Rotterdam Board Members Given Raises ~ MAYBE? - Print Topic

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Board OKs budget plan
4 councilmen given a raise
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

   Town Board members approved the 2008 preliminary budget Wednesday and in the process gave themselves a raise.
   The four town councilmen will each receive an additional $5,000 under the new budget. The raise is a 50 percent increase from the $10,000 board members have been paid annually and is their first pay increase in more than 15 years.
   To compensate for the increased salaries, board members also supported a budget amendment shifting an additional $20,000 they anticipate collecting through fines, fees and forfeited bail. Overall, the budget amounts to the same $19.9 million in the tentative version and doesn’t alter the projected residential tax rate of $3.36 per $1,000 of assessed property value. Owners of commercial properties will pay $5.59 per $1,000 under the dual tax rate.
   Residents owning a home valued at $200,000 can expect to pay roughly $671 in town taxes, based on general and highway fund spending.
   “None of this has impacted the present budget,” board member Joe Signore said of the raises. “None of this has impacted the tax rate in the 2008 budget.” The budget calls for a total tax levy of $9.46 million, down $205,962 from the current budget.
   Board member Diane Marco voted in favor of the amendment, acknowledging that the raises wouldn’t go into effect until after she leaves office Dec. 31. She said the increase is necessary to help attract a broader pool of candidates for the board,
   “We have not had an increase since 1991,” she said.
   John Mertz also voted in favor.
   Board member Robert Godlewski and Supervisor Steve Tommasone both voted against the amendment. The pay raises for the board will not affect the supervisor’s position, which will pay the same $16,000 salary as this year.
   The preliminary budget also includes a $5,000 raise for the assessor’s position, which was already slated to receive a $2,225 increase over this year’s salary. Assessor John Macejka Jr. now draws a salary of $57,750 for the six-year appointed position.
   The increase was noted in a range of salaries when the town recently advertised for the assessor’s position, which is up for reappointment. All four councilmen approved the assessor’s salary increase, with Tommasone the only dissenting vote. Tommasone argued the increase would lock the town into paying the raise instead of negotiating with the appointee.
   “I don’t agree with this at this time,” he said. “This is not an increase for the individual, it’s an increase for the position.”
   Board members also took away modest raises for the elected positions of highway superintendent, town clerk, receiver of taxes and town justice. Both Godlewski and Tommasone voted against the amendment.

More irony. I wonder how much of a raise would be deserved if things were getting done? I oppose the pay raises.

Quoted Text

The preliminary budget also includes a $5,000 raise for the assessor’s position, which was already slated to receive a $2,225 increase over this year’s salary. Assessor John Macejka Jr. now draws a salary of $57,750 for the six-year appointed position.

This is the raise I would clearly question, cause I really don't know what the hell this guy actually does! I realize that the raise goes to the 'position'....but I wouldn't have done anything until a new person was appointed.

Bumble, at the meeting it was stated that the town is taking applications for a new assessor and the raise is not necessarily going to our present assessor.

Now THIS is an assessor! Niskayuna Town Assessor Amy Houlihan is earning her keep. She actually works with the residents. I hope they 'appoint' an assessor who actually works like Niskayuna's does!

Quoted Text

Niskayuna gets assessment data
Property owners can review information to be used for revaluation

By PAUL NELSON, Staff writer
First published: Wednesday, November 14, 2007

NISKAYUNA -- Data collection is done with and residential property owners can now review information about their homes that the town will use to come up with new values.
The one-page form, which went out by mail about two weeks ago, included the square footage, style, and number of rooms in the house, according to Town Assessor Amy Houlihan. The document condenses data from a survey residents filled out with the results of an exterior inspection.


The assessment has so far been relatively smooth, Houlihan said.

There has, however, been some confusion regarding what constitutes a finished basement on raised ranch and split level homes.

The assessor said homeowners should make any changes to the paperwork if they see anything they consider inaccurate before sending it back.

The deadline to turn the paperwork was Tuesday.

And residents can also call up Houlihan to schedule an interior inspection or if they want their property measured.

As of last week, she had already done just under two dozen, mostly related to the condition of the house, Houlihan added.

Upon getting back all the information back, Houlihan and her staff working with a consultant hired by the town, will then input any changes into a computer system and reinspect properties, if necessary.

From there, the town and firm will take a look real estate sales in the town within the past two years "to make sure they are viable sales."

Then by the middle of December, they will begin running preliminary fair market values through a computer system based on comparable home sales. Houlihan and the workers with the firm will visit every neighborhood in town to verify the computer generated data.

"The computer can only do so much, so we will physically go out to the right of way to verify that similar houses are assessed at about the same," Houlihan added.

A workshop will be held before disclosure notices are mailed out on March 1.

The disclosure statement will contain the fractional value of the current assessment and the preliminary new full value as well as the final net change.

Informal hearings for any homeowners who want to contest their new assessment will be done by appointment and the town has plans to open a resource center for anyone with questions.

The new assessments will be available by street, neighborhood and type of homes, Houlihan said. Residents can also mail in complaints.

A tentative town assessment roll will go out May 1 with the final town assessment roll to follow two months later, Houlihan said. Between that time, there will be a grievance period before the town Board of Assessment Review.

I sure hope you're right Bumble, we don't need another assessor like the one we have that does nothing and gets paid big bucks to do it.

Here's one more distinction. The assessor position is full-time. Board members are part-time. One is more of a livelihood you could say. My view is if you're inclined to be a board member it's more about serving than being compensated. I fully recognize they commit tremendous amounts of time and effort so I'm not saying they don't work hard. They're just in the wrong line if they want to get paid for it.

And here's the another thing about this. I assume there is a major difference in responsibilities as far as the difference between the Town Board Members and the Supervisor. I would assume that Steve Tommasone does much more than the rest of the board does. Before this raise, he was getting paid 60% more than the rest of the board, which, if he's doing the extra work, would be expected.

Now, how is someone to think that they should be doing so much more work for just $1,000 per year, a 6 2/3 % rate above what just any other member of the board does? I think that, yes, it will help to get more people interested in the board seats, but it will also push interest away from the Supervisor position, unless something is done for that position.

Let's hope the new board members (as well as the incumbents and those awaiting their next chance for reelection) actually earn this money.

http://www.spotlightnews.com

Quoted Text

Board to see pay hike

Posted on: 11/21/07
Jennifer Farnsworth, Contributing Writer
email: news@spotlightnews.com

Rotterdam town board members will see a 50 percent pay increase next year, after the board approved, 3-to-2, the change in salary. At the Wednesday, Nov. 14, meeting, they also approved the preliminary 2008 budget, which will not change because of the pay increase.

“I am voting for the pay increase because there has been none since 1991. Keep that in mind,” said town council member Diane Marco.

Marco said that although she will not run for re-election, she still believes the increase is merited.

“It’s necessary to have the increase to allow for a broader pool of candidates for positions on the board,” said Marco.

Board members Robert Godlewski and town Supervisor Steven Tommasone voted against the increase.

Board members Joe Signore and Jon Mertz said they felt it was time for the increase. Signore told the board that the increase will not cost the taxpayers any more than the anticipated tax rate of $3.36 per $1,000 of assessed property value. The budget is currently at $19.9 million.

“Right now, our budget will reflect a tax increase levy of $9.46 million. This is actually a decrease from last year of over $200,000,” said Signore.

The pay increase, which will total $20,000, will come from variety of sources, including fees, fines and forfeited bail money.

Town assessor John Macejka Jr., will also receive an increase of $5,000, bringing his salary up to $62,750. Several other staffing changes include establishing the position of economic development coordinator for the town. Tommasone said funds have already been allocated for this position.

Godlewski questioned whether there was a need to establish a salary amount without first hiring a person for the job.

Tommasone said, for budget purposes, the board is more comfortable with allocating anticipated amounts.

“We have accounted for the salary for this job. We now have about a dozen qualified candidates and are in the process of narrowing it down,” said Tommasone.

Several residents from the Westhill area of Rotterdam also spoke out during the public hearing portion of the meeting about the preservation of what is referred to as the “green belt” of this wooded area around Rotterdam Square Mall. William Ross, of Juniper Drive, said that protecting the land from any further development is what he feels the majority of his neighbors desire.

“One of the greatest draws is the green belt and open space in this area; it is what made me purchase my home. Rumors over septic and water concerns are simply not valid. There is no evidence of failed septics, and the water is great. This area needs to be kept as is,” said Ross.

I have mixed feelings on this whole issue. I say 'no raise' yet in the scope of things, all town positions have a salary range, so why should Rotterdam be any different....right? What I totally disagree with is the people appointed to these frivilous committees that get paid a few hundred bucks here and a few hundred bucks there. Most of these committees are absolute nonsense anyways.

