Illinois governor cuts $1.4 billion from budget and gives 20% raises to his staff...

[posty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_...governor_raises

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has handed out raises — some of more than 20 percent — to his staff while proclaiming a message of "shared sacrifice" and planning spending cuts of $1.4 billion because the state is awash in debt.

 

The Democrat has given 43 salary increases averaging 11.4 percent to 35 staffers in the past 15 months, according to an Associated Press analysis of records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

They include a $24,000-a-year bump for the man promoted to shepherd the state through the fiscal storm. Budget Director David Vaught got a 20 percent raise to bring his pay to $144,000 in October when he moved to his new position from Quinn's staff, where he was a senior adviser.

 

Quinn said Tuesday the raises did not prevent him from making deep spending cuts in his office.

 

"Overall, the amount of money spent by taxpayers on the governor's office is significantly lower today than it was when I took office," he said at a Chicago news conference planned for him to sign legislation to speed up the processing of evidence in rape cases.

 

Quinn said he'd cut spending in the office by 25 percent since he took over 17 months ago. But staff members said spending was down 10 percent in the budget year that just ended, with plans for another 25 percent reduction this year.

 

Lawmakers, whom Quinn has asked to raise income taxes and borrow billions to meet its obligations for employee pensions reacted with skepticism and anger.

 

"It's insulting," said Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat who voted "no" on Quinn's proposal to borrow $3.7 billion for the pension payment that the House OK'd but Senate has not.

 

"It shows how out of touch he is with the real world, where businesses are freezing salaries and in some cases laying people off," Franks said.

 

Half of the raises are the result of promotion or a change in job title with an added workload, Quinn spokeswoman Marlena Jentz said.

 

But others were reported as "salary adjustments," such as a 10.4 percent bump in January for deputy budget director Gladyse Taylor, to $110,000, and a 7 percent jump in May 2009 to bring associate budget director Malcolm Weems' pay to $92,000.

 

They were based on "re-evaluated work output, additional duties and overall performance," Jentz said.

 

Weems now makes $110,000 after he was promoted in January to deputy director and chief of staff with a 19 percent raise.

 

Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, Quinn's opponent in the fall election, said the raises show Quinn "is incapable of solving our fiscal crisis."

 

"While working families are tightening their belts and doing more with less, Pat Quinn is doling out massive pay raises to his own staff — and we're paying for them," Brady said in a statement.

 

The budget Quinn signed last week for the fiscal year that began July 1 would borrow money and delay bill payments, along with cutting about $1.4 billion in spending. Quinn may have to come up with another $3.7 billion for pensions if legislators continue to deny him permission to borrow the money.

 

Sen. Michael Noland, an Elgin Democrat who opposes the pension borrowing plan despite heavy lobbying, said there might be circumstances where a raise is warranted for someone taking on significant new duties. But he encouraged the governor to follow his own call for shared sacrifice and "hold the line."

 

Employees "might be having to accept a little more responsibility, but generally speaking, the state of Illinois is not in a position to be issuing raises at this point," Noland said.

 

Along with cuts in the governor's office, Jentz said the budget office cut spending by 17 percent last year. Quinn's proposed spending plan had a 10 percent increase in the budget office this year, documents show.

 

"We have fewer people doing more, and that's what the public wants," Quinn said.

 

The other cuts were a 20 percent reduction in travel costs and 12 required unpaid furlough days per person, according to the governor's office. Quinn also claimed he'd reduced staff by 10 positions in the governor's office.

 

The overall payroll for the governor's staff and his budget office was slightly lower in May than last July — $123,000 less, or just under 2 percent, according to state payroll records. But other records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that dozens of employees reporting to the governor's office are paid by other agencies under Quinn's control.

 

And, payroll records show 124 employees in the governor's office and budget office in May, compared to 125 in July 2009 and 122 in February 2009, just after Quinn took office.

[SEC=UGA]

Not typical of me to stand up for a democrat, but in this case it sounds like these people received promotions and their pay was increased when they moved into their new positions, doesn't really sound like they got pay increases for remaining in the same position. If i were promoted from, say, a manager to a VP I would expect to see an increase in my wage.

[dmarc117]

Not typical of me to stand up for a democrat, but in this case it sounds like these people received promotions and their pay was increased when they moved into their new positions, doesn't really sound like they got pay increases for remaining in the same position. If i were promoted from, say, a manager to a VP I would expect to see an increase in my wage.

