REPRESENTATIVES. It's a perfect title. Use it.

[Billybob]

Fed jobs,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State pay raises,

Oklahoma House of Representatives

Media Division

November 4, 2009



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: State Rep. Randy Terrill

Capitol: (405) 557-7346



As DHS Cut Services, Top Officials Got Raises



OKLAHOMA CITY – Top administrative staff at the Department of Human
Services received almost $200,000 in pay raises in the past year before
the agency cut senior nutrition programs, records show.

“These raises were given at a time when the economic situation
was bad and getting worse and a budget shortfall was clearly imminent,”
said state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore. “In light of the raises, I find it
hard to believe DHS could not find any way to save money other than
cutting nutritional programs for the elderly.”

Records show 29 of the top 36 administrators at the agency
received raises in the past year. The pay raises ranged between $135 per
month to an additional $1,894 per month. The pay raises totaled $16,380
per month and $196,560 per year.

Terrill noted the pay raises were not approved by the Legislature and it
is not know if those receiving the raises assumed any additional job
responsibilities.

Terrill likened DHS officials’ actions to AIG executives who
received millions in bonuses after obtaining taxpayer-funded bailout money
from the federal government.

“DHS has violated the sacred trust with our seniors in the
same way many greedy Wall Street robber barons violated the trust of the
taxpayers who bailed them out,” Terrill said.

He said the case illustrates the need for even greater
scrutiny of agency budgets as lawmakers revise appropriations due to the
downturn.

“This unconscionable series of events calls into question the judgment of
DHS’ senior management,” Terrill said. “With state workers facing
furloughs or layoffs, the Legislature should scrub every agency budget to
determine whether the DHS abuses are an isolated case or just the tip of
the iceberg. Somehow, I suspect the latter.”

 

[Billybob]

Loophole lets former Oklahoma legislators stay in state government


http://newsok.com/loophole-lets-for...article/3531750?custom_click=headlines_widget

 

[vvvvvvv]

Loophole lets former Oklahoma legislators stay in state government


http://newsok.com/loophole-lets-for...article/3531750?custom_click=headlines_widget

It's not a loophole...

Article 5 § 23 (broken down by clause):

No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be appointed or elected to any office or commission in the State, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during his term of office,

nor shall any member receive any appointment from the Governor, the Governor and Senate, or from the Legislature, during the term for which he shall have been elected,

nor shall any member, during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within two years thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county or other subdivision thereof, authorized by law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

JB,

I hate to tell you this, but if I had my way your job would be in serious jeopardy. As would about 75% of the others there with you.

 

[Glocktogo]

JB,

I hate to tell you this, but if I had my way your job would be in serious jeopardy. As would about 75% of the others there with you.

Do you even know what my job is?

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Do you even know what my job is?

It doesn't matter what your job is. I am stating that all government jobs should be chopped by about 75% and you posted that you have a Gov't job.

We need a much smaller more efficient government at all levels.

 

[vvvvvvv]

We need a much smaller more efficient government at all levels.

Smaller government, yes.

But you don't want "efficient" to be used as an adjective to describe government.

 

[Glocktogo]

It doesn't matter what your job is. I am stating that all government jobs should be chopped by about 75% and you posted that you have a Gov't job.

We need a much smaller more efficient government at all levels.

Smaller government, yes.

But you don't want "efficient" to be used as an adjective to describe government.

I agree with VM here. A more efficient government would be a more invasive government. That would be bad for the people. What we need is a less wasteful government. There are quite a few Transportation Security Inspectors across the country (my job). What we do plays a vital role in ensuring that security regulations are followed by the transportation industry (my specialty is aviation). However, I spend roughly 35-40% of my time dotting i's and crossing t's on things that don't require attention. If that "bean counter" portion of my job could be eliminated or greatly reduced, you could accomplish the same mission with almost half as many inspectors. I would prefer to spend my time addressing areas of concern, rather than justifying every step I take for everything I do.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

I agree with VM here. A more efficient government would be a more invasive government. That would be bad for the people. What we need is a less wasteful government. There are quite a few Transportation Security Inspectors across the country (my job). What we do plays a vital role in ensuring that security regulations are followed by the transportation industry (my specialty is aviation). However, I spend roughly 35-40% of my time dotting i's and crossing t's on things that don't require attention. If that "bean counter" portion of my job could be eliminated or greatly reduced, you could accomplish the same mission with almost half as many inspectors. I would prefer to spend my time addressing areas of concern, rather than justifying every step I take for everything I do.

And therein lies the problem. The folks at the top, the ones pulling the average salary up, don't want less employees below them, because that jeopardizes their position.

Great bureaucracies are created by pushing yourself up by having more employees below you, which of course requires managers below you to take care of those employees. Of course, the more managers you have below you, the higher your salary becomes.

I notice that no one who posted here is anywhere close to the average salary. I would suggest that the ones who pull the average up reside in DC or in the upper levels of management in very large cities such as LA, Dallas, NYC etc.

So improved efficiency and less employees doing real work rather than Make Work Paperwork don't really fit into their scheme of things. Emphasis on SCHEME.

JMHO

 

[Glocktogo]

And therein lies the problem. The folks at the top, the ones pulling the average salary up, don't want less employees below them, because that jeopardizes their position.

Great bureaucracies are created by pushing yourself up by having more employees below you, which of course requires managers below you to take care of those employees. Of course, the more managers you have below you, the higher your salary becomes.

I notice that no one who posted here is anywhere close to the average salary. I would suggest that the ones who pull the average up reside in DC or in the upper levels of management in very large cities such as LA, Dallas, NYC etc.

So improved efficiency and less employees doing real work rather than Make Work Paperwork don't really fit into their scheme of things. Emphasis on SCHEME.

JMHO

I can't disagree with that. I've seen it quite a lot, particularly from DC. Early on, my local boss refused to hire for quite a few positions, unlike his counterparts in other cities who hired everyone they could. A lot of those folks got RIF'd later on and we lost no one. In the 5 years I've been in my office, we've yet to spend all our annual budget. They keep reducing it every year, but we really don't have that many expenses. We just don't go out and buy "toys" to use up the money.