David Molgaard, City Manager Extraordinaire (or so he says....).
Well, Charleston City Manager David Molgaard has been on the job approximately 3 years, and now is asking for a raise. Evidently, he's SO good (coughbullcrapcough), that other cities around the country are now clamoring to give him a huge raise if he would only come and be their city manager. In last Friday's Daily Mail, there was an article about this, but aside from that, it seems to have slipped under the radar.
Yes, we have another instance of a top government official trotting out the "but in OTHER states (cities in this case) they pay someone like me X dollars." Of course, that logic never seems to apply when the government workers are the actual workers, like cops, or firemen, or office workers, or whatever. Nooooooooooo, you can't use that logic to justify higher salaries for those types of workers. But when a top-level suckass wants a raise in WV, they immediately drag this argument out without any hesitation. And even more disgusting is, Danny Worker Tax Jones' response. He's all FOR paying Molgaard more money. According to Jones, "Losing Molgaard is not an option," and that Molgaard manages Charleston, "into surplus after surplus each year."
Are you kidding me? Danny Jones thinks the surplus is Molgaard's doing? What about the freaking worker tax that was basically a 2 million per year windfall the last two years? What exactly did Molgaard have to do with that aside from lugging bags of money into city hall from the user fee account? Last I checked, the City Manager didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Danny says, "Hey Dave, guess what? I just soaked the poor working schmucks in Charleston for 2 million per year, have fun spending it." And the surplus is HIS doing? Hell, give me half that additional revenue, and I'd have Charleston in a surplus too. And if we've got all these surpluses, that are evidently Molgaard's doing, then I don't see where there is a burning need to raise revenue, in the form of the worker tax. Dannyboy can't have it both ways. He can't trumpet the great job Molgaard is doing by leaving surpluses, and then cry poverty to get the worker tax, and the hotel motel increase (and remember, the hotel tax indirectly caused the cell phone fee to double too). Either the city's got extra money, or it doesn't.
Molgaard makes about $79,000 per year, but other "comparable" cities pay their managers sometimes twice that much. Danny Jones' chief leg-humper, Rod Blackstone, was quick with the facts and figures to support giving Molgaard a raise:
Wilson, N.C., which has a population of 45,921, has posted its city manager's position at up to $130,000 to start. Durham, N.C. advertised last year that they would pay its manager up to $145,000. The city of Frankfort, Ky., with its population of 27,741 -- a little more than half of Charleston's -- in a city manager posting listed the salary as $100,000, Blackstone found. In all, 40 southern cities smaller than Charleston all pay their city managers more. The median salary for city managers in the south for cities the size of Charleston is $143,365. The city of Hurricane hired Ben Newhouse as its manager on a $58,000 salary, which works out to be $10 per resident. Molgaard's salary equals about $1.49 per resident, Blackstone found.
Of course, when you have basically an unlimited cash reservoir such as the worker tax, also known as taxation without representation, I guess squeezing an extra 15 or 20 thousand dollars out of the budget for Molgaard, won't be such a problem. But if some actual city worker asked for a raise? "Noooo, we don't have any money," would be Jones' answer.
And in keeping with something I mentioned in the Rick Staton entry the other day, this crap about politicians are sacrificing for the public good, has GOT to stop. The Daily Mail article implies that Molgaard left his 15 year law practice to become city manager, and its salary of $79,000 . And as far as I can tell, Molgaard didn't have ANY experience as a city manager before he was hired 3 years ago. I bet there are few (if any) city managers around the country that would be hired in to manage a city the size of Charleston, without any previous experience. And now he wants more money? Well boo freaking hoo. Nobody was putting a gun to his head. He knew what the salary was when he took that job. Besides, everyone is always talking about what out of control government benefits employees get? Well, Molgaard gets those too. Figure them in on top of his salary, and I bet Molgaard makes well over $90,000 per year, if not over $100,000.
