Jump to content



Photo

High dollar temp employees and a personal agenda?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:28 AM

$10,000 donation for legal fees, can we say personal agenda Mr. Fetter?

$50 and hour ($100 if they work same time) for old guard, does Montgomery make this an hour?

http://newsandtribun...-to-fight-tolls

On the count of three everybody, BUSINESS AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Mr. Gray, 20 November 2012 - 10:32 AM.


#2 TomD

TomD

    Councilman

  • Moderators
  • 627 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:04 PM

Yup, it looks like they hired two men at a combined rate of $100 an hour to replace one woman that earns about $20 an hour. I wonder what it is that makes the men worth 5 times as much?

Consider this. Either or both of these men had the opportunity to take on the project pro bono...but didn't.

#3 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:27 PM

Welcome back TomD! And a promotion too! :santa:

#4 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 610 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:56 PM

$10,000 donation for legal fees, can we say personal agenda Mr. Fetter?

$50 and hour ($100 if they work same time) for old guard, does Montgomery make this an hour?

http://newsandtribun...-to-fight-tolls

On the count of three everybody, BUSINESS AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At least I "get" the donation to help fight the tolls. Mr. Fetter should have probably had someone else make the motion...but, still, I get why its done.

However, as to the return of Mr. Isgrigg and Mr. Gwyn to Clarksville politics...what the F is wrong with these people who agreed to it? What was the breakdown of the vote? Can we just have these two go back into political retirement?!? It is the likes of these that I thought we were trying to move away from...

And, it takes two of them, at $50 per hour each, to do the work Brittany Montgomery was doing by herself for probably far less. ($50 per hour extrapolates to $104,000 per year). Seems to me Ms. Montgomery should renegotiate her salary upon her return. For us taxpayers, we get the return of two of the characters that were "leading" when the Board of Accounts hammered Clarksville for ineptitude in two audits. Surely, in this town of thousands, there were two other people that could have handled this...

#5 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:22 PM

Guess Izzy needed some extra cash for Christmas. Ho Ho.

Wonder if Izzy applied for one of the "undercover" sting positions at Theater X? Ho Ho Ho

#6 Paul Fetter

Paul Fetter

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:30 PM

To concerned Chatter commenters:

The hourly rate is not the only expense of a town employee. There is federal matching, workman’s comp, longevity pay, retirement, and insurance. The inclusive rate would be closer to $30 an hour.
Mrs. Montgomery has been working on two very important projects, the re-municipilization of the wastewater department and overseeing the construction of the new $18 million wastewater treatment plant. This project is under a strict time line with IDEM and requires co-ordination with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Consultants hired to fill in for Mrs. Montgomery would need to be familiar with the wastewater treatment plant, its re-municipilization, dealing with IDEM, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, be able to deal with and oversee construction of the treatment plant, and be on call and available. This information puts Mr. Isgrigg on a short list. Mr. Gwyn has the legal expertise to help in both cases as needed and is capable in meeting with all parties. Both are capable of dealing with the flexible time needed to do this consultation. Mr. Isgrigg and Mr. Gwyn will be working as consultants based on hours worked, and will not be on a schedule, but be on call and have to meet or work at different locations.


Most temporary employees make less than $20 an hour, these are not temporary employees, they are paid consultants. I cannot say as I have seen any cheaper consulting rates than these, let alone an attorney and someone with the specialized knowledge required here. (Most attorneys bill 4 to 10 times as much per hour). You cannot have expected them to do this for free.

As far as funding legal action, it may have seemed better if someone else had made the motion, but it was my place to do so. I have more knowledge than the rest of the members in regards to the bridges project. Personal agenda? Tolling I-65 does negatively impact where I work, as it does ALL of Clarksville’s retail businesses, hotels, citizens, and the future fiscal ability of the Town of Clarksville to properly administer itself.

I will say again our meetings are public; you are encouraged to attend and speak if you have an idea or concern. Our cell phone numbers and emails are also on the Towns website if you wish to contact any of our council individually.

#7 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:54 PM

Mr. Fetter,

Thanks for your informative opinion, No matter how you spin it these decisions make you and the council look bad. How many "consultants" were interviewed? Are the two of them are going to get full employee benefits? And if the inclusive pay is more like $30 per hour how do you and the rest of the group justify $50 per hour?
As far as the legal fee issue why actually was it "your place to do so"? After spear heading a private group to fight the tolls now you have convinced the counsel to donate $10,000 towards it. How do you really think that looks in the eyes of the concerned taxpayers?
This is just another example of good ole boy politics in my opinion.

Edited by Mr. Gray, 21 November 2012 - 07:01 PM.


#8 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:32 AM

And now $10,000 from the Tourism Bureau which another Councilman is heavily involved. Sorry guys this just smells of abuse of power, a conflict of interest, and old fashioned crooked politics.

Edited by Mr. Gray, 22 November 2012 - 11:47 AM.


#9 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 610 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

The hourly rate is not the only expense of a town employee. There is federal matching, workman’s comp, longevity pay, retirement, and insurance. The inclusive rate would be closer to $30 an

Consultants hired to fill in for Mrs. Montgomery would need to be familiar with the wastewater treatment plant, its re-municipilization, dealing with IDEM, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, be able to deal with and oversee construction of the treatment plant, and be on call and available. This information puts Mr. Isgrigg on a short list. Mr. Gwyn has the legal expertise to help in both cases as needed and is capable in meeting with all parties. Both are capable of dealing with the flexible time needed to do this consultation. Mr. Isgrigg and Mr. Gwyn will be working as consultants based on hours worked, and will not be on a schedule, but be on call and have to meet or work at different locations.

Most temporary employees make less than $20 an hour, these are not temporary employees, they are paid consultants. I cannot say as I have seen any cheaper consulting rates than these, let alone an attorney and someone with the specialized knowledge required here. (Most attorneys bill 4 to 10 times as much per hour). You cannot have expected them to do this for free.


Paul,

Like I said, I get the $10,000 request and I'm OK with it. It was also good to see the tourism bureau kick in and that Jeff will be talking over it at their next meeting.

As for Isgrigg and Gwin, Mr. Gray's right, no matter how you slice this it still looks bad. I can't imagine either of them have "specialized" experience dealing with the "re-municipalization" of the sewer plant and its associated costs. Yes, I know where they come from, but I don't see this going smoothly.

Regardless, thanks for chiming in and letting us know what's going on.

#10 Paul Fetter

Paul Fetter

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

And now $10,000 from the Tourism Bureau which another Councilman is heavily involved. Sorry guys this just smells of abuse of power, a conflict of interest, and old fashioned crooked politics.


Mr. Gray,
"Crooked politics, abuse of power". This money is not for us, or our families, it is for defending the financial interests of our towns retail businesses, citizens, and our community. A $7 billion negative economic impact will be created over 30 years by tolling I-65 that will affect its corridor. That is over $230 million annually. Clarksville borders I-65 for 7 miles and will be most adversely affected. It shameful that our Senators, State Reps, Congressmen, and Governor have done little or nothing to look out for our interests. "Build it, what ever it takes" is the motto of the project team. Yes I am co-founder of Organization for a Better Southern Indiana, Inc., an organization that has worked tirelessly on keeping I-65 "toll free". I did so because; at the time none of our local leadership knew the particulars of the project or what to do. We privately raised and spent $70,000 in public awareness and lobbying efforts. So, yes we have spent money on this and yes we will also pay into the legal fund. Nearly every local governing body has adopted resolutions opposing tolling I-65; hopefully more of those will pitch in to defend their positions and citizens. The second Downtown Bridge and the tolling of both to fund is a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet did a traffic study in 2008, that shows building an East End Bridge and re-configuring the Kennedy Interchange, mitigates as much traffic as adding the new Downtown Bridge, East End Bridge and Kennedy Interchange. Waste a billion dollars on useless infrastructure? That becomes billions in tolls? (The majority of which comes from Southern Indiana taxpayers). Did I influence the town’s decision to participate in this? I would hope so; it was part of what I ran on in the election. If you would like to know more about the project or its negative economic impact, please call.
  • kelley likes this

#11 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

Mr. Fetter,

Once again thanks for your reply. Not allot of politicians would take the time to. No real need for a call, we have both stated on here how we feel about the issues. Let's just agree to disagree.

#12 TomD

TomD

    Councilman

  • Moderators
  • 627 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

Most temporary employees make less than $20 an hour, these are not temporary employees, they are paid consultants. I cannot say as I have seen any cheaper consulting rates than these, let alone an attorney and someone with the specialized knowledge required here. (Most attorneys bill 4 to 10 times as much per hour). You cannot have expected them to do this for free.[emphasis added]


Perhaps you are correct...perhaps not.

Every day all over this country, truly selfless people donate a little bit of their time, talents, and knowledge as a "thank you" to the organization that generously enriched them over the years.

But sometimes it's about the money.
  • kelley likes this

#13 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,883 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:13 PM

Mr. Gray,
"Crooked politics, abuse of power". This money is not for us, or our families, it is for defending the financial interests of our towns retail businesses, citizens, and our community. A $7 billion negative economic impact will be created over 30 years by tolling I-65 that will affect its corridor. That is over $230 million annually. Clarksville borders I-65 for 7 miles and will be most adversely affected. It shameful that our Senators, State Reps, Congressmen, and Governor have done little or nothing to look out for our interests. "Build it, what ever it takes" is the motto of the project team. Yes I am co-founder of Organization for a Better Southern Indiana, Inc., an organization that has worked tirelessly on keeping I-65 "toll free". I did so because; at the time none of our local leadership knew the particulars of the project or what to do. We privately raised and spent $70,000 in public awareness and lobbying efforts. So, yes we have spent money on this and yes we will also pay into the legal fund. Nearly every local governing body has adopted resolutions opposing tolling I-65; hopefully more of those will pitch in to defend their positions and citizens. The second Downtown Bridge and the tolling of both to fund is a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet did a traffic study in 2008, that shows building an East End Bridge and re-configuring the Kennedy Interchange, mitigates as much traffic as adding the new Downtown Bridge, East End Bridge and Kennedy Interchange. Waste a billion dollars on useless infrastructure? That becomes billions in tolls? (The majority of which comes from Southern Indiana taxpayers). Did I influence the town’s decision to participate in this? I would hope so; it was part of what I ran on in the election. If you would like to know more about the project or its negative economic impact, please call.


