What goes up must come down. Well, not in Hollister. In January
2003, when supervisors should have been planning responsible,
reasonable budget reductions, they proceed to give elected
department heads a 2.5 percent pay raise.
If elected department heads had any leadership abilities, they
would have declined the raise. Why should anyone making, not
earning, in upwards of $7,500, $7,000, $4,200 and $3,500 per month
plus benefits and perks (elected department heads, CAO, appointed
department heads and supervisors, respectfully) need a raise?
What goes up must come down. Well, not in Hollister. In January 2003, when supervisors should have been planning responsible, reasonable budget reductions, they proceed to give elected department heads a 2.5 percent pay raise.
If elected department heads had any leadership abilities, they would have declined the raise. Why should anyone making, not earning, in upwards of $7,500, $7,000, $4,200 and $3,500 per month plus benefits and perks (elected department heads, CAO, appointed department heads and supervisors, respectfully) need a raise?
In tough economic times, the community as well as the county service employees look to the top for fiscal leadership. The appropriate fiscal leadership should have begun with the self-serving supervisors not issuing themselves a raise in 2002 and making it retroactive to October 2001. This is not a smart beginning to addressing budget reductions.
What if all elected department heads, CAO, appointed department heads and supervisors agreed to a 50 percent pay cut provided those savings be used to preserve service employees’ jobs?
After all, the top brass would still be overpaid and the service employees doing the work would stay in place.
We’ve seen people in private industry come together during our ongoing economic slump. We’ve also seen plenty of business and industry go bankrupt.
Listen folks, we need to look down the road and ask ourselves, can we afford our department heads, CAO and supervisors along with their salaries, benefit package and perks they so generously grant themselves without even allowing their bosses (the public) to sit in on their negotiations?
Supervisors grant themselves raises and perks arbitrarily. They grant department heads raises and perks when it suits them. Supervisor and all department head negotiations should be made public and a public panel of people with common sense and business sense should have the final vote.
When leaders of public agencies believe there is no outside accountability for their actions, the situation is rife for abuse. It’s been going on for years. Are we going to allow it to continue or take back control of our local government?
Ultimately, we receive the type of government we allow to exist.
Noreen Martin, Hollister
