Jan 7, 2015 11:32 AMContinuing their protest against new salary schedules for non-union town employees, Southampton Town Councilwoman Christine Scalera and Councilman Stan Glinka this week asked that the $2,000 salary increases they were each given in the 2015 budget be removed and the money put back into general fund accounts.
Ms. Scalera, echoed by Mr. Glinka, said that she would like her salary amended, from the $62,000 in the adopted budget, back to its 2014 level of $60,000.
At the request of Councilwoman Bridget Fleming, the board then tabled a vote on the salaries to be paid to each of the five board members, until a meeting on Tuesday, January 13, so that she could consider what the implications of giving up the salary hikes would be. The amendments offered by Mr. Glinka and Ms. Scalera would not affect the salaries of the other board members.
“It’s political,” Councilman Brad Bender quipped, when Ms. Fleming said she wanted to think about what the amendments meant.
“It’s not political—it’s a matter of principle,” Ms. Scalera replied.
Ms. Scalera and Mr. Glinka, both Republicans, had voted against the $88.6 million 2015 budget in November on the basis of their objections to a number of its proposals, most having to do with staffing and salaries.
Ms. Scalera had objected, in particular, to a proposal by Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst to set up a salary schedule similar to that used in Civil Service union contracts, as a basis for awarding regular pay increases to non-union employees. The supervisor said that the so-called “salary matrix” would bring long-overdue predictability and fairness to the compensation of non-union staff. Ms. Scalera said it would drive up payroll costs and unnecessarily denude department heads of the ability to offer raises as a reward for good work. She had also objected to the $2,000 salary hikes proposed in the budget for all four Town Board members and the supervisor. The supervisor’s base salary was $102,000 in 2014 and $104,040 in the 2015 budget.
The four council members also receive about $35,000 in annual benefits, and the supervisor nearly $50,000, in the 2015 budget.
Ms. Scalera noted that the amendments to the payroll they proposed at their meeting on Tuesday would not change the salaries budgeted for the two Town Board seats they hold, only the actual pay issued for them individually in this calendar year.
Ms. Scalera said that Riverhead Town Councilwoman Jodi Giglio has declined the annual salary hikes given to council members in that town for several years.
Despite Ms. Fleming’s desire to give the issue additional consideration, the other board members showed no inclination to forgo the salary increases.
“Personally, this is my only job, and this is the salary that I live on,” Mr. Bender said, though he raised no objection to the other council members’ request. “If Stan and Christine want to forgo it, I have no problem with it. I would rather that you took the money and gave it to a charity.”
The town’s general fund currently has a more than $28 million reserve balance.
You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.
Already a subscriber? Sign in
The distinction, of course, is that Ms. Fleming's ethics resolution would have made a difference, whereas this picayune salary reduction ...more by Ms. Scalera and Mr. Glinka will make almost no difference -- it's empty theater. I thought both these folks were serious public servants, but maybe not.
BTW. Resident tax, has it not occurred to you that items which surprise Ms. Fleming at Board meetings might not be due to poor prep on her part, but to her being blindsided by other members? It happens a lot.
At a time when it is incumbent upon the Supervisor and Board Members to request give backs from union employees to avoid having to cut services to our taxpayers, it is hardly political grandstanding to wish to lead by example.
The ...more very fact that Ms. Fleming requested additional time to review that request suggests that she too might feel the righteousness of forgoing that even that modest increase.
As for Ms. Fleming's desire to rid the Town's appointed land use Boards of any member of a recognized political committee, some might question exactly how the wholesale blacklisting of individuals due to their membership on political committees furthers the ethical interests of the taxpayers. Were Ms. Fleming proposing an ethics law that sought to remove the influence of special interest persons or groups by requiring elected officials to recuse themselves from voting on issues to the betterment or detriment of their campaign finance committees we would have far more ethics reform.
it always troubles me to see membership in a group (with the exception of groups advocating the violent overthrow of government)having their citizenship rights curtailed simply by reason of their group membership.
So one could say that Ms. Fleming's ethics resolution is empty theater.
Membership on the land use Boards should be made on the merit of the iindividuals applying for and being appointed to those Boards. If a member of a recognized party political committee has the credentials to serve and benefit the Town they should not be required to chose membership on one or the other. If they do not have those credentials they should not be appointed.
We entrust our elected Town Supervisor and Board members to make those determinations on the basis of merit. Although we realize that all too often those choices are made on the basis of political leanings. But tossing political committee persons out will not stop the influence of party politics on those important appointments.
As far as questioning who among the current members of the Town Board, including the Supervisor, are serious public servants. The same question can reasonably be asked about all five. Campaign rhetoric aside so long as financial campaign contributors have even the appearance of influence upon what resolutions are drafted and whether they pass or fail, so long as none among those gallant five seeks to amend the Town Ethics Laws to at least curtail the influence of contributors to the party and candidate finance committees, whose definition of public servant do we accept.
The blue collar men and women or are the core of our Town or the monied interests?
We are now, perhaps, more than at any time in the past, two communities. It is not a dichotomy of Democrats v. Republicans, left v. right. It is the wealthy against the not wealthy.
So if Ms. Scalera choses to reject a modest pay increase and Mr. Glinka joins in that request, it is a matter of principle. Whether you agree with that principle or not.
As for Mr. Bender, he knew what the salary was when he chose to run for office. He made it a point at every debate to state he would be a full time councilperson. In these times no elected official should believe they have a right to a salary increase. Shame on Mr. Bender. How many of his constituents did not receive a salary increase? It is them he should be concerned about. At least in my book concern for the Town's residence above oneself is a needed trait if you are going to be a serious public servant.
Principle. Either you have it or you don't.
If there is a problem with how some town employees are paid I don't think the answer is to make them more like civil servants. The town government despite what some think has finite resources and as such it should strive to conduct its business in a lean, efficient and professional manner. Creating a workplace that incentivizes employees to be more like government workers (in general - think post office, DMV, any state or federal agency) is a step to becoming more like the urban and suburban communities to our west which we often strive hard to distance ourselves from.
We don't need to dump any council members. We just need to ask them to remember when times were not so good, and to remember that while times change, unfortunately people don't so we will certainly revisit those lean times again.