There was a rather strange ad in yesterday’s Shopper’s Guide on page 61. The ad was placed by Dave Babbitt, First Selectman of the Town of Thompson, a Town of greater industry and crime, and a near equal population compared to Woodstock. Babbitt has voiced frustration over the struggle to pass the Thompson budget and apparently is responding in this ad to criticism about his proposed salary of $49,348 for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. The ad reads as follows:
“Thompson Voters:These are the facts on the 1st Selectman’s salary:
2003-2004 – $44,973
2004-2005 – $45,957 (2.2% raise)
2006-2007 – $47,795 (4% raise)
2007-2008 – proposed $49,348 (3.2% raise)Selectman Babbitt is currently making $2,822 more than the previous 1st Selectman. He works full-time and represents the Town of Thompson at many functions outside of the business day. All other comments are either misrepresentations or fabrications.
Sincerely,
David Babbitt, 1st Selectman
Town of Thompson
Paid for by Dave and Peg Babbitt, Thompson CT”
While I am sympathetic for David Babbitt, I would not place an ad like this in any publication. This ad has a kind of UP YOURS tone which probably stems from Babbitt’s frustration with voters who just vote NO for whatever reason. Also, it did not help his plea to speak in the third person about himself and then sign the ad with ‘sincerely’ (small point).
Becki went over to the Pomfret Town Hall and found Jim Rivers, First Selectman, raising the flag in front of the Town Hall (see the flag pole and modest Town Hall).
Pomfret’s First Selectman’s salaries are as follows:
2005-2006 – $36,311
2006-2007 – $36,500 (0.5% raise for Jim)
2007-2008 - projected $36,500 (0% raise for Jim)
What do we see in Woodstock’s First Selectman’s budget?
2004-2005 – $46,876
2005-2006 – $48,418 (3.3% raise for Delpha)
2006-2007 – $48,418 (this was the salary approved at referendum)
2006-2007 – $50,355 (this was the salary that showed up for that year in the 2007-2008 proposed budget; a 4% raise for Ms. Wholean)
2007-2008 – $54,855 (8.94% raise for Ms. Wholean)
So in the space of a 12-13 month period (budget draft to budget draft) Ms. Wholean increased her own salary by $6437 or 13.3% raise. This means that this process of increasing the First Selectman’s salary began about 4 months after her election when the budget formulation process began.
When voters approved the First Selectman’s salary in June of 2006, they approved $48,418 not $50,355. There was a note in the selectman’s budget that stated “No salary increases have been given due to town hall union negotiations. Salary increases will be decided after town hall union contract is ratified.” But the First Selectman’s salary is not subject to ‘union negotiations’. So the salary that Ms. Wholean was requesting should have been upfront.
Who among us received a 9% raise in 2007? Many who are making six figures probably would not question this raise - I, for one, do question this raise. The per capita income for Woodstock in 2000 averaged $25,331. If each of us gave ourselves a 3% raise each year our average per capita income would be about $31,200 in 2007 and the average household income would be about $68,000. So a majority of taxpayers earn less than Ms. Wholean, and many households earn less than Ms. Wholean’s salary. But none of this takes into consideration the fringe benefits and added staff that Ms. Wholean has garnered for herself.
The households and taxpayers mentioned above (many with fixed incomes) pay for the expenses of the town in the form of property taxes. Thus, spending by the Town Hall should not be a frivolous matter. So I ask… Who among us gave themselves a 9% raise this year? Who among us gave themselves a 9% raise this year at taxpayers expense? Who among us gave themselves a 13.3% raise within a time-span of 12-13 months?
If I am elected First Selectman, I promise to reverse this trend in the First Selectman’s budget. I would like to add, however, that I feel that the other two Selectmen of Woodstock are under compensated, but I doubt that they would even raise this issue.
John Leavitt
I will accept anonymous comments to this article as long as they conform to the remaining rules. John Leavitt
Approved by John Leavitt, Candidate for First Selectman of Woodstock, CT. This statement will be treated as an in-kind contribution for purposes of meeting requirements of Connecticut campaign finance laws. This article is paid for by John and Becki Leavitt, 515 Route 197, Woodstock, CT 06281 as administrators of www.woodstockctcafe.com.
COMMENTS:
2007-8-1
Bowman
Interesting. I am of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand the percentage of increase is very high. I’d only usually see that type of raise as a market adjustment or due to new job duties. Given the (admittedly limited) comparables from surrounding towns you listed it doesn’t look to be a market adjustment. Indeed the first selectman’s position would seem to already have been far ahead in compensation for market conditions in this area. It’s the same job as it was two years ago so there are no obvious new duties. So that part doesn’t seem right to me.
