[Durham INC] County & City responses to economic downturn

Wed Feb 4 22:22:34 EST 2009

I am relatively new to all this and quite naïve regarding much of this but
maybe someone can explain to me how in this fiscal climate with every
department being asked to make cuts the Dept of Housing & Urban Development
(?) gave landlords who rent “sect 8” housing a 3% increase in rent without
an increase being requested?  Where is the fiscal responsibility in that?
Who will ultimately lose their jobs to cover those increases, again,
increases that were not requested by the landlords but simply granted
January 09, much to the surprise of most landlords.

Lori Farley

  _____  

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Melissa Rooney
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:10 PM
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] County & City responses to economic downturn

>>"All I'm advocating is that other options be up for discussion."

Couldn't agree more...

Melissa

Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Kelly Jarrett <kjj1 at duke.edu> wrote:

From: Kelly Jarrett <kjj1 at duke.edu>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] County & City responses to economic downturn
To: "Reyn Bowman" <Reyn at Durham-cvb.com>
Cc: "PAC2" <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>, "inc-list at durhaminc.org"
<inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 11:25 AM

I understand the debt obligation and discretionary income issues--but the
people

making 20K have debt obligations as well--much more basic ones like rent and

groceries. Salary comps with
 neighboring police & social service departments

reveal that Durham does not have a history of paying competitive salaries to

begin with, turning us into a training ground for surrounding areas. Talk
about

cutbacks understandably makes those on the lower ends of the salary and

seniority ladders nervous as it is usually their jobs that are most
vulnerable.

And respectfully, it is not just the higher paid folks who will assume more

responsibilities: the caseloads of food stamp and medicaid eligibility
workers

(definitely not among the highly paid and already overloaded) will continue
to

balloon as the economic situation worsens. Domestic violence and child

protective services cases are likely to rise, and if the state cuts funds
for

rape crisis and domestic violence programs demands for police intervention
in

these areas will increase even further. Drug and alcohol abuse will rise,
along

with demands for
 treatment, medical, and police involvement. Demand for animal

control services will continue to rise. Property crimes and robberies are
likely

to continue to rise. EMT & county health services will be strained further

as people lose medical insurance and rely on ERs for primary care. You get
the

picture. Many of the people who deal with the nuts and bolts of providing
these

services are on the front lines, in entry level and lower level
positions--not

high up the salary ladder. These workers who you are calling to "work

harder and smarter" are already working hard and smart in physically and

emotionally demanding jobs.

I'm not saying that some savings can't be attained through vacancies.

They can. All I'm advocating is that other options be up for discussion.

Reyn Bowman wrote:

> They will probably do it with vacancies which mean the higher paid folks

will assume even more responsibilities.  The goal
 would be to do no harm and the

percentages below have only one flaw...they assume the higher the income,
the

more discretionary income and that is rarely the case until it gets to about

$250,000.   Many of those people will have debt obligations and can't

decelerate that rapidly.  There is also a retirement component.

> 

> I think they have some very smart management folks at the County who have

this well in hand.  Doing more with less, doesn't automatically mean a cut

in services...but it does mean that people will need to work much harder and

smarter and we need to keep them incented.

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On

Behalf Of Kelly Jarrett

> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:50 AM

> To: PAC2; inc-list at durhaminc.org

> Subject: [Durham INC] County & City responses to economic downturn

>

> I hear that the County is requesting its departments to cut their

operating budgets by 10%. The City is also contemplating cuts. Like most of
us,

I am concerned about the implications of these cuts, especially what they
will

mean for City & County employees as well as availability of and access to

services for Durham residents.

> 

> I hope that job preservation will be the highest priority. As a job

preservation strategy, I suggest that budget cuts begin with salary
reductions

starting at the top: 5% reductions of all salaries over $50,000 a year; 10%

reduction of salaries over $100,000; 15% reduction of salaries over
$150,000.

This should provide some significant cost savings, leave highly paid
employees

with adequate salaries to live on, and preserve the jobs of  less well

compensated employees--those such as food stamp and medicaid workers, entry

level social workers, and front-line staff who
 are actually providing the

services that are in high demand during economic hard times.

> 

> Kelly J.

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Durham INC Mailing List

> list at durham-inc.org

> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

>   

_______________________________________________

Durham INC Mailing List

list at durham-inc.org

http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090204/2aa2363a/attachment.htm>