Commissioners reject pay raise for themselves
|
Budget and Finance Committee chairman George Smartt spearheaded the effort, citing the rising costs of attending committee meetings due, in part, to a dramatic increase in gas prices.
The resolution would have doubled the fee for attending committee meetings, from $15 to $30 per meeting, and included the addition of a $50 fee per commissioner for attending the bi-monthly full commission meetings.
The resolution had passed the Budget and Finance Committee with a vote of 4-0, with one member, Ken Martin, absent. Martin, who was out of town at the time, said he would not have voted for the measure in committee, and was one of the nay votes at Monday?s meeting.
?I think with the unemployment we?ve got now that the commissioners didn?t need to be looking at a raise,? Martin said after the meeting. ?I am on Budget and Finance, and I know what we?re looking at, and I was in the minority when they voted to do the raises. I basically disagree with them at this time.?
The expected debate over the pay raise presented itself in a variety of ways, including a proposed amendment to drop the $50 fee for attending full commission meetings, and a motion to defer the resolution until the August meeting.
Commissioner David Grissom made the motion to strike the $50 per commission meeting fee.
?I could support this if we could strike item two out in your resolution there,? Grissom said. ?Go with the $30 per committee meeting and strike the $50 per commission meeting. I?d like to put that in the form of a motion.?
There was some controversy generated by the vote on this motion, which received 12 yeas and 10 nays. Commission chairman Kenneth Rogers ruled that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority of 13 commissioners.
?It takes 13 for an amendment to pass,? Rogers said.
County attorney Larry Stanley disagreed, stating it required a majority of those voting. However, Rogers? ruling stood, and the resolution, in its original form, went into debate.
Some commissioners, like Herb Wright, made their opinion known in no uncertain terms.
?Every commissioner in here knew what he was getting when he ran for office,? said Wright, ?and if he isn?t getting enough money he shouldn?t run. I didn?t come down here for my own self. I think things are going just fine the way they are.?
Others, like Bill Zechman, who had previously stated his opposition, admitted he understood both sides, and might have considered voting for a raise on committee meeting fees, but not a fee for regular commission meetings.
?I?m a little bit conflicted over this,? Zechman said. ?I have stated publicly that I do not favor this $50, or any amount, for a regular or called meeting of the county commission. But by striking that clause in paragraph two, regarding the $50 for each county commission meeting, that would have made this somewhat more palatable for me personally, in the fact that I work within walking distance of here. I don?t feel that I need that compensation, but I realize at the same time there are a lot of people who live in the outskirts of the county, and perhaps in that sense it?s justified. I think both sides have presented excellent arguments,? Zechman added. ?But as the resolution stands right now, I can?t support it.?
At that point, Zechman made the motion to defer the resolution until the August commission meeting to allow more study, but was immediately reminded by Rogers this would not work.
?The only problem I can see with that is that it is going to be after the election,? Rogers said, pointing out that a sitting commission could not legally vote itself a raise, only a raise for a newly elected commission. Zechman subsequently withdrew the motion to defer.
?You are right Mr. Chairman,? Zechman said. ?I didn?t think about that.?
The resolution then went to a vote, with a result Smartt said he pretty much expected.
?I?m not surprised,? said Smartt after the pay raise was defeated.