Port Richey's mayor to stay course amid office politics
Letters to the Editor
Published August 30, 2005
Re: Council members should understand their limits , Aug. 26 editorial
You were right when you wrote that I have been in office just more than four months and am still learning. However, it is what I am learning that I find most disturbing, from the shameful wasting of city taxpayers dollars and counterproductive office politics within the city administration to the harassment of city workers, which lead to them forming a union out of fear for their jobs.
When I asked the residents of Port Richey for the opportunity to be their mayor, I promised to put a stop to the wasteful spending of their hard-earned tax dollars. Additionally, to help make Port Richey become a better city, respecting the concerns of all resident, as both sides of the river are unique and are wonderful areas to live in, yet both have different needs and concerns to keep it that way.
Why would I spend months trying to sway City Manager Jerry Calhoun to use a particular copying machine system? Because it would save the City $16,000, as the copy machine I suggested, from a nationally recognized company, would install and service it for free charging only a penny a copy, which for $16,000 equates to 1.6-million copies. Many major corporations in the United States are using this same program and are saving thousands of dollars; why should Port Richey not do the same? However, interoffice politics within this city's administration took precedence over saving our residents tax dollars.
Perhaps I am naive to believe that keeping your promises to the people you represent is important and the right thing to do, but that was the way I was raised. So even with all the grief and attacks that I receive for trying to be conservative with our tax dollars, I guess I will have to stay the course, keeping a positive attitude, and trying to do the right things for our residents and our great city, Port Richey.
-- Mark Abbott, Port Richey mayor
Questioning things part of serving on council
Re: Council members should understand their limits , Aug. 26 editorial
-- Coming from someone who professes to know the Port Richey City Charter, your comments are way off base. You fail to remember that both the city manager and the city attorney work for, and at the pleasure of, the council. Therefore, I was not overstepping my boundaries when I questioned the invoices paid to the union lawyer - some $30,000 to date with no end in sight. I did so to honor my fiduciary responsibilities to the people of my city. I said, and repeat, it is farcical and absurd.
My suggestion to the city manager was to sit with the union to determine what they can agree on, make note of what they can't, and send everything to the lawyer whose office is in Miami for his legal opinion, thus reducing the number of hours he has to spend working on the contract. At $215 per hour, (his average conference time was billed at $1,720), and door-to-door travel at $645, is it any wonder why he has so far been paid almost $30,000? The ex-mayor and soon-to-be-leaving city attorney thought there was no one in the bay area knowledgeable enough to handle this contract. Obviously they believed that getting 15 employees unionized would be far too complex for anyone local.
This is not a contract with the Teamsters Union of America covering thousands of employees nationwide, and may I also mention that this has been going on since June 24, 2004. I repeat, it is farcical and absurd. You filled your editorial with buzzwords, admonishing me for not "being aware of the dangers of council attempts to run roughshod over the city staff" and repeated the city manager's words that council would be "derelict in its duties" if he were to negotiate with the union. I thought derelict meant not doing what one should be doing!
Then you state that these incidents are indicative of council members who don't know their role. I am very much aware of why I sit on the City Council. I was voted into office promising to protect the best interests of my city. Failing to live up to my oath by not asking questions, by not expecting answers, would indeed make me derelict. The people know me better than that.
-- Phyllis Grae, Port Richey City Council
-- Teacher bonus, extra two days, confusing
Re: Teachers get back two free days they gave to district years ago , Aug. 28 letter
As the president of the United School Employees of Pasco, the bargaining agent for Pasco's teachers and school personnel, I need to correct some erroneous history provided by the writer.
During the 2000-01 school year, teachers had two days added to their contract and salary schedule at their full daily rate of pay. Funding came from recurring state categorical dollars designated for teacher training.
The confusion arises because teachers also received a $1,000 bonus that year, which had nothing to do with the additional two calendar days; let's face it, teachers don't earn $500 a day. If they did, there would be no shortage! The bonus came from a nonrecurring categorical allocation established by the state Legislature to recruit and retain teachers in critical shortage areas. Due to Pasco's burgeoning growth and the need to attract teachers in all subject areas, USEP negotiated matching nonrecurring district dollars to provide bonuses to all teachers.
The following year, the state Legislature again mandated teacher bonuses and expressly prohibited incorporating the bonuses into salary schedules or counting them toward retirement. Since only recurring dollars, which the district can reasonably expect to receive year after year, can be applied to salary schedules, it was not until the 2002-03 year that the union and district were able to incorporate amounts equivalent to the two years of bonus dollars into the actual salary schedule.
Because the district received the teacher training dollars annually, the additional two days continued to be funded at a teacher's full daily rate up until this year, when the Legislature shifted dollars out of that categorical fund. As a result, USEP negotiated the elimination of these two days without teachers sacrificing two days' pay. In addition, USEP negotiated further salary improvements and an increase in the hourly stipend teachers may receive for attending voluntary after-hour teacher training.
The reality is that teachers are not "getting back free days they've been giving," as the letter writer states, but are truly getting two free days. Maybe that explains why 97 percent of the teachers voted in favor of the contract settlement!
I cannot blame the writer for being confused. If the Legislature would stop mandating flavor-of-the-year bonuses and other pay schemes, districts and unions could do what they've done for years: negotiate fair and equitable raises that are easily understood.
-- Lynne Webb, Land O'Lakes
Teacher bonus not linked to staff development days
Re: Teachers get back two free days they gave to district years ago, Aug. 28 letter
I received clarification from a colleague who read my previous letter.
He has been teaching in Pasco much longer than I and, after a lengthy phone discussion concerning these days, he remembered that the timing of the addition of the two staff development days coincided with a state bonus to teachers five years ago. The bonus was given since no step or pay increases were possible that year.
Bonus money was not part of Pasco County's contract negotiations to add two staff development days. That was a separate issue. He had been a union representative at his school and stated that some school sites were given misinformation linking the bonus to our contract that year.
I thank him for clarifying my misinformation and wanted to pass this on to all of my colleagues and the community.
-- Marilyn Shafer, Land O'Lakes[Last modified August 30, 2005, 11:54:11]
