$100k city administrator

[Rossc]

I'm sorry but I just can't understand why the city holding a meet and greet of possibly the most important city official can be seen as a frivolous expense..

My not having an engraved invitation is an abomination but knowing my personal distain of the mayor makes even that understandable...

Bottom line, IMO, the meet and greet was correct..


Ross

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Rossc

I'm sorry but I just can't understand why the city holding a meet and greet of possibly the most important city official can be seen as a frivolous expense..

My not having an engraved invitation is an abomination but knowing my personal distain of the mayor makes even that understandable...

Bottom line, IMO, the meet and greet was correct..


Ross

It is frivolous because the city does not have the money to pay for it. They are depending upon revenue from the citizen's electric bill to pay for the food and beverages that was served at the meet and greet. Why does my grandmother who lives on $600 a month needs to figure out how she will eat and pay for her sky high electric bill. The city administrator makes $90k per year. He can pay for his own party. Don't steal it from an old lady who makes $7,200 a year.

[Bill Rook]

Anyone have a factual account of what the meet & greet cost?

[yowza]

I think these things always look different depending on your perspective. If you barely get by and then get socked with a huge electric bill while reading about money from the electric fund being used to fund various other ventures you're going to feel different about $500 (a pure guess) being spent on snacks for folks who are supposed to be working for you, than you might feel if you are relatively well off and living in a home worth $200K or more. The more well to do is going to see this kind of thing as normal oil to grease the wheels of civil society, the person who doesn't have money for their own cheetos is going to see it as a ridiculous waste and proof that the people in power have no regard for the people they serve.

At the city level, being so close to the people you serve, our leadership would be well advised to consider this little tidbit about appearances.

[Bill Rook]

Originally Posted by yowza

I think these things always look different depending on your perspective. If you barely get by and then get socked with a huge electric bill while reading about money from the electric fund being used to fund various other ventures you're going to feel different about $500 (a pure guess) being spent on snacks for folks who are supposed to be working for you, than you might feel if you are relatively well off and living in a home worth $200K or more. The more well to do is going to see this kind of thing as normal oil to grease the wheels of civil society, the person who doesn't have money for their own cheetos is going to see it as a ridiculous waste and proof that the people in power have no regard for the people they serve.

At the city level, being so close to the people you serve, our leadership would be well advised to consider this little tidbit about appearances.

Something I've harped about for years is "public perception". Citizens see things that irk them on a near daily basis. City employees aimlessly cruising neighborhood streets during inclement weather, sitting and smoking at Boswell Pool while they watch the girls, standing around in worksite "circle jerks" for long periods, 10 employees watching 1 guy dig a hole while a half dozen vehicles idle with the heat or a/c blowing and so on... It's hard to make a case of "we're cutting to the bare bone", when things like these are allowed to continue.

Some would say that an employee that isn't gainfully employed due to inclement weather or lack of work, should be sent home to save money. But, there are many that would jump down their throats, claiming those workers need 40 hours to survive. D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't.

[RIchard Bland]

Originally Posted by Luke

It is frivolous because the city does not have the money to pay for it. They are depending upon revenue from the citizen's electric bill to pay for the food and beverages that was served at the meet and greet. Why does my grandmother who lives on $600 a month needs to figure out how she will eat and pay for her sky high electric bill. The city administrator makes $90k per year. He can pay for his own party. Don't steal it from an old lady who makes $7,200 a year.

I'm a big believer in class warfare, but it's better to wage it on a more fruitful battlefield.

If the cost of the meet-and-greet was $600, then the per-capita cost to Lebanon's citizenry was about five cents each. And if all of it it came off everybody's electric bills, then your grandmother's share was probably even less than that. If you're trying to prevent your grandmother from freezing in the dark over cans of cat food, hopefully you can come up with more substantive ideas than stopping the city from an extravagance that saves her a nickel whenever they hire new city administrators.

[yowza]

Originally Posted by RIchard Bland

I'm a big believer in class warfare, but it's better to wage it on a more fruitful battlefield.

