IN YOUR CORNER

It is disappointing that editorial comments from the Martin County Taxpayers
Association regarding Fire-Rescue contract negotiations have been twisted or
misinterpreted to imply that we do not support, respect or appreciate these employees and
the contributions they make.  Our editorials on this subject reveal our concern about how
effectively this group's wages and benefits are being managed.  This is especially true
with respect to parity with other government jobs and comparable jobs in the community.

Taxpayers have every right, if not an obligation, to oversee the activities of their
employees, whether government or business, and promote efficiency and cost savings
whenever appropriate.  We attempt to perform this work objectively, impersonally, and
without emotion, and should be construed accordingly.  Defining, evaluating and properly
classifying jobs is not a personal vendetta, but a necessary activity that helps to create and
maintain a proper balance and relationship from job to job throughout business and
government.

Jobs are usually rated on such factors as knowledge and skill, responsibility, and physical
requirements.  Each factor is assigned different numerical weight, and each job is scored
to produce a hierarchy or pay range wherein each position can be objectively compared
with others.  In a perfect world, job scores relate perfectly to payscales in the hierarchy.
Where they do not, management should recommend specific adjustments to reacquire
balance.

This was the case in current year negotiations when County Management, in response to
wage surveys, recommended a specific adjustment to the entry-level pay rates which were
found deficient, while the higher pay grades were judged to be well-compensated and
would participate in the across-the-board increase after the specific adjustments had
brought our pay schedule in line with the "market". 

Although provided with the information regarding these specific needs, a majority of our
Commissioners chose to adjust wages across the board in deference to the firefighters'
union.  This increase did not fix the problem of entry-level pay and worsened the pay
situation at the top end, which was already higher than necessary.  To do anything less,
however, might be construed as a "lack of support" for the firemen.  So, our concern
continues with respect to Fire-Rescue compensation as it gallops forward at a pace not
supported by their relationship to other government jobs or those comparable jobs in the
marketplace.

Sheriff's deputies have recently organized with the hope and expectations that they to may be able to negotiate Fire-Rescue size wages and benefit increments.  Hopefully, the Sheriff will remain objective and business-like in the coming negotiations or more of the same errors will be repeated and taxpayers will pay the bill.

**

We have received several inquiries (mostly from those we have previously taken to task
in other articles) as to why we did not weigh-in on the recent salary increase for the
Witham Airport Manager.  There were several reasons.  The timing and rapid conclusion
of the "negotiations" fell between deadlines for our bi-weekly article.  More importantly,
the Airport Manager is not paid by taxpayers, but by a user fee, and his salary is not out of
line with the scope and responsibility of the job.  Therefore, the issue did not appear to
warrant diversion of our limited resources.

Those were our original thoughts.  As more information has become available, it is
obvious that the situation showcases a much larger issue; ineffective management of
Martin County employees.  As we understand the situation, the Airport Manager was
either coerced, or at leased encouraged to find another job by his boss, our County
Administrator.  Upon learning that he was doing so, a majority of the County
Commissioners negotiated a retention pay and benefits package to encourage him to stay.
This, in effect, was a deliberate slap to our County Administrator's authority, and it
elevated the Airport Manager to working directly for the Board of County
Commissioners.

What this demonstrates is a management system that is far too subject to short term
political thinking.  The County Administrator should be leading/managing the County
workforce in the most efficient and effective manner possible.  If he is doing that
properly, the Commission should support him.  If he is not, he should be replaced, not
undercut.  In reality, the County Administrator appears to be constantly walking a thin
line, administrating decisions that vacillate with the political whims and worries of the
Board of County Commissioners.

Many of the repetitive studies, unneeded consultants and bad negotiations pointed out in
our articles are the direct result of this lack of decisive management.  Maybe it is time to
look at strengthening the leadership/management of Martin County.