Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
The City Attorney had originally asked for 8%! Are you kidding me?
Why are we making this about Fire and Police? The average fireman probably holds a hose about 1 hr a year, putting out slabs. They run extreemly expensive trucks and equiptment to a "fall" call, then go back and play xbox for 23 hours. I know, I was one and got fat tired and happy. I would not dance with the IAFF (firefighter's union), so I went down the road because I refused to pay union dues to the AFL CIO.
Give them the raise for putting up with the crap they balance between Bubbas, Bible thumpers and the Bourgeois.
I should have qualified my statement as these claims were made by Armstrong during the charter review committee meetings several years back. He used this to support his position that we could never elect someone as qualified as the former city attorney, Miles Risley. Later, I believe in the same meeting, he and another former council member stated there was not a qualified attorney in Victoria to serve as city attorney, again trying to support his position.
The two finalist for the position were both from Victoria but neither had the certification or experience in municipal law. To raise a salary because the previous person in the position was making more money is not a valid reason.
Only spin being applied is yours Mike. You know it.
You cannot take something from someone that they don't yet have. Reducing salary is not taking her money from her. Because it is not yet her money until paid to her.
Again, that you fail to grasp this does not surprise me, nor am I going to continue to argue this with you. Typical left wing nasty tactics.
Lol....love it when right wingers spin...It shows they not not of what they speak..Newt Gingerism at its best....Cut her salary means TAKE FROM HER and redistribute among those people you like...That is classis wealth redistribution.
Sorry Mike but a twisted strawman argument there.
Socialist redistribution: Taking money from people that has already been earned and is already theirs, to give to those who have not earned it.
For my suggestion to be socialist redistribution, I would have to suggest our taking the money that already belongs to Garrett, i.e. in her bank account, Not future earnings at some new salary. And to give that money to those who have not earned it, rather than my suggestion of using the money to pay a decent wage to those who do deserve (BY THEIR EARNING IT), a better wage.
That you fail to grasp the difference does not surprise me.
Other than Rangel which city council people are up for election in May and what are their positions on this pay raise?
Gotta love it
"Who the heck CANNOT live in this town on $100,000?I say CUT her salary from $167,000+ to 100,000 and use that money to give raises to the Police/Fire/and EMS.
Isn't that socialism ?.....wealth distribution?
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is,is...:-)
Mayor, you claim ""You spend the money, you get good people."
Do you need to be told that just in this last week alone, we have lost 3 officers each with more than 5+ years experience to better paying departments. And that is just this last week. We are hemorrhaging our best away for lack of pay. We have a small core of dedicated officers toughing it out because they love this town and the rest are raw recruits.Recruits that as soon as they get any experience whatsoever, take off for better paying departments.
"'There is considerable flexibility' in the budget, Armstrong said."
That's interesting Mr. Mayor. Every time raises for the "little people" who keep you safe at night comes up... there seems to be NO FLEXIBILITY.
Who the heck CANNOT live in this town on $100,000?I say CUT her salary from $167,000+ to 100,000 and use that money to give raises to the Police/Fire/and EMS.
She sits at a desk.She bosses people around and terrorizes the workers.
She does NOT put her life on the line to protect or rescue or save the lives of others.
I'm telling you straight up. From what I see on these comments, and from what I have heard around town.... Giving her a raise is your own political suicide.
This is an utter SLAP IN THE FACE to all those who put their lives on the line to keep Victoria Safe.From the police, to Fire and EMS. All first responders are paid crap! And this lady gets a raise for a "good job"?
Sickandtired pointed out that Garrett knew about the trouble with the Fire Department being made to pay for their own mandatory certifications out of pocket. She did NOT just "know about it". She had a hand in it! Riley was just a "yes man" that went along with her. When the feces hit the oscillating air mover... Riley was hung out to dry by Garrett. This is what you call doing a great job?
When Ure quit... Do you even bother reading his letter as to why? There was a LOT of truth in there. Garrett is a power hungry martinette. There is a lot of problems in many departments across the City, but if you were to point to any one person as the single most responsible for the majority of the trouble you don't have to look any further than her.She runs this city as if it were her personal fiefdom and she the ultimate dictator. She could care less about right/wrong, only what benefits her and what she can get away with. Just look to Riley and the Fire department for an example of that, and what she did with Ure.
The police in particular are SEVERELY underpaid and their questions and complaints ARE NOT being addressed. Not by anyone. Not the Council, not by Garrett, and not by this new Chief who is little more than a political flunky. They tried to get a "meet and confer" going with the City so that they could be heard. GARRETT started fear mongering by continuously referring to the Meet and confer as "Collective Bargaining" Despite the fact the two things are totally separate and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of each other. She created such a storm of controversy over something it wasn't, to the point that the police representative withdrew the request. And you want to reward her!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!Mike that was a good one!
Perks, what perks?
And if you add in the perks, whats the total come to.
I have to agree with Tophat, everything is aboveboard, so why it's so difficult for everyone to let the City Council do what they were voted in to do....
Opinions are good but they're usually made in a vacuum and are usually based on a fixed ideology.
Tell you what, I'll point it out later. When the police and firefighters raises come up for a transparent discussion, we'll see if there is still "considerable flexibility in the budget".
Is there any type of cronyism here in Victoria? Naah, probably not.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
I agree with Jeff Williams. But if you have to give the City Attorney a raise, make it 3% like everyone else.
If Rangel supports this just remember her in the May elections
In my humble opinion they don't deserve a raise. They are the problem why Victoria never moves forward. Get rid of them instead of giving them more money!
In response to jasonbourne's comment, let's not forget that Garrett knew about the big $ snafu with the fire dept. and making them pay for training. But yet her only consequence is a near $5,000 raise. Great googly moogly!
Thanks Jeff for shedding a little truth on the matter.
What did the police, firefhighters, EMS, and city employees get? That should be more than enough... If in fact the efforts dictate a raise.
Have Garrett and Gwosdz done anything above and beyond? Have they simply done exactly what thier job describes? What are we using to determine a pay increase is necessarry?
"Considerable flexibility in the budget"??????? What in Gods name does that mean??? You have plenty for the upper crust but not the bottom feeders? Jeeez!!!
Hey Tophat, watch this and see what happens. You are going to get to see how things work in Victoria.
The City Attorney wrecked the Municipal Court, fired long term employees, put in changes he was told would not work, and eneded up cancelling those changes after 2 years of complete chaos. And we are still paying outside counsel at the rate of more than $350.00 to represent the City. FCOL - For Crying Out Loud.
Armstrong stated "he had taken a considerably lesser salary than the previous city attorney." as a justification for a larger increase.
The previous City Attorney was one of only about 70 people in the US certified (or comparable designation) in municipal law and had a number of years experience. The current City Attorney had ZERO municipal background or experience when hired by the city.
How many people in the private sector get a raise because the previous person to hold their position made a higher salary? In my mind the logic behind this incease is flawed. If 3% is what every one else received, 3% should be what the City Attorney receives IF his performance supports it.
I'm for raises, but give them to the police, fire, sanitation, and street employees who are also not under contract. These guys work shift work, holidays, nights, etc. The street dept. has been in my neighborhood late at night for a water main break. When was the last time Garrett and Gwosdz actually worked outside in extreme temperatures or during a loved ones birthday???
Unbelievable. Anyone see another 5-2 vote coming?