GilfordGrok

Why, they're talking about ME!  While the OFFICIAL Budget Committee Wage Comparison Subcommittee (led by Budget Committee Chairman Dick Hickock, joined by John O'Brian, and your humble host) is responsible for the data, notice that they just can't be honest and say that it is me that they are not so keen on.  Hey folks, the name IS Skip and I would not have faulted you for using it!  I promise, no suing (at least, so far) - it is not considered good form in the blogosphere until absolutely necessary!  Nor is the style of non-addressing.

However, please note that at NO time, did we ever say it was yours (meaning the BOS's)- so if you don't like it, don't worry - at no time did we say you were responsible or even supported it. 

However, I would like to point out that I believe it would be truthful to say that since you folks are responsible for the policies and management oversight that lead to the current rankings as to what the Summary Table showed, there's plenty of responsibility to go around. 

Tell you what, you got studies, put them up.  The Town pays $1500 a year for having the Town's website hosted, use the way a website should be - put all of the Town's data out there for ALL to see EVERYTHING.

I can think of two off the top of my head:

• 2004 Police Wage Comparison - show this in-house study the Police did with the larger town against Gilford was ranked
• The 2004 Municipal Resources Study - Good money spent for it....let the town folks see how each dept was evaluated and recommendations.  And see what's been done so far with the department by department recommendations.
  

the Gilford Board of Selectmen would like to clarify some of the information that has been misconstrued on websites and in the newspaper.  

Clarify?  (This is so rich)  Clarify WHAT?

My data?

I clearly stated what data I used and how it was gathered,

My methodology? 

I laid out how I did the rankings, computed the rudimentary statistics, everything.  All I did was to take the raw data and do ONE level of analysis on it - a simple ranking of high to low on the Maximal Amount of Salary Ranges.  Period.  THIS is not rocket science - just a lot of time typing and organizing.

Oh, are we talking about opinion then?  Sorry, First Amendment protects all speech, even if considered offensive or wrong by others.  I might not like it, but tough - that is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  And it applies to Government entities. 

Opinions are just that, and if you are going to go after individual's opinion?  Well, I'm against groupthink, especially if the data shows the opposite.  For a governmental organization to rail against opinion?  That IS censorship (check the laws). 

We want our taxpayers to be accurately informed.

Are you saying that I am trying to inaccurately inform the public?  Or is this the start of impeaching credibility (Hey, I see those heads out there nodding up and down!) for a smackdown later on?  Or is this a case of shoot the messenger, the guy who is lifting the curtain and peering around the smoke for the first time?

The above sentence infers that I am deliberately misleading people.  Actually, that sentence is wrong - it is me, but also impugns the credibility of the entire Sub Committee (Dick and John, as they reviewed and approved the data and the style of presentation).  I may be a newbie on the scene, but to denigrate long term volunteers of the Town?  Not too sporting; I'd even say, mean spirited!

The data that was presented is the result of many hours of work and was presented in a professional and informative manner.  

Gee, thanks for damning me with faint praise!  Especially for what comes next:

Unfortunately, it has led to inaccurate conclusions and determinations.  

REALLY?  I do remember many times stating "the data is what it is" during the presentation.  At that time, I refused to go to the next step, an analysis, at that time.

Frankly, this is poor rhetorical debate strategy.  I formally request that the Board of Selectmen specifically state what these inaccurate conclusions and determinations are if I have said such.   So easy to state in the aggregate - lets see whatcha really got!  Or is it just smoke and mirrors, a sleight of hand maneuver to put the focus on me rather than the structural problem that the Town has with the Wage structure and the accompanying benefit and retirement costs (which, I will state now, are WAY better than the private sector and costing taxpayer beaucoup bucks)?

Bottom line - you have problems? List them specifically and I will address them.  Otherwise, the above is defenseless. 

Time to act more quickly folks - you're at Internet time now, whether you like it or not.  You don't like what you are seeing in the papers - start writing rebuttals and good logical explanations why. 

The basis of the information was a comparison of Gilford’s pay scales with 32 towns with a resident population of 5,000 – 9,999 people.  These were the 32 towns who responded to the Local Government Center’s 2005 survey.  

So far, so good, and accurate. Our present population is about 7,400.

