More ignorant, self indulgent bloviating from our mayor on why the Excecutive staff and city council should be the number 1 priority of our city. The residents exist to simply to pay for new offices, pay raises, and promotions. It's a sad day when residents have to be lectured by a mayor that kids using pools are just to expensive but giving the fools that created this mess more money and raises is our solution

My guess is that the budget will pass without hesitation. Oh wait, last year they did say we'll "try" to keep the pools and libraries open. Since then, Snow Branch Library, the second highest used library in the city has been closed and two of the outdoor pools remain closed. So much for "trying". I imagine the closing of pools and libraries will continue until we only have one library and two outdoor pools. That's what city officials have wanted all along. Meanwhile, the spending on the unwanted move from City Hall to the ADP building begins. I see the first of I'm sure what will be many expenses involved in this transition is on the City Council Meeting agenda tonight. Item number 9 - RESOLUTION BY COUNCILMEMBERS SAREINI AND SHOOSHANIAN – Issuing a purchase order to URS in the amount of $13,500 for ADP Building Evaluation and requesting immediate effect. Really? $13,500 for an "evaluation"? Isn't that why the city employees inspectors, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. - for their expertise? Why once again do they need to hire an outside company for an "evaluation" and spend $13,500 for it? As I said, I'm sure this is only the beginning of the expenses we will see for this unnecessary endeavor.

There is nothing in the city charter that says mayoral appointees must be given raises after the commencement of union negotiations. The charter says "may" get raises, but that is the reason why we owe millions in lawsuits because our legal department is run by a chain smoking incompetent buffoon who does not understand the difference between may and must

A full run-down of the big changes in the 2013 budget will be live on Dearborn Patch tomorrow morning. Sign up for our newsletter to make sure you get the story! http://dearborn.patch.com/newsletters

So walling goes into a meeting knowing full well she will be asked about the legal ramifications of reducing funding to the court and she answers "no comment" and "I don't know". She is not being deposed her job is to provide legal counsel. She should be let go, honestly first she gives a dishonest interpratation of the charter to justify the mayors generous pay raises now this. I could go on about the civil rights violations, but when is our legal department going to be held to a standard

Among the biggest cuts were a $13.5 million expense to build a new conference center, $4 million planned for a new aquatic facility at Ford Woods Park, and $3.6 million scheduled for renovations to the Rotunda baseball and softball fields.

The Mayor and council hope we don't know the diference between saving money and simply not spending it. They will pass the above as a $21 Million savings. Next time you want a $150 putter buy it and try to tell your spouse that you saved $850 because a new set of clubs would be $1000

I was at the budget proposal meeting last night to see our elected officials in 'action'.

I got the distinct feeling that the majority of the council listen very well, but rely heavily on advice from others. Why outside advice, rather than use our own city staff? Obviously to keep a 'hands off' approach so the city can say it did adequate research. Why get mulitple opinions from various doctors? Same reason. To make sure a mistake was not made.

I did spend 30 minutes privately with Jim O'Connor, the director of finance, and presented my thoughts on saving money for Dearborn, mostly eliminating all the bonuses being paid to the tune of 3.3 million per year to the city workers. When times are good, you pay bonuses. When times are 'tight', you don't. "Are times good?" I asked him, and he said "not really". Then drop the bonuses. He did take notes, my card, and was surprised that I read the 'fine print' in the budget proposal.. You can too. look here:

http://www.cityofdearborn.org/government/city-services/finance/782-proposed-budget-docs
Mr O'Connor does not follow 'blogs', but I did give him copies of some of them , which he read. He is open to suggestions from us to save Dearborn money, and has the power to amend the city budget at any time, since his input is accepted highly by the council, which means they usually approve his suggestions.
Skip the council and go to 'Jim' with your ideas. His email is on the link.

"I just don't feel comfortable sending $500,000-$700,000 of GF money to the district court when we're slicing and dicing the qualities of life of our residents," Abraham said. This is an incredible, shocking, ignorant statement.

This budget means more plea deals in the court and more criminals on the street. How do you think that will affect the quality of life of the city's residents, Mr. Councilman?

Did I read Mr. Jacobsen's comments correctly? 3 million + in employee bonuses?
Can that be true? Unbelievable!!

Mary Jo, to clarify..... Jim O'Connor was kind enough to go over the numbers and corrected some of the misconceptions I made while interpreting the 2012 Dearborn City budget.
Bonuses (Heath Insurance Waiver Bonus, and longevity bonus) to city workers only total about $1,500,000. I was inadvertently including the up to 3% pay raises given each year to city employees. The 3% increase each year is part of the union contract, and varies to 2%, 1%, and recently 0% for general city workers, the 3% and 2% pretty much now is limited to fire and police who have, since 2001 received 30% and 28% cumulative pay increases of pay respectively (ie over ten years) During the ten yr period , general city employees averaged a 12% increase in pay. This is on top of any bonuses. The private sector, for the most part, has not exactly been giving raises, just surviving is a challenge. I lumped the sums together, raises and bonuses to Dearborn city employees, an error on my part.
Isn't there a conflict of interest somewhere as the pay for city elected officials is based on the contracts and pay structure negotiated with the unions, and aren't city elected officials doing the negotiating with the union officials? A little self serving perhaps?? I may be missing something obvious....correct me if I am mistaken....There must be a process to have a taxpayer citizen without a hand in the till on the negotiation team.