That's the same line of crap the politicians use when any of the lower tier government workers use the "but employee x in state y makes more than me....." Molgaard knew the salary when he signed on. If he's got a better offer (and, again, the only one claiming that at this point, is Molgaard himself - how convenient for Molgaard), he should take it, and not try some phantom extortion scheme on the taxpayers for more money. If he can't hack it on $79,000 per year in WV, he probably shouldn't be Charleston's city manager anyway. I say good riddance. There's Greyhounds leaving for North Carolina every day. Be on the next one, Dave.
posted by bingmanch at 12:08 AM
12 Comments:
So do you think he's doing a good job or not?
Heh. What do you think?
Definately agree with you on Molgaard. If he can make more somewhere else and has no loyalty to Charleston then good riddence. You are doing an excellent job with your blogs. I'm always saying
" I wish I'd said that". Keep em coming.
#1 - Being an attorney of 15 years would probably lend someone to profieciency in a variety of job functions. I would not think that Molgaard's lack of experience in city management, specifically, would preclude him from candidacy.
#2 - I would imagine, with the complexity of issues within the City, that his being a lawyer would save the City a great deal in legal fees. Well above $15,000-20,000 per year. So, in that respect, he would be deserving of a raise of that size. If the City Manager were, say, YOU... you might not be entitled to that kind of treatment b/c in your writing alone one can tell that you, have little to no professional skills that would merit a sizable pay increase.
#3 - You make PLENTY of assumptions about the the pay rates of other city managers. I see in your most recent article that you did some checking on acting director/commissioner salaries... but I see none in this case. The salaries of all public employees are public record. Check them and get back to me.
#4 - Police, Fire, and EMS people are vital and work very hard, do not get me wrong here. But, what do they do to increase Charleston's financial bottom line? Who do they control? How do they manage people and resources? The answer is... they don't.
#5 - The City User fee is largely disagreable.... the public hates it. I, personally, have no idea why. In a recent article in Men's Health magazine, this City was the worst of the 100 cities studied in relation to men's health. The measures they used were, tobacco use, excerise, weight, muscularity, etc. My question to you is this: Why is it that people will spend $4 a day of cigarettes, $10 a day on McDonalds, and spend $50 a weekend drinking and partying, but complain PROFUSELY when $1 a week is taken from their check so that the local government can have more police and better roads? Listen up people, its $52 dollars a year! What does that extra dollar a week buy you that you can't get now? Just smoke 13 fewer packs of cigarettes, don't super size that meal, or God forbid, drink less! On another note, it is unfortunate that City residents have to pay it, but what about all those people from outside the City that work here.... why should they enjoy better pavement on safer streets FOR FREE?
#6 - As for the previous comment, Molgaard just might have some loyalty to the City. If he did not, why would he stick with a comparatively low salary.
#1 - Being an attorney of 15 years would probably lend someone to profieciency in a variety of job functions. I would not think that Molgaard's lack of experience in city management, specifically, would preclude him from candidacy.
You would think that, but then again, who the hell are you? You said in the other post, you aren't a lawyer or a politician, and are a "beginner" when it comes to government. So what the hell do you know about being a city manager? Sure, his experience doesn't preclude him from being a candidate. I never said it did. But it also sure as hell doesn't require he get a 60% raise either (or the 19% raise he ended up actually getting).
#2 - I would imagine, with the complexity of issues within the City, that his being a lawyer would save the City a great deal in legal fees. Well above $15,000-20,000 per year. So, in that respect, he would be deserving of a raise of that size. If the City Manager were, say, YOU... you might not be entitled to that kind of treatment b/c in your writing alone one can tell that you, have little to no professional skills that would merit a sizable pay increase.
Newsflash, dumbshit. The city already HAS a city attorney AND an assistant city attorney AND a paralegal. Paul Ellis, and Dave Potters. What can Molgaard do, that two others can't? Two other attorneys, whose SOLE JOB is to look out for the city's interests? And I hate to break it to you, but any qualified city manager, lawyer or not, knows what is and isn't legal with regards to running a city. The amount of money Molgaard saves by his virture of being a lawyer, is negligible, at best, and non-existent at worst.
And if he can save all this money, why is Charleston paying TWO attorneys and a paralegal to do the stuff Molgaard can?
#3 - You make PLENTY of assumptions about the the pay rates of other city managers. I see in your most recent article that you did some checking on acting director/commissioner salaries... but I see none in this case. The salaries of all public employees are public record. Check them and get back to me.
