MERGING OF RECREATION DEPARTMENT INTO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW)
kgaby_biegel
(02/18/10 9:22pm)
The money to hire two new DPW workers, who don’t exist today and we don’t need in the future, is the total “justification” for decimating the Recreation Department and moving the Parks and Recreation maintenance workers to the Department of Public Works (DPW). The Hanover Township Committee to this day, has never received any formal and factual report from the Superintendent of DPW or Director Schleifer concerning the necessity to hire two workers to replace workers who left the last year. Now, all of a sudden to justify the take-over and moving the long-time Parks and Recreation maintenance staff to the DPW, Committeemen Schleifer, Sheridan and Ferramosca want residents to believe it is because “We can save money by not hiring 2-additional DPW workers.” Again, these workers don’t exist now and we have no factual evidence that they will be needed in the future. Save money that we weren't going to spend anyway?
The Superintendent of DPW, currently is one of the lowest paid Department heads in town, under the plan he will be taking on two more divisions of workers; Buildings & Grounds and Parks Maintenance, yet he won’t be getting a salary increase (in the near future) for the additional workload and responsibilities ! How naive does Schleifer, Sheridan and Ferramosca think taxpayers are!
Another interesting “justification” given for moving the staff to DPW, is Director of DPW Schleifer’s observation that the DPW staff is over-worked and this is causing workers to be stressed-out. News alert! If there is stress in the DPW, it’s not because they need more workers, the most likely cause is the low moral brought on by the lack of support the non-management workers have received, from their current Director Schleifer, Township Committee members and Township officials in recent years.
This Recreation staff move is not about tax savings. Anyone who knows me knows I would be the first to support this move if there was any documentable tax savings. And in fact, in the next few weeks as part of our budget, I will be sponsoring some REAL and sustainable tax saving proposals to control Hanover resident's property taxes. So if there is no tax savings, why chance ruining one of the best things Hanover has – a great Recreation Department.
In my opinion there is something very sneaky and under-handed going on here. Last year before being elected, Sheridan and Ferramosca publicly promised residents, that they would not support a proposal to move workers from Recreation to DPW. After winning the election (with lots of help from Schleifer), Sheridan and Ferramosca now have changed their minds and are strongly are in favor of Schleifer's demand to move maintenance workers from Recreation to DPW.
This type of "We know what's best and exclusionary" politics is what we are currently witnessing in Washington DC; don’t let it happen here in Hanover. If you are concerned about open government, fairness, justice, low taxes, have enjoyed the hard work and dedication of the Parks and Recreation Department -Please attend the next Township Committee meeting and demand some factual answers.
Where does the characterization of the merger of the departments as "decimation" get its basis?
As explained, the merger of the departments would facilitate the use of all personal in both departments through a new hierachy which would save money due to the basic economic principal of economies of scale. As far as the DPW staff being overburdened, let them join the club. Almost everyone in the private sector is doing more for less.
Finally, I heard, received and read quite a lot of information during the past Township Committee campaign and never heard Mr. Ferramosca, or Mr. Sheridan for that matter say anything about what they would or wouldn't do with respect to any proposed merger of the departments. Can you identify when and where this happened, or is it just more revisonist history?
Regardless, perhaps in a time where the Township and the country in general are experiencing a severe economic downtown, everyone on the Township Committee should get on board and give an attempt at cost savings a try, rather than being concerned that their own private fiefdoms are being affected because they are the best platforms for photo ops and campaigning during an election year.
As to the DPW joining the club, they are getting the job done in part due to overtime. The longer a worker remains at his job, the greater the chance of an injury. This is why many work places do not allow double shifts for physical labor. Gabriel (03/30/10 9:16am) REPLY
Reilly,
If you contact me, I will give you the names of individuals who actually heard Sheridan and Ferramosca before being elected, state they were against combining Rec and DPW. Better yet, why not just come to the next township committee meeting and ask them yourself, in public what they said.
As someone who has supported your fiscal position and the work you do with the recreation department, I feel that I can ask this question without offense. When the 2 candidates ran did have access to the same finance and personal reports that they have today. They were not involved in the day to day operations in the township, nor did they receive the complaining phone calls that you and others receive after being elected? As the five of you determine how to best use our tax dollars, managerial complacency and reluctance to evolve need to be minimized.
For all the times you've gone to bat for our recreation programs, there is little that actually gets done and we know that is frustrating for you and the coaches. You heard that the parents and kids wanted a skatepark and even though eqipment was purchased, the kids have never gotten to use it. Somewhere between conception and inception, the ball is being dropped, it's not on the volunteer/league side or the meagerly paid committee side so we need to look somewhere in the middle for the reason that things stall.