 

 

in a company that is 13billion in the hole? i wouldnt.

Even with his unprecedented power to shape the budget, Quinn’s cuts will do little to chop down the state's mountain of debt. Illinois still faces a $13 billion shortfall next year.

[Delicious_bass]

Not typical of me to stand up for a democrat, but in this case it sounds like these people received promotions and their pay was increased when they moved into their new positions, doesn't really sound like they got pay increases for remaining in the same position. If i were promoted from, say, a manager to a VP I would expect to see an increase in my wage.

The article says only half the raises were due to promotions, though. What about the other half? Sounds like those were just "bumps" in pay. And it sounds like the folks(promoted or not) that got the biggest increases are precisely the ones in positions affecting the budget(which is in the red) and fiscal policy. Interesting?

 

I am with ya that folks deserve raises with promotions or to reward excellent/additional work. That said, when the budget is in the red (and you're cutting other programs to try to get it under control) is not the time to give out hugh raises to people who seem to be failing at their duties regarding the budget, IMO.

[SEC=UGA]

I am with ya that folks deserve raises with promotions or to reward excellent/additional work. That said, when the budget is in the red (and you're cutting other programs to try to get it under control) is not the time to give out hugh raises to people who seem to be failing at their duties regarding the budget, IMO.

 

Concur.

[Azazello1313]

I am with ya that folks deserve raises with promotions or to reward excellent/additional work. That said, when the budget is in the red (and you're cutting other programs to try to get it under control) is not the time to give out hugh raises to people who seem to be failing at their duties regarding the budget, IMO.

 

well, I don't know if they're "failing". there's only so much the bureaucrats can do (anything truly significant has to come through the legislature), so cutting $1.4B without rewriting any law is nothing to sneeze at. it's kind of a paradox, but sometimes getting through tough times requires a lot of extra hard work and high morale. and yeah, sometimes that means one guy gets a raise while another loses his job. it sucks, but sometimes it's necessary for improvement.

 

the article doesn't give enough info to tell whether this is lame good ol boy croneyism on a sinking ship, or smart executive sense. could be either. but I don't necessarily think it's automatically a bad idea to give people a raise when you are in tough times.

[SEC=UGA]

well, I don't know if they're "failing". there's only so much the bureaucrats can do (anything truly significant has to come through the legislature), so cutting $1.4B without rewriting any law is nothing to sneeze at. it's kind of a paradox, but sometimes getting through tough times requires a lot of extra hard work and high morale. and yeah, sometimes that means one guy gets a raise while another loses his job. it sucks, but sometimes it's necessary for improvement.

 

the article doesn't give enough info to tell whether this is lame good ol boy croneyism on a sinking ship, or smart executive sense. could be either. but I don't necessarily think it's automatically a bad idea to give people a raise when you are in tough times.

 

Prolly is cronyism, but I concur.

 

See, I can be agreeable at times.

[Avernus]

The article says only half the raises were due to promotions, though. What about the other half? Sounds like those were just "bumps" in pay. And it sounds like the folks(promoted or not) that got the biggest increases are precisely the ones in positions affecting the budget(which is in the red) and fiscal policy. Interesting?

 

I am with ya that folks deserve raises with promotions or to reward excellent/additional work. That said, when the budget is in the red (and you're cutting other programs to try to get it under control) is not the time to give out hugh raises to people who seem to be failing at their duties regarding the budget, IMO.

 

+whatever number of gallons of oil that have spilled into the gulf

 

plus, sometimes positions are created in order to give a promotion.....I mean, how many people were fired/demoted in order to give that many promotions?....

 

slimeballs at work right here...

[bpwallace49]

I am with ya that folks deserve raises with promotions or to reward excellent/additional work. That said, when the budget is in the red (and you're cutting other programs to try to get it under control) is not the time to give out hugh raises to people who seem to be failing at their duties regarding the budget, IMO.

 

Totally false. These people administer the budget, they dont write it themselves. They are not to blame for the massive holes in the Illinois system, the politicians are.

[Delicious_bass]

Totally false. These people administer the budget, they dont write it themselves. They are not to blame for the massive holes in the Illinois system, the politicians are.

OK. Perhaps they are not responsible directly but is it fair to say they have a hand in it?

