|
Post by voltar on Nov 2, 2006 14:46:07 GMT -6
Man Zoe I did not know or Hear those things, and I am at the courthouse every day. I realy have to start paying attention to what our ELECTED officials are doing. That raise thing not must in the paper about that, but Of course you hear plenty about "We need a new courthouse". "Want and want but never give". 7 Million, I guest he (LJP) must be saving for a rainy day. With all the turnover at the clerk's office it feels like another hurricane is about to blow through.
|
|
|
Post by Dorothy on Nov 2, 2006 20:47:25 GMT -6
"Stewards". I like that. Would that be on the Good Ship Lollipop, or more likely, the Titanic? I have a friend who got a favorable work review and was granted a $15 raise per month. That is what, $180 per year. And he wants a raise of how much, $20,000 ?
|
|
|
Post by voltar on May 7, 2007 13:55:05 GMT -6
It's been a while looks like if it stay quite enough all things remain the same.
|
|
|
Post by ronnief on May 7, 2007 16:13:17 GMT -6
It is the strategy of some politicians to stay as invisible as possible, and everyone will forget that they are there. I see that in our Clerk of Court and Sheriff.
You never see the Clerk unless there is an election going on and he quotes his election turnout predictions. There seems to be a crime wave going on in Lafayette and one would hope the Sheriff would address the situation besides saying he wants (through a spokesperson) an old school to be a juvenile center so he can generate money.
I want someone in an open forum to ask the Clerk about his operation. Same for the Sheriff. I have many friends who tell me the deputies literally fear for their lives when working in parish prison. There are inmates sleeping on the floor. The jail is run on short shifts almost always. Usually 9 deputies to guard 1000 inmates. Look at the turnover in the Clerk's Office and Sheriff's Office. That does not speak well of management..
|
|
|
Post by SeleR on May 9, 2007 18:24:26 GMT -6
I would like the option of voting for someone who has ethics and standards, and understands that he works for us, as "consumers" of whatever services that particular agency is charged with performing. I am not interested in a politician who has a self-serving agenda. I am not voting for a politician who is interested in accumulating large sums of money rather than training and paying staff.
I am troubled by the Clerk accumulating such a large sum of money (I have heard $7 million +) while at the same time, increasing fees charged, and seeking a personal raise of $20,000 per year. That is immoral. Use the money you have before seeking more. I am troubled by the Sheriff seeking to convert schools to juvenile centers to make money and I think he too has a large amount of surplus funds. He does not pay most of his staff very much, and as such, has a lot of turnover. These gentlemen need to amend their ways, or leave public service.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on May 10, 2007 10:06:34 GMT -6
Well SeleR, many politicians just do without much thought. The idea is to not leave any "money on the table". I am sure that if the Clerk thought it out, he would not have increased fees, even though the law allowed it. It looks exceptionally stupid to have a large surplus of funds and fee hikes and a substantial raise all in one year, and that being an election year. I would hope that person is smarter than that. I would be at a loss to explain justification for that. Kinda like the parish president going for a tax hike in the midst of record sales tax collections. It is just plain stupid, or perhaps even arrogant.
On the other hand, we may be stupid enough to forget it and allow that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by voltar on May 31, 2007 11:07:25 GMT -6
Well look's like the Raises passed without any fan fair. It's amazing how it was not public and the vote went on thru without a question. The only problem seems to be if the Gov. will get one. How can LJP and Conrad look there employee's in the face knowing that they just got about a 22% raise when they know the last two or three raises they gave were 2% and 3 %. It boguls the mind to see such disregard for those deputies that are by far the heart and sole of both those offices.
|
|
|
Post by guest on May 31, 2007 19:11:21 GMT -6
It is easy Voltar. They can suck it up or quit. Say anything (to anybody) and get fired.
The Clerk and the Assessor are total and complete hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by TBEAR on Jun 1, 2007 6:48:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by voltar on Jun 1, 2007 7:31:30 GMT -6
I guess these people need someone to talk for them. Tbear that was great. How easy do you think these kinds of things (that happen on a daily basis) slip by without anyone catching it. I guess that why I like this forum so much. It's good to see that somebody is out there watching with me.
|
|
|
Post by TBEAR on Jun 1, 2007 8:10:14 GMT -6
We all have to watch each others backs, because if you leave it up to these people they will screw us. Just like what you said about the employees under these high wage earning bosses, do these bosses really think they will get respect from their employees by accepting that much of a raise while their employees suffer with the high cost of living in Lafayette the way it is now and the little or no raise given to them.
|
|
|
Post by Dorothy on Jun 1, 2007 17:43:59 GMT -6
I know a large number of the employees in the courthouse and I can tell you that the vast majority would not vote for their current boss given any option to vote otherwise. The clerk of court will receive a single raise that exceeds the ANNUAL salary of many of his employees. The same goes for the tax assessor.
It does not speak well of anyone when those who work for you have no respect for you, so why should the voters ? Probably should not.
|
|
|
Post by coolboy on Jun 4, 2007 9:04:35 GMT -6
Automatic raises should not be given across the board. A raise has to be earned. You mean to tell me that these legislators don't have bigger issues facing their constituents than making sure tax assessors get raises? Politics at play. I'm telling you...I should run for political office with Taureau as my campaign manager.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Jun 4, 2007 10:19:35 GMT -6
It is immoral to receive a raise that is more than employees earn in a year. I would love to hear whether the Clerk/Assessor will take the raise because the language in the law says "may", not shall. Why not ask them Advertiser ?