Having said that, given the job duties of the first selectman position I wouldn’t think that paying $54,855 is out of line. Certainly not in the private sector.
But hey, for most public offices being underpaid for the position is part of the price for admission. A price that usually ensures that the reason why people run for public office is not monetary compensation which can be both good and bad.
Thanks.
2007-8-1
Matt
Does anyone know if the selectmen have job descriptions?
2007-8-1
Meghan
State of Ct General Statutes cover it. They are really limited in their power of actions alone, they need the majority vote of the BOS on meaningful decisions. They can run the day to day of the Town related to employees in and out of the unions but not the elected officials.
2007-8-1
John Leavitt
Thanks Bowman. Your perspective is always valued.
One has to ask… What is the decision making process for the First Selectman getting a raise? This should not be an arbitrary process. This is perhaps why Mr. Babbitt feels that he needs to defend his salary.
Since there is no local commission that evaluates the performance of the Selectman other than the electorate, I would say that the responsibility might be left with the Board of Finance to provide oversight on this matter, not the three Selectmen. Certainly the BOF (while it may not look at many of the details) could provide some guidance if the First Selectman wants a 9% raise. This should not be soley at the discretion of the First Selectman. Of course, the responsibility could be left with the First Selectman if the First Selectman acted with consistency without aberration.
It’s important not to create the appearance frivolous decision making when it comes to spending taxpayers money. The building up of the First Selectman’s salary is doing just that although perhaps few have noticed. Also, when we vote to approve the budget the correct information should be available to the public especially with regard to the First Selectman getting a raise. I would not want to see the entire budget voted down because of this one line item, but there needs to be some degree of reasonable restraint on the part of the First Selectman.
Approved by John Leavitt, Candidate for First Selectman of Woodstock, CT. This statement will be treated as an in-kind contribution for purposes of meeting requirements of Connecticut campaign finance laws. This article is paid for by John and Becki Leavitt, 515 Route 197, Woodstock, CT 06281 as administrators of www.woodstockctcafe.com.
2007-8-1
I remember
John, I remember Everett Shepperd asking Delpha Very to “increase� her Government budget by “20%�, which at the time, was equivalent to what some in the audience thought was the $800,000.00 that school Superintendent Frank Baran was short for his budget. It seems that while the BOF let Delpha increase the spending, they informed the Board of Education that they could NOT increase their budget, that it had to REMAIN the SAME, in spite of contractural obligations or the heat bill- in spite of anything. Since that time, our Government spending has increased, literally at the expense of our school system. Citizens have not gained services, but we have a bigger government, one far too big under 46. Hence began our publicized yearly “trainwreck� of the budget as it has become known.
2007-8-2
Dad
This explains a lot. The Board of Finance undercut(s) the school system and it appears that the school system can’t make its budget “under 46″.
2007-8-2
The Aussie
Well bugger me dead! When I saw the boycott of the Café announced at Nora Valentine’s ‘getmeelected.com’ website, I figur’d the Café administrators would be tickled as a herd of bush pigs because of all the attention they’ll receive. The downside may be that the Café’s readership may plummet because of absenteeism on the part of the Valentine contingent that likely hangs out at the Café all day.
I can think of other famous boycotts like Gandhi’s boycott of commercial salt, and of course the boycott of Dr. Laura’s TV show by the gay/lesbian community, and who could forget Nestle’s boycott of breastfeeding in order to push their baby formulas. But this boycott could make a cat laugh.
G’Day
2007-8-3
Hawkeye
While aligning herself with Ernie Wetzel and CPS, and running around town hall with a set of green eyeshades and a microscope sticking her nose into everyone else’s business, Queen Margie appears to have the spending habits of British royalty. Wholean and the CPS sympathizers on the BOF are not against spending – and they are not against spending on PRIVATE education. They are against spending on PUBLIC education.
What a disgrace.
2007-8-3
Whatshappenin
I am tempted to call the Villager and give them the tip that Margaret Wholean is submitting F.O.I requests ad- nauseum to the Superintendent’s Office in order to try to prove that the BOE was/is using their lawyer to somehow work through this Breen proposal. Why is she doing this? The BOE is attempting to advocate for our kids. The Breen proposal is in the hands of God now. I think this nitwit woman who takes direction from Wetzel is wasting our money, not the BOE.
2007-8-4
Get Real
Bowman, Usually your posts are quite well done, but it’s hard to say You’re Welcome to your last one. How can you sincerely have mixed feelings about this issue? … (see new article by ‘Get Real’. Admin)
