Stay, Go, Early Out, Retire, Appoint.

What happened at the last City Council Study Session? There was a lot of talk about making it okay for someone who when they got divorced and their ex-wife/ex-husband takes the earliest retirement option (age 60) to let them take an early out and stay in their job. The Mayor who is an elected official will benefit from this. The Mayor who has stayed past the age of 60 and is losing money every month because of it. What this will do for him and a couple of others.

  1. Allow them to retire and stay working in the City (double dip) get the pension and the salary.
  2. Stop the drain on their pensions.
  3. They will not be able to add to their pension.

The City will see a savings by doing this I don’t have the numbers I’m sure council members do. The way the City saves is by moving these employees from the General Budget to the Pension Budget. The money is just taken from a different fund.

This early out option was given to many in the City several years ago going on five years now I think. Many of those who took this option are still working in the City. The savings for the City spread over three (3) years was $150,000.00. The City hasn’t saved a dime since the three-year mark. Now the offer is being extended to the Mayor it’s important to note that this is an ordinance forever changing our Charter. The Mayor isn’t an employee or is he well he does get a paycheck from the City, but answers to no one. Employees can be fired no one can fire the Mayor for doing a bad job. The voters can vote him out of office or we can recall him. Is the Mayor  classified as an employee I don’t know? I will leave that to the legal minds of the City/State.

The City of Dearborn Heights pre the charter is a strong Mayor weak Council system of government. The Mayor isn’t hired by the Council he is however hired by the residents of the City via election. If the City of Dearborn Heights was this kind of government the City Council would then have hired the Mayor.

Council-manager government
Council-manager government is one of the five major types of municipal government found in cities and towns throughout the United States. The other four are mayor-council, commission, town meeting and representative town meeting.
In a council-manager government, an elected city council serves as the city’s primary legislative body and appoints a chief executive officer called a city manager to oversee day-to-day municipal operations, to draft a budget and to implement and enforce the council’s policy and legislative initiatives.

Most council-manager governments also feature a mayor, who is usually elected at-large and holds the distinction of officially representing the city on the state, national and international levels. However, unlike in a strong mayor-council government, the mayor is a regular voting member of city council with little or no exceptional legal privileges that may distinguish him or her from other council members.

Basic features

One of the best ways to understand council-manager governments is to see the different characteristics and responsibilities of the city-manager, city council and mayor. All three work together to balance and pass a budget, to draft and enforce legislation, to provide basic city services and to oversee city departments and appoint departmental heads.[1][2][3] Their key characteristics can be seen below.

City-manager
Appointed and dismissed by city council.
Responsible for drafting and proposing a balanced city budget.
Responsible for amending the city budget as dictated by city council.
Responsible for appointing departmental heads and directors (sometimes with the approval of city council).
Responsible for implementing and enforcing council policies and legislative initiatives.
City council
Elected to two or four year terms either by district or at-large.
Responsible for appointing a city-manager.
Responsible for drafting and passing legislation and city ordinances.
Responsible for approving the city budget proposed by the city-manager.
Mayor
Generally elected at-large to two or four year terms.
Votes at city-council meetings.
Does not possess veto powers.
Officially represents the city on the state, national and international levels. Read all examples here

Councilwoman Horvath all, but said that she doesn’t want the alternative to not letting the Mayor have an early out. What is that alternative? Council Chair would become the Mayor and the Council would have to pick a Mayor who would fill that position until the next election. Councilwoman Horvath said this would be a disaster. This was done before so it’s not as if the Council didn’t have to pick a Mayor how do you think we got Paletko in the first place? Councilwoman Horvath was right about that it is a disaster the residents have been stuck with him ever since.

If the Council approves this and I say now I think they will the Mayor would be retiring officially that would be the only way he would be able to get his pension he wouldn’t be the Mayor. Oh but, not so fast because he still would be our Mayor. The way this is playing out the Mayor would stay in office. That little term ‘early out’ makes all things possible. How would this play out if they didn’t give him the early out?

Council Chair would become the Mayor until the council picked a Mayor. Important to remember the Mayor could come before the council at that time and ask to be appointed.  That in its self is a nightmare and I agree with councilwoman Horvath it would be a disaster. The residents of Dearborn Heights wouldn’t have a say in this it wouldn’t be coming before the voters.  If the Council agrees to this ‘early out’ it just might save the City a  headache, but again the residents have no say in that decision either. The residents will finally have a say in the 2017 election for Mayor and elect the Mayor we finally deserve and it’s not Paletko.

I want to make it very clear I believe the Mayor when he got his divorce knew that this was going to happen. I just can’t see how he didn’t know he is a CPA after all, isn’t he?  He did have a divorce lawyer who was advising him, but somehow he’s made it our problem.  You can read my blog post about this subject you can click on the link in that post that will take you to a very simple yet informative page about the mathematics of this and the different options.

When I first got wind of this months ago I was livid I can honestly say I couldn’t stand the fact that this man our Mayor  was even considering this. This subject is now public now that it’s come up at an open study session. My anger on this subject was purely personal I don’t like the Mayor I don’t think he’s done a good job for this City. I don’t think Mayor Dan Paletko has been transparent. I don’t think that Mayor Dan Paletko gives a *&^% for the residents. This way of thinking skewed my thought process on this subject I fully admit it. Plain and simple I don’t want him to get away with anything I just want one time for us the residents to have a win. I as a resident can say this I believe that the only way we are going to have a true win will be 2017 when we all stand together and vote Mayor Dan Paletko out of office.  No matter what our City Council decides to do we can have the last say in 2017 remember that and let’s get it done.

#ttp #wedemandbetter #2017

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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