Prentiss Smith
There you go again, Councilman Nickelson, speaking the truth out loud, and it is a necessary truth. The administration has come out for 13% across-the-board raises for all city employees, which sounds good, but it is not feasible. No, everybody doesn't deserve a 13% raise, but, yes, everybody does deserve some consideration for a pay raise. The problem is that, as Councilman Nickelson has so aptly described, the city would be on the hook for another $20 million added to the yearly budget. That is a big number, and it is an unsustainable number, considering the current income streams that come into the city coffers.
Yes, everybody wants their salary to be a little more. Heck, I want my paycheck to be a little larger, but I am on a fixed income, and that is not something that is going to happen anytime soon, but it is a human trait to want more money in your paycheck. If you work, you want to make as much money as you can, and anytime you can get a raise, you want that raise. The problem is that raising salaries costs the company -- or in this case, the city of Shreveport -- more money, and those funds have to be sustained over the long haul. That money has to come from somewhere, and it has to be sustained. For a government entity like the city of Shreveport, that money either comes from raising taxes or from cutting services, which are hard political hills to climb.
I respect Councilman John Nickelson and his willingness to be honest and say out loud what a lot of us are saying in the privacy of our homes and in our daily conversations. His recent letter about the proposal to raise all city salaries 13% is another example of him speaking out about what he believes to be a flawed policy is a necessary read. It is something that his fellow colleagues should at least take into consideration. His honesty is welcomed and should be heeded by his fellow colleagues on the council.
In a letter to his fellow councilmen and women, Councilman Nickelson wrote this: "The information I have received over the past two years has established that a pay raise of 13% is necessary to competitively compensate our police officers and firefighters." He is right, our police officers and fireman should definitely be the recipients of the 13% raises. For me, that number should be 15% for police officers and firemen, because it is hard to attract and keep good people to fill these needed positions. These are difficult and dangerous jobs that some people would not do for any amount of money. That is why they require special individuals, who are willing to take on these difficult tasks, and they should be properly compensated.
Councilman Nickelson continues with this: "The fact that that's the right number for police officers and firefighters is not evidence that that's the right number for every other city employee," and he is right. Employees like department heads and others who make good salaries already should not be receiving the maximum amount of a 13% pay raise. For some of these individuals, that equates to a $20,000 pay raise, which is unacceptable and should not even be a consideration.
The council and the administration should slow their roll and think about what they are proposing. Yes, it is a good thing that the administration and the council want to compensate the people who do the work for the city, but there is a formula that could work and not be as expensive going forward. The right thing to do would be to increase the salaries of police and fireman the proposed 13%, and ultimately to 20% over the next three years. For sanitation workers and others on the low end of the salary scale, there should be an 8% to 10% pay raise. For all other employees, including department heads, the raise should be in the 4% to 6% range. These staggered amounts will allow the city to achieve their goals and possibly avoid raising taxes or cutting services.
And finally, Councilman Nickelson said this: "It's a big decision, and it is going to cause the city problems in the long term if we go forward." Councilman Nickelson is asking for a delay of the vote to study the proposal's financial ramifications. That is a reasonable request from the councilman and one that should be considered by his colleagues on the council and the administration. What is the hurry? There is time to get this right, which would be better for the city and better for those who will be directly impacted by the proposal. At the end of the day, the councilman speaks the truth again when he says the city can't afford 13% across-the-board pay raises and that police and firemen should be priorities on the list.
“If ever there were ever a moment for a bipartisan reset and re-commitment to the common good, irrespective of political affiliation, this is it. Let’s all do our part to make it happen,” Councilman Nickelson said several weeks ago. His invitation to work in a bipartisan way is a good place to start. The hope is that the other council members will have open minds and seek to find common ground on the proposal for an across-the-board 13% pay raise for all employees that can move the city forward in a positive and productive way. And that’s the way I see it. smithpren@aol.com
THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE January 14 ISSUE OF FOCUS SB - THE INQUISITOR - SUBSCRIBE TODAY AT http://theinquisitor.com