In case you missed it in comments here, there’s more intel about the new CFO for Montclair and how it might involve Glen Ridge…
The CFO postion is not part time at $120,000.
It is as follows…
1. The appointment as Chief Financial Officer/CMFO is effective January 1, 2007, with the expectation that you will work the equivalent of one day per week for Montclair and be in the office on average once per week. You will receive a stipend of $462 per week for this service.
2. The appointment as Director of Finance and Chief Financial Officer/CMFO is effective February 5, 2007, and at that time the above stipend will cease and an annual salary of $122,160 will commence.
So it is only a part time postion for a month at a lower stipend until the full time position starts at $120k.
The part to be worried about is…
3. As discussed, the Borough of Glen Ridge may wish Montclair to provide their CFO next year under a shared services agreement. Thus, you may be able to participate in this or a similar opportunity in the future, as long as we are able to work out mutually agreeable terms.
4. I understand that you have child care issues through this school year. As long as you keep me informed of your situation and devote full-time to your position here starting 2/5/07, you will be able to “flex” your hours on days that you need to attend to these issues.
Those scare me as it is worded in a way that we may not see a person in this office from 9-5, Mon-Fri. And it leaves open the door that we may see the person working for another municipality like the last CFO. Hopefully if the CFO works also for Glen Ridge, Montclair gets some money back as opposed to the last CFO who got paid a seperate salary from Mountainside while Montclair got nothing (not really a shared service at all, just a second job!)
I find ‘Hiding #41’ comments regarding point 4 highly disturbing. So people with child care issues need to hide full time behind stoves and cleaning supplies where they belong? And real men and women can clock-in from 9-5 and pretend in the those times that their family does not exist?
I’m surprised the flex hours scare you given the reason. Remember too that we are hiring a CFO and not a clerk. It almost sounds as if you want the person to “punch in and out”. There are better ways to know if we are getting value for our dollar than seeing someone behind the desk for a full 8 hours.
As for sharing with Glen Ridge, isn’t sharing services part of a long term stratagey for reducing cost of government. While it needs to be done effectivly, the time has come for it. When do we talk about merging police departments?
I’m surprised the flex hours scare you given the reason. Remember too that we are hiring a CFO and not a clerk. It almost sounds as if you want the person to “punch in and out”. There are better ways to know if we are getting value for our dollar than seeing someone behind the desk for a full 8 hours.
As for sharing with Glen Ridge, isn’t sharing services part of a long term stratagey for reducing cost of government. While it needs to be done effectivly, the time has come for it. When do we talk about merging police departments?
I’m surprised the flex hours scare you given the reason. Remember too that we are hiring a CFO and not a clerk. It almost sounds as if you want the person to “punch in and out”. There are better ways to know if we are getting value for our dollar than seeing someone behind the desk for a full 8 hours.
As for sharing with Glen Ridge, isn’t sharing services part of a long term stratagey for reducing cost of government. While it needs to be done effectivly, the time has come for it. When do we talk about merging police departments?
I’m surprised the flex hours scare you given the reason. Remember too that we are hiring a CFO and not a clerk. It almost sounds as if you want the person to “punch in and out”. There are better ways to know if we are getting value for our dollar than seeing someone behind the desk for a full 8 hours.
As for sharing with Glen Ridge, isn’t sharing services part of a long term stratagey for reducing cost of government. While it needs to be done effectivly, the time has come for it. When do we talk about merging police departments?
The key phrase in #3…
you may be able to participate in this or a similar opportunity in the future.
Seems a bit open ended that the CFO could be working for someone other than Montclair or Glen Ridge within a shared services framework.
Mr. M
Hiding #41 is reacting to the history of the CFO position. The current CFO has been allowed to hold a 2nd job within her full time 9-5 job in Montclair.
This was NOT job sharing but a 2nd job…
It has nothing to do with Mr. Stelter’s family and all to do with the fact that Montclair has already allowed itself to be shortchanged.
Remember that when questioned Town Manager Hartnett told us that holding 2 jobs between 9-5 was standard procedure and very acceptable to him. So the current CFO has also worked for Mountainside during the same business hours that she has worked for Montclair.
Do you find that acceptable? I don’t!
Montclair needs a FULL TIME CFO…
Exactly. Remember, Montclair received nothing from Mountainside for the CFO’s part time work, which was between the hours of 9-5. Mountainside paid the CFO directly. This was no shared service, this was a second job. If the current CFO works, say, 1 day a week for Glen Ridge under a shared service agreement, Montclair should receive 20% of the current salary as a reimbursement. That would be a shared service.
Let’s not be fooled twice.
Clerks get flex hours. CFOs DO NOT.
What better ways do you suggest for measuring that we’re getting value from the CFO. Woul not losing $500,000 in the Water Department qualify.
Would explaining where it went and if it was recovered qualify.
Would explaining the number and amounts of water bill increases qualify.
If so why haven’t we seen any of the above from our present CFO?
That’s true.
I am a clerk and get flextime.
My Manager is a VP and does not.
I get overtime if I work over 40 hours.
My Manager, the VP does not nor does he get comp time. He is expected to work as many hours as it takes to get the job done.
Isn’t that one of the differences between being on the bottom rung and up at the top. At the top you are supposed to take on more responsibility *not* less.
Why treat the CFO as though they were a clerk, they should be giving more hours rather than less.
