Council Member Jolanda Jones Vigorously Fights for Economic Stability of City Council Staffers
- By Roy Douglas Malonson
- Published 06/23/2009
- Political
- Unrated
Roy Douglas Malonson
Roy D. Malonson is publisher of the African-American News&Issues.
View all articles by Roy Douglas Malonson
HOUSTON - On June 17, Council Member Jolanda Jones firmly stood her ground as she participated in a heated three hour debate over the controversial Amendment 52 to the City of Houston’s budget. The proposed amendment mandated a 2 percent cut to the entire $5.3 million City Council budget, a total of $107,988.26 or $7,559.18 per office.
“This 2 percent reduction is the equivalent of the cost of health care for my Scheduler and her child. Government staffers that work for elected officials are underpaid and underappreciated. For some whose pay is not measured in money, but in helping the city, maintaining the current budget means a lot. This amendment also single-handedly undermines the efforts of HOPE, the city employees union, who vigorously fought for a mandatory 3 percent pay raise increase for council staffers as part of the city’s contract with its union.”
During this three-hour spectacle, Council Member Toni Lawrence, the sponsor of the original amendment, offered a .5 percent cut versus the original 2 percent increase. This measure passed favorably, 9-4, but Council Member Peter Brown, who supported a bigger cut, proposed the original 2 percent budget cut. Council Member Mike Sullivan hastily suggested a 10 percent cut, Council Member Ronald Green proposed a 1.9 percent cut and finally, Council Member Lawrence offered yet another figure—1.6 percent—which passed 11-3. Council Member James Johnson (District B), Council Member Wanda Adams (District D), and Council Member Jones (At Large 5) were the three courageous Council Members who voted “no” to this measure.
Ironically, those three council members represent the most economically disadvantaged areas of Houston and could undoubtedly empathize with the financial burdens a budget cut would cause the staff of council members. However, while this confusing, ridiculously amusing, auction-like debate was taking place, many of the council members obviously did not consider cutting their own salaries, except Council Member Jolanda Jones.
“Let me clarify something, the vote is not to cut City Council Member’s salary, but to cut the salary of those who staff our teams…[this] selfishly shows that we believe the sum of our parts is greater than the whole, our staff.” The rationale of the budget cut was to commensurate with the other City of Houston departments who are doing slight budget cutbacks as well—but on million dollar budgets, not 1/3rd of a one million like City Council. “I think that the budget cut was a well intentioned initiative, but it was not well thought out. Our staffers need us, like we need them,” Council Member Jones concluded.
At a recent City Council meeting, Council Member Jolanda Jones passed out the following letter:
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Colleagues:
Re: I’m Disappointed: Anti-Family, Anti-Children, Anti-Experience & Anti-Union
A budget process is usually a long, tedious, and arduous effort. In these tough economic times, where the housing market is down, securing almost any loan is impractical and the value of the dollar is steadily depleting, the budget is already proving to be perhaps the most challenging task facing elected officials. It conjures many feelings of contention and exposes, if not already apparent, the firm ideological differences of some council members.
One of the amendments to the city budget has struck a damaging nerve for city employees who value their thin economic stability and much-needed health care. Last Wednesday, there was a proposed amendment that mandated a 2 percent cut to City Council budget. This 2 percent reduction of $385,672 is approximately $7,559.18, the equivalent of the cost of health care for my Scheduler and her child.
Several council members said they are open to the idea. Well, let the record reflect that, in my opinion, respectively, by voting “yes” on this amendment, council members are giving a slap in the face to their staffers who endure long hours, are compensated with low pay, and receive little to no respect. Initially, the proposed City Council budget was to cut $50,000 of the entire $5.3 million, 14 member City Council budget. That is approximately a $3,571.43 loss per office. After negative feedback from several of my colleagues, the budget was revised to eliminate the budget cut.
Now, this cut is being revisited; it has been modified again to include a 2 percent budget cut of the entire $5.3 million City Council budget, a hefty $107,988.26! That’s more than double the initial proposed cut! Has this economically “secured” position made some of us cold-hearted and unremorseful to those who were not as privileged as others?
