Mayor and Council Should Work To Reinstate PIO Position
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 10/29/08 @ 12:20 am - Filed Under City Council
I’ve said for some time that the only way to get to the desired 3% goal was to cut city staff. At tonight’s meeting the city council went through and nixed an extraordinary number of line items to cut $2.4 million from the budget, but they only cut one position from the payroll.
That one position was the mayor’s public information officer. I just cannot believe that of all the city positions the council decided this was the one, and only one, that needed to go. The city’s PIO is an interface to the public and helps answer citizen questions among other things. I have personally seen a dramatic increase in the response and accessibility of this administration when compared to the previous one.
Since the budget ordinance is tabled until November 18 the council has a chance to reconsider this cut. Having said that, this process should be a two-way street. The mayor needs to come up with $54k in cuts to offer as a replacement for this position cut. The vote was close and only passed 5-4 so I think if the mayor comes forward with an alternative cut then he could likely flip one of those votes.
A nice gesture would be for the mayor to forgo the salary increase that he’s due to collect thanks to the previous council. The mayor could cut his own salary from $120k back to the level it was a couple of years ago - $104k. As I warned in a previous post, the mayor should’ve engaged the council in serious budget discussions before it was too late. Now he’s lost a member of his own staff and in the end I believe he’s to blame for that.
But maybe it’s not too late after all. The council and the mayor should find a way to reinstate the PIO position. The idea that the PIO is the most inefficient and pointless position in all of city government and thus is the only one that should be downsized strikes me as ridiculous…
Comments
5 Responses to “Mayor and Council Should Work To Reinstate PIO Position”
Leave a Reply
Jeff,
Remember when I said that “it depends on whose ox is getting gored?”
well, you just got it. These cuts will be painful, and for some folks, the things they WANT from government, will not be there with such drastic budget cuts.
Mayor Henry forgoing a pay raise would be a gesture well received as our city deals with necessary budget cuts. As to the PIO position, accessibility to timely and accurate city information has much more to do with an administrations transparency than a particular mode of dissemination. Curiously, where is the “invaluable” input of the High Efficiency Government Network on Ft. Wayne’s budget situation? Perhaps there is another cut to be considered.
As long as the city can comply with information requests, then there is no need for a PIO. The “dramatic increase in the response and accessibility” that you describe may be due to Tom Henry not pushing any new projects this year. Henry has less to hide than Graham Richard did.
Kevin,
I don’t disagree. I think cutting one position is worthless. Furthermore cutting the direct interface to the public is not the best cut.
Obviously, city council disagrees with me…
The PIO cut needs to be revisited. It sends the wrong message.
If there needs to be position cuts now to responsibly ease the pain when dealing with the 2010 budget’s deficit, then why cut this ONE and why only ONE? Surely, observers of local government could readily identify a least a handful of positions to cut that would be seamless, sparing the taxpayer of any visible or noticeable cuts in city services. Is this one, linking the City with the Public, the lowest city service priority? By cutting it, that is the message. Moreover, this position’s incumbent this year has progressed public access of information, provided more timely information more often, and has participated in city-public endeavors, relating to an improved open and transparent local government.
This year, the incumbent upgraded an antiquated media press release and public notice folder system by upgrading and updating instant email notices to all media (big and little). This noticeable change, along with simply doing more notices on all kinds of City matters, has meant more frequent and more timely communications with all media of multiple local publics and the public on local issues, events, services and more. This is one example of a public service that if cut, it would be noticed while many others would not.
Here’s a way to cut without causing a ripple in any of the 3 rivers.
If each City department each identified and cut one position in their department, the public would not miss a beat with city services and the tax-paying public would benefit many times over compared to cutting ONE city information officer.
The message of cutting a position involved in improving open and transparent government at a time when the importance of open communication is increasing does not cut it. If one position must be cut, why this one? And why just one position with well over 1,000 to choose? This sends the wrong message to the public.