- Van Stone Youngphillypolitics.com Blooger’s Message To Dan Idiot by Author Van Stone, (610) 931-8810 vspfoundation@yahoo.com
- Last Chance to Help Move Health Care Reform
- This site has had enough Media courthouse stories, without any real ability to know if they are true.
- The District's South Philly High story unravels
- Meehan tries hard to make lemonade from lemons
- Re-published: Special Investigator Probes Possible MEDIA COURTHOUSE- Jehovah's Witnesses, Abuse Scandal
- no snitchin
- Taxi Workers, Nurses and Jobs: Big day in Philadelphia tomorrow
- So, got any plans for this weekend?
- Representative Chris Carney: Keep standing up for us, not the insurance companies
City Leaders: Take the BRT off the School District payroll
Submitted by HelenGym on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 5:44am.
With the news that the Mayor and City Council are in a fuddle over what to do with the Bureau of Revision of Taxes, here's one place to start:
TAKE THE BRT EMPLOYEES OFF THE SCHOOL PAYROLL
Why is it relevant to the situation before the city?
- According to the District's FY10 budget book (p. 332), the BRT expenses have actually increased this year by 17% and will again next year a nominal amount. Their behavior can't be rewarded.
- The School District houses 80 employees, between a third and 40% of the total number of BRT employees. That's a sizeable figure.
- Because city ethic laws prohibit political hires, many of the most political people on the BRT land on the school payroll - like ward leader Donna Aument, or "clerks" Helyn Cheeks, David Shadding, and Lorenzo McCray all of whom were mentioned by name in Monday's unbelievable "BRT serves as political jobs bank" story. In fact, according to our studies, at least 40% of School District employees, hold political positions as ward or committee leaders.
- Putting them back onto the city payroll clears a $4.5 million burden on the schools - AND helps offset the fact that the city is delivering $10 million less in funds to the schools anyway - AND forces the political hires off the BRT payroll or loses them the plum political assignments that appeared to be the primary qualification for "clerkship."
There's no question something needs to be done about this agency - especially and because of the Mayor's proposed property tax hike and the Actual Value Initiative. But calls from one extreme (abolish the BRT!) to another (let's wait!) shouldn't hide the fact that one move could strike a quick blow to the BRT's system of operation.
Nutter called for the
Nutter called for the resignation of the board today, and to withdraw their salaries... More soon I am sure.
4th estate in action
Anyone who questions the critical role of daily journalism and the media in good governance need only look at today's toppling of the historically corrupt BRT.
Kudos to Councilman Green, the mayor, and all of the writers at the Inky and the DN who threw needed light on a dark corner of city government.
Sam, you just want to "stop all the energy and revitalization"
The current assesments done the way the BRT has historically worked are 100% perfect. You just hate the city, admit it. Leave the BRT alone, you big meanie.
Don't you think the Ritz-Carlton needs help too?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I know, and David Glancey might never had eaten lunch
if the city had simply trusted fair market valuation.
Mayor says District has final decision on BRT
Basically says the District calls the shots on their salaries, which now puts the SRC on the hot seat to act. If you read Chair Robert Archie's bland statement, they're going to need to act with a little more sense of outrage and shock, esp. when a former CEO implicated them as a barrier to removing the BRT contract while one (now former) SRC commissioner had a BRT consulting contract!
A possibly simple quesiton
Why can't the School District sign a contract and compensate both the BRT and the Controller's Office for work done on their behalf? That does not seem to be an insurmountable task. Each agency generate a bill for legitimate services and give it to the SRC. That way virtually everyone working for both agencies is subject to civil service rules. Only top staffers would be exempt, like the Mayor's cabinet.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I'm not sure
I even necessarily buy into the fact that the District is obligated for this. A couple of reasons: Unlike the Controller's office which actually does do school district audits (I can accept that - though we shouldn't be paying for employees salaries), the BRT assesses (or so we thought) property. There isn't special school district property vs. city property. If schools received zero funding from property tax the same number of BRT people would assess the same number of properties. So I see this as a fundamental city responsibility, and yes, the District benefits as stated by law, but that doesn't mean we pay a full share amount.
In addition, I still think Len Rieser at the Notebook poses an interesting question: is the BRT even legally entitled to any District funds?
Oooh oooh a fight.
Nutter asks the BRT board to resign
BRT tells Mix Master Mike to go *%^$ himself.
My prediction - Councilmembers looking to sabotage a Nutter budget deal based property taxes, favoring a ridiculously expensive "borrow agaisnt future sales taxes" at usuary rates urge the BRT to stick to their guns, promising back up but then drop the BRT like a hot potato when they sense the smell is starting to rub off on them. There may be hundreds of responsible alternatives to Nutter's version of property taxes, but betting - er borrowing - on future sales tax revenue that may or may not come is not one of them. Hint - its biggest proponent is a real live Republican.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Clarification to my comments in the Inquirer
While I certainly have never apologized for pulling any punches, I feel I need to publicly apologize for the rude way I came across in this morning's Inquirer.
To clarify: my comments about urgency had more to do with the SRC more clearly stating a sense of outrage and a clearer plan about how to tackle the BRT situation - given that they will be passing a budget that includes 80 BRT employees at $4.5 million for next year. Given the seriousness of the situation and the allegations of SRC involvement, I don't think they should be issuing bland statements like the one Mr. Archie released to the press.
But of course I think the SRC needs to gather information which we expect them to fully lay out next week. And regardless of any of the above, I felt like I came across quite rudely - particularly in my reference to Chairman Robert Archie in the familiar - which was inappropriate and won't happen again.
Rude? I don't think so.
Stick to your guns. I am certain that the current issues brought to the light of day pale to what's still hidden in the dark.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
after reading your comments i don't think you have anything to
apologise for.
Maybe I'm a bit baised
but I didn't read anything rude or inappropriately informal. Maybe impolitic - in the sense that being critical can cause people to turn a deaf ear in the future - but you also gave context for your criticism of Archie. Hopefully, he will be able to understand that contextualization and not take the criticism personally.
I think I was shocked to see that I used
Mr. Archie's name so familiarly in print (which I thought was inappropriate). But I certainly stand by my comments, especially given the fact that I just saw the School Reform Commission's latest statement.