You can only get a raise if you are a puppet......

I believe this is the issue that will be subject to a Permissive Referendum. Don't let this get by you. It may be similar to the law we pushed for referendum in the City of Schenectady.

There's an article in today's paper.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Board must pass local law before approving raises, attorney advises
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

    Town Board members will need to adopt a local law next year before they can legally approve the raises for themselves that they included as an amendment in the budget last month, Rotterdam’s town attorney advised Monday.
    Because the initial 2008 budget didn’t include the raises, the only way to grant them later was to pass a local law, Town Attorney Gerard Parisi said. The local law is subject to a permissive referendum, meaning it could be challenged by a petition containing signatures from 10 percent of the number of residents who voted in the last statewide election, 2006.
    Town officials voted 3-2 last month to amend the budget to give each board position a $5,000 per year raise. Both Supervisor Steven Tommasone and Councilman Robert Godlewski voted against them. The increase is a 50 percent hike from the $10,000 board members have been paid annually and was their first pay increase in more than 15 years.
    Both Godlewski and board member Diane Marco — who favored the raises — will leave office in January. Newcomers Michael Della Villa and John Silva will join incumbents John Mertz and Joseph Signore as board members receiving the hike in salary.
    The pay raises did not affect the supervisor’s position, which will pay the same $16,000 salary as this year. Board members also took away modest raises from the elected positions of highway superintendent, town clerk, receiver of taxes and town justice; the raises had been budgeted but were cut back to their original levels in the adopted budget.
    Godlewski took issue with the raises during the board’s last meeting in November. He said the laws of New York governing towns prohibited the board from changing salary figures for each board seat, the town clerk and highway superintendent.
    “Because the salaries are fixed in the public hearing for the preliminary budget, that says you can’t make an adjustment,” he said Monday.
    But Marco disagreed. In previous years, she said, the board adjusted salaries using the same process.
    “They’ve never done it [by local law] through the eight years I’ve been here,” she said. “Every year, it’s been done by amendment.”
    The board is expected Wednesday to discuss a local law allowing the raises and to schedule a public hearing for it on New Year’s Day. Parisi said a law could be passed at the close of the public hearing, but would have to wait 45 days to take effect.
    If the local law is not passed or is overturned by a referendum, the $20,000 worth of raises would remain unspent in the budget. Board members provided for the raises by approving a budget amendment adding additional money they anticipate collecting through fines, fees and forfeited bail.

Quoted from PatZ

I believe this is the issue that will be subject to a Permissive Referendum. Don't let this get by you. It may be similar to the law we pushed for referendum in the City of Schenectady.

There's an article in today's paper.

Pat, I thought the same thing, but I knew it would be an involved process that I didn't have spare time to contribute to. Not at this time anyways.
But I do commend Mr Parisi for bringing it to light. He seems to be a little bit more on the ball than the Schenectady attorneys, huh? :)

Quoted Text

“Because the salaries are fixed in the public hearing for the preliminary budget, that says you can’t make an adjustment,” he said Monday.
But Marco disagreed. In previous years, she said, the board adjusted salaries using the same process.
“They’ve never done it [by local law] through the eight years I’ve been here,” she said. “Every year, it’s been done by amendment.”

It doesn't matter how it gets done, that is just a smoke screen.....THEY ALL EAT AT THE SAME TROUGH......it's a ride and very very very few find it duty....and if it is duty it is only for their own backyard/neighborhood(proven in the past) not the town as a whole, obviously......

Quoted Text

“Because the salaries are fixed in the public hearing for the preliminary budget, that says you can’t make an adjustment,” he said Monday.
But Marco disagreed. In previous years, she said, the board adjusted salaries using the same process.
“They’ve never done it [by local law] through the eight years I’ve been here,” she said. “Every year, it’s been done by amendment.”

Well....Ms.Marco, I guess the past 8 years have been done illegally, huh? I guess Mr.Godlewski was correcto-o! I can't believe I said that! :D

The Town Board meeting agenda for tonight has virtually nothing on it...except a resolution to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, New Year's Day for the pay raise.

Public hearing on New Year's Day.  That is plain unbelievable.

Here's what I'd like to see happen.  The 2 new town board members ran (and won) based on the old salary.  They should be opposed, in theory, to the pay raise.  If so, it meets defeat.  I want to see them have to take another vote so these new guys have to go on record or they get to have it both ways (get the raise, but get to blame the last guy for implementing it).

Gathering enough signatures on a petition deemed valid in the time allowed seems virtually impossible...we collected petition signatures to regain our right to vote on a new sewer district recently after the town board got a little cute and tried to end-around...we prevailed but it got dicey...

Why can't these guys just do it correctly?  Just goes to prove they can find money when they want to and they can move at lightning pace when it serves their own interest.  Is anyone else disgusted?

Looks to me that Mr. Mertz and Mr. Signore (two guys who voted for a pay raise when the rest of us are forced to tighten our belts) just got even more vunerable next election...

Michael you've seen this type of behavior from elected officials going on for a long time, just look at how long they've put off doing anything about the water problems in the town.

We should be opposed to a local law allowing our elected official to vote themselves in a raise whenever they choose. Getting signatures for a referendum would be key. Since that may not be an option due to a time constraint, I would recommend EVERYONE to call, mail or email ALL of the town board members and state your displeasure with this proposed local law.

We should not want NOW or in the future, our elected officials to have the power to vote themselves in a raise whenever they deem it necessary!!

Don't let this one get by people!! And you have a valid point Michael. It appears to the residents, that once the republicans remained in control of the board, they are appearing greedy by proposing a law that gives them the power to give themselves a raise. They need to be careful since the republican party is loosing ground in this area and state as it is.

And to have a meeting on New Years day is ridiculous. This is beginning to sound like the city council and the county legislatures!

Boxing gloves come in all sizes....are they NUTS OR JUST IGNORANT GREEDY POLITICIANS?????? hhhmmmm they have never eaten pasta dinner at my house....where is MY cup of sugar???? Or anyone else's cup of sugar for that matter....... money is the only thing that spurs a politician out of their hole of pressure by the constituents????......get out of the kitchen then.......

Quoted from JoAnn

And to have a meeting on New Years day is ridiculous. This is beginning to sound like the city council and the county legislatures!

Joann,
Just so you know, if you check back, this is something normal for the Rotterdam Town Board. While I agree that the time it's at is amazing, right in the middle of the day, it's also used to reappoint people to positions that they haven't given up or are being kept in. Last year's meeting also included the swearing in of Bob "No Change" Godlewski.

Here's a direct link to 2007's January 1 agenda.
http://rotterdamny.org/calendar1/calendar/eventimages/Board-1-1-07.pdf

Quoted from Michael

The Town Board meeting agenda for tonight has virtually nothing on it...except a resolution to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, New Year's Day for the pay raise.

Public hearing on New Year's Day. That is plain unbelievable.

The timing for a public hearing regarding a pay raise surely can wait until another day besides New Years Day.

Organizational meetings are nothing new for New Year's Day, as BIGK75 correctly points out.

The problem is conducting controversial business or holding a public hearing during that meeting. It defies reasonable governance, in my opinion. In fact, it's simply the wrong day to hold a public hearing of any kind.

I may have to violate my intention to no longer speak at these meetings, assuming they actually passed that resolution last night...what better way to ring in the New Year than to make a little noise?

Welcome to 2008...where business as usual gets an added twist

Quoted Text

The problem is conducting controversial business or holding a public hearing during that meeting. It defies reasonable governance, in my opinion. In fact, it's simply the wrong day to hold a public hearing of any kind.

I have to agree with you on this Michael. Historically or not, I feel it is the wrong day to hold a public hearing.

I posted an entry to my blog on this topic. I will be curious to see how it ultimately plays out.

If the Town Board had any sense they would reschedule the meeting for a later date to give residents a chance to attend the meeting if they oppose the raise. Having the meeting on New Years Day looks like they don't want any opposition to the raise and know that most people will be home with their families and won't attend the meeting. What happened to the open government that the Town Board told us about when they were elected?