When your Board of Selectmen prepares research to verify the effectiveness of our pay scales, they carefully consider the towns to be used in comparisons.  

Yeah, I was just a lazy son of a gun, just cherry picking those Towns our size.  Why?  because they ARE our size.  Comparing us to towns much smaller than ours would yield results that - well, not much different than what we see against the Towns I used!  The larger the Town or City, the same positions, in general, are paid on a higher scale.  BUT, they have larger populations that generally can afford to pay those higher salaries.  So that's why I did not use larger Towns.

So, I tried to keep to an "Apples to Apples" comparison. 

Oh yeah, this too - did you offer your research to the Budget Committee anew, especially to those of us new to the BudComm who would not have known that it existed....no, I didn't think so. 

Also, I am going to address that word "carefully" in just a moment.  It seems that you have a different definition than most folks do.... 

Many factors are taken into consideration and year round resident population is only one of them.  

Ah yes, the single most used reason that I hear as to why our wages must be higher - the converse of the above.  "But Skip, our wages must be higher, because we have all of these Summer people coming in.  And then in the Winter, we have all these winter wonderland guests coming in."

And yes, I provided a number of ancillary tables to show the relative differences and similarities of our demographic.  So I agree with the basic sentiment, but again, OUR study deliberately kept it simple.

So, let's set 'em up, and knock 'em down.

First, I have yet to hear or see from the Town Administration a quantification of this influx. From your own MRI study (page 38) in talking about the Police dept.:

"Nevertheless the information contained in the FBI Uniform Crime Report is instructive.  Nationally, there are 2.3 officers per 1000 population.  Communities with less than 10,000 inhabitants averaged 3.2.  Regionally, the Northeast has the highest ratio with 2.7 per 1000 population.  New Hampshire averages 2.07 officers per 1000. The ratio in Gilford is 2.4 officers per 1000 population, except during the summer when the ratio is approximately 1.2."

If the math is right, that means our population goes to about 14,800. 

Next, in reviewing the Fire Dept's own data, the calls spike in July, and then again in the Winter.  Why?  Ambulance runs.  Police calls peak in July (if I remember right).

So ,this is why our School Administrator's has to be at the top of the heap?

No, it doesn't....it just means that we need to add more people for a specific period of time. "Oh, but we cannot get people to work for that short of a period of time!"  Nonsense - Management is paid to overcome challenges - get creative.  And it isn't always by throwing lots of money at one particular position either.

The sensible thing is to add more manpower on the temp basis for those spikes - raising wages doesn't solve the manpower needs.

Oh, by the way, do the children of the "transient" population use the services of the entity that uses 2/3rds of the budget - the school system?  Naw, I didn't think so. 

There are many other criteria that reflect similarities and differences amongst towns, which should be considered.  

True, but let's go back to the original statement: 

the Gilford Board of Selectmen would like to clarify some of the information that has been misconstrued on websites and in the newspaper. 

It is THIS website (and GraniteGrok) - again, can't you even call a spade a spade?  Some might think that this is mere taunting (on both sides).  Well, yeah, it is - they just don't want to admit the this low level data has caused much consternation among those that want it "as it always has been - why upset the apple cart?".  Because I have to pay for those apples, that's why!

Hey, look at it this way - you are getting way more attention in how the Town is being managed and how budgets are being set.  This HAS to be a good thing, right? 

I do anyways, for if my data is wrong, I correct it (and have already done so for folks pointing out the errors).  If the BOS wants to, I'm happy to defend what was done and the underlying premises, at any time. 

Isn't that better than just taking pot shots at the Budget Committee's study? 

The problem for them is, I can back it up - my style (generally) is not that of Mr. Hoffman, nor is it generally of the tone or tenor of this Post.  However, when the Board of Selectmen wishes to denigrate the work of the Budget Committee that it did for its own purposes, I think I have the right to use righteous indignation to defend ourselves (don't you?)?  

Some of these are real estate values, the service population that the Town is required to serve, what level of municipal services are offered (and expected), municipal facilities, other recreational facilities, and the demographics of the taxpayer base.  We also must consider the surrounding communities and state agencies that compete for the local labor pool.  Gilford’s population swells during weekends, as well as during the summer months, May until September.