One’s real character is displayed and should be judged by their actions during the good times and especially the bad times. And we are in a bad time. Let me clarify something.
The vote is not to cut City Council Members’ salary, but to cut the salary of those who staff our teams. This gesture may seem righteous to the ill-informed citizens of Houston, but it selfishly shows that we believe the sum of our parts is greater than the whole, our staff. Some of my colleagues may feel that the $385,672 budget for the 14 council members in the 2010 fiscal year, a 3.6 percent increase over last year, is not justified.
For FY 2009, the average number of FTE’s per office was 5.4. The cost of health care alone for these full time equivalents is $19,555.34 - $54,162.43. That equals to about $330,000 to spend on 5.4 fulltime staffers’ salaries ranging from $19,760 (pay grade 8) to $100,438 (pay grade 28), office supplies, office equipment, stationary, technical support, etc., for one year.
In my office, 99.95 percent of my budget is for fixed expenses. The 2 percent cut will directly affect my office. But the 2 percent budget cut also indirectly affects our communities.
Besides the fiscal burden our staffers will endure, this gesture gives off certain negative connotations. The budget cut is ANTI-CHILDREN. It will inevitably produce a subtle discrimination that will prompt people to hire individuals without children. Why?
Because healthcare increases by $4,000 for an individual with one child, and by $7,000 for a family. The budget cut is ANTI-FAMILY. If we hire an individual with children or a family, it forces us to offer the cheapest healthcare for fear of running out of allocated funds.
And although healthcare should be a right for these individuals, paying high deductibles is almost equivalent to not having any healthcare. While this cut is theoretically “saving” money, we are discouraging families from working for the city.
The budget cut is also ANTI-EXPERIENCE. To save money, we’d have to hire individuals with little to no experience to enable us to stay within our financial means. In these harsh economic times, this cut will discourage individuals with experience whose love for public service precedes wealth, to inevitably go to a job where they have some sort of security. Lastly, the budget cut is ANTI-UNION; it single-handedly undermines the efforts of the city’s union.
HOPE, the city employees union, vigorously fought for a mandatory 3 percent pay raise increase for council staffers as part of the city’s contract with its union; however, council offices have regularly come under budget in the past. Yes, it is apparent that FY 2008 left City Council offices with a surplus that could be argued was spent responsibly or negligently. Some of the major controversies: multiple flat screens for offices, staff trips, and updated furniture.
Nevertheless, these items are irrefutably important aspects in effective work production and work environment Although City Council is local government, many of the decisions made in federal and state government trickle down and effect city government. So, why not have a television tuned to CSPAN, the Texas Legislature and the City Hall chambers?
If a constructive staff trip increases the efficiency, productivity and camaraderie of an office and, consequently, the city; why not embark upon that initiative? Lastly, if purchasing comfortable chairs deters staff from having future back problems due to uncomfortable furniture and subsequent expensive medical bills (and let’s not hope they will be employed part-time since the amendment will imminently cut positions), then that is a feasible solution. When Mayor Bill White announced his 2010 budget proposal for the city last month, he spoke of “difficult choices” and “tight fiscal discipline,” and called on City Council members to “join us in making those tough decisions for our community.”
If there is not an actual budget cut that affects the city council staffer’s salaries, the effects of this disheartening economic crisis will surely, beyond a reasonable doubt, be a theoretical budget cut for their salaries. If the cost of gas, the cost of living, interest rates, and other inevitable dynamics are factored in, staffers earn barely enough to maintain their level of living, let alone survive. Government staffers that work for elected officials are underpaid and underappreciated.
For some whose pay is not measured in money, but in helping the city, maintaining the current budget means a lot. It is by charge, and not by chore, that they serve the city!
While I uphold the Constitution to the utmost regard and dutifully value the first amendment, I disagree with an editorial the Houston Chronicle printed. A well adorned editorial will not, persuade me to do what I morally know is not right, and it should not persuade you either. I think that the budget cut was a well intentioned initiative, but it was not well thought out.
