Comments on: Compensation Change for County Board?

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:52:37 +0000

“But overall, the approach would eliminate the political vulnerability for commissioners, he noted, including their vulnerability to public opinion of payments that can be scrutinized.”

It’s all about political cover. Got it.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:29:01 +0000

Underscored.

I recall that in previous years there was a committee that studied the issue, rather than having suggestions come from the floor.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:24:46 +0000

Re: [5] “I believe that I am correct in saying that commissioners cannot change compensation for the current term they are serving, thus if a change is contemplated, they must complete this business before this year ends.”

From the article:

The process for setting compensation for county commissioners is governed in part by state law – Act 261 of 1966, Section 46.415. Changes for an upcoming term must be set by the board prior to the start of that term. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012. The board has two more scheduled regular meetings this year – on Nov. 7 and Dec. 5.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 13:17:19 +0000

I believe that I am correct in saying that commissioners cannot change compensation for the current term they are serving, thus if a change is contemplated, they must complete this business before this year ends.

They can change administrative details via the BOC Rules, which are adopted at the first organizing meeting of the term, in January.

By: Observatory

Observatory — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 04:44:40 +0000

Dear Chair of BOC:

You do not pass the smell test.

Sincerely,
Voter and taxpayer

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:23:52 +0000

I have said over and over again that the BOC should simply eliminate per diems. If they think they are not adequately compensated, they should follow the procedure for revisiting their stipend which is paid in recognition of their service as commissioners.

I’m rather hazy on this history, but I believe that at one time all persons serving on a board or commission for the county received a per diem and mileage to compensate for the expenses of attending meetings. This practice began when travel was considerably more difficult than it is now. Am I correct that no one besides commissioners now receives such compensation?

Here’s the thing – appointments of board members to committees are at the pleasure of the board chair, though he/she can be overruled by the vote of the board majority (rare). By making these automatically remunerative, it gives the chair a considerable source of patronage.

This fussing over how to continue receiving compensation above and beyond the basic stipend is unattractive and unnecessary. It will distract the public from the important business of the county regardless of how it is done. I note that the City of Ann Arbor has had no difficulty in filling appointments without a per diem payment.

Yes, I accepted per diems as part of my compensation when I was on the BOC, though I was scrupulous about making proper claims. But I honestly would have voted to stop them, and I managed to hold back an increased payment for per diems when compensation was last discussed.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:41:23 +0000

And, this wasn’t on the work session agenda but Smith took it upon himself to make it a topic of discussion? Open and transparent as usual. No wonder people are losing faith in Democrats who pull stunts such as this.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:39:19 +0000

“The Chronicle learned that Conan Smith and Kestenbaum later struck an agreement under which Smith agreed to repay some of the money he had been deemed ineligible to claim, in an arrangement that appears to have taken place outside the independent review process.”

“Outside the independent review process”? Conan Smith sure has been picking up some governing techniques from Bob Ficano, hasn’t he? The $500 bucks he whined about for months wasn’t the issue–his arrogance, lack of transparency and refusal to be open about it were the issues. And now the ‘expense’ dollars would be rolled into an unaudited lump sum? I’m sure Mr. Smith would love that. Ficano’s political machine would be so proud.