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

EDITORIALS
Justice due over raises in Rotterdam

    Rotterdam Town Board members haven’t had a raise in more than 15 years, so it was not surprising that they voted for an increase last month. What was surprising, and disappointing, was the amount of the raise ($5,000, or 50 percent) and the way they approved it (as an amendment to the town budget). Both issues may now be moot, thanks to an opinion by Town Attorney Gerard Parisi that the raises require passage of a local law.
    What that means, as Schenectady Mayor Brian Stratton knows full well, is that the law is subject to permissive referendum: A petition with the signatures of 10 percent of the town residents who voted in the last statewide election (2006) could put the kibosh on the whole thing.
    That’s what happened in Schenectady two years ago, when Stratton and city council members conspired to raise their salaries weeks after the November election, and weeks after the 2006 budget had been passed, by adopting a pair of local laws. The laws were challenged by local gadfly Pat Zollinger, who mounted a petition drive and ultimately forced the mayor and council to postpone their raises for two years.
    In Rotterdam, the council members’ raises were not part of the initial budget proposal and thus were not subjected to a public hearing. They surfaced out of the blue, and were passed as part of an amended budget one week after last month’s election. To offset the additional $20,000 expenditure (the four regular council members got them, but not Supervisor Steve Tommasone), the board simply increased revenue projections on fines and forfeited bail — easy enough to do, but hardly responsible.
    Obviously, the money isn’t a huge issue; as was the case with Stratton and the Schenectady council, it’s the way the raises were passed. In case elected officials haven’t figured it out, voters don’t like it when their representatives act in such sneaky ways. It will be surprising indeed if some indignant Rotterdam resident doesn’t mount a petition drive to overturn these raises.

You think they would have learned something from Stratton's attempt to do the same thing! If they were up front and honest, it wouldnt be a blip on the radar. They gave themselves a 50% raise and purposely never included it in the proposed budget. To add insult to injury, they say they will get the money from fines the judges take in and they take raises away from the judges. I doubt anyone in town will spend the time and energy like Pat did. I am just disappointed at the amount of sneakiness of members of the board. Obviously Steve Tommasone didnt want the raise at all and definitely did not want it to be a campaign issue- so they planned it days after election day. Very disappointing to me.

First - Someone needs to go to the town hall and request a copy of the proposed local law.

Second - Raises need to be implemented BEFORE the election cycle.

Third - Raises need to be implemented DURING the budget process.

Forth - IF this law is passed, the residents have 45 days to present a petition. (a permissive referendum)

**If this proposed law is passed and the people choose to go the permissive referendum route, they should start the petition process now.**

(someone experienced in this process shared this information with me) :)

That sounds like good info JoAnn. I'm poised to fight but hope opposition to passing the law will prevent the need for the petition. Looking at the election results, I'm not entirely sure what number to use as the benchmark for procuring 10% though. Anyway you slice it, it's a ton of signatures in a short period of time.

Well, Michael, we'll just have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and get it done, right? Maybe have days where people go out walking, getting petitions signed. Set up at the mall or some of the grocery stores.

Probably also be good to have someone canvas the outlying areas, too.

All good ideas BIGK. I've got an idea too but don't want to reveal it in this forum lest somehow it be thwarted. (I've always been a little wary and paranoid about revealing too much strategy in public beforehand. It just makes it harder if they know how you're coming after them. I like surprises.)

Just call the board of elections and they will give you the number of voters who voted in the last election.

Quoted Text

It will be surprising indeed if some indignant Rotterdam resident doesn’t mount a petition drive to overturn these raises.

This is the open door!!

It isn't the WHY they are proposing a raise it is the HOW. I also know that we are all busy with our normal everyday lives, not to mention that it is the week before Christmas. But if anyone is really serious about this petition, this week is key. There is no need to go door to door. Although it may be a benefit. Just park yourself out in front of the mall entrances, Wal-Mart, Rite Aid or any other lucrative business at this time of the year. And then there is always the media attention this will create.

The petitions must be done correctly or they will be null and void. If anyone is interested, I believe that I can obtain the correct petitions that would be used to collect signatures. However, I can't help in collecting signatures, but you can bet that I would if I could. I have my mom home now on a wound vac 24/7 and can't leave the house. But I will help in any way I can.

JoAnn if it's done the way you suggest right now there will be enough signatures on the petition in a few days. I have always believed that it was wrong for a legislature to vote themselves a raise when someone else had to pay for it. Wouldn't it be nice to go to work tomorrow morning and have all the employees of the company you work for vote themselves a raise and let it become the companies problem of how to pay for it.

Quoted from BIGK75

Well, Michael, we'll just have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and get it done, right? Maybe have days where people go out walking, getting petitions signed. Set up at the mall or some of the grocery stores.

Probably also be good to have someone canvas the outlying areas, too.

I believe it is 10% of the Rotterdam votes in the last election only.

http://www.spotlightnews.com

Quoted Text

PUBLIC HAS SAY ON RAISE (ROTTERDAM)

Posted on: 12/19/07
Ross Marvin, Spotlight Staff
email: marvinr@spotlightnews.com

The Rotterdam Town Board will hold a public hearing at 1 p.m. on New Year’s Day at town hall to discuss the adoption of a local law that would increase members’ salaries by $5,000 next year.

If passed, the law stipulates that board members will earn $15,000 in 2008, up from their current salary of $10,000.

“There hasn’t been an adjustment in 17 years,” said board member John Mertz, who noted that the raise would not apply to Supervisor Steven A. Tommasone, who earns $16,000 annually. “This is a period in Rotterdam history where the demands of the town board have increased, and while other positions have been adjusted accordingly over time, the board’s has not.”

According to Mertz, the new salary would be more competitive with what board members in similarly sized towns are currently making. Mertz cited Guilderland and Malta as two examples where board members earn salaries of $19,860 and $15,000, respectively.

Last month, the board voted 3-to-2 to amend the supervisor’s preliminary budget that did not include the raises. In order to amend board member salaries, the law stipulates that the town has to adopt a local law and hold a public hearing. If the law is not passed or overturned, the $20,000 budgeted for the raises for the four board members would remain unspent in 2008.

The local law would be subject to a permissive referendum. This means the law could be overturned if the board was presented with a signed petition containing the names of 10 percent of residents who voted in the 2006 statewide election.

Tommasone and board member Robert Godlewski voted against amending the budget last month. Godlewski also cast the lone vote against the call for a public hearing.

“The law says that once salaries are set in the notice of public hearing for the preliminary budget that they cannot be adjusted,” said Godlewski. “And, it’s simply not the right time to raise the salary of the board in Rotterdam.”

According to Town Attorney Gerard Parisi though, the call for a public hearing is standard legal procedure after the preliminary budget has been set.

“Since the salary is set in the preliminary budget, it can only be changed through the passage of a local law,” said Parisi, referring to the provision of Rotterdam town law.

Both Godlewski and board member Diane Marco will leave the board at the end of the year. Marco, who served on the board for eight years, voted in favor of the raise.

Michael Della Villa and John Silva will take their places on the board in January, and the two new board members might be welcomed with a pay raise. Parisi said that the law could be passed at the close of the public hearing on New Year’s Day, though it wouldn’t take effect for 45 days.

The $20,000 budgeted for the increase would be provided through fines, forfeited bail, ticket fees and other revenue from the justice courts, said Mertz.

When this town is run like Guilderland and the laws are enforced, storm water and drainage issues resolved, developers held accountable for their mistakes, and a responsible plan for future development is adopted and followed then a raise will be warranted.

Or here's an idea, how about something less than a 50% raise?

Bump it up for each of the next couple elections maybe, go 1-2k per election until it's at the level that you wish. Also, once you get the businesses in that all the studies have been getting done for, then maybe we'll have the extra money in the budget for this and it won't have to be pulled out of fines that you don't know if you're going to collect or not.

Good idea BigK, as long as it is done BEFORE an election AND included in the budget. And I also believe that the public hearing for this proposed raise should be rescheduled for AFTER the 1st of the year. Not on New Years Day!

I don't believe this is about how much the raise is.  It's about proper procedure.  It's about transparency.  Simply put, they botched implementation.  It wasn't discussed publicly before, during, or after the election.  Their intended fix is holding a public hearing on New Year's Day?  It's ludicrous!

I intend to make the hearing unpleasant.  To pass the law, they're going to need a vote from one of the newcomers.  I intend to make that proposition an unpleasant one too.  I never thought I would see the day that the very 1st order of business for a newly elected official would be to give himself a raise.  That's a ballsy move.  And if it's not political suicide, I'm moving into the woods!

Oh yeah...if they pass the law, I'll mobilize for petition signatures.  I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Here's my blog post from the other day before the Gazette editorial was printed:
http://rotterdamny.blogspot.com/

Holiday Antics

It appears Town of Rotterdam officials are not immune from working on holidays after all. After a full year of turning a blind eye to holiday wood-clearing shenanigans in Masullo Estates, the Town Board is adopting the strategy itself. They’ve decided to hold a public hearing regarding their controversial pay raise…on New Year’s Day. Of course, the public hearing is only a result of not adhering to the law when they awarded themselves a raise by amendment a few weeks ago. Happy New Year…at least if you’re a councilmember.

A public hearing for this matter is totally appropriate. Holding it New Year’s Day, on the other hand, is totally ridiculous.

