Not too long ago if you looked at a Starkville Board meeting electronic packet you would be able to tell which alderman of the seven had asked for any particular item to be placed on the agenda. It is one of the small things that contributes to this incredibly popular but oh so ephemeral concept of transparency that everyone wants to claim but seem unable to practice.
Now, however, the topics on the agenda seem to more frequently lack attribution and just say “Board of Aldermen” like perhaps they all got together and decided that issue needed to be resolved by board action. Of course, we know that isn’t true because it is illegal. And more importantly they have professed with great passion in many affidavits that they would never do that. It is all just coincidence the way things turn out.
So when the potentially controversial items come up on the agenda and it just says “Board of Aldermen,” we as citizens get to play the guessing game of who thought it was important enough to put on the agenda and is willing to fight for it. There are telltale signs, but in the end it is a guessing game. I could probably start taking book on whose idea it was and how each of the BOA members are going to vote.
So anyway, at the most recent board meeting there was an item on the agenda to increase the salary of the Mayor from $71,500 to $75,000 and the board members from $15,000 to $20,000. Did anyone claim it as their well-thought-out and valuable contribution to the public discourse on governance? Why yes they did. The fully transparent “Board of Aldermen” was the proposer of this not-so-excellent idea.
Just to make it more interesting and allow us to add to the mystery of who authored the proposal, there was a new twist to give the role of Mayor Pro Tempore a salary increase of anywhere from $1,200 to $1,700 per year.
This was the second time this balloon had been floated by the public body. The first time it came around there were several citizens who protested, myself included, and the board ultimately decided not to act to benefit themselves.
Was that the end of the story? Not by a long shot. The concept lay dormant for few meetings and then low and behold the “Board of Aldermen” brought the subject back up again. This time it looked like some sort of compromise had been reached that would allow the measure to pass. But we know that wasn’t possible because it is still illegal.
Interestingly, the first time around Alderman Wynn was mad at the Mayor and made the motion for the increase but didn’t include the role of Mayor because she didn’t believe Mayor Wiseman was doing his job adequately enough to deserve the raise.
Of course this was all the while she was vehemently protesting that she was NOT giving herself a raise because it wouldn’t take effect until the next term. Anyone have any trouble working their way through that illogical argument contact me and we’ll talk about it.
A couple of us, myself included, spoke out against yet another attempt to give themselves a raise of 33% thereby earning them more than some of the city’s full-time employees. In an attempt to make this palatable, sometime between Friday and Tuesday, Alderman Maynard came up with the idea of tying the board raises to more employee raises. Mayor Wiseman said bringing employees up to at least $10 per hour was the only way he support the measure.
Here is where it gets interesting. During citizen comments Alderman Wynn once again reiterated that they would not be giving themselves raises. They would just be giving them to the next board. So we know where she stands, right?
But when it comes time for the discussion, who gets up and walks out of the room and does not return until after the discussion has concluded? This is not a first for Alderman Wynn. She has opted for the empty seat non-vote once before on another divisive topic. Ward 2 must be very proud.
Not voting and not participating in the discussion because you don’t want to have to defend awarding yourself a substantial raise is cowardly enough, but to be part of bringing a divisive discussion up and leaving your fellow board members holding the bag is just amazing in its audacity. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Board members take heed.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.