Salaries

Last May, a committee that had studied salaries for county employees and elected officials, came to the Commissioners Court with a recommendation for a three-year plan to bring salaries up to where they should be. In the past, the Commissioners Court had occasionally granted cost of living adjustments to employees and other elected officials but failed to grant those increases to themselves - probably out of political fear.

Anyway, the salary committee recommended the plan that called for increases across the board, including raises for the members of Commissioners Court. A motion was made and seconded, I called for discussion, and one member of Commissioners Court made their objections known for the first time. This person was a member and the chair of the salary committee. It was surprising to the members of the salary committee because they had left their final meeting with the understanding that they were united in the recommended plan. Members of the committee felt betrayed. I personally felt as if it were a planned political assault... not the first I'd experienced mind you. The vote was taken: 3 in favor, 1 against, and 1 abstaining.

What should have happened? The vote was the right one. The plan called for increases totalling almost $2 million dollars for many well-deserving county employees. However, in retrospect, I should have agreed to waive my entire salary increase until my second term. I got caught up in battling the political games being played by a fellow member of the court rather than focusing on doing the right thing personally. It was a big mistake. I have been labeled as greedy and self-consumed, rather than a "servant leader." This same member of the Commissioners Court apparently plans to run against me in a couple of years, so it is all working according to that person's plans.

I focused on all the justifications for the salary increases for the Commissioners Court, instead of realizing that I would be disappointed as a taxpayer about an elected official voting for his or her own salary increases. I want the salary to be what it should be... for me or the next person in office. But, I now understand how our actions may have appeared to the taxpaying citizens.

I feel compelled to digress... briefly. When I first considered running for the office, one major concern was the salary. I wanted to be sure that I could legally maintain my private law practice in order to supplement my income because I knew I needed to. I have three young kids, lots of student loan debt, a mortgage, a lot of bills, and only one income. The research and the experts indicated that I could, in fact, legally and ethically continue practicing law. What I didn't know at the time was that I could not continue practicing law as a practical matter. Contrary to popular belief, this is a full-time job, and I owe to the people who put me in office to give it all of my attention.

Back to the reason for this post, I learned about some proposed legislation from State Rep. Leo Berman related to the salary issue. Apparently, Rep. Berman is proposing legislation to limit Commissioners / County Judges ability to vote themselves raises by only allowing such raises to go into effect after the elected official has gone through one election cycle after the vote for raises.

First, it hacks me off that Rep. Berman, with whom I have always had a good working relationship, announced the proposed legislation without first giving me a heads up. We could have discussed good solutions to the problem of putting elected officials in the position of having to vote on their own salaries without further politicizing the issue locally. Furthermore, it is a knee jerk reaction to our situation here in Smith County. (As an aside, did you know that in 1908 the County Judge of Smith County made $1,500 per year? So I guess last May wasn't the first time the Smith County Commissioners Court voted for raises for the County Judge.) I am all for local control, which means that the state legislature needs to focus on its own business instead of trying to "take care" or handle the business of local government. I would much rather see Rep. Berman put an end to sending unfunded mandates to the county. If the legislature sends us a mandated program or service, then they need to provide the funding. The bottom line is this: a legislative solution to this issue, if deemed necessary / appropriate, should involve a proper discussion among county officials. We should all be at the same table. That didn't happen here, and the reason it didn't happen is because the intent was merely to win votes... not solve a problem.

After the disappointing results of the November jail bond election, it became apparent that one of the big reasons for the loss was the salary plan. After the bond election -- and after much thought and some soul-searching, I decided not to accept the salary increases contemplated in the remaining two years of the plan. If I can sell my commercial building and reduce the financial obligations of keeping my law office open, I'll pay back and stop accepting the increase received during year one.

I always want to do the right thing as county judge. I am not doing this for fame and fortune. Life was easier on me and my family, and money was better before I took office. It sometimes feels like I am under a microscope. Sometimes I will fall short of your expectations, and I expect you to let me know when I do. I hope that overall, my performance will be above average. We have intelligent and vocal citizens in this community, and they can solve local problems at the voting booth. We don't always need Austin to solve them for us.

Thanks for reading this LONG entry. Next time, I'll discuss some of the good things going on in the county, and I hope to touch on the lessons of the bond election process (including the status of jail planning).