Thank you for your thorough explanations. Few public officials are willing to be so forthright in any medium, and very few are brave enough to participate here.

More importantly, thank you for your work over the last several years opposing bridge tolls. I was aware enough of your campaign last year to agree people that voted for you knew bridge tolls was your issue. Particularly as a councilman now, your first priority has to be how the project impacts Clarksville. However, Jeffersonville and the whole of Clark County will be impacted as well, and I, for one, greatly appreciate your work on behalf of our entire region. I hope Jeffersonville's new leaders have enough sense to follow the lead of Clarksville and the Tourism Bureau and support local residents and taxpayers.

#14 The Insider

The Insider

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:17 PM

Can anyone tell me will Clarksville benefit from the bridge toll financially or will all that money go to Kentucky? And as far as the gentlemen who are being paid for the sewer project, well I see it didn't take you all long to figure out that nothing would change except the buddy system!!!!!!!!!! I bet what you don't know is that these employees (temporary) would have been involved with the town before, oh wait nothing has changed except where we spend the money of course, will pay to stop bridge tolls, increase sewer bills, but no raises for employees, I simply don't understand what 10,000 dollars will do to stop it except cost us more money..... I do however agree that it would impact all of us financially as Individuals, but I find it highly ironic that a councilman who is completely against it has a personal problem with it for his business. oh wait no I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!! But if Clarksville would not impact at all than I totally agree with it. I cross the bridge everyday and I paid tolls in other states when I was on vacation. So what is the big deal I'm sure it won't stop people from traveling State to State!!!!! In conclusion if we as a county and town could benefit from the money raised on tolling the bridge then i'm all for it, but if we can't then I would be against it, maybe someone can clarify other than what the paper says

#15 Beerguy

Beerguy

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:58 PM

Can anyone tell me will Clarksville benefit from the bridge toll financially or will all that money go to Kentucky? And as far as the gentlemen who are being paid for the sewer project, well I see it didn't take you all long to figure out that nothing would change except the buddy system!!!!!!!!!! I bet what you don't know is that these employees (temporary) would have been involved with the town before, oh wait nothing has changed except where we spend the money of course, will pay to stop bridge tolls, increase sewer bills, but no raises for employees, I simply don't understand what 10,000 dollars will do to stop it except cost us more money..... I do however agree that it would impact all of us financially as Individuals, but I find it highly ironic that a councilman who is completely against it has a personal problem with it for his business. oh wait no I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!! But if Clarksville would not impact at all than I totally agree with it. I cross the bridge everyday and I paid tolls in other states when I was on vacation. So what is the big deal I'm sure it won't stop people from traveling State to State!!!!! In conclusion if we as a county and town could benefit from the money raised on tolling the bridge then i'm all for it, but if we can't then I would be against it, maybe someone can clarify other than what the paper says


Toll money will not go back to the communities at all. It will go back to pay for financing the construction of the bridges. In no way will it be a financial benefit for us.
  • kelley likes this

#16 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,883 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:10 AM

The only entities for whom bridge tolls will be a benefit are those who will collect the tolls.
  • Clint Stinnett likes this

#17 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:05 AM

Its not a toll, its a BRIDGE TAX
  • Clint Stinnett likes this

#18 Debbie

Debbie

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,346 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:42 PM

Mr. Gray, I agree with your comments in this thread in regards to the legal fees issue. No matter how much Mr. Fetter or others on the council want to claim this expenditure of taxpayer money is for "defending the interests of the citizens and businesses of Clarksville", I don't think that's a true statement. Whether we like it or not, building a downtown bridge and including tolls will indeed benefit some people (those in the construction industry for example) and certainly some of those people are residents of Clarksville. Which means that the council just forced those residents to help pay for something that I seriously doubt they would have wanted to spend money on considering it is not in their best interest.

I'm not saying the current bridge situation is right, I'm saying that it's incorrect to make the claim that the expenditure is somehow proper because it's for everyone's benefit since there are also people who will benefit if the current bridge situation moves forward.

In addition we really don't know how it will all shake out, no matter how many studies are done (Whether they are done by government entities like the Indiana Finance Authority, or other groups).

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT supporting tolls on I65 nor the building of the downtown bridge. I don't think the government should even be involved in building roads or bridges in the first place. This entire fiasco is only added evidence for the reasons why I hold that view.

I'm just questioning whether Mr. Fetter's actions are indeed justified by the claim that the expenditure is for defending the interests of the citizens of Clarksville, when we know that the individual citizens of Clarksville have varying interests in regards to the bridge situation. (One statement that I have yet to find an exception for is that no government action ever benefits the entire collective that a politician says it benefits.)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users