Pay raises in Austintown is bad government policy

In the real world, when employees are granted a pay raise, it's a safe bet that the corporation has budgeted for the additional expenditure and has provided for any emergencies. Such planning is standard operating procedure.
But in the fantasy world of government, raises are rarely based on economic realities. They are given either because elected officials want to remain in the good graces of public employees, or because some arbitrator believes that the treasury is a bottomless pit.
And when such irresponsible decision-making results in budget deficits, the taxpayers end up paying either through increased taxes or a reduction of services because of layoffs.
We're broke, but here's a raise
This phenomenon, found only in government, is being played out in Austintown where two of the three trustees have decided to offer 3 percent annual raises to the township's office staff and road department employees. The raises would be retroactive to Jan. 1 and be in effect through 2006.
Part-time firefighters also would be receiving 3 percent raises.
So, what will this largess cost? Township Clerk Michael Kurish doesn't know yet. Kurish points out that the money for the office staff and road department raises was included in this year's budget, and he expects a $300,000 carry-over at the end of the year.
Even so, if Austintown doesn't receive additional revenue in 2005, it could face a deficit. And that could mean layoffs.
Indeed, the reason Trustee Lisa Oles did not join her colleagues, David Ditzler and Bo Pritchard, in voting for the raises is because of the trade-off they had to make.
To reduce spending, the trustees have decided to cut their annual road-paving program this summer. There were no roads paved last year.
Priority
In explaining why she voted against raises for road department employees and office staff, Oles said, "I was looking at it as a matter of priority. I think the priority would be to resurface the roads."
Priority. It's a word that governments at all levels should not only be familiar with, but be able to apply to their operations, just as the private sector has had to do.
In these days of tight budgets, angry taxpayers unwilling to even renew levies and employee wages and benefits accounting for 80 percent of operating costs, elected officials and other decision makers must set priorities.
And pay raises are not a priority, not when private sector workers have had to agree to freezes and copayments of health insurance premiums.
The raises certainly aren't justified when the governing body cannot guarantee that there will be money in the budget over the life of the contract to pay for such a luxury.
Ditzler and Pritchard should have said no to raises. The argument that Ditzler puts forth about employees saving money for the township by making concessions and agreeing to help pay for their health-care costs and, therefore, needing to be rewarded warrants a "Say what?"
Isn't cutting the cost of government the duty of every public employee? We certainly think so.