They include a $24,000-a-year bump for the man promoted to shepherd the state through the fiscal storm. Budget Director David Vaught got a 20 percent raise to bring his pay to $144,000 in October when he moved to his new position from Quinn's staff, where he was a senior adviser.

 

But others were reported as "salary adjustments," such as a 10.4 percent bump in January for deputy budget director Gladyse Taylor, to $110,000, and a 7 percent jump in May 2009 to bring associate budget director Malcolm Weems' pay to $92,000.

 

They were based on "re-evaluated work output, additional duties and overall performance," Jentz said.

"man promoted to shepherd the state through the fiscal storm"? Sounds to me like he has some impact on what is going on. And I am not exactly sure what a "Budget Director" or "deputy budget director" or "associate budget director" do per se, but (if they are being rewarded based on "re-evaluated work output, additional duties and overall performance") I would think they are doing more than just administering the budget. Either way, (whether they are able to actually impact the budget or they're just "administering" it) it would seem they are not in line for raises given the actual state of the budget, no?

Edited July 7, 2010 by Delicious_bass

[bpwallace49]

OK. Perhaps they are not responsible directly but is it fair to say they have a hand in it?

 

"man promoted to shepherd the state through the fiscal storm"? Sounds to me like he has some impact on what is going on. And I am not exactly sure what a "Budget Director" or "deputy budget director" or "associate budget director" do per se, but (if they are being rewarded based on "re-evaluated work output, additional duties and overall performance") I would think they are doing more than just administering the budget. Either way, (whether they are able to actually impact the budget or they're just "administering" it) it would seem they are not in line for raises given the actual state of the budget, no?

 

 

I disagree.

 

here is an example. To SAVE money, the state eliminates 4 jobs. Now maybe they were redundant, but regardless, the work/ responsibility of those people still need to be done. Now you add on those responsibilities/workload onto 4 current employees. You bump them up in salary a fraction, but they now have a LOT more work/ oversight to handle.

 

Overall you SAVE money, but you compensate the people that are absorbing the extra work. Plus the Budget director got a PROMOTION, which generally necessitates a salary adjustment.

 

they do impact the budget, but the vast majority is predetermined by state laws and fixed entitlements. (like the broken Illinois pension system) It is like saying they saved 10,000 in pencils, but it is in the entirety of a 6 billion dollar budget shortfall. Their impact is a de minimus effect on the overall budget.

[TimC]

Can we just bundle Illinois with Michigan, Arizona and California and force Mexico to take 'em?

[dmarc117]

Can we just bundle Illinois with Michigan, Arizona and California and force Mexico to take 'em?

 

 

but tim, we are in this together!!!!!!!! USA USA USA

[Big John]

Can we just bundle Illinois with Michigan, Arizona and California and force Mexico to take 'em?

And you have Michigan as part of Canada.

[TimC]

but tim, we are in this together!!!!!!!! USA USA USA

 

Not really...remember we just wanted to leave yous guys.

[Avernus]

Can we just bundle Illinois with Michigan, Arizona and California and force Mexico to take 'em?

 

 

the idea is to trick them....

 

we need to build lots of water parks, put plenty of job openings for a houskeeper or janitor....and give away a free pool with a house...

 

I recently saw an above ground pool that was 4 ft and there was like 6 or 7 of them having the time of their life while playing cha-cha music...they know what they like and can't hide it...

[TimC]

the idea is to trick them....

 

we need to build lots of water parks, put plenty of job openings for a houskeeper or janitor....and give away a free pool with a house...

 

I recently saw an above ground pool that was 4 ft and there was like 6 or 7 of them having the time of their life while playing cha-cha music...they know what they like and can't hide it...

 

dmarc

barackpwallace

cap'n grunge

Ursa

wiegie

Puddy

 

Who was the 7th?

[Avernus]

dmarc

barackpwallace

cap'n grunge

Ursa

wiegie

Puddy

 

Who was the 7th?

 

[Delicious_bass]

I disagree.

 

here is an example. To SAVE money, the state eliminates 4 jobs. Now maybe they were redundant, but regardless, the work/ responsibility of those people still need to be done. Now you add on those responsibilities/workload onto 4 current employees. You bump them up in salary a fraction, but they now have a LOT more work/ oversight to handle.

