I certainly appreciate your willingness to address some of the questions and frustration regarding the issue of Commissioner compensation. I think that you know as well as anyone that politics is, to some degree, theater and how you comport yourself as a public servant can be as important as the substantive policy under consideration.

The actions of the Board, in response to the current crisis will have a profound impact all of the employees and their families. The fact that the Board compensation debate has been handled callously does not imbue confidence in the elected leadership at the County.

I still believe that if you were serious about transparency, you and all the other Board members would post your expense records on the County website with your bio. I’m not holding my breath. I have a feeling that if you did, it would do more to curb the spending than any policy change.

Having had experience and knowledge of County operations, I am still frustrated by the Board and the Administration’s failure to address the underlying structural issues related to the budget priorities and funding.

I agree you can’t cut your way out of prosperity, but for too long the County has been the fiscal Santa Claus for any project, program or initiative regardless of the outcomes and overall impact to the County residents.

One example is the weatherization program, which I know you support, I’m curious if you have ever reviewed the overhead and administrative costs for that program? While it may be a good program in theory, the program, previous to the last round of stimulus funding, spent only 55 cents on the dollar to support low-income families. I’m curious if you ever asked for an audit? You might be surprised.

Regardless, I don’t envy the decisions that you have to make and I realize that some of the circumstances were out of your control. My hope is that you will have a greater sensitivity to the individuals and families that will be impacted by your decisions.

From the county perspective, that approval mechanism is what complicates the travel/per diem picture. Like most organizations, staff within the county work in a hierarchy that requires approval for travel expenses. The BOC is at the top of that food chain and has eleven coequal partners. I think it would be nightmarish-ly political if we had to approve commissioners’ travel plans (e.g. weighing the relatively higher mileage reimbursements Republican commissioners from western Washtenaw would like versus the travel I would like to accommodate: I live in the city and don’t have a car, so I don’t claim mileage).

I think the best way to resolve those potential conflicts is to ensure equitable treatment of all of the commissioners through the flex-account.

Your suggestions of just setting the line-items and letting the chips fall where they may is what we do now, which is fine. The flex-account discussion was prompted because the relative value of those line-items became a matter of debate (to whom does the benefit really accrue and is it in the best interest of the county to support that activity). Perspectives on that question ranged dramatically based on geography, political persuasion and fiscal philosophy. It was my hope to downplay those issues with the flex-account solution.

Now, what Richard suggests is true: this is just a drop in the bucket of a financial deluge. It does seems strange to spend a lot of time on it, but we are also spending a lot (more, in fact) on the larger issues. While I’ve spent a couple hours in total thinking about commissioner remuneration, I spend 4-5 hours every week just reviewing the financial data that drives the decisions around other budget items, let alone working specifically on program cuts and revenue-side solutions.

The relative weight there is fair given the role that that the commissioner’s budget plays in setting the direction for the rest of the county. It is a bit more than symbolic. If we move to a flex-account, it’s conceivable that the staff at-large would consider increasing the flexibility of compensation. If we cut our remuneration considerably, it sends a signal through the organization that similar cuts are coming. If we trim our total budget by 10 or 15 percent, it validates the administration’s ask of departments to do the same.

In all, I truly feel that every one of the commissioners is taking the entirety of the budget challenge very seriously and weighing issues that have never arisen before. If you believe in the mantra that “we can’t cut our way to prosperity” then some time needs to be made to consider new ways of conducting our business. Even though it may seem frivolous, these exercises are helping to craft a new structure for county governance that is absolutely necessary in an economic environment that is going to continue on a downward trend for several years to come.

Just because some do not use the benefits at the same rate, that does not justify what many are calling the “slush fund” where they can pick and choose what they want covered. The county commission’s budget decision should be based on whether the benefit, perk or reimbursement should be given at all and at what level it should be given, not based on usage. If travel and education are to be cut, they need to be cut across the board.

For example: Just because I haven’t used maternity leave does that mean it is not a justified benefit for everyone? If someone uses maternity leave 3 times, does that mean I, a person with no children, deserve extra vacation time?

Your long justification for a taxpayer funded expense account is dripping with entitlement. Claiming that your attendance at a conference paid for by Washtenaw County taxpayers directly led to a $1 billion federal appropriation that the County now stands to benefit. Really?

The federal appropriation wouldn’t have occurred but for your presence at this conference? I think the whole point of the discussion just flew over your head.

It is deeply insulting that the Commissioners have such a difficult time cutting their own budget, even symbolically when County residents face far worse economically. Further, if you are indeed a supporter of full transparency, as part of the resolution, shouldn’t the Commissioners be required to post their expenditures on the County website with their bios so the voters can pass judgment on how taxpayer money was spent?

By suggesting that critics of your proposal somehow seek to promote exclusivity in public office is unfortunate and demeaning. As a leader, I would expect that in difficult times you would choose to set the example for the employees, residents and their families whose lives will be impacted by the severe budget cuts the County will be required to make.

