GilfordGrok

Jeff Madon decided to post a comment to Doug's posting (I think he meant mine).  While many blog authors will continue conversations within the comments section, I've decided to create a post instead.

I frequently keep up on your Grok postings, but have never posted a comment, up until now. Your postings are certainly good reading. 

Well, THANK YOU!  Believe it or not, we do appreciate anyone reading either of the 'Groks.  We especially appreciate it when someone disagrees with us!  A conversation showing different points of view can only make things, shall we say, lively! 

One can be both proactive, fiscally responsible, value Town employees, and do it all in a respectful way.  Overall mandate?  You guys love numbers, do the math: 

I'm not really sure what Jeff means by this, so I will do a rudimentary analysis on the BudComm results:

William Phillips        981      18.60%

Douglas Lambert     971      18.41%     

Terry Stewart           876      16.61%

Based on your split, the top three vote winners received 53.62% of the vote.  I will also point out that all three received the 'Grok endorsement.

With so many candidates in the race for Bud Com, you never mention the bottom 4.  Looks like a split vote to me: 

                    Dale Dormody         876        16.61%

                    Kevin Roy               841        15.95%

                    Delores Seager       381          7.22%

                    E. Scott Cracraft       197         3.74%

                    William Knightly       151         2.86%

Correct observation, but what does it prove other then the top three vote winners received more than the bottom five?  Split vote?  Only in that some won their seats and some did not.  According to your comment's arrangement, they lost. 

Note:  based on the "bag pull" Mr. Dormody won.  However, tomorrow's recount will tell who actually won the third seat.

The answer to your own "FUD" posting is yes - looming.  Looming, when admittedly flawed (but left uncorrected) salary studies, salary deceleration formulas and benefit contribution increases are in your crosshairs, and always will be.  If that's your solution to the apparent fiscal crisis Gilford is experiencing, so be it.  I just won't sit back and let it happen.  

Always be.  Here is the premise:

• 60% of both budgets are salaries and benefits.  To ignore the rise in this budget component would be fiscally imprudent.
  
• Budgets have been multiples of the inflation rate averaged over the last few years.
• Budgets are rising faster than wages in the private sector.

Do the math.

Flawed salary study?  The stats have been up for public review and correction for quite a number of months.  Only one person bothered to review them - and that person was not from the Fire Department.  If you look at the postings, where problems were found, corrections were issued.  

If you have better numbers from a public source that anyone can review, show them. NOTHING was hidden or secret - at any time any one could have brough alternatives. Certainly, you did not bother to provide such. 

As far as the finding fault with the report, I present the assumptions (once again) for the from the executive summary presented to the Budget Committee.  It was a targeted, narrowly focused study:

Purpose of the Report:

To examine the relative salary ranges of positions that are common to other Towns in the same population grouping (5,000 – 9,999) as Gilford to see if there are any disparities.

Overall Result:

Please see the Summary Table.

Data Sources:

State of New Hampshire Web Site (www.nh.gov)

New Hampshire Local Government Center (NH Municipal Association) (www.NHGLC.org)

Number of Towns in the survey: 32

Number of Positions compared: 39

Methodology:

Data was sourced from the State of NH as well as the NH Municipal Association

A series of charts were constructed for each relevant position, noting how many town had that given position (note: not all towns have all positions). Gilford's position in all charts is shown in bold lettering.

For each position, two charts were created:

• Town ranked in alphabetical order

• Town ranked by the maximum of each minimum / maximum pay range reported.

For the first chart of each position, the following was computed:

• The Number of towns having that position

• The Minimum amount for that position

• The Maximum amount for that position

• The Average values were computed using the total of the Maximums reported.

• The Median values were computed by using the total of the Maximum reports

The second chart took the data from the first chart and re-ranked the report from each town by Maximum value. Gilford's standing within that ranking was then computed (1 through N, where N was the number of towns reporting on that position). Further, the Maximal value of Gilford's salary range was compared to the Average and the Median computed in the first chart and a percentage above, equal to, or below the group results was computed.

In addition, other charts relating to land area, population density, valuations, and family income data are listed in order to provide a greater sense of context when comparing the towns.

Caveats:

• Please note that the Maximum value was used for each salary range as many Towns did not report minimums for many positions.

• Please also note that Fire Department positions reported here must be reviewed carefully due to the myriad of ways that personnel can be compensated (volunteer, call, part time, full time) by type as well as pay type (hourly, salary, per call, lump sum).

• All salary ranges, for comparison purposes, have been converted to yearly dollar amounts wherever possible. Some positions from some towns (i.e., fire departments) were dropped from this study as it was not clear how compensation actually worked.

No need to post my comment on your site, just thought I'd pass it along in case you missed it. Thank you.

To not post it would not be right