutenants and 26 sergeants.
“Layoffs create real hardship for employees and their families, and I recognize that this decision has serious consequences for them,” Zimmer said. “The individuals affected are hardworking public servants
who are victims of a fiscal climate not of their own making.”
also see:
http://hoboken.patch.com/articles/city-36-layoffs-to-save-25-millionViews: 5
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on -
Kim, Jim, Tim, SlimJim said: Mr. Siegal why don't you tell people what you are really like? You are not a tax payer ,you rent on Castle Point and most likely unemployed.
I never notice this vehemence about being a card-carrying taxpayer when Weehawken's Hudsonshark posts on 411, posing as a Hoboken citizen and aggrieved taxpayer. Think that be changing now, Kim, Jim, Tim? Will someone 'tell people what [he's] really like'.......? I'm going out for an oxygen tank in case I have to hold my breath a really long time.
-
Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on
-
InfotainMe said:Kim, Jim, Tim, SlimJim said: Mr. Siegal why don't you tell people what you are really like? You are not a tax payer ,you rent on Castle Point and most likely unemployed.
I never notice this vehemence about being a card-carrying taxpayer when Weehawken's Hudsonshark posts on 411, posing as a Hoboken citizen and aggrieved taxpayer. Think that be changing now, Kim, Jim, Tim? Will someone 'tell people what [he's] really like'.......? I'm going out for an oxygen tank in case I have to hold my breath a really long time.
Info: Don't you understand, if (with some people) someone can no longer argue the true facts the only thing left is the politics of personal destruction where all kinds of accusations (some true, most false) are hurled at you. It's the last stand of a scoundrel.
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
I just read through the last 3 pages of comments and have to admit to more than a little amusement at much of it. The many named poster asserts that Zimmer's cost savings #'s are wildly wrong and accuses her of failing to provide her analysis. He then throws out his own cost savings # while himself failing to provide any analysis, other than a carefully chosen hypothetical analysis of one rank.
Scott Siegel has already provided his analysis that seems to support the Mayor's #'s. I'd like to take a shot at it as well, using the critic's own assumptions.
Half the layoffs are PD so let's assume that at least 1/2 the savings are PD. If correct, this means that the annual savings from the PD restructuring would be at least $1.25 million according to the Mayor, and as low as $200,000 according to the critic.
Let's run the #'s using our union friend's estimate of $20,000 rank differential and $40,000 patrolman's salaries, though given the source I suspect that the actual average #'s for the individuals actually being demoted or laid off are likely a bit higher.
19 demotions x $20,000 salary differential = $380,000
18 layoffs x $40,000 salary = $720,000
18 layoffs x $15,000 health insurance + pension (conservative estimate) =$270,000
Total annual savings - $1,370,000
Without any special inside knowledge, its pretty easy to back into the Mayor's #'s. Since I suspect the #'s I'm using for each of these categories is a little low and the annual savings for PD is approximately $1,500,000 leaving $1,000,000 in savings from the 18 ninuniformed layoffs or $55,000 per position. This seems pretty plausible.
How our multinamed friend gets to less than $500,000 and as low as $200,000 is beyond me, but I'm into #'s so I'd love to get a chance to see his analysis so I can figure out what I'm missing.
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
Mama'sBoy - why does your name keep changing. If you wish to have a serious discussion its kind of hard when you keep changing your name. Just pick one and stick to it - nobody cares what you call yourself only what you have to say.
The union attorney's own #'s, which seem a little low to me (they likely don't include factors like longevity pay and FICA), are consistent with the mayor's claims and not with yours so I guess that argument is over. It seems like we can all agree that the savings from the PD portion of the layoffs will be somewhere north of $1.2 million. Budget reduction can't all come from one place it needs to come from smaller amounts that add up to bigger amounts. To me $1.2 million is a real # that together with other steps can be part of a process that will make a real difference. To the Union lawyer, that's a trivial amount. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
MamasBoy said:The Hoboken Policemen’s Benevolent Association and Police Superior Officers’ Association urge every resident, taxpayer, local business person and city official to give careful consideration to the following:
1) If there are 19 demotions, the City may save $220,000 and 18 layoffs may save $990,000 in salary and benefits for a total of $1.21 million. That’s a $75 per year savings for each of the City’s 16,000 taxpayers. That equates to approximately $1.50 per week. If this cut in policing causes a crime increase, property values will decline much more than $75. Some who would destroy the department made claims on their websites earlier this year that the police demotions would save $5.2 million. That is simply not true. As stated, the fact is that the savings would approximate only $220,000.