On a more serious note, I do agree with most of these criteria.  However, the BudComm does not set policy - we are only tasked and interested in where taxes are going and certainly the largest part of that is the wages and salary.

The BOS needs to be involved in setting pay ranges and grade levels - we just analyze the overall effect from an "observable data" position - the results of those policies, as it were.

When a comparison of “comparable” municipalities is done, as was done two years ago, Gilford’s pay scale was set exactly in the middle range and we expect that it has not moved much since then.  Where an individual employee falls within their pay range is a matter of performance, as determined by an annual evaluation process.

Like I said - put your study out on the Web for people to review.   And "expect" - if you want me to jump through hoops, put yourselves through them as well before you say anything.  VERIFY your assumption (for we all know what the root word - assume - can mean, right?).

The suggestion that all Town employees are at the top of their scale is not accurate.  

I promised that I would return to the word "carefully".  Well, now we will. 

You know something folks (Board of Selectmen and Town Administration)?  If you are putting out a press release putting down the BudComm's data and urging people to think your way is the only correct way, you ought to check your data before hitting the SEND button.  Accusing me of inaccurate data just isn't all that credible when we look at yours (current information).

From current Gilford Salary Range and Actuals data for just this year, look at the below table, especially the rightmost column.  For each position that I could match up from my Summary Table with the Position Title of the your Data, this column shows where the Actual Wage stands in relationship to its newest Maximal Salary Range. 

Those percentages in RED are within 10% of their Maximal value; those in YELLOW are within 15% of Maximal. 

Thus, your above statement is similar in ways to  GraniteGrok's Friday Humor of this past Friday - technically correct but not meaning much.  No, they aren't ALL at the top - just the majority of them.  Out of 31 positions, kinda looks like 19 are within 10% of the top and 6 more within 15%.

I think that 81% of the positions pretty much at the top kinda proves your above statement to be "not accurate", eh?

I will be pleased to receive your retraction at any time.......And remember, this is JUST within Gilford and NO comparison to ANY OTHER TOWN was done in this "study".  And waiving the typing time, it only took about, oh say, 5 minutes to do the actual evaluation.  Fun stuff indeed!

Guess what Readers!  In a little bit, I'll have a bigger and better analysis - it shows what positions had the greatest rise in the Salary Ranges - but you have to  email me or leave a comment if you want me to send it to you! 

The Board of Selectmen is acutely aware of the price of providing highly skilled and dedicated employees to serve the people of this Town and their “guests”.  We have implemented several significant policy changes in response to these escalating costs and we intend to continue balancing the price tag with the quality of service, professionalism, and reliability that the Town of Gilford expects and receives from its municipal employees.

Alec O'Meara said it well in his editorial (paid registration required, excerpt below) in the Gilford Steamer of 10/18/06:

However, one thing has been made clear by just about every member: the committee may feel that salaries are too high, but they hold the actual employees of the town in high regard.

I may have my disagreements with various Town officials, but I do know that the vast majority are looking out for us, the residents.  My problem is not with them, but the financial impacts are now past the noticeable level now.  

We all want the best employees we can get and afford.  And it is that last word that is the most troubling - I think we are at the point, overall, that we may have to let folks seek other places if they wish to receive more - at least for now.  

I need a new car - so let me put it into those terms.  I can afford a Buick.  Nice car, lots of features.  I want a Viper - much better car for my tastes and "needs".  But I cannot afford "the better" (and cannot afford "the best" - any of the European supercars).

I have to settle for 'not the best" because I cannot afford "the best". 

======================================================

Update 1

 I like playing with numbers, and I would be dishonest if I did not show the table that is now at the bottom of this link.  The percentages are computed differently, with a different result for the number of Positions within 10% of max and 15% of max.

I had originally done just a quick percentage of Actual / Max (which has validity).  Now, I tried:

Now, I actually disect the range span (how big is the Salary Range) and normalize the Actual from two ways

• Subtract the Minimum from the Actual, use that number determine resulting percentage using the Range Span
• Subtract the Actual from the Max, use that number to determine the resulting percentage using the Range Span

Some may say that this is a more valid approach - my take is that either way, there is still a structural problem with Wages.  I will repeat this at the bottom with the actual table.

-Skip