Wednesday, August 26, 2009
"Pay cut" posturing.
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2009-08-26/story/motion_to_cut_pay_not_approved_0
Note how the pre-election, pay-back thrust by No Conflict Bird, who is not up for re-election, and Johnson, who is but will not run due to health, was deftly parried by Weaver and Deloughey, who are up for re-election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your take on the discussion is interesting but is not entirely accurate to what actually took place.
The motion was made by Mr. Johnson, who I must agree has little to lose. It was opposed by Mr. Trader and Ms. Haze who read a lengthy prepared statement pointing out that council members deserved more pay (I agree) and higher pay would attract better candidates (I doubt that). Ms. Weaver stated that she believed that a salary vote during an election year would be illegal (she is correct). Mr. Bird said that he agreed that salaries were not enough to cover the time and effort by council members but he would support the motion to send a message that council members would take a cut along with other employees. Mr. Deloughy waffled by agreeing with the intent of the motion but also agreeing with Ms. Weaver that the vote was improper at this time. He reiterated his previously stated position that he would forgo any raise in his pay until all city employees received raises.
At that point, there was a lot of confusion but I think that there never was an actual vote. If it had been 2 for-2 against-2 abstaining, it would have been decided by a vote by the mayor.
This all probably included a lot of grand-standing on both sides.
I agree with Hase and Trader regarding the forthcoming raises. Not being up for election, they were able to tell it like it is. Allies Bird and Johnson saw an opportunity for payback for the airport doings per se and the ethics complaint on Bird in particular.
Weaver palyed it quite well by looking up the relevant law. Deloughy says he will not take a raise, knowing that state law will also force him to take the same paycheck they all get. You can not legally forego your pay as an elected official for the obvious(I hope) reason that that would give wealthy incumbents an unfair advantage.
Obviously,there was grandstanding.
So, how was I "not entirely accurate?"
Post a Comment