2) The Mayor has asserted since her first mayoral campaign in the Spring of 2009 that demotions would take police officers away from their desks and put them on the streets. She has further represented that layoffs and demotions will not reduce the numbers of officers patrolling the streets. It must be observed that 15 of the 19 officers being demoted perform their supervisory duties on the streets while on patrol. Only 4 of the 19 are in administrative/staff positions. Laying off 18 officers and possibly putting four more officers on the streets is still a NET LOSS of 14 officers working on the streets of Hoboken.
3) The ratio of patrol officers to supervisors is a subject that has been grossly misreported during recent years. Patrol to supervisor ratios are tabulated by calculating first line supervisors to patrol officers. Administrators, managers and other upper level supervisors are excluded from these ratios.. For example, the Chief does not supervise the dispatchers. An Army General does not supervise those who recently completed basic training. A CEO in a company does not supervise the mailroom. We have 97 patrolmen and 30 sergeants which is a 3.3 to 1 ratio. The table of organization calls for 120 patrol officers and 30 sergeants. That is a 4 to 1 ratio. Every police administration book suggests anywhere from a 3 to 5 officer to 1 supervisor ratio. We are well within that range. However, the Mayor and Director Alicea insist on suggesting that we have a 2 to 1 ratio number. This is obviously intended to rally residents against us. Alicea went further and commented online that they are following the police audit’s recommendation of a 4 to 1 ratio. That is simply and undeniably false. The City’s audit calls for 60 patrol officers and 26 sergeants–a 2.2 to 1 ratio. Based on that premise, the auditor, former Maplewood Chief Richardella is lowering our ratio, which means he concluded that the department is not “top heavy.”
4) On the same day that Mayor Zimmer announced layoffs, spokesman Juan Melli received a $15,000 raise and Mayoral Aide Daniel Bryan received a $12,000 raise.
5) Hoboken’s Parking Utilities have been hiring new employees regularly and ordering expensive equipment while the police department has suffered cuts to offset those costs. Where are the City’s priorities?
6) Attrition brings a gradual decline in staffing numbers so that there is no sudden impact on the level of public safety. If the City’s plan is implemented 37 officers will be laid off or demoted. In short, 24% of the department will be affected by the cuts.
7) The Memorandum of Agreement which was negotiated with and approved by the State Fiscal Monitor after more than two years of difficult but good faith negotiations would have resulted in 9 givebacks, including a change in healthcare coverage, change in prescription coverage, a reduction in salary differentials at the supervisory and managerial levels, and elimination of many days off. These changes would have saved the City nearly a million dollars per year. Why did the mayor and REVOLT so vigorously oppose an agreement that was settled with a state monitor? One can only conclude that they were motivated by a lack of knowledge and animosity towards the police. So here we sit nearly a year later in binding interest arbitration, creating more legal costs for the taxpayers, an agreement that will not be concluded for another year or two, facing 4 to 5 years worth of retroactive payments, no changes in healthcare, and 37 officers being cut instead. Again, where are the City’s priorities?
8 ) We understand that the Rockefeller group has been trying to make contact with the Mayor since November without a response. Their development would likely bring an additional $9 million dollars in
tax revenue to Hoboken. It appears that Rockefeller was compelled to go to the media due to the lack of response by Mayor Zimmer.
9) The St. Patrick’s Day Parade and 4th of July were events in which our officers acted professionally and proficiently. There has not been to this date one note of recognition by the Mayor. Both days
resulted in incidents where the HPD was forced to request more than 50 officers for mutual aid because there were insufficient HPD personnel working due to budget cuts. On St. Patrick’s Parade Day, HPD officers issued over $300,000 worth of fines that have been collected to date, with many cases still not resolved. The combined total cost for police overtime was $150,000.