I have recently read in the Hanover Eagle of your recent proposal to merge Recreation Department into the DPW.I was wondering if you could explain why you have made this proposal and what benefits would it provide for the township (financial or otherwise).
Mr. Biegel,
I know the superintendant of the DPW is doing a great job of managing his crews and he can be seen out of his office getting his hands dirty.
We may also assume that the recreation guys are good at what they do but are they doing all the can do in a given day? Are they being tasked correctly and efficiently to allow the sports groups the greatest amount of field time. If you have a child in little league, you know that all the fields are not always in top shape as Mr. Coppolla claimed at the last meeting.
The reason to move them to DPW may be as simple as they need a new boss, one who is recently promoted and doing a good job with his new position. Ms. Iradi and the sports groups have brought forward many ideas that when completed will increase the town's ability to provide for it's children. Somewhere between concept, approval and completion these ideas stall and lose momentum. Take for instance the long awaited and still unseen scoreboards at Veterans Field and the promised speedy improvements at the Alegro school. Between recreation and engineering, we have some pretty well paid supervisors, are we getting our money's worth from those at the top? Why do we presuppose that these 2 crews when merged will immediately work slower and less efficiently? Do we think that Mr. Schliefer (in his reelection year) is going to abandon ballfields in favor of filling pot holes? We have an infinately greater number of pot holes compared to ballfields, so everone involved notices if the fields are neglected.
Gabriel
(03/27/10 9:43pm) REPLY
I love that you praise our DPW superintendant. I also am amused that our DPW staff is "over worked". I have personally seen 4 DPW employees at the home of a fellow DPW employee with 2 town garbage trucks. Loading constuction debris from a remodel at his home. Now only was the employee using my tax dollar to dispose of items that should have been put in a dupmster, but he & his buddies were on company time. I called the office to report this and was told they would look into it.
Only to see the same thing happen 3 weeks later. I called again and was told they would look in to this matter for the second time.
So maybe we need new Superintendants all around.
Hanovergirl
*************************
Sponsor's comment - Next time take a picture and send it to the township administrator or if you prefer send it to me at sponsor@myhanovertownship.com - I will post it.
I would like to know what the dpw does with the large dump trucks when they are not plowing or picking up leaves? What are the workers doing in the spring that they can not put a couple of big dump trucks out to pick up the left over leaves at the curb, like we do in the fall. There won't be as many leaves as in the fall, and should not take up much time. Not all residents can afford to pay someone to do a spring clean up, and we don't all have vehicles that can transport them to the recycle center.
Thanks for expressing interest in the concept plan that Mr. Schleifer and I are formulating in regard to a Unified Department for Public Works, Parks and Recreational Services.
The major reason why this unified services plan is being considered is that the Township faces major budget challenges driven by our declining ratable base and further complicated by the recession. The findings from a supporting analysis of this concept indicate the proposed unification plan will produce significant savings to our residents without any loss in quality of service. The goals of this plan are two-fold:
· Improve Cost Efficiency by reducing cost of services and help address the growing residential tax burden our residents are experiencing.
· Enhance Delivery and Quality of services and importantly reduce the stress and promote safety for our fine workers especially during peak seasonal surge activity periods such as snow removal and field maintenance during Spring time.
Please note there are no plans to eliminate any of the services that are currently provided such as recreational programs or building and grounds management. We believe that the quality of service that is being provided to our residents is excellent and this concept will support continuation of these vital services and programs.
As part of our proposed plan we are considering the establishment of five services divisions based on functional expertise:
1. Building and Grounds management
2. Road service
3. Sanitation collection
4. Parks Maintenance
5. Recreation Management
Please note on March 4 at 7:30 the Township Committee will conduct a special public session to share the learning of the analysis, introduce the re-organization plan, address questions and listen to thoughts and seek ideas from members of our community. Please also note in fairness to the Township’s employees we will discuss structure only and not engage in any discussion related to individual personnel.
The decision to merge the Recreation Department and the Department of Public Works in Hanover Township should and, no doubt, will ultimately, and properly be governed by just two (2) elements; a reliable cost analysis that will reveal whether or not such a move will or can create cost savings too significant to overlook; and efficiency; namely, whether the merger will actually improve the efficiency of the workforce from BOTH departments.