The point isn't what "others" make, when that argument is dismissed summarily as irrelevant because "we don't have the money" when that argument is made for other government workers. Yet, some suckass like Molgaard (who, only got that job because he's Danny's buddy) trots out that argument, and everybody acts like if he leaves, Charleston will slide into the Kanawaha River.
But even if you DO use that argument (like Molgaard wants, and Danny Jones and his leg humper Blackstone seem to want to accept), compare COMPARABLE cities. Not Frankfort KY, and some place in NC, cities where the growth is off the charts, and they have some semblance of legitimate industry/tax base.
And the "10 bucks per citizen" thing and Hurricane's city manager? Don't insult my intelligence with such stuipd shit statistics. Hell, by that theory, the city manager of NYC would make like 100 million dollars per year.
#4 - Police, Fire, and EMS people are vital and work very hard, do not get me wrong here. But, what do they do to increase Charleston's financial bottom line? Who do they control? How do they manage people and resources? The answer is... they don't.
Dumbshit, how do you think people decide to move into an area? How do you think insurance companies determine how much to charge people? It's partly because of what kind of services can be provided. If you have an incompetent police force and firemen, insurance rates go up, and it costs people more to live in Charleston. If a business is coming to Charleston and is concerened about the quality of services (fire, police protection, water, etc) does saying "Hey, we pay our cops shit, so they aren't really motivated, but we have a very well paid city manager," make the business want to relocate here, or say "These people are idiots?"
#5 - The City User fee is largely disagreable.... the public hates it. I, personally, have no idea why.
That's because, you are a dumbass.
In a recent article in Men's Health magazine, this City was the worst of the 100 cities studied in relation to men's health. The measures they used were, tobacco use, excerise, weight, muscularity, etc. My question to you is this: Why is it that people will spend $4 a day of cigarettes, $10 a day on McDonalds, and spend $50 a weekend drinking and partying, but complain PROFUSELY when $1 a week is taken from their check so that the local government can have more police and better roads? Listen up people, its $52 dollars a year! What does that extra dollar a week buy you that you can't get now? Just smoke 13 fewer packs of cigarettes, don't super size that meal, or God forbid, drink less! On another note, it is unfortunate that City residents have to pay it, but what about all those people from outside the City that work here.... why should they enjoy better pavement on safer streets FOR FREE?
Because many of the people who PAY it, don't fucking USE the streets or the services. And not everyone who DOES use those services and streets, has to pay it. Are you that fucking stupid to not understand that?
#6 - As for the previous comment, Molgaard just might have some loyalty to the City. If he did not, why would he stick with a comparatively low salary.
If he's got this loyalty to the city, why the fuck was he poking around at moving on to some other city for more money? He probably took the job, for the insurance and to use as a springboard to Mayor down the line. You can live a damn fine life in wv on 80 grand a year. Why does he need 95, or the 120 he was hinting at?
And this all dovetails with Danny Jones' whining that the city has no money, the reason for the user fee. If no money, and the user fee goes to hire cops and pave roads, where the fuck did this extra money suddenly come from for this raise for Molgaard? You can't scream poverty in one sentence, and then fling money around like it's confetti in the next.
#1 - And what makes you such a fucking expert? I know a thing or two about being an administrator. He's the equivalent of a COO for a $67 million a year business. Executives get incredible raises on merit and performance. Why not him?
#2 - I know the city has two attorneys, fucktard, but they spend a good deal of time dealing with police issues as well as general city isues. Their efforts are probably spread too thin as it is. What Molgaard can do is plan for potential issues without waiting for legal advice. Molgaard is playing dual roles in those cases. He is also charged with managing every other aspect of the city that may not necessarily fall into the legal realm. The City pays two lawyers and a paralegal so that 'dedicated' legal attention is provided. I am sure Mr. Molgaard can answer a telephone too, but he still needs a secretary to perform that dedicated function.
Either way, it follows that you pay more for someone with a diverse skill set and experience. Would you suggest that any piece of shit City Manager with a Bachelor's degree deserves the same as someone with a Masters and JD? I think not. I think we should be happy we got such a quality individual for such a low price for so long.
