Does our chief of police get an annual bonus? How about our fire chief or the commanding general of Fort Bliss?
Why is it that the institutions that we are having the most trouble with (the county hospital and EPISD) pay bonuses to their chiefs?
The county hospital CFO and COO (chief operating officer) evidently have received bonuses also. The CFO of the city regularly gave us wildly inaccurate forecasts and instead of getting a bonus she is no longer with the city. Should the same thing happen at the county hospital?
Why is it that the rank and file workers do not get bonuses for doing their jobs while some of our chiefs do?
Yes I know that some businesses pay bonuses for specific performance. Personally I would rather be paid a fair wage to do my job and get fired if I don’t.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
The short answer is that the employees in question, apparently all executives, have it in their contracts. And, I say, along with you, why? This was not done when this retired City/County and State employee worked for public agencies, and frankly, I see no way in the world to justify bonuses for a select few, when the rank and file do not also have such an incentive. Hell, we always figured our bonus was being allowed to continue working, especially after the State of Texas became an “At Will” employer, and State employees lost all protections under W. As a taxpayer, I don’t see any way to justify bonuses for any employee of an entity funded by tax dollars, especially at the top where the most money is already paid for the least work.
LikeLike
Thanks for articulating what I’ve been thinking for a long time.
LikeLike
Why would any tax payer funded or Non Profit organization pay a bonus for doing their job?
(I know. . . . its in their contract.)
Buy, WHY even put it in a contract?
Now, there is only one reason to even put that in a contact and that is a very small percentage maybe for Saving the organization money.
If an employee SAVED an organization money by moving things, finding permanent & better ways to operate, finding ways to make the organization run more efficient, MAYBE 1/2 percent of the savings with a cap of 10% of the employee’s salary.
LikeLike
It makes sense in certain private sector roles where shareholder value is the prime concern. I can see no reason for it in public sector unless you count EPISD’s former superintendent as one.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t be so bad if the sword cut both ways. Like now for instance, when the financial condition of UMC is such that Valenti should have to refund not just his bonus, but part of his base salary. After all, he created the problems at UMC.
If he and his two top toadies received more than $200,000 in bonuses despite the events of the last year, that implies that the board establishes very soft, easy goals that make the annual bonuses more or less automatic. Notice that the board hasn’t volunteered to share the specific objectives on which the bonus payments were based.
The timing and wording of Hanson’s guest editorial in the Sunday Times seemed political and insincere? Definitely too little too late. It seemed like pure fire fighting and damage control. Unfortunately, the house, which in this case is their credibility and public trust, is already burnt to a crisp.
LikeLike
We don’t do this for commanding generals, secretaries of state, presidents (of the university or the country)…why did the Board set up such a contract? The real problem here is not Valenti, but the UMC Board. Time for the County to fix the Board and the rules.
LikeLike
Hanson continues to point out that Valenti’s contract has been in place for 10 years. He makes it sound as though the contract had a 10-year term, which is almost certainly not the case. The board members are irresponsible, incompetent idiots for not re-visiting the terms of the original contract on the renewal dates. But there is clearly a love fest going on between King James and his board jesters.
LikeLike
1. Valenti seems to have a disturbing arrogance of entitlement.
Valenti said in his email to Com. Leon “There were no bonuses paid in 2014 and we expect no bonuses through this year”
Then from http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_27046925/umc-board-managers-meet-friday he contradicts his email and his FY vs Calendar year bs with “Valenti has said he and his staff deserved the bonuses and that the incentives were budgeted and approved long before they were granted in early November.”
It seems he is now saying bonuses were budgeted for FY2014 (which began and ended when Sept / Oct 2013 – 2014 ?) long before they were earned???
2. I wonder if the woman whose rights were violated in the ER by being forcibly subjected to invasive procedures without legal consent and the court who ruled in her favor would agree with Valenti’s self-serving assessment that he and his staff deserved the bonuses?
With this national incident on his record how does Valenti or anyone receive 100% on patient satisfaction???
Even without this incident does anyone really believe that patient satisfaction in healthcare is ever at 100% ????
What was the baseline and specific metrics used in scoring these “evaluations”?
3. How does the UMC board think it can regain public trust by having a policy discussion in executive session?
Aren’t Policy discussions are supposed to be public????
Is this another “misstep” in use of executive session as well as insult to public trust?
Isn’t this also how bad contracts with fluff-based bonus entitlements and predetermined outcomes occur?
Why is this board not engaged in continuous policy review and improvement?
From http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_27046925/umc-board-managers-meet-friday
The special meeting, which will take place at 4 p.m., is the hospital’s first attempt to try and regain the public’s trust
Hanson said the beginning of the discussion is going to take place in executive session, possibly followed by a board’s public decision.
LikeLike
Well said.
The board has failed.
Brutus
LikeLike
Hanson’s guest editorial in the Times along with the scheduled special meeting and any statements that come out of it are all a ruse to try to get the public to shut up and go away. The board and hospital management simply want to get back to operating UMC without any accountability and hope that by this time next year, all will be forgotten.
The board acknowledges that there is now a lack of public trust. Great, sow what are the consequences of their failures, especially if Valenti and others get to keep the money?
Every last board member should resign. Short of that, the only actions that might restore any confidence would be the reversal of the recent bonuses, the termination of Valenti, and the resignation of Hanson.
LikeLike