Our staffers need us, like we need them. Therefore, I strongly urge you to oppose the 2 percent budget cut amendment.
Jolanda “Jo” Jones,
Council Member, At Large
Position 5
“This 2 percent reduction is the equivalent of the cost of health care for my Scheduler and her child. Government staffers that work for elected officials are underpaid and underappreciated. For some whose pay is not measured in money, but in helping the city, maintaining the current budget means a lot. This amendment also single-handedly undermines the efforts of HOPE, the city employees union, who vigorously fought for a mandatory 3 percent pay raise increase for council staffers as part of the city’s contract with its union.”
During this three-hour spectacle, Council Member Toni Lawrence, the sponsor of the original amendment, offered a .5 percent cut versus the original 2 percent increase. This measure passed favorably, 9-4, but Council Member Peter Brown, who supported a bigger cut, proposed the original 2 percent budget cut. Council Member Mike Sullivan hastily suggested a 10 percent cut, Council Member Ronald Green proposed a 1.9 percent cut and finally, Council Member Lawrence offered yet another figure—1.6 percent—which passed 11-3. Council Member James Johnson (District B), Council Member Wanda Adams (District D), and Council Member Jones (At Large 5) were the three courageous Council Members who voted “no” to this measure.
Ironically, those three council members represent the most economically disadvantaged areas of Houston and could undoubtedly empathize with the financial burdens a budget cut would cause the staff of council members. However, while this confusing, ridiculously amusing, auction-like debate was taking place, many of the council members obviously did not consider cutting their own salaries, except Council Member Jolanda Jones.
“Let me clarify something, the vote is not to cut City Council Member’s salary, but to cut the salary of those who staff our teams…[this] selfishly shows that we believe the sum of our parts is greater than the whole, our staff.” The rationale of the budget cut was to commensurate with the other City of Houston departments who are doing slight budget cutbacks as well—but on million dollar budgets, not 1/3rd of a one million like City Council. “I think that the budget cut was a well intentioned initiative, but it was not well thought out. Our staffers need us, like we need them,” Council Member Jones concluded.
At a recent City Council meeting, Council Member Jolanda Jones passed out the following letter:
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Colleagues:
Re: I’m Disappointed: Anti-Family, Anti-Children, Anti-Experience & Anti-Union
A budget process is usually a long, tedious, and arduous effort. In these tough economic times, where the housing market is down, securing almost any loan is impractical and the value of the dollar is steadily depleting, the budget is already proving to be perhaps the most challenging task facing elected officials. It conjures many feelings of contention and exposes, if not already apparent, the firm ideological differences of some council members.
One of the amendments to the city budget has struck a damaging nerve for city employees who value their thin economic stability and much-needed health care. Last Wednesday, there was a proposed amendment that mandated a 2 percent cut to City Council budget. This 2 percent reduction of $385,672 is approximately $7,559.18, the equivalent of the cost of health care for my Scheduler and her child.
Several council members said they are open to the idea. Well, let the record reflect that, in my opinion, respectively, by voting “yes” on this amendment, council members are giving a slap in the face to their staffers who endure long hours, are compensated with low pay, and receive little to no respect. Initially, the proposed City Council budget was to cut $50,000 of the entire $5.3 million, 14 member City Council budget. That is approximately a $3,571.43 loss per office. After negative feedback from several of my colleagues, the budget was revised to eliminate the budget cut.
Now, this cut is being revisited; it has been modified again to include a 2 percent budget cut of the entire $5.3 million City Council budget, a hefty $107,988.26! That’s more than double the initial proposed cut! Has this economically “secured” position made some of us cold-hearted and unremorseful to those who were not as privileged as others?
One’s real character is displayed and should be judged by their actions during the good times and especially the bad times. And we are in a bad time. Let me clarify something.
