STORYLINE Sacramento City Hall / Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 2
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 2
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image

Sacramento’s city government is in the midst of a major overhaul.

The merging of seven city departments and offices was among many cuts city leaders made to close out a $43 million budget shortfall. Consolidations of several departments, including Neighborhood Services and Parks and Recreation, are now under way.

Neighborhood Services is no longer its own department. It’s now a division of the Parks and Recreation Department. The Office of Youth Development also lost its unique status — it now falls under the umbrella of Parks and Recreation.

The consolidations include cuts to a few top positions. Vincene Jones, who was the director of the Neighborhood Services Department, is now the manager of the Neighborhood Services division.

As part of the Parks and Neighborhood Services consolidation, Jones’s division is now responsible for a special events unit formerly under the jurisdiction of Parks and Recreation.

Putting the special events unit under the Neighborhood Services division is a “natural fit” because the two groups already had a working relationship, Jones said.

“We do things together anyway,” Jones said.

Neighborhood Services will lose two staffers. Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Services will continue to be housed at City Hall on Ninth Street.

Lyn Corbett, who headed the Office of Youth Development, is leaving the city in the next couple months, said Hindolo Brima, a spokesman for the Parks Department. Corbett did not respond to a phone call Thursday afternoon. The city formed the Office of Youth Development in 2007.

The Parks-Neighborhood Services-Youth Development consolidation results in a Parks Department with more expertise relating to neighborhoods and youth, Brima said.

At the same time, the Code Enforcement Department has joined with the Community Development Department. Code Enforcement is now a division of the Community Development Department.

Max Fernandez, who was the director of Code Enforcement, said a decision has not been announced about his employment with the city government. While his job status is up in the air, Fernandez spoke positively about the consolidation.

“We’ll be able to share the resources of the two departments to use them more efficiently,” he said.

Fernandez noted that Code Enforcement personnel will be moving from their current headquarters on Meadowview Road to the Community Development Department headquarters on Richards Boulevard. Staff will move over in the next 60 to 90 days, he said.

In a third group of consolidations, the Human Resources and Labor Relations Departments have merged, said city spokeswoman Amy Williams.

In addition, Williams said the city is still examining the idea of creating an Office of Communications, in which public information officers would work under one office instead of at various departments.

Photos: Vincene Jones of Neighborhood Services and a Code Enforcement employee.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

P W
Author thumbnail
July 2, 2010 | 7:33 AM
"Efficiency" is a term we're hearing a LOT these days...both in the public and private sectors. I find it interesting that some of these policies weren't considered during the "good times". Isn't being efficient a good thing....even when there's plenty of money? I guess it comes down to the "necessity is the mother of invention" axiom.
5 1
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 10:25 AM
When the economy is robust and money is flowing waste becomes acceptable. We have a saying in our operations department that reminds us of how easy it is to get fat during good times: If we hire someone to change lightbulbs, within six months they will require an assistant.
4 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 5:15 PM
The "hindsight is 20/20" axiom also applies. In many cases, departments were separate due to significant differences in mission. Being efficient is not always a good thing--government's priority is on the public good, which means doing the best job for the most people. The result isn't always optimally cost-effective--such as providing utilities and services to poor neighborhoods with low property values, or having separate departments focus on their individual missions instead of having to generalize.

Think of it like a Swiss Army knife. A Swiss Army knife is pretty efficient--it lets you fit a bunch of small tools in your pocket. But generally the screwdriver on a Swiss Army knife isn't quite as good as an actual screwdriver, the knife blade not quite as handy as a fixed-blade knife, etcetera. Giving a tool too many jobs means it's generally adequate at most but not ideal for any of them. So even though it's technically more "efficient," it's not the best solution.
5 2
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 6:09 PM
OMG "Being efficient is not always a good thing..."

That’s all I needed to read....

Burg are you a paid apologist for the inefficient? SERIOUSLY, thats not an accusation, WHO PAYS YOU?


Seriously, do you own a home and pay property taxes? Are you like most Americans who pay over 50% of their incomes to the government? Are you on the dole? A trust funder?

Because as a property owner and taxpayer, I dont think I have ever heard more offensive remarks that what you just made... In fact your remark is so offensive to me and almost every other tax payer on the planet, I am going to flag your post as offensive.

2 6
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 1:05 AM
As usual I agree with your post William. Thank you so much
2 0
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 8:41 AM
Looks like soon the only departments that will be left are Police and Fire. Maybe the City can save money and cosolidate to Polire (Police and Fire).
5 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 10:25 AM
Filice?
5 0
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 7:58 PM
Burg is correct when he writes "efficiency is not always a good thing." Sometimes efficiency has to be weighed in relation to services, circumstances and/or outcomes. It is well known that a Democracy/Republic is far less efficient government form than a Dictatorship where there are no costly campaigns, elections, court decisions or conflicting decision makers, etc. The dictator merely surrounds himself with those who will and can carry out a dictator's orders. Is that a good thing?

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), "most cars’ fuel efficiency peaks at speeds from 35 to 60 miles per hour." Driving in congested stop and go traffic or in 25 mph speed zones also reduces cars' efficiency. Is it a good thing never to drive more than 60 or less than 35?
3 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 8:58 PM
That's my worry, Dale--the kinds of folks screaming for "efficiency" remind me of another group that called for "efficient" government around 80 years ago--best known for their natty brown uniforms and appropriation of Buddhist sun symbols as logos. They liked efficient government too, and temporarily streamlined things to avoid all that silly business about elections. They, too, depended on jingoism, racism, fear of outsiders, mob action, and a desire to remove the "inefficient" from society.
4 2
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 9:51 PM
LOL well no doubt Dale that given your political persuasions that you’d agree with Burg.

Why is it that those on the Left could care less about government inefficiency and waste? Hmmm something to do with union contracts, HUGE government salaries, health care and retirement packages? Or is it y’all live off the hard work and perspiration of others?

A message to you on the Left - Government financial malfeasance, waste and inefficiency harms everyone, but it disproportionately harms the poor through cutbacks in social services health care and education.

Self reliance and personal responsibility, coupled with responsible financial management by elected officials, and less taxation would make our economy flourish and increase employment.
Government irresponsibility and inefficiency is why our city, our county, our state and our federal government are completely broke - our grandchildren will be paying the price for the monkeys running all levels of government.



1 2
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 9:04 PM
Sorry to see the Office of Youth Development get lumped in with Parks & Recreation...while there can be some overlap, not all youth development activities really belong under the parks & rec umbrella. Maybe when we are in better financial times as a city, this consolidation can be re-visited. Sorry for our city to lose Lyn Corbett as well. Lack of resources really stinks.
1 0
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 1:04 AM
I agree
0 0
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 1:03 AM
The office of youth development was established while former Mayor Fargo was in office--- and it's no surprise it will reduce in outreach, services..... with Johnson in office. I guess he has to continue to pay back those favors to SPOA for their endorsement for the SMI. We'll keep needing more cops as long as Johnson is in office since we'll keep losing youth programs. But what the heck should we expect from a man who can't see the forest through the trees (who can't see the youth through his SMI and the endorsement he continues to seek from SPOA of his SMI) Sad, very sad
2 0
REPLY
edited on  July 3, 2010 | 11:38 AM
Jim, once again you distort and ignore the reasoning Bill and I offered by using attack as a defense mode. I am, I know Bill is, in fact we all are concerned about government waste and inefficiency--we have the same concerns in private industry where we consumers buy products or services at inflated prices due to waste and inefficiencies.

Two facts remain. One is that perceived waste and inefficiency is sometimes a poorly thought out and faulty conclusion to an existing problem. The second is that waste and inefficiency in ANY organization must be weighed in terms of risk and short time gain vs. long time losses in quality of product and services. BP is a prime example.
3 0
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 3:08 PM
Due to efficiency or not, the CDD has to be revamped and Max may just be the guy for the job. Mr. Fernandez has done a great job w/ code enforcement and is capable of doing the same for a department disgraced by former city manager Ray KerRIDge & his buddy Billy Boy Thomas.

The combined departments are there as another arm of public safety. First, CDD is there to make sure that buildings are built correctly and in compliance with ALL applicable codes. Secondly, CE is there to make sure that said properties are maintained in a safe manner in order to protect the public's health, safety & welfare.

During the past 5 years the Portland boys made a mockery of the CDD/DSD department by giving away the store along with the animals and the farmer's wife. They brought to us buildings in the flood plain, waiver of much needed revenue and a hovering grand jury. It is time to clean house and start afresh with a director that is capable. Again, Max Fernandez may very well be it! Gus, are you reading?
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background