Looking In All The Wrong Places

Those incumbent candidates for city office that are behind the “Massive Pay Raises” political publication concerning five year delayed pay raises for city employees should review their own job performance. City council by, voted ordinance, sets pay levels and step increases for all city employees not represented by Union contracts. Council must approve those contracts.

As an example: If the ordinance states that a person in a position titled, Sweeper I, with five years of service will be paid $11 per hour in the first year with fifty cent increases for every two years of additional service. By law that employee is entitled to a new pay rate of $12. After all Mr. Sweeper delayed his normal increase for a few years to help the city through a fiscal crisis. Does the headline, “Sweeper Gets Nine Percent Pay Raise” represent the facts or is it intended to shock the voter.

If the City Council wants to change the pay rate ordinance they are free to do so, but those candidates behind this hyperbolic publication should use that promise in their literature and not use their current ordinance to blame that man behind the tree.

Comparing the council approved 2010 city budget with the 2015 budget reveals that the salary lines for the five department most dependent on taxpayer funding, Administration, Streets, Auditor, Income Tax and Law Director has decreased 26% over six years.

Cheery picking individual situations and using them to confuse the pay issue is disappointing.

The Park Director's position is a case in point. The current director, when hired in 2012, realized the dire fiscal situation of the city at that time and agreed to accept a 34% pay reduction from her predecessors salary. When pay increases were approved by council in 2014 she did not receive any back pay adjustment but was merely adjusted up to the ordained salary.

In a similar case, it is my understanding that the “Patrol Officer receives a pay raise of over 50%” item in the campaign literature was the result of a promotion to a newly vacant position. The new sergeant assumed the pay of his predecessor. The was primarily a promotion and not a 50% raise.

Of note:

Special council meeting minutes for 6/12/14

“A motion was made by Jaehnig and seconded by Milburn to authorize the mayor to enter into the collective bargaining agreement and to extend the terms to the other city employees, with the exception of the other two unions with which the city is in negotiations. Motion passed. All yeas. A motion was made by Milburn and seconded by Mead to authorize the mayor to enter into a settlement agreement. Motion passed. All yeas. [including the three incumbent council candidates whose names are included in the mentioned campaign literature.]

If these folks want to save the city some significant money they should consider using some of the lodging tax revenue to support the parks. Using a state approved income tax collection agency, that is used by Sabina, Loveland and many other Ohio cities, could save the general fund $50,000 to $100,000 per year.

Paul Hunter paulhunter45177@gmail.com