See For Yourself Whether or NOT, and how much was actaully cut the last couple of years -- http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2011/477.pdf

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd, PM me your email address & I can supply the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 lists (Excel Spreadsheets) for your comparisons Does Grease Up, Bend Over, Grab Your Socks, and Smile come to mind?????

Just asking a few questions. I see a list with names, job category and pay. What is the context that makes your point? I can't agree, or disagree with your point because I can't tell the change.

I'm not saying that you don't have a valid arguement, but what are the details behind the fact that there are 40 pages of employees, some of whom either worked part time, or only at the beginning or end of 2010?

Thanks!

(Not necessarily comfortable with the posting of every employee's salary either. Personally, I wouldn't do that.)

Not sure how much stock i would put in that list as it is presented. A cursory look shows at least four folks who left in 2010 and one who died early that year.

At best that is a list of who worked there in 2010-2011 but it certainly does not tell you who is there today.

I see a lot of hard working folks who are not making as much as they should (or could somewhere else).

Probably quite a few non-hardworking folks on that list too. Its the public service sector, you get the good and the bad.

Many of those folks are sarary and put in 50+ hours a week. Most probably get into natural resource management because they care-definitely not because they want to get rich.

I understand your frustration with our declining fishing opportunities and perceived lack of representation for sportfishing. But as a former WDFW employee I can tell you I put myself into some dangerous/remote/strenuous situations for $14 an hour.

Hard to live the American dream on that kind of money.

+1

oowee... that might leave a mark when some of those guys compare pay scales. "That SOB ain't worth half that".

its our right as taxpayers to know the wages of state employees so web sites have been showing comparisons for a while now. I found this link when I was interested in how many employees were added under Gregoire reign.


http://lbloom.net/

JQ if your point was to show positions were not cut we have to remember WDFW and every other agency claimed to have open positions that wouldn't be filled so only a few layoffs would be needed.

What's the point?

From my experience and the folks I know in the Dept, I see at least 10 names on the list that are no longer employed by the Dept.

Did you factor in the 3% cut that state employees took this year?

If the point is these folks are making too much money... it is my experience that they are not... although the union that represents the enforcement folks seems to be doing a better job than the one representing the bios and the hatchery staff... in my view. I don't even know if its the same union but the enforcement positions seem to be up towards the higher end of the range... maybe trying to match state patrol, not sure.

In the region I live there are 2 less bios than there used to be. There are 2 fewer fish culturists than there used to be. There is one less enforcement officer than there used to be.

So, again, what's the point?

It's called seniority....it's a union thing. And with the present economic situation, don't be looking for the old goats to be retiring anytime soon.

The leadership is not in a union. They are "executives" and as such are more or less political appointees.

For Y'all's that think/believe/FEEL that list is BullChit, go back to the URL listed and looky real CLOSE. It is from None Other Than The Washington State Office of Financial Management, and it is really IBloom.Net's source. They are responsible (now that's ironic for a Goobermint Agency) for publishing the lists of all agencies and the accuracy of the lists. As M concisely pointed out, the Blouted Command Structure is out of cost control, annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, again, looky real close to the YOB titles, especially those that should have been CONTRACTED OUT years ago thereby saving a BUTT LOAD of our Bucks. Again, for those in the short attention span Pungentopolis, they mismanaged/wasted/pissed away/screwed up/etc., etc., our General Fund Tax Dollars (19%), License/Fees (40%), and Robertson/Pitman/Misc. Grants Excise Tax Dollars (40%), like a bunch of drunken sailors on shore leave (sorry Navy Vets). And every year they (WDFW Management Structure Bafoons) whine about cuts all the while pulling a 3 card Monty Game on us.

For the one that doesn't get the point of the thread, use the Forum Search Button and search IBloom. You'll be "pointed" rather quickly, and I can send you the 2 prior bieniums of spreadsheets. You print them out, lay them side by side and see the historical pattern of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse (that's a code word phrase that Auditors use). That in a nutshell is my point. Bottom line assessment from me (and quite a few others) is that WDFW & it's management have been, and continue to be a sad joke.

I am in the process of "Cleaning Up" a lot of quality problems that the Office Of Financial Management created with the list, i.e., multiple lines of the same person (being promoted or job changes). My analysis goal is to be able to get an accurate (as possible) FTE count as a whole, trends of Overhead Job Titles to Direct Mission Support Job Titles, and where OUR resources are being focused or NOT.

I don't disagree with you at all that there is waste in many state departments, but in essence all that you have shown me is a balance sheet that measures only a few items at one time. Fine. I see 40 pages of employees. I also noticed that a few names showed up twice.

What I don't see is a specific argument. For example, the WDFW had an actual FTE of 4500 employees in 2008 (totally fictional number) and now they have an FTE of 6500 employees as of 1-31-2011 (another number I pulled out'a my ass). That would show that they grew their department by 40%+.

Sorry I'm missing your point. Are you saying that they are adding staff when they shouldn't be, adding the wrong staff, cutting the wrong staff, or some combination of all of these? Are you saying they have too many IT folks, or there are too many bio#1's, or enforcement officers #2?

I'm trying to understand your argument. I look at spreadsheets all day, so if you distilled the information that you want us to get outraged by, I'd love to be outraged. It has been a while. Life's been pretty calm as of late and I could use some excitement.

Dogfish, please PM when he gets to the point.

Will do Jeff, ya teabagger.