Someone Else Gets It

This editorial cartoon asks the right question.

View attachment 13586

Its only paying for 5 people right? In my opinion there are far bigger issues to worry about! ;-)

Its only paying for 5 people right? In my opinion there are far bigger issues to worry about! ;-)

No it is 6 people. The total cost annually to the taxpayer is $24,048.

The issue is how they received the benefit and the "lack of leadership" that it shows by accepting it and never disclosing that they were "different" from their employee's.

During the budget workshop the budget proposed charging each employee $10.00 per month for "employee coverage". Does it show leadership to begin charging your employee's for a portion of their coverage while still providing yourself "free" Family coverage?

Will it solve the revenue shortfall ? No

Removing the "special benefit" would definitely show that they "get it". It is called LEADERSHIP. They need to just do "the Right thing".

A journey is made up of many small steps !

What are the bigger issues that you talk about ? - we will gladly pursue them.

No it is 6 people. The total cost annually to the taxpayer is $24,048.

The issue is how they received the benefit and the "lack of leadership" that it shows by accepting it and never disclosing that hey were "different" from their employee's.

During the budget scrubs the budget proposed charging each employee $10.00 per month for "employee coverage". Does it show leadership to begin charging your employee's for a portion of their coverage while still providing yourself "free Family coverage?

Will it solve the revenue shortfall ? No Removing the "special benefit" would definitely show that they "get it". It called LEADERSHIP. They need to just do "the Right thing".

A journey is made up of many small steps !

What are the bigger issues that you talk about - we will gladly pursue them.

I am glad to see you differentiate between the cost of the health insurance and how it was implemented.
I am for paying a part of their health insurance. As an Oklahoma state employee, a portion of my health insurance plan was paid for as part of our compensation. There is nothing wrong with that. Benefits are a part of most compensation packages. How it was handled in the first place is another matter. On that score, you are exactly correct, WCTA. It is a LEADERSHIP thing.

No it is 6 people. The total cost annually to the taxpayer is $24,048.

The issue is how they received the benefit and the "lack of leadership" that it shows by accepting it and never disclosing that they were "different" from their employee's.

During the budget workshop the budget proposed charging each employee $10.00 per month for "employee coverage". Does it show leadership to begin charging your employee's for a portion of their coverage while still providing yourself "free" Family coverage?

Will it solve the revenue shortfall ? No

Removing the "special benefit" would definitely show that they "get it". It is called LEADERSHIP. They need to just do "the Right thing".

A journey is made up of many small steps !

What are the bigger issues that you talk about ? - we will gladly pursue them.

Compensation packages vary wildly in normal business, even amongst those working the same positions. Some people are better negotiators or are just worth more in the long run and receive a compensation package that reflects that. But the other employees in this instance have to pay ten whole dollars a month for the same coverage?! Ten dollars...wow. :roll: So in reality, tax payers are paying for the ten dollars per employee that is not being charged the six in question, which is being charged their coworkers? That comes out to 720 dollars a year additional taxpayer burden. That is some serious quibling in my opinion. :idontno: I have pretty decent insurance for myself and daughter through the company I work for. I have worked for them for 13 years and they are a fortune 500 company. I still pay 120 a month for my insurance, which is a drop in the bucket compared to what my company pays towards it. I can't imagine anyone in our day and age complaining about paying only 10 dollars a month for good insurance... I gather the issue is really that the compensation packages for the 6 in question weren't disclosed properly? In the private sector, its the opposite. I was informed by my corporate that I am not to divulge my pay structure or bonuses to the other employees. When I receive stock options every year, I am required in the fine print not to divulge how many I get. The six employee's who receive this additional compensation are higher up the totem pole and should get better compensation in my opinion.

Compensation packages vary wildly in normal business, even amongst those working the same positions. Some people are better negotiators or are just worth more in the long run and receive a compensation package that reflects that. But the other employees in this instance have to pay ten whole dollars a month for the same coverage?! Ten dollars...wow. :roll: So in reality, tax payers are paying for the ten dollars per employee that is not being charged the six in question, which is being charged their coworkers? That comes out to 720 dollars a year additional taxpayer burden. That is some serious quibling in my opinion. :idontno: I have pretty decent insurance for myself and daughter through the company I work for. I have worked for them for 13 years and they are a fortune 500 company. I still pay 120 a month for my insurance, which is a drop in the bucket compared to what my company pays towards it. I can't imagine anyone in our day and age complaining about paying only 10 dollars a month for good insurance... I gather the issue is really that the compensation packages for the 6 in question weren't disclosed properly? In the private sector, its the opposite. I was informed by my corporate that I am not to divulge my pay structure or bonuses to the other employees. When I receive stock options every year, I am required in the fine print not to divulge how many I get. The six employee's who receive this additional compensation are higher up the totem pole and should get better compensation in my opinion.