#3 - That statistic IS bullshit, and I think it was a silly thing to mention in the media. I agree that the payscale should be based on some reasonable numbers.
#4 - Like you said, insurance rates are based PARTIALLY on availability of quality EMS services. There are several other factors that go into that equation. Sorry to tell you, but pay does not play a large role in increasing worker (as opposed to administrator)performance... read Covey. For EMS workers, TRAINING is the key factor.... and our EMS people get the same training as any other city you can name, as well as comparable equipment.
But let's do some math.... Molgaard got around a $16K raise. Let's say there are about 300 EMS workers. If you were to distribute his raise to all of EMS workers equally, they would get an additional $53.33 per year gross... simply staggering. I know I would feel safer knowing that the people protecting me are getting an extra tank of gas next year. Now to go the other way... If they all got a $1K/yr raise, which still isn't significant enough to cause a surge of motivation, it would cost the City $300K/yr. So when DJ says they don't have the money, and that we still need more police, fire, and medics.... i believe him. And when you bitch about a blanket user fee, keep that in mind.
I would keep an administrtor who has some vision, can manage resources effectively, and move the City toward a positive direction at $16K more, so that I could later afford to give all those nice, hard-working folks a raise that won't seem like a slap in the face. They aren't as marketable or mobile as someone like Molgaard, so don't worry, they will be there. You are incredibly short-sighted my friend.
#5 - You have lost your fucking mind, Mr. Nash. Listen close....unless you are Superman, and can fly to work in Charleston, YOU USE THE STREETS. The fact that you don't get shot or mugged on the way to your job indicates that you are indirectly making use of police services. (Keep in mind that Emergency Services both prevent and react.) If that DOES happen, you will be using EMS services directly. As for the people that DO use the services and do not seemingly have to pay... it would mean that they are either unemployed and have bigger problems than you or I, or are visitors... and, hopefully for the City, stayed in a hotel.
In any case, my point is that people happily spend more money each year on dumb shit they don't really need, and BITCH BITCH BITCH about a nominal fee that helps the City provide basic services that, as you indicate, are SO vital to attracting new business. Call the Finance Director and have him show you the books if you are so fucking concerned.
FYI: 16K is 0.64% of 2.5 million.... and they are completely different accounts. The user fee money doesn't even end up in the general fund.
#6 - By your last arguement I can tell you have never been approached by firm while you hold a job. IT IS COMMON FUCKING COURTESY TO LET YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER ATTEMPT TO MATCH ANOTHER OFFER. And while Molgaard gets $95K/yr now (get your Tums out and prepare to kick your dog), if/when Jones gets relected, Molgaard's salary will most likely go staight to $125K which is the Council approved max. If I had my guess, Jones will probably write that into Coucil's agenda before the the first champagne bottle is popped. It's a little trick that might fool short-sighted pricks like you. But hey, I'm a beginner. What do I know?
He he he.... cute
I have no problem with paying the citys dollar a week tax(which will be 5.00 a week in 4 years) if I am given the right to vote in city elections, represented by council persons at large, and have some say in how the money is spent. It gauls me to see the city waste money on fireworks displays and the Regatta, then whine about being broke. I know that's a different fund, but more money is "available" for different funds, when people who work in the city are taxed without recourse.
Anonymous must have gotten to you...considering you have lowered yourself to name calling and cussing. Molgaard is doing exeptionally well and is paid comporable to his work. Check and see what some State employees make (i.e. legislative attorneys who work "hard" 60 days of the year.
Its only a $1 a week. Get over it cheapskate.
I heard Danny Jones is gay. And he's hired a fair number of like minded "fellows" to help him operate his office. Including that Rod Blackstone guy, and several others. The whole "danny jones got married" thing, is just a pr stunt.
Oh, come on. Molgaard always has been, and always will be, an ass! I was "lucky" enough to have contact with him through his child's education. If he was any kind of lawyer, he would have stayed in the field and a pay raise would not be an issue. Those who can, do, those who can't live off the public. Good riddance Dave, please go somewhere else!
Post a Comment
<< Home