Let’s keep the record straight anyway. Supervisor Tommasone didn’t include council raises in the proposed budget and voted against the amendment. Outgoing board member Mr. Godlewski also voted against it. Congratulations to both of them.

Mr. Mertz, Mr. Signore, and the outgoing Ms. Marco voted for the raise.

What I’d like to see at this point is for the 2 new council members, Mr. Della Villa and Mr. Silva, to have to cast a vote on the raise now. Remember, they ran for office and were elected to that office on the expectation of the previous $10,000 salary. If nothing else, I’d like to see them have to vote. I don’t want either to be able to accept the higher salary but blame someone else for getting it. These 2 guys ought to be against any raise and vote accordingly. Do the math and the vote swings 3-2 against an increase.

The argument will be made that somehow they deserve the raise because it’s been so long since they received one. Sorry, but from where I come from, raises are merit-based. Public service was never intended to be rewarded monetarily. These are difficult times for residents as they struggle to absorb ever mounting financial burdens beyond their control. We should all be tightening our belt together. $20,000 may not seem like a lot of money as a percentage of the budget but it’s still real money – better applied to almost any other need.

If Mr. Mertz and Mr. Signore don’t like their present $10,000 compensation – good news – they’re up for re-election next. The big dogs are beginning to look a little smaller.

Posted by Michael at 2:18 PM 0 comments
Friday, December 7, 2007

“There hasn’t been an adjustment in 17 years,” said board member John Mertz, who noted that the raise would not apply to Supervisor Steven A. Tommasone, who earns $16,000 annually. “This is a period in Rotterdam history where the demands of the town board have increased, and while other positions have been adjusted accordingly over time, the board’s has not.”

According to Mertz, the new salary would be more competitive with what board members in similarly sized towns are currently making. Mertz cited Guilderland and Malta as two examples where board members earn salaries of $19,860 and $15,000, respectively.

Can someone explain to me why it has to be competitve with what a surrounding community is paying? Any compensation for any employment should be merit-based. Period. This is public service. Don't like the compensation? Don't seek the position.

I could poke holes in this kind of logic all day long. It could easily be argued the board has been overpaid for the last 17 years based on performance. I wouldn't have made the comparison to Guilderland...they're doing it better than Rotterdam ever has.

Can anyone in the media get a comment from either new board member? I already knew what Mr. Mertz thought.

(See...this is why I started a blog so I wouldn't be replying to myself multiple times... :) )

Is it possible that the reps had this strategy right from the beginning? Perhaps IF they mentioned the raise during the budget process and during the election campaign, the dems would have jumped all over it an put it in a negative light. I mean this is POLITICS we're talking about here! However I do disagree with a public session regarding this raise issue being on New Years Day.

It is difficult to suggest these raises to be as merit raises. This raise is "for the position". If it were based on merit, than future board members salaries would be fluctuating according to performance continuously. And how do we decide "merit"? Vote them in or out!

Quoted from Michael

Here's my blog post from the other day before the Gazette editorial was printed:
http://rotterdamny.blogspot.com/

The argument will be made that somehow they deserve the raise because it’s been so long since they received one. Sorry, but from where I come from, raises are merit-based. Public service was never intended to be rewarded monetarily. These are difficult times for residents as they struggle to absorb ever mounting financial burdens beyond their control. We should all be tightening our belt together. $20,000 may not seem like a lot of money as a percentage of the budget but it’s still real money – better applied to almost any other need.

Posted by Michael at 2:18 PM 0 comments
Friday, December 7, 2007

Great idea Michael.....I think you should suggest that at the meeting.  Rotterdam has a volunteer fire department.  Next thing Rotterdam needs is a volunteer Town Board.  Maybe we can talk the police union into having their guys/gals volunteer, after all they are public servants. That would save a lot of money in the budget.  No wonder  why stores like Pier One Imports goes out of business,  while Dollar Stores, and discount marts open up for business in Rotterdam.  That's just Rotterdam mentality. Do it on the cheap.  Rotterdam has had the tighten the belts mind set for 30 or 40 years.

Michael, maybe you get a certain intrinsic feeling serving the public.  Most people work better with some form of compensation.

I agree with you on the boards disregard for the procedure to give themselves raises.  But as for you assertion that the board members don't deserve raises because they haven't earned the merit, I disagree.

Rotterdam's services such as police, fire, water, utilities, roads, snow removal, ect...... are still adequate.  Have certain town boards in the past made some unethical decisions which put Rotterdam in the predicament it is in today.......YES!  But not this Town Board.

If you do decide to run for Town Board, you should campaign on the fact that in elected, you are willing to return your salary back into the budget.  It would probably swing a lot of votes your way.

Okay, so if we follow along Cicero's theory... Would this proposed raise be merited IF the Masullo Est. issue was resolved by this town board? If it were based on merit, then why should the future members benefit monetarily from the work this present town board accomplished?

It is much easier for us Americans to pay someone to do our dirty work....Public service IS dirty work.....

Quoted from CICERO

Great idea Michael.....I think you should suggest that at the meeting.  Rotterdam has a volunteer fire department.  Next thing Rotterdam needs is a volunteer Town Board.  Maybe we can talk the police union into having their guys/gals volunteer, after all they are public servants. That would save a lot of money in the budget.  No wonder  why stores like Pier One Imports goes out of business,  while Dollar Stores, and discount marts open up for business in Rotterdam.  That's just Rotterdam mentality. Do it on the cheap.  Rotterdam has had the tighten the belts mind set for 30 or 40 years.

Michael, maybe you get a certain intrinsic feeling serving the public.  Most people work better with some form of compensation.

I agree with you on the boards disregard for the procedure to give themselves raises.  But as for you assertion that the board members don't deserve raises because they haven't earned the merit, I disagree.

Rotterdam's services such as police, fire, water, utilities, roads, snow removal, ect...... are still adequate.  Have certain town boards in the past made some unethical decisions which put Rotterdam in the predicament it is in today.......YES!  But not this Town Board.

If you do decide to run for Town Board, you should campaign on the fact that in elected, you are willing to return your salary back into the budget.  It would probably swing a lot of votes your way.

Cicero, I appreciate your opposing view but I’m not sure how I’m supposed to interpret your post.

You want to provide proper incentive for someone to serve? …but then want me to relinquish my salary if I were elected?  (Interestingly, I’ve toyed with exactly that notion already, though it has nothing to do with garnering votes, and I’ll address it separately another time.)

Are you comparing what the police do to what the Town Board does?  That’s a poor analogy, I think, and I never suggested anything beyond Town Board salaries staying the same.  If I somehow implied that from speaking about public service in general, I apologize – it wasn’t intended.

Do you believe $5000 extra really ensures you better service?  If so, why not even bigger raises for some really super-duper service?

I’m not blaming this Town Board for past inadequacies.  They appear to be learning fast, however, with the end-around they’re trying to pull.  That’s nice…hey, let’s provide more incentive for that behavior with a raise.  Is $15,000 salary excessive?  No.  I just believe $10,000 is fine, especially with financial circumstances as they are.  (Spending money isn’t necessarily a problem if it’s a good investment…I don’t think this is.)  And if they really thought the position salary needed to be increased why not advocate for it and discuss it properly beforehand?

Besides “it’s been a long time”, can you justify why they deserve the increase?  I’m all ears.  Talk to me.  Try to refrain from giving me Mr. Mertz’ spiel about the job being so demanding all of a sudden…it’s always been demanding and it will never, ever compensate anyone accordingly for their time and effort…but guess what…they sought the position and if the compensation is inadequate, no one is forcing them to keep running for re-election. But for some reason, they do…hmmmmm.

I seem to remember you as something of a fiscal conservative if I’m remembering some of your other posts correctly.  I must admit I’m somewhat surprised by your flip acceptance of this increase.

Quoted from bumblethru

Okay, so if we follow along Cicero's theory... Would this proposed raise be merited IF the Masullo Est. issue was resolved by this town board? If it were based on merit, then why should the future members benefit monetarily from the work this present town board accomplished?

What? Masullo Estates has nothing to do with it. Why is it that every time I say something it winds up back at Masullo Estates? There are multiple issues in this Town...I've been involved in a few of them...they are not always related beyond the obvious planning underpinnings. Follow? If not, the short answer to your question is: NO.

Forget merit for a moment (I've obviously confused people by what I meant.) Look at how they've manufactured where the raise will come from. That should be alarming. It's similar to the mechanisms of budgeting anticipated mortgage tax receipts that didn't materialize. The Town Board does an okay job. Should they get more money because the job is demanding? I don't think so. Is that simpler to understand?