While I understand your point, they are elected county commissioners, not private enterprise big wigs.

While I understand your point, they are elected county commissioners, not private enterprise big wigs.

Is this getting alot of public attention then? If it is, I am very surprised the 6 in question don't just wave this privilege. It would only cost them 10 dollars a month to do so! Regardless, I don't think a ten dollar a month perk that is only being given to 6 employees is worth getting upset about...

Compensation packages vary wildly in normal business, even amongst those working the same positions. Some people are better negotiators or are just worth more in the long run and receive a compensation package that reflects that. But the other employees in this instance have to pay ten whole dollars a month for the same coverage?! Ten dollars...wow. :roll: So in reality, tax payers are paying for the ten dollars per employee that is not being charged the six in question, which is being charged their coworkers? That comes out to 720 dollars a year additional taxpayer burden. That is some serious quibling in my opinion. :idontno: I have pretty decent insurance for myself and daughter through the company I work for. I have worked for them for 13 years and they are a fortune 500 company. I still pay 120 a month for my insurance, which is a drop in the bucket compared to what my company pays towards it. I can't imagine anyone in our day and age complaining about paying only 10 dollars a month for good insurance... I gather the issue is really that the compensation packages for the 6 in question weren't disclosed properly? In the private sector, its the opposite. I was informed by my corporate that I am not to divulge my pay structure or bonuses to the other employees. When I receive stock options every year, I am required in the fine print not to divulge how many I get. The six employee's who receive this additional compensation are higher up the totem pole and should get better compensation in my opinion.

WOW, that will attract some attention. Would you consider that government operate like a business with bonuses for performance and the like?

WOW, that will attract some attention. Would you consider that government operate like a business with bonuses for performance and the like?

Not at all. My point was that compensation packages can vary. Apparently someone decided commissioners didn't have to pay the 10 dollars a month for insurance. I assume that is a higher up position in local government. I see no problem with them getting additional compensation. :idontno:

Not at all. My point was that compensation packages can vary. Apparently someone decided commissioners didn't have to pay the 10 dollars a month for insurance. I assume that is a higher up position in local government. I see no problem with them getting additional compensation. :idontno:

It is not the 10.00 per month that is being questioned, it is the 334.00 per month that they don't pay for family coverage that everyone else must pay. I dont have a problem paying for their individual coverage that is customary.
Posted via Mobile Device

It is not the 10.00 per month that is being questioned, it is the 334.00 per month that they don't pay for family coverage that everyone else must pay. I dont have a problem paying for their individual coverage that is customary.
Posted via Mobile Device

I must have read WCTA's post wrong, as I thought it was only 10 dollars. Sorry...

Thats pretty high, I thought the government gave its employees better insurance then that?!

My final question I guess then, is a County Commissioner a higher up position? If so, wouldn't they get better perks or just a higher paygrade?

I must have read WCTA's post wrong, as I thought it was only 10 dollars. Sorry...

Thats pretty high, I thought the government gave its employees better insurance then that?!

My final question I guess then, is a County Commissioner a higher up position? If so, wouldn't they get better perks or just a higher paygrade?

Each employee of the BCC receives employee medical insurance that costs the taxpayer 497.00 per month (that includes the commissioners). For each person that is an employee that desires to insure his/her family members is offered that coverage for 497.00. The county pays 153.00 of that amount as an additional benefit (commissioners would get that supplement as well). This would leave all employees of the BCC with a cost of family coverage of 334.00 per month that would be deducted from their pay check. The unknown exception to that is the benefit they began receiving in January of 2007.
Those 6(the BCC-6) individuals pay 0.00 for medical coverage for themselves and their family members.