I actually saw the Sheriff on a seat belt ad the other day. Who says he is not out fighting crime ?
|
|
|
Post by ronnief on Jun 4, 2007 16:56:14 GMT -6
Automatic raises has become a large part of inflation. People expect a raise yearly, regardless of their job performance. That is why teachers have become so poor; many just show up, collect insurance and retirement. They hurt the many who are conscientious and actually care about the children.
As for elected officials, they expect a raise because it costs them money to get the job, and costs to keep it. Why not just quit ? Well, they would have to go to work, and who wants to do that ? Fact is, few could go out and sell their services for anywhere near what they make as officials. The assessor never held a job longer than a few years before moving on. The clerk has only held deadhead jobs from what I can see. His claim to fame was getting some handicapped fellow social security benefits which I am sure the man was due anyway. The sheriff was a teacher at USL. Claim to fame was playing football for "coach" Blanco.
Who except the dumb voters of Lafayette would hire any of them to work at a real job ?
|
|
|
Post by LisaS on Jun 12, 2007 18:51:52 GMT -6
Well, this is an election year. The whole thing reminds me of Soviet Russia when "elections" were held with only one candidate.
Jindal is anointed Governor, Durel President/mayor, Assessor,sheriff,clerk appear to be unopposed. A few of the council positions seem contested (I saw Lloyd Rochon is running for council on Northside - may be more racist than Williams). I suppose no one will even go out and vote because things are set.
LUS is actually going into "business" against private enterprise, the city is placing camera's all over town (have any of you read "1984") to catch misdeeds and raise free money, and no one is complaining. How pathetic are we ?
|
|
|
Post by MaryAnn on Jul 23, 2007 16:28:05 GMT -6
Did anyone read the front page of the Sunday Advertiser ? The article that our officials were quoted saying they hoped they had opposition so they could blanket the parish with signs and make their workers walk the parish for them so they could continue to maintain their little areas of self importance.
The Sheriff was the only one who showed a little common sense, telling them not to pat themselves on the back just yet, it is still the third quarter.
Nothing would make me happier than to see Mr Comeaux, Mr Perret, and Mr Durel have ANY opposition and try and defend their incompetence in public. We have only ourselves to blame if these people are allowed to continue in public service.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Jul 24, 2007 9:43:36 GMT -6
Yes, I read the article. Yes, I guess they are a little smug because they were not opposed last round, and maybe they will get lucky again. It would seem people do not want the jobs and that people do not feel a need for public service like they once did.
I for one believe that mr Comeaux does not have a history of helping the normal taxpayers, but only the business interests that have funded him. I think proper exposure of that fact will alienate him from the public. He has accepted large salary increases for himself while not improving the salary of staff.
I also feel that the Clerk of Court has degraded the office to a lower service level and intimidated his employees with fear for their jobs, raised fees excessively under the guise of prudent management and not properly used said funds in the intended manner. He too has accepted multiple salary increases while long time employees have received little. This does not improve morale.
The sheriff will likely survive because a sheriff's race is an expensive undertaking and he can exert a lot of influence with a $30 million budget. Too bad, because that office needs to step up, and the professor has shown a leadership style much like the Blanco's, which is to say none.
|
|
|
Post by coolboy on Jul 25, 2007 15:48:39 GMT -6
It costs money to run for political office and things are tight for the average person money-wise. Joey is unstoppable at this point. With Armentor keeping Dems in line, the only people who would vote against Durel are the people on the northside. Durel has what...$1 million in the bank for his campaign? I don't think I have yet to make a million in my life! One good thing about this next election is that we will get some fresh faces on the council. Thank goodness for term limits! I couldn't take another four years with Williams and Benjamin.
|
|
|
Post by Darin on Jul 26, 2007 16:12:32 GMT -6
I realize that there is a money factor involved in running for office. Most of that cost is to get your name known by the average voter. Most of us say our vote is not for sale, and that is true. Where we fall down is most of us who do vote just pop the lever for a familiar name.
If our television stations and newspaper were really interested in the community, forums and debates would be sponsored and we could learn about the candidates rather than look at signs.
I am not influenced by what Glen Armentor, or for that matter, any lawyer has to say, simply because I do not trust them as a group. They usually go where the money goes. It used to be called prostitution.
I know incumbent politicians can raise more money simply because they are in charge of the agency purse strings and payrolls. If you work somewhere and you know if you do not place a sign in the front of your home you will be fired, you probably will put a sign. Ask all those people that the sheriff and clerk of court have fired, why; it had nothing to do with job performance.
I hope that we start electing public officials who have a semblance of ethics, and from what I see in lafayette, some substantial change is in past due.
I lived in Houma years ago, and we had a guy run for sheriff who would not accept donations, would not put up signs, and would not make promises other than " I will only promise good law enforcement, nothing else". He won over I think 14 candidates who spent a lot of money. And we had good law enforcement there. It could happen here if we wake up.
|
|