Oh, ye of little faith! I said I’d be back with the local happenings, didn’t I? City Controller Annise Parker has spoken out to answer some questions about the Bonusgate scandals. Hat tip to Insite. Although he states there is more on the City of Houston website, he didn’t directly link his source. After searching the site, I cannot locate the article he’s referencing. (Maybe he got an advance copy?) But what he does have quoted on his site has a few items of note.

How do council budgets differ?
Council members have control over their individual budgets and are expected to keep them in balance. But for reporting purposes all 14 offices, plus the Mayor Pro Tem Office, are shown in the aggregate. A council office might be under or (temporarily) over budget, but the total remains in balance.F&A monitors each office and keeps the council member or designee informed, providing a monthly record of available funds, amount spent to date, and amounts remaining by spending category. Problems seldom occur except when a council member leaves office at the end of a term, which falls in the middle of the fiscal year, and unexpected bills surface.

Like bills for I-love-me publications? And from a question about council office budgets:

Each council member is, in effect, director of a small city department, and the bonuses they grant are co-signed by the mayor pro tem.

I think we see now why the DA widened the investigation. Rosie, et.al. could have been signing for anyone to get bonuses.

In the rest of it, Ms. Parker goes on to make excuses about why her office didn’t notice that an office manager was one of the highest paid employees in the city. The bottom line is, excuses or no, this abuse as well as the highly paid mechanics of HPD were allowed to occur by a city administration that did not think things through and limit the total amount of bonus money paid to a certain % of salary. About 25% sounds right to me.

Meanwhile, although I didn’t find the source article, I did find something interesting (almost a year old) about the H.E.C., previously covered here.

Houston City Controller Annise Parker today released a comprehensive performance review that identifies nearly $6.8 million in potential savings at the Houston Emergency Center (HEC). The review found a lack of consistent policies, an ineffective organizational structure, high absenteeism, low employee morale, insufficient staffing, potential gaps in overall security and a lack of technical management direction. (Emphasis added.)

Sounds familar.

Among the report’s findings and recommendations:

• The most critical issue is the existence of three separate organizations with unique cultures and management styles. The report recommends implementation of a single unified organizational structure with authority over all emergency response services. This recommendation, if implemented, would not only ensure the delivery of optimal response service to citizens, but also reduce annual payroll expenses by $1.8 million.
• Address the “us versus themâ€? mentality that contributes to the significant employee morale issues and “air of divisivenessâ€? pervasive throughout all groups at the center. This should involve management spending more “face timeâ€? with employees, changes in the holiday policy, an effective Employee Concerns Review Program and an action plan that acknowledges the issues and sets forth steps to address them.

• Staff shortages, exacerbated by a large amount of forced overtime and associated absenteeism, combined with a frequently confrontational work environment, may place at risk the delivery quality and reliability of critical emergency response services.

According to the article, the H.E.C accepted some of the conclusions, and took others “under advisement.” It would be interesting to see what changes were made after the audit. My feeling is “none substantive.”