10) The Hoboken population appears to far exceed the 38,000 reported in the 2000 Census. There are 28,000 residential units in the city and few would conclude that the ratio is less than 1.5 persons per unit. There are 16,000 property owners. Also, there are 130,000 commuters daily when considering all modes of transportation through the City.
See the rest of the press release after the jump…
(Hoboken Police Unions respond, continued)
11) Again, if the plan is implemented, our total number of officers will go from 153 to 135. We were at 185 six years ago, which helped the department to reduce our violent crime index and to operate our
specialized units such as community policing, school resource officers, anti-crime units, traffic bureau, housing bureau, P.A.L., and bike patrol unit just to name a few. We may be headed to a level that is 27% lower than in the early 2000s. It ignores reality to think that service levels will not suffer when such draconian cuts are made.
12) The Public safety Committee Chairman is Mr. Ravi Bhalla. Since assuming that position, he has never met with any police union official.
13) Juan Melli states in the Hoboken Reporter that he disputes PBA President Lombardi’s comments because we have to understand that the city is “a hard-working family and tough choices had to be made.” We suppose that it was an equally tough choice for him to accept a $15,000 raise during thesame week.
14) The police audit calls for the elimination of the Public Safety Director’s position. That has yet to occur and we doubt that it will ever occur.
15) Have City officials and certain residents chosen to ignore the violent crime indices of Jersey City and Union City as compared with Hoboken? While Jersey City and Union City hire more cops (which
may have the effect of displacing crime because it can never be eliminated), the city that boarders to the east, north and south of those cities (Hoboken) is cutting police. Is this really in the best interest of Hoboken’s residents and taxpayers?
16) The HPD has confronted a difficult public perception problem due to the SWAT/Hooters case. That incident occurred five years ago and the two people held responsible for the incident are no longer with the department. It is time for members of the administration and a certain few members of the public to move on and move away from their anti-police agenda.
17) On Wednesday, July 14, 2010, the PBA presented each member of the City Council with its own professional analysis from Northeast Labor Consultants which clearly points out many factual data errors, miscalculations and omissions in the state audit. It appears that the Mayor, City Council members, Business Administrator, Public Safety Director and Chairman of the Public Safety Committee Bhalla have purposely and deliberately ignored the PBA expert’s findings and recommendations. At the council meeting, PBA Present Lombardi pleaded with the council members and the mayor to read the report and contact him with any questions or concerns. This has not happened. It is becoming apparent that the Mayor will proceed with police layoffs and demotions, regardless of what actual factual data is presented to her. As Mr. Lombardi has stated, “cuts are what she wants, but not what the city needs.” The PBA and PSOA are convinced that these actions were motivated by personal and political animosity toward the police unions and their members – not by fiscal necessity.
robert randall said:I just read through the last 3 pages of comments and have to admit to more than a little amusement at much of it. The many named poster asserts that Zimmer's cost savings #'s are wildly wrong and accuses her of failing to provide her analysis. He then throws out his own cost savings # while himself failing to provide any analysis, other than a carefully chosen hypothetical analysis of one rank.
Scott Siegel has already provided his analysis that seems to support the Mayor's #'s. I'd like to take a shot at it as well, using the critic's own assumptions.
Half the layoffs are PD so let's assume that at least 1/2 the savings are PD. If correct, this means that the annual savings from the PD restructuring would be at least $1.25 million according to the Mayor, and as low as $200,000 according to the critic.
Let's run the #'s using our union friend's estimate of $20,000 rank differential and $40,000 patrolman's salaries, though given the source I suspect that the actual average #'s for the individuals actually being demoted or laid off are likely a bit higher.
19 demotions x $20,000 salary differential = $380,000
18 layoffs x $40,000 salary = $720,000
18 layoffs x $15,000 health insurance + pension (conservative estimate) =$270,000
Total annual savings - $1,370,000
Without any special inside knowledge, its pretty easy to back into the Mayor's #'s. Since I suspect the #'s I'm using for each of these categories is a little low and the annual savings for PD is approximately $1,500,000 leaving $1,000,000 in savings from the 18 ninuniformed layoffs or $55,000 per position. This seems pretty plausible.
