Opinion - Vancouver manager a bargain
Friday, July 22, 2005
GREGG HERRINGTON Columbian staff writer
You heard it here first. Vancouver's city manager is underpaid. What? How could that be? A unanimous city council gave Pat McDonnell a 5 percent raise just last week.
You might think McDonnell's new $135,362 annual pay is generous for a town that doesn't even merit "Vancouver" coffee mugs in its Starbucks stores. But, besides the fine job the council says McDonnell is doing and I'm not disagreeing comparisons can be made that suggest he's underpaid even now.
Or could it be that some other public servants around here are overpaid? Nah. That can't be it. Consider:
. Bill Barron, McDonnell's counterpart in Clark County government, is pulling down $146,520.
. Port of Vancouver Executive Director Larry Paulson gets $155,072 (almost $13,000 of it in deferred compensation) plus a $6,000 car allowance.
. Wayne Nelson, general manger of Clark Public Utilities, who has been getting $165 grand a year plus a $3,900 car allowance, is due for a raise the amount not yet determined retroactive to July 1. Moreover, some employees, who report to Nelson also make more than McDonnell does over at city hall and about the same as Barron, the county administrator. The utility's directors of operations, finance and energy resources each is paid $144,984, and the engineering director gets $138,588. Three other directors are in the $122,000 neighborhood.
The second-highest paid city-government employee, in contrast, is Assistant City Manager Betsy Williams at $117,816, just ahead of the city attorney and the fire and police chiefs.
See, Gregg, you miss the point. ALL of those people, each and every one of them, are WAY overpaid. By far.
As our tax bills continue to skyrocket, perhaps you can remember the mind set that enables people to believe that a city manager making more money then 37 of our US governors is somehow "underpaid."
If they wanted to get rich, they should have went into the private sector.
1 comment:
Ummmmmm...... No.
I might agree that Barron et al. are overpaid, but that doesn't apply to the PUD managers, who are probably underpaid relative to the size of the PUD.
Well, we’ll have to disagree.
It is not the purpose of the taxpayers to keep government, or in this case, even quasi-government employees in a life of luxury.
I have issues with the PUD. But I have no particular problem with PUD’s generally.
For example, the rather blatant neo-communist operation they run, in direct competition with the private sector on appliance repair… violating the law of this state until, well, the neo-communists here locally and in the legislature changed the law… at the continuing expense of the private sector. THAT, I have a problem with.
Herrington should not be comparing city managers with PUD managers, that's truly apples to oranges. PUD managers could make boatloads of money in the private sector. Their expertise and the training required for the job demand a decent salary. There's no stock options for them, only the public interest to serve.
If it’s “only the public interest to serve,” then why do they need between $122K and $165K to do that job?
If these people can get so much more in the private sector, then by all means… they should go ahead and get it in the private sector.
But I postulated and still believe that NO ONE in government should make that kind of money at ANY level, including Federal… and yes, I mean Congress and the President.
And before you go off about how PUDs are rampant socialism or somesuch nonsense, may I remind you of the shenanigans pulled by the private sector just across the river? Do you think that being some billionaire's play toy is going to make Oregon more attractive to business? Meanwhile, our PUD will continue to "plug" along, providing lower rates for its utility customers.
As I’ve stated, I have no particular issue with the concept of PUD’s.
But I do have a problem with the idea that we rate payers have to pay as much as $50 more yearly, EACH, to pay for the salaries of these few people.
Post a Comment