It shouldn’t be just about compensation

I found a recent national story related to government executive compensation disheartening. The story illustrated the annual salary and retirement compensation for a county executive in California.Her base pay is approximately $300,000. When she retires, she will apparently be eligible for compensation equal to the total dollar value of her yearly package. In addition to her salary, she annually receives approximately $24,000 in “equity” pay to ensure that she earns at least 10 percent more than any other employee in Alameda County; $54,000 in longevity pay; a performance bonus of $24,000; $9,000 for serving on a three-member county board; and $8,300 for an annual car allowance. The final calculation of her retirement pay is approximately $423,000. Per year. For the rest of her life (she’s 63). Oh, and that amount does not include an additional private pension plan (funded by the county at $46,000 annually— so how is that “private”?).I find this situation disheartening not because I won’t earn that kind of money, but because it highlights the abuse of public tax money by senior public executives. I am sure that the executive described above will argue that she has earned every dollar, but at what point does the compensation become excessive?Government service should not be driven by compensation, but with numbers like that, who cares about service — just gimme my money! While her retirement package may be news to the rest of the country, the governing board that she serves should have been aware of this issue for years. She will probably say something of the sort: “The commissioners approved the contract language and I was just doing my job.”I do not agree with public sector “bonuses.” I also do not support the compensation component to be the “highest paid.” And by 10 percent? Most likely, as is the circumstance elsewhere, she demonstrated a “compensation” comparison to show how much she was underpaid because executives in other governments were earning more than she. At last review, several public employees in town earn more than $20,000 more than I do and some earn more than $50,000. To argue that my compensation should be tied to others is inappropriate (and perhaps the epitome of ego).I’m typically not a believer in compensation comparisons, either. The simple response to those studies is that if Community Y is paying more, then go get a job in Community Y. Often, many other factors are used to determine compensation, and a simple dollar-to-dollar comparison is not valid.When I completed my final interview with the Board of Selectmen roughly two years ago, I was offered a contract that included a salary amount — $84,529. I was told that the community could not afford to pay more, even though the average salary for Connecticut town managers is roughly $120,000. I accepted the offer and signed the proposed contract. I am getting paid the amount to which I agreed and to which the town agreed to pay me.The contract includes no provisions for annual increases, so I expect to be paid the same each year. In any budget that I prepare, I will never include additional compensation for myself — I do not believe that is appropriate. Any changes to my compensation will have to be due to Board of Selectmen action — at a very public meeting and as part of a formally posted agenda. I have seen too many peers slip compensation and benefit changes before the governing board at quiet times or as additions to meetings not well attended.I get no car allowance and have never submitted for mileage reimbursement. I consider occasional travel as part of my job. I have never been reimbursed for meals — I have to eat whether I am working for the town or not. My cell phone, used predominantly for town work, is paid entirely by me.I guess that I am naïve enough to still believe in public service. Public service instills a commitment to a community. When the compensation for federal employees, though, approaches nearly $80,000 annually, state and local government employees follow that lead. It used to be argued that lower government salaries were balanced by better benefit packages. Those salaries are now not as “out-of-sorts” with the private sector, but the benefits still usually outpace private sector comparables.Sadly, all of these growing and pending obligations will require additional funds from the taxpayers, diminishing the projects and services that could otherwise be provided (and which are sorely needed).Maybe I misunderstood at school: It’s not public service, but “public, serve us.”Dale Martin is the town manager of Winchester.