I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
So I received this email:
Randy, you might ask why a copy of that information was distributed at the last Board of Public Works meeting and then collected because MJ "didn't want to let it get out".
It was not a closed session meeting.
That document should be made available to the public.
Someone needs to start asking the appropriate questions when she proposes ANYTHING!
REQUEST AND GET COPY OF WHAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AND YOUR INFORMATION WILL BE VALIDATED
The information they are talking about is from the post I did:
That is where I posted this from email:
Restructuring Plans of DPW
So here’s a little info I figured you could use on Mary Jo Lange regarding her DPW restructuring plans. She is trying to push this through, quick and with minimal friction. She has produced a flow chart showing the leadership structure, and that is where things get interesting (if you are a person paying attention).
She is looking to add another level of management in the DPW, titled “DPW Superintendent,” estimated salary $70k. Now it may be denied, saying this is (soon retiring) Al Hendrickson’s replacement, but this is where there is shuffle going on.
First off this is a higher salary than Al receives; second Al is currently a Foreman. MJL is ALSO looking to promote someone to a “Working Foreman” position (AL’S TRUE replacement) leading teams of employees in their respective fields. Essentially she is placing someone in between Al Hendrickson and herself, someone to bear the DPW responsibly of her job. Now, if you remember correctly, when Craig Faucett and Mike Clark retired (2008) their 2 positions were combined and Mary Jo was hired to do BOTH of their jobs at a much higher salary (~$90k).
So now with her new plan, she wants to hire more management to bear HER responsibilities, yet she retains her pay (based on the combining of the 2 positions)!!
She also refused to hire replacements for 3 DPW workers who have retired in December 2011. She has alluded to contracting out more of the DWP work, traffic painting in the roadways and parking lots, concrete road repair, but refusing to seal crack in roadways. She has said that she will not maintain the roads if we can assess the homeowners along that road for the replacement!
So instead of saving the road with routing/preventative maintenance, she prefers to let it go and charge the taxpayers and businesses for REPLACEMENT! How is that the best interest of the taxpayers?!
She has already contracted out the grass cutting and landscape maintenance of city owned property (summer contract). As of this past winter she has also contracted out snow plowing of the alleys, city owned sidewalks and city owned parking lots (winter contract). Coninsidentally, both contract have been awarded to a start-up company who hasn’t even had the equipment from the beginning. The city has performed the work in the past, and already owns the appropriate equipment!
Now as far as labor, the DPW union employees are without contract and have been subjected to the ACT 10 adjustments, so their labor should be the cheapest ever.
There is also rumor that she is requesting a personal secretary to do much of her computer work (i.e., proposals, graphs, budgeting). So with all of her responsibilities divided up to NEW positions, what makes her worth the salary she is collecting?
All of these changes are being made quick to help preserve the jobs and power for Mary Jo Lange, Carolyn Toms Neary and Mayor Tony Day. This all plays into the scheme of Part-Time Mayor, City Administrator. They are trying to retain the power, shift the responsibilities on others and make it harder to un-do. This is NOT what the City needs.
So I did an Open Records Request since they were right. Anything passed around in Open Session is subject to Open Records Requests:
Custodian of Records - City of Cudahy
February 21, 2012
Mrs. Lange the Custodian of Records (the records owner),
Pursuant to Wisconsin Open records law section 19.31-19.39, I am requesting copies of the following records:
I am hereby request a copy of the Information regarding the Re-organization of the Department of Public Works that you distributed at the last Board of Public Works meeting dated January 23, 2012 and then collected back. This was not a closed session meeting and is subjected to Wisconsin Open records law section 19.31-19.39.
As provided by the Open Records law, I will expect your response as soon as practicable and without delay.
I will assume that if we don’t hear from you by March 2, 2012 that you have denied this request.
If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material.
Please be advised that we are prepared to pursue whatever remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that a violation of the Open Records law could result in the award of court costs, attorney fees, and actual damages of not less than $100.00. I would further note that if a court determines that your non-compliance with the law was arbitrary or capricious, it may award our organization punitive damages and attorney fees as well as fine you up to $1,000 dollars.
And I did get the 3 flowcharts.
I have the originals posted here and also quickly redid it in Visio as due to the coloring and shading that Mrs. Lange used it makes it hard to read.
Originals are first.