You are debating a $9,900 annual expense budget when you already earn a salary of $16,000-$18,000 annually with benefits. I will agree the service is demanding and can be time consuming, but being a public official is about leadership and sacrifice, not about ego and entitlement.

This whole debate is a sad reflection of the current Board of Commissioners and you should be ashamed.

The flex account would have eliminated individual line-items for travel, per diems, conferences and fringe benefits (currently valued around $11,600 per commissioner). Merging these expenditures into a single account would have significantly reduced the non-salary remuneration that commissioners receive by a minimum of 16%. It would have also allowed each commissioner to determine individually how to use the balance of those funds to best serve their constituencies.

I think it is difficult to debate the relative merits of educational conferences vs. mileage vs. per diems as each plays a significantly different role depending on the means and abilities of the commissioner.

Take travel: I have been privileged to use a travel allotment over the past year to learn about the federal global climate change policy — that knowledge allowed me to justify a request of Congressman Dingell to included nearly a billion dollars for local governments in the new legislation. In addition to the remarkable environmental benefits of reduction carbon emissions, Washtenaw now stands to gain in the range of $250K annually from that policy. To me, that’s county money well spent, and I hope my constituents agree.

Or consider per diems: not every commissioner has been well-off financially, and some of them miss work to attend to the obligations of their appointments. I think it is both fair and good policy to provide the per diem to compensate them for that service. Otherwise, only those who can afford to would be able to honestly and completely fulfill the obligations of the office. Ensuring that leadership in our democracy is open to anyone regardless of their economic class is a positive value.

I wholly discount the “slush fund” accusations as specious fear-mongering. First, our board rules allow you to collect per diems or mileage only for meetings to which you have an appointment and which you attend. Similarly, travel is only reimbursed for legitimate county business. Those rules don’t change with the flex account strategy — only the line item allocations. The accountability is the same; the expenditure of funds is simply more easily personalized. This is a 21st century way of ensuring that diverse interests can be met in a fair and equitable manner.

As for transparency, Ms. Armentrout is well-aware that our current system is already a series of “entitlement accounts”. We are allowed a $3,000 for conferences, ~$5,800 for fringe benefits, and per diems and mileage for meetings we attend by right. Worse, our current system allows for direct cash remuneration that may or may not benefit the county residents (e.g., if a commissioner does not use a benefits package, that package is cashed-out into his or her account to the tune of some $400+ per month).

Under the flex account methodology, one would still have the option of applying the account to these same general activities, but if you didn’t expend it the money would accrue back to the general fund rather than as side-pocket pay as happens with fringe benefits.

[For the cynics out there who suggest that any commissioner would blindly spend up to the maximum allowance, historically more than 50% of the travel budget is returned to the general fund as it stands.]

In a budget crisis like the one we face now, we desperately need a new methodology for resolving conflict and allowing anyone in public service to maximize the benefit to the residents with even fewer dollars. Learning to accept flexibility in expenditures while still maintaining a high and appropriate level of accountability is an essential step if we want innovation and creativity to remain the hallmarks of governance in our county.

I respect Commissioner Gunn, I think she is very intelligent and savvy politician (meant respectfully), though the issue about the Commissioner’s budget is absurd. I understand she is trying to address it but it is still frustrating.

I can’t say I feel the same way about the other Commissioner who commented in this thread, though I’ll leave it at that.

Don’t worry, I didn’t read any disrepect in your message.

I agree with you, the county didn’t do a great job preparing for this major downturn. But some members were forward looking and others weren’t. My point is we need to praise the ones who were and address the ones who weren’t. The board isn’t all or nothing. But you make several valid points. The Sheriff issue was one Ms. Gunn was out front on, which has has a major impact on the County budget and she deserves some credit for that.

I meant no disrepect toward you with my comment.

I believe that the lack of “leadership” from the Board has deepened the crisis. When some of the Commissioners finally take a stand on what amounts to a largely symbolic and silly issue, it reeks of condescension and is very frustrating.

It is frustrating because the Board failed to address the fiscal issues the County faced well before the financial crisis hit and acted as if the good times would never end.

The Board and administration threw cash around with very little regard for impact or the needs of the residents. When you have double digit revenue growth, it’s easy to keep everyone happy by just spending more. Had they been fiscally prudent, kept costs down, identified clear priorities and needs, and acted strategically, the depth and harshness of the cuts would not be near what they are today.

The whole Zeeb Road facility is a prime example. The County built a 100,000 or so square foot building that is now largely empty and has become a drain on resources. There are plenty of examples and sadly, very few of them will see the light of day because budgeting is complicated and the lack of leadership on the Board.

You need to focus on individual members who are not doing their jobs if you have issues with ‘a complete failure of leadership’.

I think some members have done a great job, others are political hacks who are clueless, and all of them have a complex and difficult situation that needs to be fixed. The perks issue is largely symbolic and addresses a tiny fraction of the budget crisis. But it’s insane some elected officials are unwilling to look at their own budget without this sense of entitlement.

I’ve responsed to a number of Chronicle stories expressing my…lack of happiness about issues facing the city and county. Occasionally things happen that deserve praise. This is one of them.