Effective government

Make the cuts you promised

I suggest you cut the 200 mid manager positions you pledged to cut when you were elected


Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

329 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Upvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Upvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Upvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Upvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Upvoted
  14. Upvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Upvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Upvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Upvoted
(latest 20 votes)


  1. Comment
    Community Member

    If all the managers were cut, who would manage the people and programs?

  2. Comment
    Community Member

    Trust me, many of these people and programs do not need an overpaid manager, and they will find a way to manage themselves.

  3. Comment
    Community Member

    I agree that when it comes time to cut people, managers should be cut first - because 85% of performance problems are the managers' faults.

    And we should consolidate management layers where it makes sense. We should not, for example, have a management structure where 1 person manages another person who manages another person who manages another person who manages another person who manages a couple of employees. That's idiocy.

    However, we do need a certain number of managers, and how many that is depends on how the departments work. We need to use sense, because cutting too many managers would be bad, but not cutting enough is bad, too.

  4. Comment
    Community Member

    why do you assume the managers are overpaid? right now there have been so many cuts that most managers are doing twice the workload. I think taking them out of the equation would cause it all to collapse. I think a bigger impact might be to look at managers who control large budgets.

  5. Comment
    Community Member

    I'm sorry, but the overworked folks are on the front lines.

  6. Comment
    Community Member

    I voted yes for this one. I think each department needs to be examined for implementation of this. There are going to be departments where all employees at all levels are pulling their weight.

    I know that the King County Government could lose half it's middle management and no one would even notice (except the managers.)

  7. Comment
    Community Member

    Maybe it's the directors who need to be cut...

  8. Comment
    Community Member

    Find the balance between a good manager to employee ratio. 200 are not necessary; I could agree to half this number. Put more funds into direct services. Support the front line folks.

  9. Comment
    Community Member

    too bad this was the mayor's idea and not the council's.

  10. Comment
    Community Member

    Something to remember is that sometimes a manager oversees 12 people but it's still only one program they all work on. In that case, I see how that ratio could be manageable.

    But there are managers who oversee 12 people, and that may constitute 6 different programs, or more. That's when you will start to see quality of programs and service go down, because there is too much on one person's plate. And if you got rid of THAT manager, what would you be left with?

  11. Comment
    Community Member

    Cut the "deputy directors" for all Departments as well.

  12. Comment
    Community Member


    "That's when you will start to see quality of programs and service go down, because there is too much on one person's plate. And if you got rid of THAT manager, what would you be left with?"

    There are to many managers and not not enough people working, there is no need to micromanage, lets get read of one manager and hire a couple of employees who actually do a real work. How is it when in privet/ commercial organisation one manager can control 100 people with dozens of project, it take a manager for every “6” people and “12” projects.

  13. Comment
    Community Member

    need to have some rational standards and criteria

  14. Comment
    Community Member

    AS PREDICTED!!! THEY are going to cut some low paid cashier type employees that make around $25,000-$30,000 at the Neighborhood's Department AND NOT cut any pay of the several Higher level Employees there that get paid $100,000 or more! Predictable, since those managers were in charge of recommending the cuts to the Mayor! Equaling less direct services to the community and keeping intact the fat paychecks of those in charge!

  15. Comment
    Community Member

    The Seattle City Council is the second highest paid in the country. As of September 28, 2010, council members Bagshaw, Conlin, Licata and O'Brien earn $117,533.52; council members Godden, Harrell, Burgess, Clark and Rasmussen earn $113,587.20. These figures represent increases from $94,000 in November 2005, and $104,000 for members elected November 8, 2005. In 1995, all council members were paid $71,000.

    The current top rate represents a 65.5% pay increase over 1995.

    Among the nation's 40 largest cities, only Los Angeles pays its council more — $149,000, according to a survey by The Seattle Times. Seattle ranks 23rd in population, according to the Census Bureau.

  16. Comment
    Community Member

    Mayor McGinn is a sham. When he was campaigning till his few days in office, he committed to remove the fat from stratospheric level of highly paid executives.

    I highly aplauded that plan.

    The current layoffs in his proposed budget is contrary to the above. If the layoffs are implemented we will have Chiefs than Braves serving the puclic

  17. Comment
    Community Member

    i am being laid off from the city..i am what is called "support staff", not a manager or supervisor. the mayor is definitely not living up to his promises.