I believe that the raise has nothing to do with merit....but, if the townfolk were so inclined as to actually see past their own backyards and to the future and not just the present day bag we are now holding the raise really has nothing to with merit or worth.....it's the planning and the foundation building that has EVERYTHING to do with the future of this town....

should the board not follow proper and transparent paths to make the board position/job more important in the townfolks minds they have lost the war....the battle is in keeping folks(all folks, not just the developers/business owners) involved and talking....

if it is $$ that keeps us sheeple moving and involved then that is the carrot that will be used......

and certainly looking around at the other municipalities and their pay is a poor justification---it's like comparing apples to oranges.......

Quoted Text

The argument will be made that somehow they deserve the raise because it’s been so long since they received one. Sorry, but from where I come from, raises are merit-based.

This is why I posted along the lines of a 'merit based raise'.

Quoted Text

Look at how they've manufactured where the raise will come from. That should be alarming. It's similar to the mechanisms of budgeting anticipated mortgage tax receipts that didn't materialize.

Yes I found this somewhat alarming as well. I also thought of the lack of the anticipated mortgage tax and how it has effected schenectady county.

Quoted from Michael

Cicero, I appreciate your opposing view but I’m not sure how I’m supposed to interpret your post.

You want to provide proper incentive for someone to serve? …but then want me to relinquish my salary if I were elected?  (Interestingly, I’ve toyed with exactly that notion already, though it has nothing to do with garnering votes, and I’ll address it separately another time.)

Are you comparing what the police do to what the Town Board does?  That’s a poor analogy, I think, and I never suggested anything beyond Town Board salaries staying the same.  If I somehow implied that from speaking about public service in general, I apologize – it wasn’t intended.

Do you believe $5000 extra really ensures you better service?  If so, why not even bigger raises for some really super-duper service?

I’m not blaming this Town Board for past inadequacies.  They appear to be learning fast, however, with the end-around they’re trying to pull.  That’s nice…hey, let’s provide more incentive for that behavior with a raise.  Is $15,000 salary excessive?  No.  I just believe $10,000 is fine, especially with financial circumstances as they are.  (Spending money isn’t necessarily a problem if it’s a good investment…I don’t think this is.)  And if they really thought the position salary needed to be increased why not advocate for it and discuss it properly beforehand?

Besides “it’s been a long time”, can you justify why they deserve the increase?  I’m all ears.  Talk to me.  Try to refrain from giving me Mr. Mertz’ spiel about the job being so demanding all of a sudden…it’s always been demanding and it will never, ever compensate anyone accordingly for their time and effort…but guess what…they sought the position and if the compensation is inadequate, no one is forcing them to keep running for re-election. But for some reason, they do…hmmmmm.

I seem to remember you as something of a fiscal conservative if I’m remembering some of your other posts correctly.  I must admit I’m somewhat surprised by your flip acceptance of this increase.

My statement about you passing on your salary if elected was a bit of sarcasm.  I wouldn't expected any fair minded person to pass on their compensation for an otherwise unrewarding job such as town board member.  As for being fiscally conservative, that doesn't mean doing things as cheap as possible. Seventeen years at the same pay rate is a little excessive, even for a fiscal conservative as myself.  I do understand our town board members are considered part time positions.  Let's assume that they work 20 hrs. a week, working on things that pertain to the town. With 52 weeks in a year, our board members earn $9.61 per hour. You're right when you say if they don't like the pay that they are getting, they don't have to run for re-election.  I think that's my concern as a resident.  Good smart people who are on the town board, or are considering a position on the town board would weigh the stress, time commitment, and their good name being dragged through the mud on message boards like this one, against the compensation in return.  It might not be worth it.

The comparison between town board salaries and police salaries was a tongue and cheek attempt(a poor one at that) to stress the point of "you get what you pay for".  You wouldn't attract the most competent police officers to Rotterdam, if Rotterdams starting salary were $10,000 less than surrounding towns.  The City of Schenectady's police department is a good example of what happens when you're over worked and underpaid.  You end up with a corrupt nonfunctional police department.  On the other hand, I don't believe over compensation of public servants such as officer Collins $90,000, with full medical benefits retirement package he received.  That's an example of our elected officials allowing the exploitation of a loophole in the contract which cost the taxpayer a bundle.  But as we learned, the RPD held some political clout in this town, so they were compensated handsomely.

Again Michael, I agree that it was done wrong procedurally, but to my understanding their were members of both parties for it and against it, as well as the town attorney(Republican Chairman) pointing out the fact that it shouldn't have been done this way.  It seem fairly transparent, and not just a backdoor power move to get themselves an extra $5000.

Fair enough, Cicero.  All well-reasoned and I don't necessarily disagree.  I think I'm twisted up on the last-minute timing of the raise which I was prepared to accept grudgingly until it was determined they did it improperly (and I'll also allow it wasn't sinister but an act of ignorance.)

I've heard the argument before about the salary being high enough to attract the most talented.  While true in the private sector, I don't think it applies as much in the public sector (as far as elected positions go).  I'll use my own situation as an example...I'm reluctant to run because of the nastiness but IF I run the salary isn't the determining factor.  Maybe that's unique but I don't think so 'cause these guys keep running for office.

I am a proponent of the "you get what you pay for" philosophy too but I think $10,000 is a fine enough Town Board salary.  Also, if what you say is true, then we should both be concerned that we have made for a disincentive to run for Supervisor.  The only way to fix that would be to raise that salary too and then we're on a scary slippery slope we may not be able to get off.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.  Have a Merry Christmas!

Quoted from Michael

I am a proponent of the "you get what you pay for" philosophy too but I think $10,000 is a fine enough Town Board salary. Also, if what you say is true, then we should both be concerned that we have made for a disincentive to run for Supervisor. The only way to fix that would be to raise that salary too and then we're on a scary slippery slope we may not be able to get off.

I guess the question is was $10,000 too much 17 years ago or a little low by today's standards? Because if you think $10,000 is adequate in 2007, then you must have thought $10,000 was astronomical in 1990.

Quoted from CICERO

I guess the question is was $10,000 too much 17 years ago or a little low by today's standards? Because if you think $10,000 is adequate in 2007, then you must have thought $10,000 was astronomical in 1990.

Yes, I think they have been overpaid in years past.

In private conversations with one Town official and one County official it was mentioned by each how much of their salary they had to put aside for re-election. It struck me odd then, as I am a proponent of term limits. With a pay increase on the table, it puts their comments in better light for me. How do you feel about subsidizing their re-election effort?

Let's also remember these are part-time positions, your previous analysis aside.

We as taxpayers pay PLENTY of salaries to ALL public sector jobs. I honestly don't care if they use their money for their political campaign or not. At least they are actually 'running' for office and not being appointed to positions like Kosiur who can't get elected no matter how much money he has!

Quoted from Michael

Yes, I think they have been overpaid in years past.

In private conversations with one Town official and one County official it was mentioned by each how much of their salary they had to put aside for re-election. It struck me odd then, as I am a proponent of term limits. With a pay increase on the table, it puts their comments in better light for me. How do you feel about subsidizing their re-election effort?

Let's also remember these are part-time positions, your previous analysis aside.

Giving a pay raise across the board gives neither party an advantage.  Especially in Schenectady County which is predominantly democrat. I don't think the extra $15,000 in raises the Rotterdam republican board members will earn, will jeopardize our democracy, and suddenly create a tidal wave of republican victory's across the county.  Are you suggesting that the town republicans want this raise to help fund them in the next election cycle so they can secure their seats, or gain new ones?   County democrats have a much bigger war chest than the republicans.  Now, with this extra money, republicans will only get out spent by democrats 10 to 1 in these local races. I hope that's not the strategy Mr. Buchanan has cooked up to win elections.  It will be 100 years before republicans gain a majority.

Mr. Tommasone(R) voted against the raise, Ms. Marco(D) voted for it, Mr. Godlewski(D) for it, and Mr. Parisi(R)(Republican Chair) brought to light the need for passage of a local law.  If the votes went down party lines, I would agree that the majority party wanted the extra money for elections.  It just doesn't look that way from where I'm sitting.

I'd rather have the transparent subsidized funding from their salaries for re-elections, than the shady kickbacks Contsantino received from Larnard for political favors recieved.  That type of re-election funding kept him in office from '84' to '97'.  Obviously he wasn't running for Town Supervisor for his town salary.  He had other ways to get compensated.

I don't think that the public hearing should be on New Years Day for this proposed raise.

I think that we have to stay on to the subject at hand. It is not about how much the raise is. The issue is the procedure. This raise should have been part of the budget process and before the election. And there should have been a public discussion at that time.

To present this proposed raise after the budget process and after the election and with a public discussion on New Years day, does not show favor with the residents. And now the town board has set themselves up for a possible permissive referendum.

