A recent Creative Loafing weekly article titled “Help a Kid by Firing Harry Jones” revolved mainly around the recent guilty plea of a former Mecklenburg County employee who embezzled funds from a charitable program. While any media outlet is entitled to express its opinion, we always hope they do so with the facts accurately portrayed.
County Manager Harry L. Jones Sr., upon the request of the director the Department of Social Services (DSS), called for immediate audits of the program, informed the Board of Commissioners (and the public) of his decision, revealed the audit findings and made changes in fiscal controls to fix the problems that were found. Personnel actions (which, by law, must be kept confidential) were taken, and law enforcement was called upon to investigate. This resulted in the repair of fiscal controls in DSS, and in the guilty plea of an employee who was engaged in embezzlement. (Documentation of the audit can found online at www.mecklenburgcountync.gov.)
The article also distorts the county manager’s role in the current economic downturn. Let’s take a look at some facts:
While putting together the fiscal year 2009 budget (after consulting with economists and other experts), the manager determined that sales tax revenue was decreasing. He reduced the FY09 approved budget to make sure the County didn’t spend more than it brought in, and warned of even more severe reductions in FY10. A mid-year correction was made again this year after holiday sales tax receipts (numbers that aren’t reported to the County for three months) declined sharply. So, in March, the manager announced reductions in budgets for County departments and partners. Meantime, sales tax revenue remained below even the most conservative estimates.
The article criticizes the manager for the level of debt the County is carrying. From the 1990s through 2006, Mecklenburg County experienced tremendous population growth, resulting in record new home sales, not to mention record demand for schools, parks and recreation facilities. The Board of County Commissioners (all elected officials) decided throughout this period that the voters should have the ability to decide if they wanted to pay for additional schools, county buildings and parks – and voters said “yes,” overwhelmingly. Today, one third of the County budget is the interest payment on all those bonds that elected officials agreed to put on the ballot and voters voted to approve.
Several years ago, Manager Jones recommended the Board establish a “paygo” fund (a method of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed, or “pay as you go”) as a means of reducing debt services costs, saying the County needed to moderate its debt. The Board later enacted his recommendations.
He also is the one who called for the County’s “debt diet” a year ago. Now, the manager is calling for indefinitely suspending the issuance of any further debt until the Board can review its capital priorities and stabilize the organization’s budget. Jones also called for the establishment of a debt service fund and setting capital spending limits based on what accrues in this fund.
Government officials should be called to task when they deliberately violate the public trust. Harry Jones has, on several occasions, accepted full responsibility for his own mistakes and those of his employees. His dedication to Mecklenburg County and its residents has been proven time and again.
Filed under: Uncategorized
OK, I’ll play.
In the past two years how many direct reports has Harry Jones fired?
Jeff, do you have a number or benchmark for firing in mind?
I would like to know, very specifically, how many people in the Jones administration received a pay raise or bonus this past year and how much. It is my understanding that a number of members of his staff in the Mgr’s Office got bonuses.
@ Charlotte,
Thanks for your question.
The Board of County Commissioners did vote to give Manager Jones his performance bonus in Fiscal Year 2010, but no one else in the Manager’s Office received pay raises or bonuses over the past year.
– Bill Carroll, Mecklenburg County Public Service and Information
OK, let’s try that same question asked in a more specific form. Did ANY employee within the County Mgr’s office receive ANY additional compensation, for any reason (IE; change in job title)? Further did ANY Department Head receive a pay increase or additional compensation, for any reason, over the past year? Within those departments where a Department head did receive a pay increase were there any staff RIF’d?
@Charlotte — Let’s take your questions one by one, with answerrs to follow:
Did ANY employee within the County Mgr’s office receive ANY additional compensation, for any reason (IE; change in job title)? No.
Further did ANY Department Head receive a pay increase or additional compensation, for any reason, over the past year? No.
Within those departments where a Department head did receive a pay increase were there any staff RIF’d? Not applicable.
Wrong! Let’s look at the Head of the Business personal property Tax Department. HR says that they got an increase and I know for a fact that at least one person was RIF’d because he is a neighbor and he told me so. That leaves the validity of question one in doubt as well.
Now, specifically dealing with 2 areas Land Records and GIS. Did any Department Heads or Supervisors get ANY pay increases for ANY reason?
The question was about department directors. The position you describe is not a department director.
Since you have contacted H.R. previously, and you have specific questions for specific questions, we can forward your question to them.
To the broader point, there was no merit pay budgeted or distributed last year (FY10) or this year (FY11) for any position.
To the broader point indeed. The point was and still is that there were managerial employees that are making more money this year than they made last year. And there are employees that lost their jobs to make that possible. You can dodge it any way you desire but that is the FACT!
@ Charlotte: No one received a merit increase during FY’10. It is factual that some employees received a mid-year market rate adjustment based on what was approved by the Board for implementation in FY’10.