If the cost of the meet-and-greet was $600, then the per-capita cost to Lebanon's citizenry was about five cents each. And if all of it it came off everybody's electric bills, then your grandmother's share was probably even less than that. If you're trying to prevent your grandmother from freezing in the dark over cans of cat food, hopefully you can come up with more substantive ideas than stopping the city from an extravagance that saves her a nickel whenever they hire new city administrators.

I think you miss the point: the city leaders say they have no money, need to get more money, take more money in the form of electric rates that unlike taxes don't have to be voted on, use the overage to do whatever they want, but still have money for something the public was not invited to enjoy.

I agree it's small potatos, but symbolism is symbolism.

[homstdr74]

Originally Posted by RIchard Bland

I'm a big believer in class warfare, but it's better to wage it on a more fruitful battlefield.

If the cost of the meet-and-greet was $600, then the per-capita cost to Lebanon's citizenry was about five cents each. And if all of it it came off everybody's electric bills, then your grandmother's share was probably even less than that. If you're trying to prevent your grandmother from freezing in the dark over cans of cat food, hopefully you can come up with more substantive ideas than stopping the city from an extravagance that saves her a nickel whenever they hire new city administrators.

The common ground is yet valid, 'RIchard'. As Bill Rook pointed out, perception is everything. Maybe people who don't have much don't want to pay a lousy nickel when they don't have to. Somebody eating caviar and drinking champagne when the commoners are lucky to find beans to eat, then yelling: "Let them eat cake" is not a good way to run a government.

[RIchard Bland]

Originally Posted by yowza

I think you miss the point: the city leaders say they have no money, need to get more money, take more money in the form of electric rates that unlike taxes don't have to be voted on, use the overage to do whatever they want, but still have money for something the public was not invited to enjoy.

I agree it's small potatos, but symbolism is symbolism.

Well, two points here:

Somebody really needs to do an analysis of whether the city is still overcharging on electric rates. They may be, but then again, they may not. And virtually no one who has complained so bitterly about the rate increases and accuses the city of overcharging has acknowledged that the city used a lot of accumulated excess from the electric fund in order to subsdize electric rates during most of 2009. I have a feeling it's because they are trying to paint a picture of a rapacious calculating underhanded bunch of thieves, and this particular inconvenient fact indicates that the city is making at least some modest efforts to do the right thing. While they may have screwed the pooch in implementing the rate increases, it seems more likely this would have been due to incompetence or miscalculation as opposed to deliberately shafting the citizenry, given what a high profile the issue has achieved.

I agree completely that symbolism is symbolism. The problem is that people appear to me to be losing the distinction between the symbolic and the substantive. Seriously, Grandma's nickel isn't worth writing about, hardly even as a symbol. (It also makes you wonder about a family that sits by and lets an old lady struggle by on six hundred bucks a month, but has plenty of energy and indignity to complain to the city about a matter that costs her five cents.) A deeper problem is that people are really good at outrage and moral posturing and making symbolic arguments, but (at least to judge from the what appears on the forum) pretty useless when it comes to addressing the substance.

[RIchard Bland]

Originally Posted by homstdr74

The common ground is yet valid, 'RIchard'. As Bill Rook pointed out, perception is everything. Maybe people who don't have much don't want to pay a lousy nickel when they don't have to. Somebody eating caviar and drinking champagne when the commoners are lucky to find beans to eat, then yelling: "Let them eat cake" is not a good way to run a government.

Perception, while important, is only "everything" when you've got a citizenry who are unwilling or unable to deal with actual substance, or who won't trust their representatives to do so on their behalf. And if it gets to that point, you're screwed anyway.

I agree entirely with your last sentence. But punch and cookies isn't caviar and champagne. And in what way has anybody hollered "Let the eat cake?"

(Interesting historical tidbit I read recently: the infamous phrase attributed--probably falsely--to Marie Antoinette would actually translate as "Let them eat brioche.")