Don't put too much weight on the fact that Diane Marco voted for the raise. She's DONE in less than a week. THANK GOD! So no matter what happens, there will be no flack for her. Her last explosive episode was over the police commission! The cops rallied around her and she was the mega mouth for that. That episode is probably what did her in anyways. Residents were very disappointed in her and the cops behavior!

But now that she will no longer be with the town board, she has secured a job with her friend Mr.Paolino. Is that another created position by the dictatorship? And if it was, it should be subject to a civil service test to even the playing field. Ya know....to be FAIR!

I'm against any raise of any kind unless it's brought to the residents and they vote in favor of said raise. We're paying for it so we should have a say in if it passes or not.

Quoted from Shadow

I'm against any raise of any kind unless it's brought to the residents and they vote in favor of said raise. We're paying for it so we should have a say in if it passes or not.

Looks like there will have to be a permissive referendum.

Okay, so I attended today's Town Board meeting and was glad to see a few others brave the snowstorm as well.

The agenda was chock full of swearing-in's, appointments, and other such things.

Of course, my reason for going was the public hearing on the proposed Town Board salary raise. I had my say, along with a few others. Only Ms. Marco spoke in favor which wasn't unanticipated given her previous vote in support.

I guess we'll see what happens. It was intimated that there would be future hearings on this matter but only by Ms. Marco. The onus will be on the newcomers. Their vote on this matter is a litmus test for me.

I will have to wait until saturday to watch the replay. But Michael did any of them mention the possibility that this would go up for a vote first to the residents?

No, that wasn't stated, but I did catch Mr. Della Villa outsideafter the meeting and told him about this site, so I hope that even if he only comes as a lurker, he'll see all our feelings. Anyway, Mr. Della Villa told me tonight that he would not be voting for the raise.

Thank you guys for the update on the town meeting yesterday. I regretfully was unable to attend for obvious reasons. But I was surprised that there was no mention of the meeting in todays Gazette or the TU. I will have to catch it on the replay. Thanks again!

Quoted from JoAnn

Thank you guys for the update on the town meeting yesterday. I regretfully was unable to attend for obvious reasons. But I was surprised that there was no mention of the meeting in todays Gazette or the TU. I will have to catch it on the replay. Thanks again!

Hard for them to mention anything that happened there when they didn't come to see themselves... Guess we can count on them not being around, since they don't want to really have to sit around and listen to the Republican Supermajority.

Quoted from BIGK75

No, that wasn't stated, but I did catch Mr. Della Villa outsideafter the meeting and told him about this site, so I hope that even if he only comes as a lurker, he'll see all our feelings. Anyway, Mr. Della Villa told me tonight that he would not be voting for the raise.

Well Joey 'abstain' Guidarelli, when first appointed, said he would vote against the proposed Walmart super center, but when push came to shove, he ABSTAINED!! So hopefully Mr. Della Villa will stick to his guns. I personally think that Mr. Della Villa will lean toward the side of Mr. Tommasone. But time will tell.

http://www.spotlightnews.com

Quoted Text

PUBLIC QUESTIONS PROPOSED PAY RAISE (ROTTERDAM)

Posted on: 01/02/08
Ross Marvin, Spotlight Staff
email: marvinr@spotlightnews.com

In the town board’s first meeting of the year, members of the public voiced surprise and concern over a proposed board member raise that would bump member salaries by $5,000 each from $10,000 to $15,000.

New members, Republican Michael Della Villa and Democrat John Silva, were sworn into office less than two hours before members of the public began to discuss whether or not the men should receive a 50 percent pay raise.

Elaine Zimmer, of Putnam Road, said she was not opposed to an increase in board salaries, but that a $5,000 increase was unreasonable.

“It’s an awfully large jump,” said Zimmer.

Fellow Rotterdam resident, Kevin March echoed some of Zimmer’s sentiments and also pointed out that the discussion of a wage increase didn’t occur until after elections took place in November.

“All the members in front of me were elected at a time when members made $10,000,” said March. “While I realize the board has done many things to make the town of Rotterdam a nicer place to live, a 50 percent jump in salary is just not something I would be used to. My salary will likely go up 3 percent this year, not 50 percent.”

March also voiced his concern that if board member salaries were set at $15,000 they would be too close to the supervisor’s annual salary of $16,000.

“Will we be looking at a raise for the supervisor sometime in the future?” March asked the board.

While several board members suggested that the supervisor’s salary should be increased, Supervisor Steven Tommasone opposed the adjustment. The supervisor’s salary would not change under the proposed local law.

Only one resident spoke in favor of the raises — recently retired board member Diane Marco who left this year after eight years of service to the town.

“I firmly support this as a resident and a former councilperson,” said Marco who went on to explain that the New Year’s Day public hearing was not an attempt to avoid discourse with residents, but was typical legal procedure.

“There are certain procedures we have to go through,” she said. “No one is trying to backdoor this or put it under the rug. The raises have been discussed for the past two years and checking into other the salaries of other municipalities, this is fair.”

In similarly sized towns like Guilderland and Malta, board members receive an annual salary of $19,860 and $15,000 respectfully. But, Schenectady County Legislators who represent the interests of municipalities like Rotterdam make just over $14,000 per year.

Last month, the board voted 3-to-2 to amend the supervisor’s preliminary budget to include money for the raises. In order to amend board member salaries, the law stipulates that the town has to adopt a local law and hold a public hearing.

If the law is not passed or overturned, the $20,000 budgeted for the raises for four board members would remain unspent in 2008.

According to Town Attorney Girard Parisi, the board will likely vote on the salary increases at their next meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 9.

So Ms Marco states that the raise has been talked about for 2 years. Publicaly or privately? And if it was discussed over the past 2 years, than all the more reason that it should have been implemented during the budget process that was in place just a few months ago?

Quoted from bumblethru

So hopefully Mr. Della Villa will stick to his guns. I personally think that Mr. Della Villa will lean toward the side of Mr. Tommasone. But time will tell.

It will take NO votes by both Mr. Della Villa and Mr. Silva to defeat the raise (joining Mr. Tommasone). Mr. Mertz and Mr. Signore are currently YES votes.

Quoted Text

Fellow Rotterdam resident, Kevin March echoed some of Zimmer’s sentiments and also pointed out that the discussion of a wage increase didn’t occur until after elections took place in November.

“All the members in front of me were elected at a time when members made $10,000,” said March. “While I realize the board has done many things to make the town of Rotterdam a nicer place to live, a 50 percent jump in salary is just not something I would be used to. My salary will likely go up 3 percent this year, not 50 percent.”

If you take the 3% cost of living raise you get annually and extrapolate it by 17 years in which the town board didn't receive that cost of living raise,  that would be a 51% raise, or $5100.  An annual salary of $15,100 a year.

To put it another way, say you're working for a company for 15 years.  When you were hired, you started at $8 per hour in 1993 for an entry level position. Decent money for entry level position in 1993.  Now after 15 years, now 2008, you are making $18 an hour due to performance and cost of living raises.   If you lose your job or quit, do you expect your employer to be able to fill that position for $8 per hour it payed 15 years ago?  Of course not.  The entry level wage for the same job you were hired for 15 years ago is most likely $11 or $12 per hour.

Remember, these raises aren't exclusive to the individuals that hold the elected positions, but for the position itself.  Regardless who holds them.

Comparing our town officials wages to private sector compensation practices is a losing argument.  You are actually reinforcing the reason why the our town should bump up the compensation for our elected official. We should be grateful that we can find people competent enough to run a town this size for $9 per hour.  We shouldn't press our luck.

Quoted from CICERO

Quoted Text

Fellow Rotterdam resident, Kevin March echoed some of Zimmer’s sentiments and also pointed out that the discussion of a wage increase didn’t occur until after elections took place in November.

“All the members in front of me were elected at a time when members made $10,000,” said March. “While I realize the board has done many things to make the town of Rotterdam a nicer place to live, a 50 percent jump in salary is just not something I would be used to. My salary will likely go up 3 percent this year, not 50 percent.”

If you take the 3% cost of living raise you get annually and extrapolate it by 17 years in which the town board didn't receive that cost of living raise,  that would be a 51% raise, or $5100.  An annual salary of $15,100 a year.

To put it another way, say you're working for a company for 15 years.  When you were hired, you started at $8 per hour in 1993 for an entry level position. Decent money for entry level position in 1993.  Now after 15 years, now 2008, you are making $18 an hour due to performance and cost of living raises.   If you lose your job or quit, do you expect your employer to be able to fill that position for $8 per hour it payed 15 years ago?  Of course not.  The entry level wage for the same job you were hired for 15 years ago is most likely $11 or $12 per hour.

Remember, these raises aren't exclusive to the individuals that hold the elected positions, but for the positions themselves.  Regardless who holds them.

