I don't have anything against Alvarado, necessarily... but I'm one of those weird people who watches the council meetings, from time to time, on television. IMHO, and from my sporadic witness, she has a tendency to be disruptive, egocentric, pushy, and self-righteous.
I also heard, through the grapevine, that in the context of a public forum she audibly referred to Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs as a "bitch". I've got my quibbles with SSG, but I think it's "elected official ettiquette 101"... you don't mutter, much less pronounce such things publically. I didn't hear it myself... but I have to say, having watched council meetings... I don't doubt it a bit.
I've never understood why Mayor White, of all the (admitted, very limited) choices, appointed Alvarado mayor pro tem when he took office in 2004. He DID acknowledge in the midst of this scandal, however, that it appears that the pro tem office's $320,000 budget in this fiscal year, up 25 percent over 2005, is too high.
"If there was enough money for somebody to steal, there was too much money," Mayor White said.
(As an aside, The Chronicle reported that city officials and Alvarado hadn't fully detailed the $66,000 budget increase, which the council cut almost in half from the pro tem office's original request of $122,0000).
Alvarado would like to come out on the other side of this scandal completely unscathed. IMHO, however, she is at the very least, extremely too irresponsible to hold both a council chair and oversee the pro tem office.
She is either generous to a fault, lining her employees pockets (to the neglect of our policemen and women and our firefighters)... or she is neglectful in her duty to the citizens of Houston, to personally review and account for her employees. Shall the voters... or courts decide which?
Interesting facts from the Chronicle article...
- The Chronicle published figures from City of Houston Personnel Records, and the four employees in the Mayor Pro Tem's Office got raises ranging from 11 percent to 64 percent during the same period in which they split $135,000 in what city officials say were unauthorized bonuses. The raises increased the employees' combined annual pay rates by $60,000 during Councilwoman Carol Alvarado's two-year tenure as Mayor Pro Tem.
- Alvarado says she didn't approve the raises, either, which makes me wonder exactly what she IS doing.
- The two highest-paid employees, who also got most of the bonus money, signed forms authorizing each others' raises. And they're all still drawing salaries while out on suspension.
- Rosita Hernandez, the pro tem office manager and second in command, Florence Watkins, signed approval forms for all the raises, and both had Alvarado's permission to approve paperwork on her behalf. A February 2005 form raising Hernandez's salary, for example, was signed "Florence Watkins for Carol Alvarado."
- The councilwoman said Wednesday that she never authorized anything higher than a 2 percent salary increase approved in 2004.
- Hernandez received two raises in 2005, increasing her base annual salary 37 percent to $78,000. Watkins' salary rose 55 percent during Alvarado's tenure, from $33,000 to $52,000. Two other employees in the office, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta, received raises of 64 percent and 10 percent respectively.
- The bonuses began in late 2004. After a brief lull in January and February 2005 when, incidentally, Hernandez, Mays and Watkins received two raises apiece — the monthly bonuses continued through this year. Orta got a raise even after the bonuses resumed.
- The $47,500 in bonuses Hernandez recievedput her total pay among the city's highest at $126,000.
- Watkins nearly doubled her $52,000 salary with $46,500 in bonuses.
It's public record, so I don't feel bad about listing the following:
Rosita Hernandez Salary: Increased from $57,200 to $78,416 Bonuses: $47,500Florence Watkins Salary: $33,384 to $51,896 Bonuses: $46,500
Christopher Mays Salary: $26,936 to $44,148 Bonuses: $20,000
Theresa Orta Salary: $26,884 to $29,952 Bonuses: $16,500
No comments:
Post a Comment