Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, November 20, 1957 to December 2, 1959, lvc000011-80

Image

File
Download lvc000011-080.tif (image/tiff; 57.24 MB)

Information

Digital ID

lvc000011-080
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    This analysis is not to be construed by anyone as a personal affront to any member of the administrative staff, Department Head or any member of the Commission. I am not interested in personalities whatsoever. If anyone should decide to take offense at what I say or recommend, it will stand as prima facie evidence that they are selfish, and care little for efficiency or the tax payer of the City of Las Vegas. Some of these items have existed far too long, and I assume my share of the responsibility for not speaking up sooner. 1. It is my recommendation that the position of Assistant to the Mayor at a salary of $8400 per year be abolished forthwith. I have yet to find one person who can justify this salary made up of hard tax payers' dollars. I have queried several people as to what this position accomplished for the City, and all I get is a polite shrug of the shoulders. 2. The Police Department Budget for the year 58-59 is tremendous, exceeding a million dollars. The Budget in the past has provided for 90 patrolmen and 16 sergeants. The maximum number of patrolmen employed during the past budget year has been 80. I favor providing for 80 patrolmen and hiring that number. It appears that 80 has taken care of the needs of the City, and plain cold hard economics dictate that we simply cannot afford any more. It is my considered opinion that the Police Department is budgeting for more men than they need to adequately police this City. I question the necessity or advisability of the use of a Lieutenant and 3 patrolmen at the Police Rehabilitation Farm. It appears to me that these men's services could be utilized to a greater advantage in active police work, thereby giving the Taxpayer the maximum return for each dollar spent. If the Lieutenant at the Rehabilitation Farm is a training Officer, then he should be used as a Training Officer and not be allowed to waste valuable time on much less important duties. It is my belief that adequate supervisory help for the Rehabilitation Farm can be acquired at much less cost than what is presently being provided. In the interest of economy I would strongly recommend that the position of Director of Public Safety be abolished and that the salary be reduced accordingly. The position was created as an experiment, and seemingly from all concerned, it serves no useful purpose. It is my opinion that the present Director of Public Safety be employed as a Coordinator of Civil Defense, and he should be paid for that service. 3. The Department of Street Lighting, commonly known as the Electrical Department, presents an amazing situation. We presently have a City Electrician at a salary of $625.00 per month, an Electrical Foreman at $476.00 per month, and 7 utility electricians at $341. to $426. This, mind you, is in addition to an Electrical Engineer in the Engineering Department and an Electrical Engineer in the Fire Department, presently installing the Fire Alarm system and necessary equipment. This is a flagrant waste of Taxpayers' money, and should have been corrected long before this. A complete reorganization of this Department is absolutely necessary. It is idle folly to have a Superintendent and a Foreman to supervise 7 men, especially in view of the fact that able and competent supervisory help is employed in two other departments of the City. It would be my recommendation to the Board that an Electrical Department be established which would encompass these specific departments; all Electrical, Radio, Street Lights, Fire Alarm System and Traffic Signals, and in so doing, eliminate two or three personnel. 4. It is apparent that the position of Cemetery Superintendent can be abolished without any impairment to that operation. I have been advised that the foreman at the Cemetery can handle this position along with his other work. The present employee should be transferred to another department where his services can be utilized with a greater return to the taxpayer. 5. There need be no provision in the Budget for a Maintenance Superintendent. The supervisory direction for this Department can be handled by one of the Engineers. 6. Two Park Guards can be replaced by the Police, making periodic calls at these stations during the night. I would like to draw your attention that in these recommendations, a saving of approximately $40,000.00 in salaries would be enjoyed by the City. These savings can be accomplished without any loss in efficiency." Commissioner Bunker further stated that until someone can prove to him that these recommendations are not in the public interest, he refuses to sign any Budget that does not cover these recommendations. Commissioner Whipple stated that he felt these recommendations should be given consideration. Commissioner Fountain stated that he agreed with Commissioner Bunker's recommendations. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, at the hour of 10:10 P.M. Commissioner Fountain moved this meeting adjourn. Motion seconded by Commissioner Whipple and carried by the following vote: Commissioners Bunker, Fountain, Whipple and His Honor voting aye; noes, none. Absent: Commissioner Sharp. ATTEST: APPROVED: 3-5-58