Comparing our town officials wages to private sector compensation practices is a losing argument.  You are actually reinforcing the reason why the our town should bump up the compensation for our elected official. We should be grateful that we can find people competent enough to run a town this size for $9 per hour.  We shouldn't press our luck.

Point taken. I wouldn't begrudge them some sort of raise, but it's in the WAY that they're doing it. And I wouldn't mind if it wasn't such a LARGE change.

Quoted from Kevin March

Point taken. I wouldn't begrudge them some sort of raise, but it's in the WAY that they're doing it. And I wouldn't mind if it wasn't such a LARGE change.

Then focus on the procedure, not the money. Keep your eye on the ball. Complaining about the amount of money makes Rotterdam sound like a bunch of ungrateful cheapskates. It also weakens your argument.

Residents of Rotterdam want to be able to blast their board members, and criticize their decisions, and they want them to do it for next to nothing. With this raise, Rotterdam should expect more from their elected officials. With a $5000 raise, town officials should expect greater scrutiny. Rotterdam should offer fair compensation to it's elected officials. In return, Rotterdam should demand, not just from the current town board, but also future town boards, a high level of professionalism and proficiency. Working for the best interests of the town. Not their political party or personal interests.

Quoted from CICERO

Then focus on the procedure, not the money. Keep your eye on the ball. Complaining about the amount of money makes Rotterdam sound like a bunch of ungrateful cheapskates. It also weakens your argument.

Residents of Rotterdam want to be able to blast their board members, and criticize their decisions, and they want them to do it for next to nothing. With this raise, Rotterdam should expect more from their elected officials. With a $5000 raise, town officials should expect greater scrutiny. Rotterdam should offer fair compensation to it's elected officials. In return, Rotterdam should demand, not just from the current town board, but also future town boards, a high level of professionalism and proficiency. Working for the best interests of the town. Not their political party or personal interests.

BINGO!!!!!

Well, I'm not sure if I can fit it into my schedule, I'm going to do my best, but this should be on the agenda for tomorrow night. I think that's the first scheduled Wednesday night meeting for the year.

I am planning on attending unless something unforeseen happens.

The agenda for tonight's meeting is not on-line at this time. I would, however, encourage everyone to come, as even though they already had their public hearing on this, there is a time for people to comment on anything that is on the agenda. As town residents, this could be a second public hearing on the raises just minutes before they actually have to vote on their raises, face to face with the public.

Meeting is at 7PM tonight at town hall.

You might have a bad cookie, Kevin. The agenda has been online since at least early yesterday.

http://rotterdamny.org/calendar1/calendar/eventimages/TB%20Meeting%20Agenda%20&%20Resolutions%2001%2009%202008%20(Web%20site).pdf

The proposed raise is a Resolution on the agenda to adopt a local law with new salaries, so it will be voted on. You can still speak during the Privilege of the Floor for Agenda Items.

I will be in attendance.

Heard the vote for raises went down. Is that correct?

Yes. Mr Della Villa was not in attendance, although he gave Mr. Tommasone a letter stating his opposition against it. Mr. Tommasone and Mr. Silva voted against the raises and Mr. Mertz and Mr. Signore voted for the raises. The raise was defeated.

No problem. Thanks for participating so that you can stay involved.

It seems that usually they vote along party lines. I am surprised that there was such disagreement . Were Mertz and Signore angry about the other Republicans not voting with them. How did they respond to the no votes?

Well, at the time of the vote, it didn't seem to be much of a reaction, but I'll leave that for others to determine. I didn't talk to either of them after the meeting, as Mr. Signore had slid over near Mr. Mertz's seat and they were talking to a couple reporters.

any idea when the meeting is on channel 16?

Should be Saturday at 1PM, I believe. Don't be late, it was a quick meeting.

It certainly was a quick meeting. It was over about 7:40 pm. When I first drove up, there wasn't a parking place to be had. I thought it was going to be a packed house because of the vote for the proposed raise. Actually, the majority of the people there were the parents and young girls who went to the cheerleading nationals. They came in 7th in the nation. CONGRATULATIONS!! So they were handed awards and deservingly so.

But when that was done, they all left and I think Kevin counted 20 people remaining. Maybe 20! I personally thought the raise issue was important and yet there was a very slim turn out. Actually with all of the things going on in town, I would have thought there would be a larger turn out with more active participation.

What will it take to motivate the masses to become involved?

Actually, I used20 as a ballpark, including media. I think it was closer to 16-18, but still, NOT ENOUGH.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Town Board says no to pay increase
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

    Members of the Town Board stalemated on their own raises Wednesday, effectively ending a move to include in the budget a pay increase of $5,000 for the four positions.
    With Michael Della Villa absent from the meeting, John Silva and Supervisor Steve Tommasone voted against raising the salaries, which would have been 50 percent more than the $10,000 now paid to board members. In voting against the measure, Silva said he didn’t disapprove of the increase, rather that it was done outside the regular budget process.
    Silva also urged the board to consider reviewing the role of the town’s part-time elected officials and their duties relative to similar sized municipalities. With Rotterdam approaching a population of 30,000, he suggested it may be time to start a discussion about seeking a full-time administrator.
    “At this time my vote will be no because I think there’s a better way to do this,” he said of the raises.
    Tommasone also read a statement from Della Villa opposing the raises. Della Villa, away on business, indicated he did not support the move because of the way the issue arose and citizen concerns over town spending.
    “While I understand Rotterdam [Town Board] members are among the lowest paid in the state, I cannot support a 50 percent increase at this time,” he said in his statement.
    In November, town officials voted 3-2 to amend the 2008 budget to give each board position a $5,000 per year raise. The pay raises did not affect the supervisor position, which pays $16,000 a year.
    Town Attorney Gerard Parisi later advised the board it would need to adopt a local law before legally approving raises for themselves. Because the initial budget didn’t include the raises, he said the only way to grant them later was to pass a local law subject to a permissive referendum.
    In speaking against the raises, resident Kevin March suggested the board take up the issue of raises during the regular budget process. By doing so, he said, residents wouldn’t get an impression of underhandedness. “Where as this is something that was slid in after the fact,” he said.
    But proponents of the measure — councilmen John Mertz and Joseph Signore — disagreed with this characterization. Both said the board followed the same process it had for raising the salaries of other elected officials in the past.
    Signore said the issue of raises was brought up at a time when the town had a tax decrease and a $3 million surplus. He said the proposed raises would have helped attract a better pool of candidates to the office.
    “It’s good for both Democrats and Republicans alike, as they seek town board candidates for the future,” he said.

I think this was the right decision/vote. The raise should be incorporated into next years budget. I didn't agree with the process.

The low attendance just goes to show how little the residents really care about certain issues. If there was a Walmart going to be built somewhere in town you would see the number of people increase. I was happy to see channel 6 there. I got the impression that Mr. Silva wants a full time supervisor/mayor to be implemented in Rotterdam due to it's 30,000 person population. I would rather see a full time engineer or engineer aide hired one who would represent the interests of the town and not having to rely on the word of some developers engineer.

Quoted from Shadow

The low attendance just goes to show how little the residents really care about certain issues. If there was a Walmart going to be built somewhere in town you would see the number of people increase. I was happy to see channel 6 there. I got the impression that Mr. Silva wants a full time supervisor/mayor to be implemented in Rotterdam due to it's 30,000 person population. I would rather see a full time engineer or engineer aide hired one who would represent the interests of the town and not having to rely on the word of some developers engineer.

Certain issues? More like ANY issues! :)

A few people (myself included) worked very hard to mobilize people against Wal-Mart. I'd disagree a proposal in itself would get a significant number of people off their couch - they needed more prodding the last time.

I'm out of the business of trying to get people to pay attention.

I whole-heartedly agree re: engineer.

I can't help myself...I've got to reiterate a few items regarding this whole affair.

I think we all agree the process on this was flawed from a budgetary point of view.

I also agree that $5000 x 4 is incrementally a small percentage of monies budgetarily.  We could argue all day what's appropriate compensation for the work they do - let's not.

All that said, I think it's worth exploring some of the arguments floating around in support of an increase because personally, I still don't agree with the logic.

First, Mr. Mertz is quoted in the article that they used the same process in the past to bump salaries.  It's not valid logic.  Either he's wrong or it's been done inappropriately in the past.  Certainly it's no justification.

Second, Mr. Signore is quoted in the article as saying something like it's good for Republicans and Democrats alike in order to attract candidates.  Uh...how about what's good for the residents?  I don't recall there ever being a shortage of candidates en toto, forget about the individual parties as this issue hasn't aligned along party lines since the start.