All the other factors that are being offered by and between contributors to this site, such as whether one department supervisor will have the desire or capability to motivate the labor force from the other department are ancillary, and not core, or material considerations when determining whether the merger will furnish the constituents of this Township, as a whole, with the best chance of being cost effective and efficient. These other factors, while real, can and should be addressed after the merger is or is not accomplished.
The decision to merge the two departments is not close to being made yet, nor can it be, unless and until a reliable cost analysis is completed which identifies in precise, and specific terms, (1) the amount of money that can realistically be saved by making such a move, and (2) the reasons that underlie why the savings which are likely to be proposed are realistic, and make sense.
I do not think that Mr. Dunne fully understands what is being proposed here, nor did I at first. The Committee is now at the point where the ordinance is perfected, presented on first reading and now ready for final adoption hearing.
After numerous conversations with Deputy Mayor Schleifer and Committeeman Ferramosca, who, along with department heads, studied and contributed to this strategic reorganization plan, this is my understanding.
First, no cuts in programs and services by Parks and Recreation or DPW.
Second, tax payer savings comes in two parts - Half the cost savings will be realized by not filling budgeted positions for two employees who left - that's two salaries with benefits. The additional, anticipated savings comes from not only refusing to replace these same two employees, but denying the request to add two additional employees for a total of 4 salaries and benefits.
The reasoning by DPW management for this request of hiring 2 additional employees is based upon their assessment of anticipated work load demands. Plainly, we will be 4 men down from what was the complement of employees.
Just as importantly, the plan reflects input from constituencies such as Sports leagues, Recreation commission, Senior Club and Department Heads. The plan maintains the Parks and Recreation department and DPW while consolidating the both labor forces. This ordinance, in reality, formalizes what should have been going on all along - blending public works and recreation labor forces into a common labor pool, directed by only one superintendent. This allows the township to maintain uninterrupted services, and realize direct cost savings from a now reduced labor force.
Recreation and public works has cooperated along these lines for as long as I know, so this ‘blending’ into a labor pool is nothing new, it just streamlines the management of a combined labor force, especially during peak seasonal periods such as Spring grass mowing, Fall Leaf removal and Winter snow plowing.
The issue here is not just the deployment of our work force, or the quality of their work, but the ability to supply the same municipal services with less employees, salaries and benefit costs , while hopefully not overburdening our work force. To my knowledge, no Parks and Recreation programs or services will be compromised as a result.
I can see, now, some of the benefits of this new ordinance. However, how much of the salary of a new superintendent to oversee this new dept. effect the savings of $158,000 per year? This is not explained in the proposed ordinance published in todays Hanover Eagle or any reports on this matter.
In reply to Mr. B, the salary range I believe was spelled out in the ordinance but was not specific in amount. It appeared to be in the last couple of paragraphs and was based on a schedule of catagories such as class a, b, c. I am assuming this relates to time in service, job evaluations, etc. Plan on being at the next weeks Council meeting and we may get a better picture.
Thank you for clearing this up a bit. The only thing that is not clear to me is if based on the current work load and manpower we are able to get things done properly, then we have already reduced the budget. Are we saying that without the reorganization we would have to add back the four people to get things done?
If we have been operating 2-people down at this point, I would think not which, to me at least, means we are only saving money by denying the request to hire two additional people that apparently are not needed.
Which brings up the question of management and why if going forward with four less people is possible, did we budget for additional workers in the first place?
From my outside perspective, it seems that this should have been done a long time ago and in fact, should have been initiated by whoever was supervising each of the departments.
The question then becomes - Why wasn't this done sooner?
At the Township Committee meeting Committeeman Schleifer read your email in support of DPW taking over the Recreation maintenance staff.
The DPW superintendent is taking on two new divisions of workers (Rec and Buildings/Grounds) he will not receive an increase in salary for the added responsibilities. Committeeman Coppola then questioned Schleifer and Ferramosca as to why - if the move is to actually save money, and noting that last year a workers salary was reduced due to his reduced responsibilities - the position that is losing 56% of its responsibilities will not be adjusted, but will remain at $96,000 annual salary.
You should ask the sponsors of the ordinance, what made them change their minds - subsequent to the original version of the ordinance presented to the Township Committee and what was passed on final reading. If you are interested in learning first-hand the reasoning for and against the ordinance, the Township Committee meeting of April 8th, can be viewed, on UTube(link to UTube meeting is on Township website), on Cablevision channel #21 on Saturday's @ 3:00pm, or you can borrow a DVD copy from the Whippanong Libary.
Please watch the meeting and let me know what you think.