 

Overall you SAVE money, but you compensate the people that are absorbing the extra work. Plus the Budget director got a PROMOTION, which generally necessitates a salary adjustment.

 

they do impact the budget, but the vast majority is predetermined by state laws and fixed entitlements. (like the broken Illinois pension system) It is like saying they saved 10,000 in pencils, but it is in the entirety of a 6 billion dollar budget shortfall. Their impact is a de minimus effect on the overall budget.

I get that, but what percent does the guy deserve? How many companies that are operating in the red are giving individuals 20% raises on 6-figure salaries? Actually, check that. These days, its probably commonplace. Bad analogy

 

Anyway, I dont disagree with you about the concept of consolidating some positions and giving a little more to those who are picking up the slack. This particular case reeks of cronyism, though.

 

dmarc

barackpwallace

cap'n grunge

Ursa

wiegie

Puddy

 

Who was the 7th?

Sorry, BP, but THAT is funny

 

Well played, TimC

Edited July 7, 2010 by Delicious_bass

[bpwallace49]

I get that, but what percent does the guy deserve? How many companies that are operating in the red are giving individuals 20% raises on 6-figure salaries? Actually, check that. These days, its probably commonplace. Bad analogy

 

Anyway, I dont disagree with you about the concept of consolidating some positions and giving a little more to those who are picking up the slack. This particular case reeks of cronyism, though.

 

What the average wage is for the position??

 

Bass, what do you do for a living? Do you expect to be paid fair market value for your job?

 

And TimC . . well done.

[Delicious_bass]

What the average wage is for the position??

 

Bass, what do you do for a living? Do you expect to be paid fair market value for your job?

 

And TimC . . well done.

Absolutely. But what has happened at a lot of places (including mine) is people have been let go and their workload piled on to those that remain. I am part of a team of 5 that does the work that used to be done by 7. Despite my company continuing to make money, our CEO has decided to freeze salaries pretty much across the board (unless there is a promotion). As you might imagine, getting someone approved for a promotion is like pulling teeth right now. Our company is still very much in cost-saving mode despite the fact that we are very profitable(not as much as the Street wants to see, but still...very profitable).

 

I know this is going on at many companies and there are obviously may others that are struggling just to keep their heads above water. So, yeah, I get the fair market value arguement but I am not sure there are many markets these days where 20% raises are happening at companies that are way in the red. Now, the govt is obviously not a company, but that's kinda the sticky part of this...they have $ coming in from taxes no matter what whereas a business might not have any $ coming in. Just seems to me that these folks had some cronyism going on and were given big raises out of taxpayer money because the taxpayer money was there.

[bpwallace49]

Absolutely. But what has happened at a lot of places (including mine) is people have been let go and their workload piled on to those that remain. I am part of a team of 5 that does the work that used to be done by 7. Despite my company continuing to make money, our CEO has decided to freeze salaries pretty much across the board (unless there is a promotion). As you might imagine, getting someone approved for a promotion is like pulling teeth right now. Our company is still very much in cost-saving mode despite the fact that we are very profitable(not as much as the Street wants to see, but still...very profitable).

 

I know this is going on at many companies and there are obviously may others that are struggling just to keep their heads above water. So, yeah, I get the fair market value arguement but I am not sure there are many markets these days where 20% raises are happening at companies that are way in the red. Now, the govt is obviously not a company, but that's kinda the sticky part of this...they have $ coming in from taxes no matter what whereas a business might not have any $ coming in. Just seems to me that these folks had some cronyism going on and were given big raises out of taxpayer money because the taxpayer money was there.

 

I can understand that . . . but if you were promoted from say, a sales manager to a district manager with a lot more aqccountability and responsibility, you would expect a salary commensurate with your new position, right?

 

That is what happened with your 20% example guy. He got a big promotion and a new job.

 

According to your logic, if a firefighter gets elected chief of the fire department, they shouldnt geta raise right? or a cop that passes the detective exam? or a teacher that gets prmoted to principal? All those people should just suck it up and stay at the same salary for the forseeable future?

 

I am not sure I agree with that on any level . . .

[mrip]

Compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars handed to the banks with no strings attached, whose CEOs make over 100 million, which everyone seems to have forgotten about, this is nothing. People donating to the dog shelter instead of the food bank...

Edited July 8, 2010 by mrip