Third, it's sounding like both Mr. Della Villa and Mr. Silva are aligning to eventually pass an increase, as long as it's done within the budget.  That's fine, I guess...if you can justify an increase is warranted.  It's not in my mind.  I heard Mr. Silva pontificate before he cast his vote last night so I'll stick with his comments for now ( I don't recall the specifics of Mr. Della Villa's letter or I'd explore that too.)

Mr. Silva seemed to take exception with my belief it was inappropriate for the newcomers to give themselves a raise as first order of business.  Nice.  Someone please tell me where else on the planet does someone get hired for a job and day one receives a 50% pay increase?  It's ludicrous and his excuse it was previous administration initiative is equally lame.

Here's the whole crux and likely my last comments on the matter.  The argument that an increased salary will somehow enhance the pool of qualified candidates is flawed.  Here's why.  Everyone seems to keep saying what a small sum the additional monies are but that somehow that will attract "magic" candidates. The position and the desire to serve attracts people or it doesn't.  Simple.  An increased salary will potentially attract people looking to make it a career...on the back of the taxpayer no less.  (There's already a plethora of overpaid government elected positions...want more money?...go seek one of those.)

Don't believe me?  Mr. Silva while explaining the rationale of how more will attract better said while he was running for office and going door-to-door, he didn't even KNOW there was a salary for the position.  He was seeking office to make a difference.

And those are the people who will continue to run for office, regardless of what the salary is.  Don't kid yourself otherwise.  I will oppose a salary increase when it inevitably comes up again even though I expect it will probably get passed.

Michael from my understanding the Town Board wasn't doing things the right way in the past and no one called them on it. I think the town attorney wanted the board to follow the proper procedure so that there wouldn't be any way for the residents to object to the raise.

Quoted from Shadow

The low attendance just goes to show how little the residents really care about certain issues. If there was a Walmart going to be built somewhere in town you would see the number of people increase. I was happy to see channel 6 there. I got the impression that Mr. Silva wants a full time supervisor/mayor to be implemented in Rotterdam due to it's 30,000 person population. I would rather see a full time engineer or engineer aide hired one who would represent the interests of the town and not having to rely on the word of some developers engineer.

I must agree with your analogy. First, and although I agree in part with Mr. Silva, who seems to be not in favor of a $5,000 increase at this time and yet is anticipating a larger sum of money for the supervisors position in the future. So I walked away with the idea that Mr. Silva won't mind an increase to the taxpayers. He just wants it implemented differently. My opinion was that he was implying re-structure.

I heard that after the raise was voted down, the Supervisor had a difficult time getting Counselmembers Signore and Mertz to move any resolutions because they were pouting. Any truth to that? If so, that is too bad. They all need to be working for the betterment of the taxpayers- not just their own agendas.

The meeting started and ended so quickly that I don't think there was time for pouting. :)

Glad to hear that ::)

I also brought up to Mr Mertz that I was disappointed with how fast the town board was addressing the water problems in the town and all he said was he could only do so much about them. I got the impression that he wanted to do more to correct them but was being impeded by someone.

Quoted from jnotar

I heard that after the raise was voted down, the Supervisor had a difficult time getting Counselmembers Signore and Mertz to move any resolutions because they were pouting. Any truth to that? If so, that is too bad. They all need to be working for the betterment of the taxpayers- not just their own agendas.

I heard that any resolutions that needed to get voted on did. And in a timely maner. They didn't call it pouting....they just called it not being happy with the raise decision which some said appeared to cause a bit of tension between the ranks. But hey...that's politics for ya! Of course there will be a replay Sat at 1pm on channel 16 if anyone wants to see for themselves.

I will bet that next year the raises for the Town Board will be included in the budget and the next time the issue of their raise comes up for a vote it will pass with flying colors.

Quoted from Shadow

I will bet that next year the raises for the Town Board will be included in the budget and the next time the issue of their raise comes up for a vote it will pass with flying colors.

Yes, it will, and we need to be ready for it.

Quoted from Shadow

I will bet that next year the raises for the Town Board will be included in the budget and the next time the issue of their raise comes up for a vote it will pass with flying colors.

Funny you should say that...I just posted a follow up on my blog

http://rotterdamny.blogspot.com/

Why does Rotterdam only consider their 5 board members elected officials.  Just to remind everybody, there are 4 other elected positions in Rotterdam.  I'll remind you of the positions, and their pay for 06' and their pay for 07'.

1. Highway Superintendent -  06' $51.900 -  07' $57,000
2. Town Clerk                   -  06' $43,670 -  07' $47,000
3  Receiver of Taxes         -  06' $43,670 -  07' $47,000
4. Town Justices(2)           -  06' $60,000 -  07' $63,345

5. Town Board                  -  91' $10,000 -  07' $10,000

I don't recall any threats of a permissive referendum for the proposed raises year after year for Rotterdam's 4 other elected officials.  I hope everybody sticks to the collective message of a pay freeze for Rotterdam's elected officials......ALL OF THEM.

Cicero, Thank you for bringing that up. To be honest, these are people that, as long as the running of the daily business is going ok, the residents don't think about these people. You are right, we need to watch these positions in mind when it comes to money, too.

Quoted from Kevin March

Cicero, Thank you for bringing that up. To be honest, these are people that, as long as the running of the daily business is going ok, the residents don't think about these people. You are right, we need to watch these positions in mind when it comes to money, too.

Not just watch these positions, but letting the people who hold these positions know that they are grossly over paid, and to expect a referendum if money is budgeted for a pay increase in the 2009 budget. Somebody mentioned career politician. How about our town clerk. In my lifetime I only know of one town clerk......Eunice. She's at the meetings, voice your displeasure of her $3330 annual raise.

Rotterdam only wants to penalize those town officials who they have most accessibility to, and those who make the unpopular decisions.

Rotterdam needs to build into the budget an automatic yearly minimum cost of living increase for all elected officials. Yes..... even the town council. That way it can't be used as an election issue when a raise is long over due and obviously needs to be done.

Quoted from CICERO

Rotterdam only wants to penalize those town officials who they have most accessibility to, and those who make the unpopular decisions.

This is because people don't ever think about the other people that make the town run as it is.

Quoted from CICERO

Rotterdam needs to build into the budget an automatic yearly minimum cost of living increase for all elected officials. Yes..... even the town council. That way it can't be used as an election issue when a raise is long over due and obviously needs to be done.

Would you say that a COLA somehow tied to inflation rates?  Then, we would have to have the debate of what inflation rate would be used.  Would we tie it to gas prices?  To the stock market?  National inflation?  NYS inflation (which I would gander is much higher than national)?  Schenectady County inflation (which would probably be higher than NYS)?

It actually sounds like a good idea, something to bring to the board.

Also, I wonder if with the next term for our town clerk that maybe we'll see some significant savings.  I mean, if you look at the base salary, then give x% raise per year, should this salary be 50% lower?  25%?  Or does the next one get the same rate that Ms. Esposito is currently getting, plus another 5% or so COLA?

It should be an automatic 2% or 3% annual raise, minimum. As for filling the Town Clerk with a newly elected clerk the next time it is up for election. I believe that person would step into the position at the same pay the previous clerk left that position, plus the annual minimum increase(2%,3%), budgeted that year for elected officials. Elected positions cannot be compensated based on performance. If the residents don't believe that the person is performing, they elected someone new to hold the office.

Seventeen years should not go by without an adjustment in the salaries of our elected officials.

That's right---no performance raise, just a performance vote by the tax payers to give power or to withhold power......we are what we make important.....

We as a people need to remove the 'raise issue' right out of the elected officials hands and off their podiums......

I agree with Cicero.....

PS: dont forget about appointed positions too......

Actually, with thinking about this a bit, I don't think that anybody coming into these positions should be given ANYTHING above what someone else was getting before they moved into a position.

Look at it this way.  The position comes with a specific payment rate.

Now, if this was the real world, each year, the person's performance would be evaluated to determine if they were deserving of an additional payment for their job.  Well, let's think about this if there were more than 1 position.  Sure, there would be fluctuations between the pay amount for each of the employees.  That would be due to the amount that they were making at the time that they started, plus the cumulative amount of change due to performance, good behavior, etc. over time.  Well, with a persne being in a job for a certain amount of time (whether it be 5 years or 50 years), if a person is added to the staff at the same level and expected to do the same work, they would be back to the beginning of the pay scale, not as far up as the person who was just hired.  It's cost containment.  You don't pay someone a specific amount if they haven't earned it.  They don't get raises without earning it (Except if it come to minimum wage).  And, as said before, if it's not about the money, it's about service, how about setting the payment for the job back at whatever rate it was years ago, index it by inflation or whatever you'rew going to use and figure out what an appropriate amount would be for the position.  As you said before, it's about serving, it's not about the paycheck.  Someone doesn't want to take it for the lower price?  They'll have to go and find a job somewhere else.

Print Topic - Archive