Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as I'm concerned specifics such as cutting the IT versus something else, are almost irrelevant. I do know that Norwood has proposed a twelve step public safety plan that I haven't even bothered to read because at the end of the day, its all just talk. These are people in a campaign making campaign promises.
None of the candidates has executive experience leading an organization as large and complex as the city government, so its a guessing game no matter who gets elected. My objective has been to determine the guiding principles driving the candidates through the many debates and public appearances. With that criteria, the candidate that appealed to me the most was actually Jesse Spikes, but of the remaining candidates its Mary Norwood.
I much prefer a focus on a top to bottom remaking of a city government that doesn't do much of anything well to a proposal to cut people in a specific department. I also question whether someone so closely linked with the Franklin administration will critically examine the inner workings of city hall as much as is needed.
Well we are definitely on agreement about Spikes.He easily would have had my vote if I thought he could have won.As far a Reed being closely linked to Franklin,that is a valid point.It is the main point that I considered when I was deciding between the two.At the end of the day you cannot judge anyone on anything more than what they have said,do or doing.But where you chose Norwood I chose Reed because he sounded like he did his homework a lot more than Norwood.Not only that,I feel with his relationships in the state house,he is better poised to get those idiots in the house to listen to the needs of Atlanta for a change.
I have to add that Franklin has not been a bad mayor nor a great one.She has been honest not a liar and thief like the last one.Yet the way people are making her out is way too much falsehoods than what is actual truth.
As far as I'm concerned specifics such as cutting the IT versus something else, are almost irrelevant. I do know that Norwood has proposed a twelve step public safety plan that I haven't even bothered to read because at the end of the day, its all just talk. These are people in a campaign making campaign promises.
None of the candidates has executive experience leading an organization as large and complex as the city government, so its a guessing game no matter who gets elected. My objective has been to determine the guiding principles driving the candidates through the many debates and public appearances. With that criteria, the candidate that appealed to me the most was actually Jesse Spikes, but of the remaining candidates its Mary Norwood.
I much prefer a focus on a top to bottom remaking of a city government that doesn't do much of anything well to a proposal to cut people in a specific department. I also question whether someone so closely linked with the Franklin administration will critically examine the inner workings of city hall as much as is needed.
We are in total agreement until you make the leap where you want to trust a person with no executive experience to remake an entire city government top to bottom.
My disagreement partially because I am cynical about the ability to make any large government sustainably efficient and also because I don't think the City of Atlanta government is NEARLY as bad as people - particularly Mary Norwood and her supporters - make it out to be. At least relative to other large city governments.
Atlanta's government is actually one of the most efficient of the larger governments in the country based on number of employees per citizen (877 average is 1179) and general fund expenditures per citizen ($1070 average is $1650). Those numbers are second best in the nation only behind Charlotte. During her tenure, Shirley Franklin has cut the number of city employees by 30% and the general expenditures by 16% as the city's population has grown 25%. 74% of the city's employees are public safety. In the face of these facts, some people claim they aren't convinced that our government has been "right-sized." I'm of the thinking that excessive attempts to cut going forward will have a pretty low ROI.
The city's finances are on sound footing going forward - contrary to the claims of some, a mountain of data is out there to support this, start here: http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/government/finance/budget%202010/2010%20budget%20presentation%20for%20city%20counci l.pdf (broken link) - and I have seen absolutely positively no reason to believe that Ms. Norwood is going to make things much leaner than they already are in any cost-effective way. I am eager to hear exactly what makes her supporters think this because, having looked at many of the facts, frankly I think you're being hoodwinked. I am even more eager to hear how they expect her - having zero government executive experience and not a whole lot of legislative wins - to completely rework the way this city functions. Reed doesn't have this experience either, but he's not proposing a complete overhaul of city government either.
So I wonder how someone proposing ripping everything out and starting over is considered a superior alternative to a candidate who will work to further tweak the quantifiably remarkable efficiency that the city has gained over the last eight years and be able to forge sorely-needed connections with the state in addition.
We are in total agreement until you make the leap where you want to trust a person with no executive experience to remake an entire city government top to bottom.
My disagreement partially because I am cynical about the ability to make any large government sustainably efficient and also because I don't think the City of Atlanta government is NEARLY as bad as people - particularly Mary Norwood and her supporters - make it out to be. At least relative to other large city governments.
