Interfund Loans on the Agenda for Tonight…

city loan


4 thoughts on “Interfund Loans on the Agenda for Tonight…”

  1. drheights48127, In the spirit of your post and the need to address the city general fund cash-flow shortfall as stated by city treasurer and the general fund deficit in general, I found this provision in the following contract to be some how confusing.

    That what was agreed on page 3 of 5 of the AFSCME Letter of Understanding with the city of Dearborn Heights.
    The administration negotiated the amendment and the council approved it.

    Amendment to Hours
    Article 13

    Effective September 29, the standard work day and workweek for clerical and
    custodial employees shall be eight (8) hours per day, four (4) days per week, Monday
    through Thursday, for a total of thirty-six (36) hours per week, 8:00a.m. to 5:00p.m.
    They will be paid for thirty-six (36) hours of work week.

    This contract was extended to all city employees, Paying 4 hours per week for no stated reason.
    4 days x 8 hours = 32 hours, so what the 4 paid hours are for?

    When that contract was approved in 2011 the city general fund was over $5.5 millions in deficit, and the administration and city council members cried and begged the residents of DH to approve the tax increase to avoid the state take-over and reduction on essential city services. But they approved a labor contract paying 4 hours per week “taxpayers money” for nonworking hours. That costing taxpayers a lot of dollars needed to pay for food or medical expenses or high cost of utility. Just state the purpose of the those hours, then taxpayers will understand the situation and evaluate their options.

    The question is: how much in dollars amount those 4 hours costing the taxpayers since September 29, 2011 to the present? and how negotiated the contract? And how come the council approved such contract without asking about this mysterious 4 paid hours? All what they have to state is: Why paying for this 4 nonworking hours????? Usually the language in labor contracts are very very very and extremely clear and reviewed over and over by labor attorneys to clarify even the smallest and finest points?

    A collective bargaining labor contract is a reference for labor disputes, and if a dispute arise about those hours, example:1- If an employee on vacation or sick, is those 4 hours are also paid? 2- Is those 4 hours are counted toward the pension? Is those hours are counted toward the calculation of over time hours? How about if an employee worked only 1 day out of 4 days in a given week, is that employee paid 9 hours or 12 hours? How about working 2 , 3 days how you calculate the extra nonworking paid hours? If the contract stated what the nonworking hours are for, then the calculation will be straightforward.

    If the “collective bargaining labor contract” don’t include the purpose of those 4 paid hours in writing as part of the contract, then those hours are disputable by either party. Any other forms of agreement are not valid unless becoming part of that contract.

    In that period of time the administration and council asked the residents to approve the “Headily Override”
    and the extra taxes.

    Any answers or information that may help explain the situation? Is that effects the validity of the contract?

    Collective bargaining labor contract must protect all parties of the contract without any confusion. Usually spelling out in length every point and provision.

    Transparency and clarity is the best practice for public officials.

    The following website include the full version of the contract.


  2. Isn’t that interesting. The mayor boasts a surplus but needs 6 million to make ends meet for this fiscal year.

    I thought the library was in such dire straights that we needed to pass an extra millage last fall so the library could make ends meet, now the library is so flush with money they can lend a million dollars to the city.

    I won’t even get into the water fund which has been the go-to fund for several years.

    Once again we have been lied to. The millage wasn’t really for the library but so Paletko and the Council of Clowns could have more money to borrow from instead of making budget expenditure cuts.

    Let’s see in 2011 they scared us with city service cuts. In 2013 they scared us with closing one library. Wonder what the next big scare will be? And the beat goes on, on, on………


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s