How our multinamed friend gets to less than $500,000 and as low as $200,000 is beyond me, but I'm into #'s so I'd love to get a chance to see his analysis so I can figure out what I'm missing.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on
-
The police "message," is very difficult to discern in the long, sometimes incomprehensible message they have put forth, but it seems that they think this whole thing is personal. That is unfortunate, in my view.
The original audit, was prepared at the direction of the State of New Jersey in 2009. Neither the Zimmer Administration, nor anyone else in the Hoboken government had anything to do with it, since it was conducted by the state.
The latest message indicates that this is not understood, or worse, that it has been blatently ignored. The allegations that the administration is doing this not to save money but to "attack police" has no support that I can see.
One of the points even assumes that they are more capable of counting the population of a city than the United States Census, who is officially responsible for that duty.
It is hard to take such an official response seriously when it is difficult to determine whether it was written with any thought for setting aside personal issues, and bias, or whether it is just the words of an angry internet poster as it appears.
Moreover, the response I really expected was that they will be taking a pay cut in order to save the jobs of these officers. Not one concession in the response, only criticism of both the city and incredibly for taxpayers themselves for being so selfish as wanting to "save $75." Instead, not one cent was offered by the union to save one job.
Sorry, but they should fire whomever wrote this message as it has failed to capture any reasonable logic, or convince a reasonable person why this should be scaled back.
-
Permalink Reply by Andy on
-
Agreed! I like my 75$ considering the city took an extra $2,500+ from me due to mismanagement a year and a half ago. How is that fair to me? I was lied to about the state of the city by an administration that covered things up and overstaffed/overpaid people by the dozens. Sorry if I seem insensitive now but that union rep is making a hard sell worse. I've said it before, outsource our city's services. All of them. I think we can get by w/ a fraction of our costs by sharing w/ Jersey City and Weehawken.
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
This message was a reprint of the statement from the lawyer who represents the unions so it doesn't get any more "official" than that.
The claim that this move must be based on some kind of mysterious and unexplained personal animus by both the DLGS and the mayor because no one in their right minds thinks we need to cut the budget is particularly perplexing. Coming on the heels of an 80% increase in our municipal taxes who in their right minds questions the need to make cuts. Hopefully this is a down payment because as far as I'm concerned we need to cut at least twice the $2.5 million the mayor says we'll get from the total layoffs.
With a publicly released Corzine produced state audit calling for layoffs 3 times the size, do they really think Zimmer is doing this because she is mad about a parking ticket or something? You can't make this stuff up.
Dave Kaplan said:The police "message," is very difficult to discern in the long, sometimes incomprehensible message they have put forth, but it seems that they think this whole thing is personal. That is unfortunate, in my view.
The original audit, was prepared at the direction of the State of New Jersey in 2009. Neither the Zimmer Administration, nor anyone else in the Hoboken government had anything to do with it, since it was conducted by the state.
The latest message indicates that this is not understood, or worse, that it has been blatently ignored. The allegations that the administration is doing this not to save money but to "attack police" has no support that I can see.
One of the points even assumes that they are more capable of counting the population of a city than the United States Census, who is officially responsible for that duty.
It is hard to take such an official response seriously when it is difficult to determine whether it was written with any thought for setting aside personal issues, and bias, or whether it is just the words of an angry internet poster as it appears.
Moreover, the response I really expected was that they will be taking a pay cut in order to save the jobs of these officers. Not one concession in the response, only criticism of both the city and incredibly for taxpayers themselves for being so selfish as wanting to "save $75." Instead, not one cent was offered by the union to save one job.
Sorry, but they should fire whomever wrote this message as it has failed to capture any reasonable logic, or convince a reasonable person why this should be scaled back.
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on
-
Robert Randall said: Mama'sBoy - why does your name keep changing. If you wish to have a serious discussion its kind of hard when you keep changing your name.
It's Kim. You know that scene where Pee Wee Herman goes flying over the handlebars and snorts "I meant to do that" ? That's what we have here. Kim changed to Tim. Then realized that "Tim" rippled through all her posts where she was being addressed as "Kim". So it was obvious she was changing her name. And now she's changing it every time as if to say "I meant to do that." That bundle of loathing for Zimmer and, um, Zimmertini's can't be hidden under any combination of names, however.
It passes the time I guess. Pretty daffy though.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by 
.