Atlanta's government is actually one of the most efficient of the larger governments in the country based on number of employees per citizen (877 average is 1179) and general fund expenditures per citizen ($1070 average is $1650). Those numbers are second best in the nation only behind Charlotte. During her tenure, Shirley Franklin has cut the number of city employees by 30% and the general expenditures by 16% as the city's population has grown 25%. 74% of the city's employees are public safety. In the face of these facts, some people claim they aren't convinced that our government has been "right-sized." I'm of the thinking that excessive attempts to cut going forward will have a pretty low ROI.
The city's finances are on sound footing going forward - contrary to the claims of some, a mountain of data is out there to support this, start here: http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/government/finance/budget%202010/2010%20budget%20presentation%20for%20city%20counci l.pdf (broken link) - and I have seen absolutely positively no reason to believe that Ms. Norwood is going to make things much leaner than they already are in any cost-effective way. I am eager to hear exactly what makes her supporters think this because, having looked at many of the facts, frankly I think you're being hoodwinked. I am even more eager to hear how they expect her - having zero government executive experience and not a whole lot of legislative wins - to completely rework the way this city functions. Reed doesn't have this experience either, but he's not proposing a complete overhaul of city government either.
So I wonder how someone proposing ripping everything out and starting over is considered a superior alternative to a candidate who will work to further tweak the quantifiably remarkable efficiency that the city has gained over the last eight years and be able to forge sorely-needed connections with the state in addition.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 13 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,489 posts, read 44,156,973 times
Reputation: 16900
Does anyone know if Reed ever changed his tune on this? I'll bet not.
Reed Refuses Borders’ Challenge to End Nepotism « Borders for Atlanta (http://www.bordersforatlanta.com/2009/10/19/reed-refuses-borders-challenge-to-end-nepotism/ - broken link)
It would be nice to have a mayor:
1.Whose family and friends' livelihood was not inextricably tied to the airport
2. Who didn't treat City Hall as his/her private Jobs Program.
We are in total agreement until you make the leap where you want to trust a person with no executive experience to remake an entire city government top to bottom.
My disagreement partially because I am cynical about the ability to make any large government sustainably efficient and also because I don't think the City of Atlanta government is NEARLY as bad as people - particularly Mary Norwood and her supporters - make it out to be. At least relative to other large city governments.
Atlanta's government is actually one of the most efficient of the larger governments in the country based on number of employees per citizen (877 average is 1179) and general fund expenditures per citizen ($1070 average is $1650). Those numbers are second best in the nation only behind Charlotte. During her tenure, Shirley Franklin has cut the number of city employees by 30% and the general expenditures by 16% as the city's population has grown 25%. 74% of the city's employees are public safety. In the face of these facts, some people claim they aren't convinced that our government has been "right-sized." I'm of the thinking that excessive attempts to cut going forward will have a pretty low ROI.
The city's finances are on sound footing going forward - contrary to the claims of some, a mountain of data is out there to support this, start here: http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/government/finance/budget%202010/2010%20budget%20presentation%20for%20city%20counci l.pdf (broken link) - and I have seen absolutely positively no reason to believe that Ms. Norwood is going to make things much leaner than they already are in any cost-effective way. I am eager to hear exactly what makes her supporters think this because, having looked at many of the facts, frankly I think you're being hoodwinked. I am even more eager to hear how they expect her - having zero government executive experience and not a whole lot of legislative wins - to completely rework the way this city functions. Reed doesn't have this experience either, but he's not proposing a complete overhaul of city government either.
So I wonder how someone proposing ripping everything out and starting over is considered a superior alternative to a candidate who will work to further tweak the quantifiably remarkable efficiency that the city has gained over the last eight years and be able to forge sorely-needed connections with the state in addition.
Please help me out here.
You have GOT to be kidding. What that report doesn't tell you is that this "efficiency" is entirely the result of layoffs and budget cuts due to a massive $140 million deficit that suddenly appeared last year. Thats not efficiency. Thats called being broke. Prior to last year the city had MORE employees than there were in 2001.
Quote:
"In the six years since she took office, Franklin expanded the city budget by 50 percent to $645 million and added 2,250 jobs to the city payroll, which sits at nearly 9,700 employees. That's the highest number per capita in the nation, according to a 2007 analysis by the Reason Foundation." Budget deficit threatens Franklin's legacy
As far as the general fund comparison - Atlanta separates the airport, watershed management, and according to Ms. Norwood there are numerous other funds that are entirely separate from the general fund. We have no idea what other cities include in their general fund budgets.
