| Author | Message | ||
     John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 465 Registered: 11-2005 |
I also refer to the problems with So. Orange Board of Trustees if we were to merge services with that municipality. So why not consider a study about merging services with Millburn? They don't seem to be too far off the deep end there. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8029 Registered: 5-2001 |
John: It is my understanding from talking with Fred yesterday morning in the village that all municipalities which might be involved in a given consolidation would have to name each other in their November ballot question. Unless Millburn and any other municipality Millburn might be considering consolidating with were to name Maplewood and South Orange (assuming Maplewood and South Orange name each other), a consolidation with Millburn could not be considered at this time though shared services could be considered if all parties agreed. The short time frame (end of this month) in which such questions have to be agreed to by the electorate through the signing of petitions and the unlikelihood that existing petition signatures would remain valid if the wording of the proposed resolution were to change so significantly at this point make such a revision unlikely. | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 467 Registered: 11-2005 |
There's always next year. Also, do we need 2 (or three) town administrators, recreation directors, public works directors and the supplementary benefits costs that go with them? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8033 Registered: 5-2001 |
Depending on the facilities, equipment, extent of services, and public demand the answer may be yes, even with a massive consolidation including several municipalities. First there will be question of what to do with existing staff who might otherwise be considered redundant under a jurisdictional consolidation. The most popular means of dealing with this potential overstaffing is to solve the problem by attrition -- which can take years. Another possibility is to offer severence packages which can also prove expensive, especially short term while an early retirement incentive approach will prove exceptionally expensive for many years to come. Second will be the question of whether existing staff is redundant at all or whether the newly formed municipality will need to hire an additional Chief Administrator to oversee the chiefs for each of the districts (former independent municipalities), an approach which only adds to the cost of government. The real savings, if any will come from procurement, support services for employees and town administration, sharing of equipment and other resources, larger pool for insurance purposes, and the ability to hire a single expert in each area where the towns may have been hiring individual part-time consultants in the past. There will also be projected savings in unified planning and development, thereby eliminating competition and increeasing cohesiveness and cooperation between municipalities in these areas. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1750 Registered: 3-2002 |
When you put it that way, I'm far from ready to start counting my savings, I'm afraid. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2982 Registered: 6-2002 |
Isn't it obvious that Joan should run for the commission? | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 468 Registered: 11-2005 |
I have qualms about eliminating positions, especially if a person has had the position for years and is near ready for retirement. Still in the long run, attrition will help. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8037 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, a strict attrition solution to the possible problem of overstaffing due to consolidation is a poor idea. 1. While the administration waits for sufficient staff to attrit, they are unlikely to be making any new appointments. Depending on the age and stability of the work force (with the possible exception of our Police Department in recent years, Maplewood's work force seems very stable) it could take years for the consolidated work force to reach the projected optimal staffing level and in the interim, no new staff will be hired resulting in no new staff receiving back up training and no new staff gaining experience in their jobs. By the time enough existing staff retire, the town may have to train a largely new and inexperienced staff, which will be costly in dollars and in loss of experience and ancestral memory as to how to best get things done. 2. The existing staff will get used to spreading a lightened work load amongst themselves and could balk at attempts to reduce the number of persons availble to do the work. If a large number of persons attrit at the same time, the impact could be the same as if the consolidated service resorted to straight layoffs at the outset. Therefore, layoffs would be the most effective way to go in cases of overstaffing and this could lead to substantial morale problems for the staff remaining and substantial hardship for those who are let go. I really would not look to reduced staffing as a cost saving measure, even if it were found that a reduced staff could still provide the needed service at the expected level of service. |
