Change thinking on county pay raises

Remember good old 2006, when unemployment fell, inflation was steady and salaries rose?

Don't you wish your pay increases through, say, 2010, were set back then? That's the way it happened for pro athletes, union workers -- and for some of the 23 elected members of the Lake County Board. Now, the county board has a meeting set for May 13 to vote on salaries for the remaining 15 members. A chain of alternating pay increases for board members sets the stage for approval of 4 percent raises for each of the next two years.

But with today's weak economy, raises that would be paid for by taxpayers who are not seeing increases in pay -- indeed, many are losing their jobs -- are hard to fathom.

And it's time to break that chain of alternating pay hikes.

It works like this: Every other year, the Lake County Board (like other county boards) sets salaries for the full terms of members who will be elected that fall. Since terms are staggered, salaries of some members always lag behind the others. So board members want to play catch-up. Eight of them already are guaranteed 4 percent annual pay hikes through 2010, thanks to a 2006 raise that was over and above what a board committee advised. This year's proposal would give the rest the same raise.

Here's the rub. The measure now on the table also calls for those board members to get 3.75 percent annual raises for 2011 and 2012 -- perpetuating the "catch-up" game. The typical county board member's pay would go from $37,856 now to $44,074 by 2012, without regard for what the county's -- or constituents' -- finances might be at that point.

The board must rethink how it handles its own salary increases. It's time to stop playing catch-up.

Let consideration of raises reflect harsh economic realities, just like in the private sector. Either they are not granted, and if they are, they should be within reason. Moreover, some people might end up being paid slightly different amounts for their work -- again, just like in the private sector. For example, do the rate of pay increases need to be the same for county board members and those holding county offices that are clearly designed to be full-time jobs? In a separate measure, pay would be increased for the circuit court clerk, coroner and recorder of deeds akin to what's been proposed for the county board.

And unlike most people in the private sector, candidates for county board have the advantage of knowing the full salary for the length of their term before they decide whether to run for office.

We don't think now is the time for 4 percent raises, and we really don't think it's time for new add-ons. A $3,000-a-year stipend proposed for the board chairman's duties as liquor commissioner comes across as a little sneaky and should be put on hold.

It's time to set an example of frugality. While we hope the next few years bring prosperity, it's just not prudent for the board to count on it.