The vote is not to cut City Council Members’ salary, but to cut the salary of those who staff our teams. This gesture may seem righteous to the ill-informed citizens of Houston, but it selfishly shows that we believe the sum of our parts is greater than the whole, our staff. Some of my colleagues may feel that the $385,672 budget for the 14 council members in the 2010 fiscal year, a 3.6 percent increase over last year, is not justified.
For FY 2009, the average number of FTE’s per office was 5.4. The cost of health care alone for these full time equivalents is $19,555.34 - $54,162.43. That equals to about $330,000 to spend on 5.4 fulltime staffers’ salaries ranging from $19,760 (pay grade 8) to $100,438 (pay grade 28), office supplies, office equipment, stationary, technical support, etc., for one year.
In my office, 99.95 percent of my budget is for fixed expenses. The 2 percent cut will directly affect my office. But the 2 percent budget cut also indirectly affects our communities.
Besides the fiscal burden our staffers will endure, this gesture gives off certain negative connotations. The budget cut is ANTI-CHILDREN. It will inevitably produce a subtle discrimination that will prompt people to hire individuals without children. Why?
Because healthcare increases by $4,000 for an individual with one child, and by $7,000 for a family. The budget cut is ANTI-FAMILY. If we hire an individual with children or a family, it forces us to offer the cheapest healthcare for fear of running out of allocated funds.
And although healthcare should be a right for these individuals, paying high deductibles is almost equivalent to not having any healthcare. While this cut is theoretically “saving” money, we are discouraging families from working for the city.
The budget cut is also ANTI-EXPERIENCE. To save money, we’d have to hire individuals with little to no experience to enable us to stay within our financial means. In these harsh economic times, this cut will discourage individuals with experience whose love for public service precedes wealth, to inevitably go to a job where they have some sort of security. Lastly, the budget cut is ANTI-UNION; it single-handedly undermines the efforts of the city’s union.
HOPE, the city employees union, vigorously fought for a mandatory 3 percent pay raise increase for council staffers as part of the city’s contract with its union; however, council offices have regularly come under budget in the past. Yes, it is apparent that FY 2008 left City Council offices with a surplus that could be argued was spent responsibly or negligently. Some of the major controversies: multiple flat screens for offices, staff trips, and updated furniture.
Nevertheless, these items are irrefutably important aspects in effective work production and work environment Although City Council is local government, many of the decisions made in federal and state government trickle down and effect city government. So, why not have a television tuned to CSPAN, the Texas Legislature and the City Hall chambers?
If a constructive staff trip increases the efficiency, productivity and camaraderie of an office and, consequently, the city; why not embark upon that initiative? Lastly, if purchasing comfortable chairs deters staff from having future back problems due to uncomfortable furniture and subsequent expensive medical bills (and let’s not hope they will be employed part-time since the amendment will imminently cut positions), then that is a feasible solution. When Mayor Bill White announced his 2010 budget proposal for the city last month, he spoke of “difficult choices” and “tight fiscal discipline,” and called on City Council members to “join us in making those tough decisions for our community.”
If there is not an actual budget cut that affects the city council staffer’s salaries, the effects of this disheartening economic crisis will surely, beyond a reasonable doubt, be a theoretical budget cut for their salaries. If the cost of gas, the cost of living, interest rates, and other inevitable dynamics are factored in, staffers earn barely enough to maintain their level of living, let alone survive. Government staffers that work for elected officials are underpaid and underappreciated.
For some whose pay is not measured in money, but in helping the city, maintaining the current budget means a lot. It is by charge, and not by chore, that they serve the city!
While I uphold the Constitution to the utmost regard and dutifully value the first amendment, I disagree with an editorial the Houston Chronicle printed. A well adorned editorial will not, persuade me to do what I morally know is not right, and it should not persuade you either. I think that the budget cut was a well intentioned initiative, but it was not well thought out.
Our staffers need us, like we need them. Therefore, I strongly urge you to oppose the 2 percent budget cut amendment.
Jolanda “Jo” Jones,
Council Member, At Large
Position 5