Member since Mar 11, 2010

Custom Lists

  • Zip.



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “County assemblies give parties chance to set their course for election year

1520Oneida - I am aware of that. I posted to the person now using 152OOneida (they are using a capital "O" instead of a attention). They are trying to confuse people by using a name similar to yours, but there is no other way to refer to them.

My reply was in response to their comment that was right below mine.

Posted by do_the_math on 04/10/2010 at 11:13 AM

Re: “County assemblies give parties chance to set their course for election year

truevoter: actually, people are saying negative things about Maketa based on HIS actions, not the actions of someone who backs him politically.

And to the person using "152OOneida" to try to confuse people, in more ways than one, you wrote: "Shirk has sent out flyers saying he is going to fire sworn employees and make less paid lesser quality people take the positions."

First, I don't know or support Shirk but let me clarify something: civilianizing some positions does not equate to firing cops and hiring morons. It makes sense in a lot of cases to put a cop back on patrol or in the jail, where they are most needed and to hire someone WITH RELEVANT SKILLS to do jobs that don't require a POST certified law enforcement officer. It's a huge waste to put a cop in a position that they aren't even trained or educated to do, when they ARE trained and educated to do other things that we don't have enough people to cover as it is.

And to go a step further, Maketa has already demonstrated a willingness to do the same thing, at least in one instance. Remember the comptroller mentioned in Zubeck's first article? That position was changed from a sworn lieutenant to a civilian position and the lieutenant that formerly held the position was returned to patrol duties. Not fired. Get it?

Posted by do_the_math on 04/10/2010 at 7:09 AM

Re: “Star treatment

CS_Resident: The people I'm referring to are not simply deputies who are working on a shift that is short so they're taking on a portion of the total workload. I'm talking about people who are in specific types of positions where they are then also taking on duties for another entire specific position. Some of those are covering for positions above their current rank, some are covering positions below their rank. No one is acknowledging them, applauding them or paying them extra. THESE are the people who helped get this agency through the budget problems.

In the example from this article, the comptroller is covering duties from a position under her supervision that is lower in rank. So, by applying your own argument, do you think she should be paid extra for assuming duties that she's ultimately responsible for anyway and that are far below her current rank?

Regarding the comment about the "ridiculous" salary, I refer to the fact that she's been given an 85% pay increase in a rather short period of time, which I find distasteful on face value, but especially when others have gone without ANY pay increases for a number of years until this January.

On your question about comparing her salary to those of other agencies, that's difficult to answer. The employees in general at this agency are often underpaid when compared that way. So, to compare her salary with other agencies' comptrollers, she may be right in line with what they make - but when nearly every other employee is not making what their counterparts at similar organizations would make, that makes her pay way out of line with those she works with here and it makes people wonder why SHE is treated differently.

Posted by do_the_math on 03/11/2010 at 5:31 PM

Re: “Star treatment

CS_Resident: I neglected to answer your second question. There are only a small number of civilian positions in the agency at the same level of "responsibility" if you want to call it that, so the short answer is "no." Most of them are at varying levels, in both civilian and sworn assignments. Are you suggesting that the other people who cover two and sometimes more positions are not worthy of being compensated for their extra efforts because they're not already paid a ridiculous amount of money to begin with? I hope that's not what you meant.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by do_the_math on 03/11/2010 at 4:31 PM

Re: “Star treatment

CS_Resident, I know it for a fact, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. I don't believe everything I read unlike many people in this community.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by do_the_math on 03/11/2010 at 4:25 PM

Re: “Star treatment

Oops, I apologize. It was $9852, not $9582. That's even better.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by do_the_math on 03/11/2010 at 4:14 PM

Re: “Star treatment

CS_Resident said "When the comptroller took over yet another job *in ADDITION to the comptrollers job*, he gave her a boost in pay to compensate her for the additional duties. What is wrong with that?"

What's wrong with it is that she is one of MANY employees there who has taken on other duties in order to cover open positions. However, no one else gets additional compensation for this - and definitely not in the amount of $9582 per year.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by do_the_math on 03/11/2010 at 4:10 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation