My attempt to save taxpayers $50,000 - Mike Rasor's blog

My notes from last night’s meeting are below:

We had some extensive discussions regarding the legislation to give employees raises. This proposal included two pieces of legislation. The first gave Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) to nonbargaining employees in the amounts of 1.5% for 2013 and 2.0 percent for 2014. The 2013 increase is retroactive, so it results in a sizable bonus to the employee in the next check. The Law Director and Finance Director (both elected positions) are included and will receive the bonus.

The second piece of legislation tied future increases in nonbargaining employees’ COLA to whatever increase received by the AFSCME bargaining unit (i.e., our service employees’ union). AFSCME is the only union, our of our five, that has the legal ability to strike.

I have a problem with retroactive raises (which will cost the taxpayers $50,000).

If the City of Stow had been balancing its budget, it would be a different story. These employees work hard, and they deserve to be rewarded.

If the City of Stow wasn’t trying to raise taxes, this would also be an easier pill to swallow. The raises given would have provided a substantial portion of the money needed for new police officers.

But the employees are terrific lobbyists. No question about it. The problem is, the taxpayer has no advocate. The easiest thing as a politician to do is to say “yes” to every proposed expenditure that comes across her desk. I did my best last night to advocate for the average resident who pays taxes in Stow. As you’ll see, it wasn’t quite enough…

I made an amendment to the first legislation to remove the retroactive raises. This amendment would have saved $50,000 of taxpayer money. It failed by a 3-4 vote (Pribonic, D’Antonio, Costello and Bednar voted “no”).

I made another amendment to the first legislation to remove the raises for the elected officials. After all, Law Director and Finance Director were not included when I proposed the elected official paycuts in 2011 (council and mayor both took a 10% cut). This amendment also failed, 3-4, with the same “no” votes.

The first piece of legislation was then passed unanimously. I voted “yes” because I felt the proposal contained a necessary ingredient for fairness to our nonbargaining employees — a salary increase to offset the increase in health insurance contributions that took effect this week. In other words, I believe the good in this legislation outweighed the bad, but just barely.

The second piece of legislation was not voted upon. Frankly, it’s the worst piece of legislation I’ve seen in 2013. It is short-sighted, poorly drafted and runs contrary to the concepts set forth in the City’s charter (i.e., it cedes power from council to the mayor). Future raises should not be automatic. Rather, the council should consider them carefully beforehand in all instances.

I’m hopeful that later this month council will reject automatic pay raises.