|
|
Editorials - 06/27/02Burrell's stance appears ill-advised |
|
Call us old-fashioned, but we tend to think that the operative word in public servant is "servant," as in someone elected to serve the people by doing their bidding.
That's why it is so surprising to see a respected elected official we've admired for years - Jackson County Commissioner Conrad Burrell - openly advocating for a change in county policy that will put money directly into his own pocket. The issue is longevity pay, which commissioners and the county manager said would be a way to reward county employees for their hard work and dedication and encourage them to remain at their posts despite taking home lower salaries than they might earn in the private sector. When the matter was first discussed last week, the commissioners seemed to agree that such a plan should not include elected officials. That all changed Monday night when Commissioners Roberta Crawford and Stacy Buchanan suggested "career politicians" - those with eight or more years of service - also deserve the supplemental pay. Burrell, who counts his total years as 28, is the county's only elected official to qualify under these conditions, a point he vigorously defended Monday before siding with Crawford and Buchanan to approve the plan. Though Burrell is a first-term commissioner like the other four, he served as Jackson County's register of deeds for six terms - 24 years - prior to being elected a part-time commissioner in November 1998. Other than the five commissioners, the register of deeds and sheriff are the only elected officials who could eventually qualify for the extra pay. Sheriff Jim Cruzan, who, if re-elected, will begin his third term in December, said he would not accept any longevity pay. Joe Hamilton, current register of deeds, is finishing his first term and lacks at least four years before he would qualify. Burrell's Monday night argument with Commissioners' Chairman Jay Denton about whether he deserved the money or not strikes us as more than a little self-serving. After all, longevity pay was not on the table when Burrell chose to run in seven elections, so why is it so important to him now? While Burrell might believe he was in fact a county employee, albeit an elected one, during his two-plus decades in the deeds' office, that was never the case. He might have gone to work every day, but he was never an employee because no one except the voters ever had the power to remove him from his political post. And the addition of one term as a commissioner - the reason Burrell is still on the county payroll - certainly does not entitle him to cash in at taxpayers' expense. What saddens us most is to see a really good idea - extra pay to reward our fine county employees for the great job they do - tarnished by the appearance of greed on the part of one who was elected to serve all of us. We really don't believe Monday's action by Burrell, Buchanan and Crawford reflects the will of the people, and we know it doesn't reflect ours.
|
Back to Archive: 06/27/02. |