Whatever happened to taking pride in your work?
I think we need to get the definition of SHARED SERVICES that Town Manager Hartnett is using.
To my mind if you are participating in SHARED SERVICES the salary of the employee who is being shared should be shared.
The employee doesn’t get to double dip in terms of pension ans ONLY gets their agreed on salary. NOT a 2nd salary and pension.
How much does Montclair get for performing Glen Ridge’s Fire Department duties?
Is their an aportionment of $$$ spend it terms of hours, services and infrastructure and Glen Ridge pays their share?
What other Montclair Town Employees are allowed to perform a 2nd job on Montclair time?
Is there a list?
Are other Town Employees offered “flex time”?
Does the CFO have to make up the “flex time” hours that he doesn’t work?
Who keeps track of the “flex time” hours that are owed to Montclair? If they are not worked within the next couple of months what happens?
Does Montclair has a defined “flex time” policy
What does “sharing” the services of a CFO mean? If we are paying $120K for a CFO, and Glen Ridge gets to use him for one day out of 5, does Glen Ridge pay Montclair $40,000?
Does anyone here think $40,000, in terms of the duties and expectations for a CFO, means anything?
The expectation should be that a good CFO, and I assume this fellow coming in is excellent, can effect BIG savings and make a true difference in Montclair spending!
$40,000 is NOTHING. If it means the CFO is less effective because he’s not here 100% of the time it’s a VERY foolish course of action!
Remember the missing $500,000 from the Water Bureau? Forty grand is a small percentage!
We expect the CFO to be making million dollar decisions. The Town should not be penny wise, pound foolish!
And if, as I expect, the proposal is for the CFO to be getting the money directly, well if $122K is not enough money, and we need yet another scam (shared services with Glen Ridge) as an excuse to solve the REAL problem (salary not high enough) I say enough of the BS! Just give the guy “the going salary” and let’s move on!
We don’t need yet another scheme to avoid facing the real problem!
Pay people what they are worth! $122K is probably NOT enough money for a cracker jack financial wiz!
And remember, this wording doesn’t seem to limit the fellow to just ONE other job!
Before we assume that $122k is “not enough for a cracker jack financial whiz,” we need facts. And from the facts I have found on the internet, I am absolutely baffled as to how/why we are paying this much for a CFO. As I posted recently on Baristanet, the City of Trenton–our capital, and a city with a huge annual budget and a payroll that dwarfs Montclair’s–just posted a job for a CFO with a salary range of $80,000 to $101,000.
Could the Town Council or Manager please explain how $122k for a suburban CFO is the going rate?
Adam Grace
Adam,
I’m convinced that this “shared services” bit is just another “Sewer Authority” deal. An opportunity to hide a real reason with a fake reason.
The guy wants more money, plain and simple.
Sounds like a movie advertisement:
“Shared Services” Written and Directed by the Same People who brought you The Sewer Authority!
Adam,
It may be the going rate but for what % of the job…a day a week in Mountside, a day a week in Glen Ridge and we’re already down to 60% of time in Montclair per week.
So, will this CFO get to double dip on pension and benefits like the last one did? Full pay from Montlciar and pay from other municipalities as well?
To Pennypitcher – It is very likely the person in Trenton has a more challenging role but the cost of living in Trenton is much lower vs. that in Montclair.
You can look up avg. cost for 2 bd rent or starter home in Trenton vs. Montclair.
Dear Cost!
Don’t confuse me with the others! I’m all FOR paying MORE money to the CFO because 1) I want a VERY GOOD person in the position and 2) You are absolutely right, it costs a lot more to live in this neck of the woods than it does in Trenton!
I’m for making the CFO perform his/her job.
The disappearance of the water department money instills no confidence in me for the present CFO or the auditors!
This CFO matter raises yet another yellow flag, that maybe, just maybe your hefty Real Estate tax $$$$, among the highest in the U.S., are being squandered by an incompetent, or corrupt town government. The fact that Montclarians pay the most in Real Estate taxes, but have a mediocre high school is an absolute crime.
The citizens should be marching on town hall.
we agree chimpo!
Does he get full time benefits while working part time for Montclair?? And an unmarked fully loaded SUV with gas and insurance on us?
What connections does Jersey Professional Management have to Montclair.
————————
They hired Hartnett for his current job. They also did some consultant work for Montclair… Why. Who’s payroll are they on. Why were they paid $90,000 to do a study on shared services between Montclair, Orange and West Orange. Did this deal come before the town council?————–
TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR
AND
CITY OF ORANGE TOWNSHIP
FINAL REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
POSSIBLE SHARING OF
FIREFIGHTING RELATED SERVICES
BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR
AND THE CITY OF ORANGE
Important, Please note:
This Report for Montclair and Orange should not be considered or reviewed, officially or even informally, without recognizing that a similar, Phase II Feasibility Study between
Orange and West Orange is in progress.
This Phase II Report will be completed by June 2007.
TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR
AND CITY OF ORANGE TOWNSHIP
FINAL REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
POSSIBLE SHARING OF
FIREFIGHTING RELATED SERVICES
BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR
AND THE CITY OF ORANGE
Jersey Professional Management
23 North Avenue East
Cranford, NJ 07016
December 2006
Final Report on the Feasibility Study of Possible Sharing of