I agree with Mr. Coppola that salary should be looked at. Staying at $96K to have someone else take over half your responsibility is fiscally irresponsible. Why was this decided? It could be an actually savings to offset other costs the township has to handle. Now this employee has time on his hands and the same paycheck!
Judy... I do not think we've been snookered. As Tom said, it is a bit clearer. I am in favor of the merger and we ARE saving money. I am humbled that my email was read at the Township Committee Meeting. What that tells me is that the Committee is listening. Warmest regards...
Your comment is not appreciated. Snookered? By whom? The Committee is responsible as a whole and its responsibility is to save money where possible. This is one them. If the DPW is the Departmental umbrella, so be it. Another thing, who cares how the signatures were obtained. Tom Sutcliffe's response was right on point.
ARE WE ALL IN A RED ZONE? DON'T MAKE ME GO THERE!!! How wonderful that we can all agree to disagree. I'm so glad that this forum is used in the way it was intended. We'll see what happens at the Primary.
It is still unclear to me where the savings comes in. The DPW has by attrition saved money by not rehiring replacements so that seems to be a moot point. Additionally having taken the liberty of asking some of the employees of both DPW & Rec. what their take on consolidation meant their responses were in the negative to the proposal.
It seems that the system is not perfect but it works just fine as is. Both departments already share work loads when necessary as evidenced this past winter when Recreation and DPW were both out plowing sidewalks and streets. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. If there is some other agenda that the public is not aware of perhaps some enlightenment would be in order.
Having personally had the opportunity to work on a community project that employed involvement of Building & Grounds, Recreation, DPW, Engineering and the Building Department, all units functioned like a well oiled machine and we see the results in the form of a note worthy monument to our Veterans in front of Town Hall. They work well now, why screw it up.
Mr. Mihalko, you are correct in your summation of the unnecessary need for the proposed merger. What is most disturbing is that at the special meeting on March 4th, the public asked for specifics. They wanted an actual monetary report of how the “would be” savings would be realized. The three members of the Township Committee that support the merger could not, or would not, answer the question(s), other than to say that two people would not be replaced/hired. The ordinance was introduced anyway at the last meeting! Tonight is the final vote, and it will no doubt pass.
The publics’ request for an accurate accounting, so far, has been duly ignored. Perhaps, the specific information will be provided tonight, perhaps not. This is another prime example of government doing what it wants without proper accountability to the residents other than just words with no substantive facts to back-up the savings of tax dollars! We can only hope that the residents will take the time to come to the meeting tonight and speak up (again).
I attended both meetings where public input was permitted with respect to the merger and did speak both times expressing the opinion that a merger is not necessary. What is necessary is better communication inside Town Hall and better oversight by those in charge. I requested a copy of the "study" that was completed but have never seen it. My understanding is that the original study completed by Mr. Giorgio back in 2009 was "updated" at some point to include specifics on where the savings would come from. To this date no committee person has publicly said where the savings is coming from.
Is it in "anticipated savings on overtime"?
Is it in anticipated savings due to not hiring additional staff to replace those who have left?
If those are the cases, why not state it?
And really, given our current financial climate would the town actually hire additional staff when other towns are cutting staff?
If you want to merge these workers, why not take away maintaining the Board of education properties as well and lump it all together?
There can be one "super department" taking care of township grounds. I don't really suggest this) Someone (I believe it may have been Gabriel) asked a question regarding the change of positions of Mr. Ferramosca and Mr. Sheridan with respect to this topic.
Last year, Mr. Ferramosca stood up at the meeting discussing the merger and spoke out against it. In fairness to Mr. Ferramosca, he did say he did not have access to the study and once he became a committeeman he did and that helped change his mind. Well, once again, we the citizens who are represented by the elected officials do not have access to the information they have and so we go on what we know.
What I know is our parks and recreational fields are always well maintained and safe for all of our children. What I know is our public works people do an excellant job in the winter with snow and ice and leaf pickup in fall. They maintain our roads and pick up our sanitation, so where is the disconnect?
Can we have more staff picking up leaves when we only have a certain amount of machinery to work with?
Can we have more staff plowing snow than we already have?
Do we need another person on the garbage trucks?
Frankly, I do not see the need for this merger and do not support it. I believe morale in both departments has already suffered as the effectiveness of both staffs is called into question, even if it is subliminally. I have spoke out against this merger in public (at TC meetings) as well as privately to specific committee persons, but it is obvious a select group wishes this to happen and it does not matter what the public cares for in this. I hope the decision is the correct one and that I am one of those "eating their words" down the road.
