paulyouk (Paul Youk)

Follow

Comment history

Just Food says it was 'shocked' by Farmer's handling of business; whether crimes were committed 'to be determined'

This should be a loud wake-up call to the BOD of all Douglas County non-profits; don't take what your directors tell you at face value, actually verify what they say by checking independent sources.

The Just Food BOD can be 'shocked' all they want. Mostly it just shows they weren't really paying attention...

August 21, 2015 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Faith in city

"and Lew Perkins as AD to build the financial base."

Um, KU ticket scandal?

August 15, 2015 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Douglas County Senior Services to eliminate congregate meal sites

Brett, I think you make some excellent points.

Not only should we want to pay people in these important positions adequately because it is the right thing to do, it also allows you to 1) attract quality candidates and hopefully keep them, and 2) keep your Director fully concerned about making your organization vibrant and effective, instead of constantly worrying about how to make ends meet personally, taking on a 2nd job, etc. Not to mention the moral hazards of having some of these organizations that can have 7 figure bugdets paying their director like $10-12 an hour. We already have problems with mismanagement and potential misappropriation of funds in local non-profits. If they were all run by people making ~20K, it creates some incentives for problematic behavior when the people responsible for 7 figure funding can't even get by adequately.

I also find it personally annoying when the vocal minority you mention treats average to good pay levels like they are extravagant; 40-50k is a modest salary for quality professionals, and you want quality professionals running these organizations.

The caveat I have to your thoughts is that I do think one part of the Farmer buffoonery should stick in the minds of local non-profits and their boards. Non-profits need to stop hiring directors primarily based on perceived charisma and personal connections. They need to hire people with rich and diverse skill-sets, who are good with people but also solid with information management, technology, etc. Preferably, they would also have experience with the nuts and bolts of running successful organization and have managed successfully before, but for some smaller non-profits that need to pay less, such a candidate could be cost-prohibitive.

Above all, do make sure you get someone who is competent and honest, and not someone who just impresses you superficially.

The flip-side of paying people reasonably is that you can be picky and have high expectations. This town is full of smart, skilled, competent people. Try hiring them over people you just like and know.

August 15, 2015 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: School attack

Precisely.

May 15, 2015 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: School attack

Let me try this a different way. Imagine the owner of a small business. He tells his employees that they are getting a 5% raise next year. Then, right before the year rolls around, he decides to give them a $.05 raise for the year.

People are upset that their raise was cut. You are the person running around wondering, 'but a $.05 raise is still a raise! Why is everyone so upset about this?'

May 15, 2015 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: School attack

Is this compared to the original budget, before block grants? (No)

Does it account for inflation, or other economic adjustments? (No)

I just have to point out that this is 'technically true for raw $', but very misleading in its implication.

Are you being intentionally misleading, or do you lack the understanding of why what you are typing is misleading?

Am I phrasing these questions politely enough?

May 15, 2015 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: School attack

We are spending 50m+ less via block grants than we would have spent. When we switched to block grants, we reduced the amount of money we budgeted to schools. We will now give schools less money.

You can try to misdirect away from this all day, but that is a spending cut.

May 15, 2015 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: School attack

So, are you happy that we are cutting $ from schools, or not?

Tone policing is one of the de facto responses people give when they don't have any substance to respond to an argument with, in my experience. Where is my tone that bad, btw?

May 15, 2015 at 12:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas governor signs bill overhauling civil service system

Republicans are a self-fulfilling prophecy; they know that government doesn't work, and to demonstrate that fact, they take over the government and systematically make it incompetent.

Just remember who to blame when you have even longer lines at the DMV, long-phone waits when needing to deal with government services, and when the people providing you services seem under-trained and overwhelmed.

May 15, 2015 at 11:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: School attack

Just like Dave Trabert, your claim makes here makes a false inference. Your fact is true but it infers that school budgets weren't cut in Kansas, which is a falsehood. They absolutely were cut with the block funding switch. Kansas schools will have 50m+ less in funds under block grants than they would have under the traditional funding mechanism.

Just be honest and celebrate that you like that we are cutting $ from schools.

Also, just because an institution spends a portion of money in a way you dislike, it isn't always justification to cut funds to the good things that institution does (not that I buy your interpretation of that program, which is probably as bunk as the rest of your thinking).

May 15, 2015 at 10:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous