L-E story: "Tomlinson had proposed cutting the waste fund by $187,000 and going to once-a-week garbage pickup. That would have saved $331,000 a year, with the surplus going toward replacing aging garbage trucks." -- With 55,000 households paying $14.00 a month in fees that were imposed to pay for the continued second pick up means that the City collects in excess of $9,000,000.00 in 'second day pick up fees'. Trading off second day pick up to save $331,000.00 does not sound like a good trade off for the citizens of Columbus. Furthermore, there should be an audit to investigate why the City has not kept up with maintaining the garbage truck fleet better over the years. Letting so many fall into various states of poor condition 'at once' is a signal of bad department management and inadequate Council oversight.
---
A couple of weeks ago, just before CHS's graduation, 4 Columbus High seniors were caught vandalizing the building. Wasn't a whole lot of damage, but how much more would have occurred had they not been interrupted? One of these students was awarded a scholarship (hope it wasn't because of some essay on patriotism or on civic service) from a concerned citizen organization, so we can guess that he (and maybe the others) may have been inline for a Hope Scholarship as well. I do not know if there is (but there should be) a policy where acts of vandalism disqualify students from receiving Hope Scholarship money, but it that should be applied to any of these or other students doing such. A prank is one thing; vandalizing public property is another.
---
In a question to the MCSD board et al, I asked why "we' were funding the Summer Meal program using our school facilities, at taxpayer expense, for a non-educational program.
This is an excerpt of the response offered by our Superintendent, and my response to her:

In a message dated 5/31/2011 4:35:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Andrews.Susan.C@muscogee.k12.ga.us writes:
The program is fully reimbursable from federal funds and does not add to the district’s general fund budget. Utility costs are reimbursed through our charging the program indirect costs as allowed by the NSLP.
Mrs Andrews....
Who do you think provides these federal funds...the 'federal funds fairy'?

Seeing how (using 20 year old figures which are probably under-weighted now) federal programs generally used 78% of their programs funding for internal administration and operating expenses meaning that only 22% of the allocated funds ever get sent to the field level of such programs, the real hidden cost of the funds you receive for this program are closer to 5 times the money you receive to implement this program

As to the argument you make about keeping food service employees on the payroll, perhaps realigning the payroll schedule that pays such employees over a 12 month period instead of 10 might be a better answer, and let those employees supplement their wages with a summer job in the private sector.

I do remember when (though it may not be pertinent now) when teachers were allowed to choose whether to get their annual salary in 12 month increments or divided into monthly shares based on the school year contract.
---
If there is no cost benefit in merging the Marshal and Sheriff offices together, how was that conclusion made unless a thorough audit & analysis has already been made? Where are the figures to support such a claim?
---
A couple of L-E headlines: "HOME-PRICE INDEX FALLS TO LOWEST POINT SINCE 2002 * Consumer confidence falls unexpectedly in May " -- Guess 2011 will be Emperor O'Bozo's sequel.... "Summer of Recovery 3", another loser at the box office. at taxpayer expense.
---