The salary of a Walton county commissioner is set by the legislature at $38,500 per year. That legislation also defines the position as a part-time position. Three of the commissioner's hold other jobs. By choice two treat the position as a full time job - not required to do that but have the personal conviction that they are "servants of the people".

A commissioner sets policy,adopts a budget and then hires competent people to carry those two things out.

I repeat - it is not the 334.00 per month - it is how it was done and their failure to disclose the benefit. You either believe in open transparent government or you accept things done behind the scenes - the back room deal.

It shows a lack of "Leadership" They should correct it !

No it is 6 people. The total cost annually to the taxpayer is $24,048.

The issue is how they received the benefit and the "lack of leadership" that it shows by accepting it and never disclosing that they were "different" from their employee's.

During the budget workshop the budget proposed charging each employee $10.00 per month for "employee coverage". Does it show leadership to begin charging your employee's for a portion of their coverage while still providing yourself "free" Family coverage?

Will it solve the revenue shortfall ? No

Removing the "special benefit" would definitely show that they "get it". It is called LEADERSHIP. They need to just do "the Right thing".

A journey is made up of many small steps !

What are the bigger issues that you talk about ? - we will gladly pursue them.

Walton County HAS NO LEADERSHIP.....they are all out for themselves! Election coming up, why do you think Pridgen, Commander voted to keep the mileage the same???? It's all who you know?

Walton County HAS NO LEADERSHIP.....they are all out for themselves! Election coming up, why do you think Pridgen, Commander voted to keep the mileage the same???? It's all who you know?

May I suggest you enter politics and run yourself if you think all of them are doing such a lousy job. I happen to disagree as I think Sara Comander is a good leader and has the interest of the citizens of the County at heart. Some changes need to be made and I agree with you on the mileage issue. One incident does not usually mean a change should be made. I also agree that a lot of it use to be "It's all who you know". While there may be some of this still occurring, I think it is changing. See you at the BCC meeeting Tuesday.

Walton County HAS NO LEADERSHIP.....they are all out for themselves! Election coming up, why do you think Pridgen, Commander voted to keep the mileage the same???? It's all who you know?

And Cecelia Jones, even though she is not up this cycle.

And Cecelia Jones, even though she is not up this cycle.

But Cecilia said that she would not raise the milage rate when she was running. I have to congratulate her for actually doing what she said she would do. That seems to be hard for politicians to do these days.

But Cecilia said that she would not raise the milage rate when she was running. I have to congratulate her for actually doing what she said she would do. That seems to be hard for politicians to do these days.

She said she would not raise taxes. She voted for the 1/2 cent bed tax increase. She broke her campaing promise early in her term of office.

One term and out !
Posted via Mobile Device

She said she would not raise taxes. She voted for the 1/2 cent bed tax increase. She broke her campaing promise early in her term of office.

One term and out !
Posted via Mobile Device

May I please remind you there is a difference between property tax increase and the bed tax increase, a good part of which is not collected anyway due to people cheating on paying it. One issue does not normally constitute a reason for removal from office.

She said she would not raise taxes. She voted for the 1/2 cent bed tax increase. She broke her campaing promise early in her term of office.

One term and out !
Posted via Mobile Device

May I please remind you there is a difference between property tax increase and the bed tax increase, a good part of which is not collected anyway due to people cheating on paying it. One issue does not normally constitute a reason for removal from office.

She stated to the voters that she wouldn't raise their taxes. Voting to raise the bed tax does not increase a registered voters taxes unless they are renting for less than 6 months at a time. I seriously doubt there are any registered voters who pay (directly) bed tax. I understand that some pay from vacation property they own and rent to others, but they are simply a conduit to pass the tax from a visitor to the county.

I'm not exactly a fan of Mrs. Jones's, but she hasn't raised a residents taxes, yet.

She stated to the voters that she wouldn't raise their taxes. Voting to raise the bed tax does not increase a registered voters taxes unless they are renting for less than 6 months at a time. I seriously doubt there are any registered voters who pay (directly) bed tax. I understand that some pay from vacation property they own and rent to others, but they are simply a conduit to pass the tax from a visitor to the county.

I'm not exactly a fan of Mrs. Jones's, but she hasn't raised a residents taxes, yet.

Excuse me but I do go down there from time to time and rent a place for a night or two. After all, I am a Republican and everyone in DFS knows what car I drive.