Sunday, October 11, 2015

Layoff Plan on Tuesday's Agenda

If you want to speak on the layoff plan in the public comment portion on resolutions and ordinances, it is R 384-15, authorizing submission of a layoff plan to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission. The meeting is 8 p.m. Tuesday in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.

Tuesday's City Council agenda includes submission of a layoff plan for four employees in the Planning Division, which the administration proposes to replace by outsourcing. A letter to the director of the commission from Plainfield Personnel Director Karen Dabney is in the packet and includes the following information:

- The reason for the layoffs is for "efficiency and economy."

- Four employees are affected. They are Planning Director William Nierstedt, Principal Planner Scott Bauman, Senior Planner April Stefel and Assistant Zoning Officer Ronald Johnson.

- The current salary and fringe cost for planning and zoning is stated as "approximately $408,027.31" with an additional $75,000 for outside planning consultants. Based on bid results, annual savings would range from $220,877 to $376,107.31. Outsourcing will result in"increasing operational efficiencies and achieving significant savings in wage and benefits and in the areas of professional (specialized planning) services contracts."

-There are no "appropriate vacancies" in the Department of Public Works and Urban Development.

- Affected unions are the Plainfield Municipal Managers Association and the Plainfield Municipal Employess' Association. They were asked to submit alternatives by August 31, but none were recommended.

- Any "bumping rights" will be determined by the state Civil Service Commission.

If the council approves submission of the plan to the commission, it will take place Wednesday. The Civil Service Commission has 30 days to review/approve the plan. If approved, layoff notices will be issued on Nov. 16 and the effective layoff date will be Dec. 31.

--Bernice

9 comments:

  1. Watching this travesty unfold is not unlike watching a mob beat someone and be helpless to intervene. That the dissolution of Planning should even be a topic of consideration is somewhat incomprehensible. These 4 people stand on the wall protecting this town from irrational, unbridled eventually destructive development. Those who cry out for the demise of the Department are those who desire to open the flood gates to irrational development. Development of such character as will devolve the City into a Newarkesque community. And with what is the Department to be replaced with? At what cost? There are no BIDS! What has been received are PROPOSALS.. Outlines of services with certain rates for each category of service.. None of the Consultants submissions define, or place a limitation on the total annual cost. If the Council approves the motion we will be in no-man's-land. Faced with the prospect of reduced service, inconvenience to access, the probability of political influence in the decision processes, and no recourse when the reality sets in. Before the Council can vote, correction: before the Council SHOULD vote, on this matter, they should, in addition to other considerations, have a Lump Sum guaranteed not to exceed bid from a competent Consultant. It won't happen. Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to mention that the 'savings' assume absolutely zero cost for add-on hourly billing and there's no one in the administration with the knowledge, capability, integrity, or credibility to provide oversight of a consultant. The Mapp administration has demonstrated that the City is ripe for the picking, and the vultures are hovering nearby.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, it is a travesty. Everyone who agrees that outsourcing Planning would be disastrous and cost us more, not less, please contact Mayor Mapp and ask him to drop thIs whole plan. Email him today, phone him tomorrow, or do both.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know, you put a ceiling on hours, you specify deliverables, and you agree on a rate. How can this be more expensive than having employees who get benefits, pensions based on their salary, covering for employees when they take vacation or sick leave? I don't understand how people are calculating the consulting costs and get that it costs more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Read Nierstadt's remarks describing what Planning Div does, read the proposals that have been received, compare them and do the math . This info is all over the blogs. The math could be done by a middle-schooler. That outsourcing will cost more for inferior service is plain as day.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Answers: 1.The hourly rate for the consulting services includes the employees pensions, sick leave pay, vacations, employer side contributions and corporate profit. That is why the rate quoted for a principal in a consulting firm is in the order of $150/hr and the hourly rate, including benefits, for the present team averages $75/hr as cited by Mr. Neirstedt..
    2. The existing group is experienced. It is unreasonable to anticipate that the same work can be accomplished as rapidly by an outsider who has no knowledge of local codes, customs or motives.
    3. It is unlikely that any consultant will keep the same personnel over the length of their careers assigned exclusively to Plainfield. Intermittent personnel changes build a further inefficiency into the program.
    4. There is a component called loyalty. The existing employees are career people. Their future is governed by the quality of their work. Their lives are dedicated to the City and their efforts are governed by that fact. The Consultant's personnel deal with an ever changing variety of assignments. This arrangement can not compete with the dedication, or singular expertise, of a career employee.
    5. No one has made a presentation showing how by engaging an outside consultant a saving of $200,000 can be achieved. No one has shown how by engaging an outside Consultant 2 cents can be saved. Does anyone really believe that the potential saving is $200,000. The very fact that this preposterous amount is being represented as the saving undermines any credibility .You understandably don't know how people are calculating consulting costs for the simple reason no one has.
    6. The Consultant works for the City. The Consultant will want to continue to be retained by the City. This puts the Consultant in the unenviable position of being influenced by political pressure. Frankly, this is what I think this is all about. Mr. Neirstedt is an honorable man. He follows the law. That is the problem. Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Number 6 has been my greatest concern since this proposal went public. This is a clear power grab by the administration.If the outsourcing is complete, the administration will not only get to nominate the members of the various boards and commissions but will now have the power to hire and fire the firm charged with the responsibilities of the Planning Division (who will go out of their way to appease the administration (their boss) and ensure their continued employment).

      In the current form, the planning division employees are city employees. There is a level of autonomy and independence from the administration. They can not be easily removed or replaced. Unless the administration decides to remove the whole thing and who would of thought that would ever be a viable option....whoops.

      There is a reason checks and balances are so important to a functioning government. Will the city allow the administration to outsource every division who does not go along with their agenda?

      Richard Stewart

      Delete
    2. The hourly rate is negotiable, and new thought isn't a bad thing.

      We will continue to pay for the employees through pensions. Still don't see how the numbers add up.

      Delete
  7. Now Personnel Director Karen Dabney holds on to her job by repeating the false, deceptive, and incomplete claim: "Based on bid results, annual savings would range from $220,877 to $376,107.31." That is not accurate. Missing in her calculation of "savings" are at least four items:
    1. the loss of escrow fees in excess of $50,000 per year;
    2. the costs of a brownfields coordinator and a grant proposal writer ("appropriate vacancies" Dabney ignored);
    3. costs of internal oversight of contract;
    4. hourly fees for consultant services in excess of proposed work hours- including the billable hours by additional outside consultants which in itself totaled $75,000 last year.

    Does Planning or the public have the right bring these fraudulent omissions to the attention of the NJ Civil Svc. Comm.? The truth is not coming from Mapp.

    ReplyDelete