Town Square

Post a New Topic

New 141K$ a year position in Human Resources??

Original post made by fireman, another community, on Mar 3, 2008

Ok seems Frank has to give his Christmas Gifts early this year, since he got the boot..

The New position is Assistant Director of Human Resources. Well inhuman resources..

Now Russ Carlsen was a buddy of Frank Benest from So Cal. Frank gave Russ the job without even posting this high $$$ position?

Here Russ,, thanks Frank... What did the Citizens have to say frank.. Nothing Russ.. You get the job... I know you. So, here you go. Buddy... Just remember who gave you the job.

You bet frank.

Now staff has decreased over the years. In a effort to strengthen the bottom line. Right frank.

Hr is a small department that has a Director. Is it not his job to run HR.?

Does HR need one more high $$$ position.? For such a small department.
It does not seem to many HUMAN type services have been coming out of that Department?
The person who will be getting this position. Now works in HR...

So now Russ is giving out his Christmas gifts??

Was there a posting for this position.. Did the City look outside for a person who might fill this position.

This is a NEW position mid year in the budget . By Frank... Who for all accounts should be gone?

Was this done while the Citizens were looking the other way??

Comments (16)

Posted by James
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Mar 3, 2008 at 8:53 am

Must of taken you some time to "dig" this information up. Good job!

Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Mar 3, 2008 at 9:04 am

A little more digging shows that Carlsen was hired in 2005 -- three years ago. This is hardly new: Web Link

It just sounds as if Fireman is trying to cause mischief using old news.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

It is beyond ridiculous when the City of Palo Alto continually asks the residents for money because the city is low on funds and then proceeds to spend this kind of money on an Assistant Director job. PLEASE, stop giving this city money via bonds when it cannot spend the money it receives through regular taxing in a thoughtful and prudent manner. VOTE NO on all bonds coming up this year. The city will stop this behavior when we as residents stop giving them money through bonds . . . no matter what they say the bond is for, even a wonderful purpose. The money they already had could have been used for a worthy purpose if they didn't continually spend it on positions and items like this. VOTE NO. Those that keep allowing the city to spend as it wishes and then votes them more money though additional bonds are forcing the long-time residents to move. They cannot continue to fund all of this nonsense. Stop voting for the bonds floated by the city. Vote NO this year on all of the bonds presented on election day. I think the city is trying to float another bond this June. Get out there and vote NO.

Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Right, get out there and vote "no", and REALLY screw our city up. EVERY bond that doesn't pass, going forward for the next few years, will FORCE our city to pay substantially more money to repair its badly-in-need-of-repair infrastructure.

A vote against the bonds is a vote against our future, and a vote FOR more expensive solutions down the road.

Use your common sense and avoid the naysaying that comes from a few naysayers in these forums, with too much time on their hands.

Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Mar 3, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Yes Mike just keep flushing the money and sending the troops to Iraq.

That will show them.... Want your child sent home in a box. Keep giving them money and you can put the CPA in that same box..

Posted by Mike is Right
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Mike is right - the naysayers who simply want to spend less are being routed. His polls show that 99.95% of citizens will support bonds in excess of $100M, which will return over 5-50x the investment very quickly. Please refer to the *23 unrefutable studies* which remove any doubt.

Our town is extremely well run, with all citizens extremely pleased for the opportunity to invest over $100M in bonds, or ever better COPS, which serve to increase our level of investment in high return spending. Only about 3 naysayers, who post under hundreds of different names, actually oppose this plan. Mike will be vindicated. Read the 23 studies.

Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 3, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Mike is Right: "Mike is right - the naysayers who simply want to spend less are being routed"

No, you're mistaken, again. The naysayers want to ruin our city; most of them are died-in-the-wool libertarians, or extreme fiscal conservatives who are best marginalized. They wouldn't want our city to spend the money to fix infrastructure even if it was given to us.

Unfortunately, every city has a small group of residents who spend every waking moment thinking about how to run the city they live in. Why even try to convince them - or make policy adaptations to please them? They're really only a tiny voice, one that gets magnified in forums like this, where they can assume multiple identities to appear larger than their pathetically low real numbers (they just number a few dozen people) - they have little left to hold on to; all they have left is mindless ranting, and repetitive lampooning that is more self-congratulatory than funny. Weak.

Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Mar 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Simple.. The people want the truth. The whole story , Common sense.. and good judgement.

Who is ranting??? End of story ... Simple. Let people speak.. IN public..

It does not sound strange to you? That the City Counsil has to have meeting and gather Public opinions . So not to get a CITY MANAGER LIKE THE ONE THEY HAVE NOW?

And look around and see how many of his BUDDIES work there now??? How many gifts will he try to give out before his last day????

Posted by Steve
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 5, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I've had it.

Are public employee salaries public information? If so, where can I find them?

It is time that we know whose extravagant lifestyle we provide for. I'm tired of it. And I'm going to do something about it.

Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Mar 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Steve watch out. You might get label like myself.


You might also make yourself a target. like many others have. Trying to make things better.
If you stand up watch out.

Posted by Logical
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm


You can find City of Palo Alto salaries here:

Web Link

Though it looks like 2006 is the latest year they have.

Posted by More Facts Less Scandal
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2008 at 6:35 pm

According to the staff report to the Finance Committee (on 2/19), the "new" position is just a reclassification of an existing position to reflect more duties and responsibility for what sounds like an existing staff member. More responsibility should mean more pay. That doesn't sound like a scandal. That sounds like a good policy if it results in an overall staff reduction. The thing to watch will be if that old position gets added again in a future budget proposal.

That same staff report added 0.4 full-time equivalent HR assistant. That doesn't equate to a full staff member, so maybe it is just an hourly part-time temp.

Posted by James
a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 2, 2009 at 6:41 pm


What are you going to do about city workers salaries? 95% of them are hourly employees. They don't get bonuses or stock options. They put in the hours and they get paid. Where are you going to cut?

Posted by John
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 2, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Where are we going to cut? ... We can start with lifetime pensions.Web Link

Posted by Tim
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 3, 2009 at 10:20 am

They have those pensions because they don't get SS. Try to take it away- it will be tied up in the courts for years with the cities spending millions in the legal system.

Posted by John
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 3, 2009 at 10:33 am

"They have those pensions because they don't get SS."

The vast majority of municipal retirees get both Social Security and their guaranteed pensions either because they work after retiring from the city long enough to qualify for SS (easy to do when you retire in your 50's), or because their spouse qualifies. This double dipping means that municipal retirees live a lifestyle unavailable to most retirees.

The reason that city employees don't get SS is that the city has opted out of SS with strong city support. The option of the city and its employees being a part of SS is there, but resisted by the unions (and who can blame them for wanting out of the system that is bleeding the rest of us dry?)

Tim is right that trying to take away alrady-earned pension benefits is legally difficult. (So you're probably safe, Tim) But that's no reason we have to continue this unaffordable system for new employees, or why we can't end further benefit increases for employees who haven't retired yet.

Palo Alto should show some leadership on this.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

New Palo Alto sushi spot highlights late-night hours and affordable prices
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 5,546 views

Farm Bill and the Organic Movement (part 5) Plus: Global Plant Forward Summit, April 18 – 20
By Laura Stec | 23 comments | 4,570 views

Sharing That Just Works
By Sherry Listgarten | 5 comments | 1,630 views