An unnecessarily rosy report like that only validates the complaint that the numbers coming from the mayor's office cannot be trusted. Furthermore, with the out of control accounting practices at city hall (according to CFO Janice Davis) no city resident can have any confidence in a five year projection.
The real way to measure efficiency is to ask residents of the city if they are happy with the level of services they receive for the taxes they pay.
You have GOT to be kidding. What that report doesn't tell you is that this "efficiency" is entirely the result of layoffs and budget cuts due to a massive $140 million deficit that suddenly appeared last year. Thats not efficiency. Thats called being broke. Prior to last year the city had MORE employees than there were in 2001.
As far as the general fund comparison - Atlanta separates the airport, watershed management, and according to Ms. Norwood there are numerous other funds that are entirely separate from the general fund. We have no idea what other cities include in their general fund budgets.
An unnecessarily rosy report like that only validates the complaint that the numbers coming from the mayor's office cannot be trusted. Furthermore, with the out of control accounting practices at city hall (according to CFO Janice Davis) no city resident can have any confidence in a five year projection.
The real way to measure efficiency is to ask residents of the city if they are happy with the level of services they receive for the taxes they pay.
I made a mistake in extrapolating the cuts over 8 years when they've happened over the last two. Touche. Unfortunately that almost 2 year old article disproves nothing in the City Hall report. As a matter of fact, all it does is show how drastic the Mayor’s actions to deal with the budget problems have been. And it further calls into question how much more a new Mayor can do.
Furthermore, the article doesn’t show the remarkable progress that CURRENT CFO Jim Glass - a former Bellsouth / AT&T CFO who came out of retirement to work for the city - has made in the last year. It doesn't show how that 70 million dollar deficit it referred to was neutralized by tighter fiscal controls and real-time financial data enabled by the recently implemented Oracle system. That same CFO who has turned the city's finances around has had some pretty strong words for Norwood's characterizations. I cited it before but it sounds like you missed it:
http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/media/councilmember%20ltr%20-%20final.pdf (broken link)
The department of Watershed Management just went through an audit related to their proposals for rate hikes which included a thorough review of their financials (http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2009/0504/19365267.pdf (broken link)) and the Airport puts out an audited annual report every year (http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/...ual_Report.pdf). There is plenty of data out there for people who want it. It might not be wrapped up in a nice bow but it is there.
I think you need to update your sources. A lot has happened in the two years since that article was released. Can you provide more up to date information to support your claims? Outside of "Mary said it?"
On your last point. If you tell a senior citizen that their government-supported Medicare is going to get cut they are going to get pissed, regardless of how bad keeping those benefits are going to be for the long term viability of the country. People are like that with government services in general – it’s never good when you take them away or when they can’t perceive the benefit. That doesn’t mean the government is bad for doing so. At the end of the day that’s a matter of PR, not sound governing which is all about tough decisions that the average person might not like very much.
I am sure that I am not alone in knowing all along who she would endorse.
It won't make a difference because die-hard Lisa Borders supporters probably will not show up on Dec. 1st to support Reed since only 11K of them showed up on Nov. 3rd to support her candidacy. She only did this with the hopes of being used by Reed in some capacity within his administration.
These people are not going to let the machine die without a fight.
Also, the Demorcrats are "all in" for this race and are throwing everything behind Reed. Roy Barnes is supposed to endorse Reed tomorrow. Atlanta is one of the last Democrat strongholds in Georgia. The Democats have no choice on who to endorse.
Does anyone know if Reed ever changed his tune on this? I'll bet not.
Reed Refuses Borders’ Challenge to End Nepotism « Borders for Atlanta (http://www.bordersforatlanta.com/2009/10/19/reed-refuses-borders-challenge-to-end-nepotism/ - broken link)
It would be nice to have a mayor:
1.Whose family and friends' livelihood was not inextricably tied to the airport
2. Who didn't treat City Hall as his/her private Jobs Program.
Not gonna lie.I did not know any of this,but I did always suspect it with ALL these candidates with the exception of Norwood.That is why I almost voted for her.However,as much as it bothers me,it bothers me more that Norwood seems to not have any ideas with real depth or solutions.That is why at the last moment I switched.It really is the lesser of two evils to vote for Reed.In the end Reed's grasp and knowledge gets my vote.He is simply using what others before him used.Not unethical or illegal just not always the best for our city.His brother apparently is qualified.I have no problem with relatives as long as they are qualified,and have to go through the same vetting process as others.When you are in a position of power you do want people around you that you trust.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
