Dancing with a gorilla
By By Buddy Bynum / editor
Feb. 9, 2003
The intentions of the chairman of the House County Affairs Committee were no doubt honorable last week when he tried to get his colleagues to change the way pay raises are awarded to county supervisors.
But the move by State Rep. David Green, D-Gloster, was thrown back into his face because of what seems to be some behind-the-scenes bickering between legislators and supervisors.
Let's try to make some sense of this today.
It is true that under current law county supervisors can get pay raises only through a two-step process. First, the pay raises have to be approved by the Legislature. Second, supervisors must vote to accept their own pay raises in an official vote that is recorded in their minutes. That makes their votes for or against accepting the raise a public record.
Voting against a pay raise may endear some supervisors to some voters, but voting against a pay raise almost always infuriates other members of the board.
Unfair?
Supervisors argue that other elected officials such as circuit clerks and judges do not have to approve their own pay raises when granted by lawmakers.
When the Legislature raises the pay of clerks and judges, the increased compensation just becomes law. No additional vote required. And that leaves these officials to say, rightfully, that they did not raise their own pay. They can pin the blame, or, in unusual instances, heap the credit, on the Legislature.
It's different with county supervisors. And some taxpayers even political opponents of incumbent office holders, if you can believe it are taking notice.
For his part, Green said he was merely attempting to correct the apparent unfairness to county supervisors.
This is kind of like dancing with a gorilla," he told the Associated Press in one of the more colorful quotes thus far into the 2003 legislative session. "You don't quit when you want to. You have to get permission to quit,."
That's all we're asking here, is to get permission to quit messing with the boards of supervisors.''
Now that was an interesting turn of phrase. "Quit messing with the boards of supervisors."
County supervisors have traditionally been the most potent political figures in local government. Some state lawmakers said they were perturbed because supervisors have been telling voters that they were forced to take pay raises because legislators approved them.
Is any elected official in the state really "forced" to take a pay raise? I would guess that any elected official who wants to could find a way to give the money back.
Sensitive topic
It goes to show that pay raises in fact, pay is a sensitive topic, especially in an election year. If you believe some of the rhetoric, there are voters out there who believe elected officials should work for free.
I disagree. Elected officials should be paid a fair wage for the job they do. In Lauderdale County, for example, the Legislature has decided that supervisors should make $37,343 a year. And so they do.
County supervisors in Clarke, Neshoba and Newton counties are paid $28,994; in Kemper, the yearly salary is $26,869.
Still, unfair or not, I like the idea that county supervisors have to vote to accept or reject a pay raise that has been granted by the Legislature. Keeps it all open and above board and gives voters another measurement by which to assess candidates come election time.
The House rejected Green's argument and sent back to committee his bill to change the manner in which supervisors' pay is increased.
Rep. Bennett Malone, D-Carthage, had it just about right.
Between that kind of attitude and enterprising newspaper editors and reporters who put the salaries in the paper for everyone to see, this piece of our state's political system seems to work pretty well.
