On governing Columbia
As a Columbia resident, as a Columbia Council member and as a former journalist, I am very disappointed with The Sun's recent coverage of the council's compensation study and vote, "Council's Quick OK of Pay Scales Faulted," in the news section Jan. 16, and "How to Hasten Incorporation," an editorial Jan. 19. As chair of the compensation study committee, permit me to comment.
Sun assertion: "No change was necessary because the study found current CA officer/manager salaries to be reasonably in line with the 50th percentile market composite rates."
You're comparing apples and peaches, or, more specifically, salaries and salary ranges, two very different things. The study of current CA pay-range midpoints relative to market midpoints actually finds that 28 positions -- 80 percent of the 35 studied -- fall from 1 to 32 percent below the market midpoints. (Two are from 0 to 10 percent above and five more extend from 10 to 16 percent above.) Although current salaries are "reasonably" in line, salary scales are not. Any organization worth its salt wants to stay current to be able to compete for and retain the best employees. That does not happen if your salary scales are outmoded (and the last such CA study goes back almost 10 years), and you face the real possibility of losing some of your best people because you are no longer competitive.
Sun assertion: "The new salary range structure will boost some 1996 salaries to $114,000, a 23.9 percent increase.
Nonsense. The $114,000 is the maximum recommended for the first salary range, where the minimum is set at $76,000 and the midpoint at $95,000. Both positions in this band are currently below the midpoint. It is possible -- but by no means automatic -- that these employees will have their salaries adjusted to the midpoint figure (about a 4 percent raise). To say they will leap to the maximum in one year is clearly absurd. These ranges are not only for fiscal year '96, but for many years thereafter.
An additional comment on the erroneous $114,000 figure: I do not understand why The Sun failed to correct this error when it had an opportunity to do so. On Jan. 18, a written statement from me and a phone call from CA's Pam Mack sought to clarify two errors: the $114,000, plus the estimated FY '96 implementation costs, listed incorrectly at $100,000 (because the reporter was given an erroneous number) but which in reality is more like $48,000. The editorial that appears the day after we had delivered these corrections manages to list the corrected $48,000 figure but continues to say that some salaries will rise to $114,000. This is not the kind of journalism I learned in school.
Sun assertion: "That the council approved the pay scales without discussing potential costs."
Not true. Why The Sun would quote someone to this effect who had no knowledge of any such discussions (and there were many during the course of our deliberations because the council was concerned with the financial impact question), or why The Sun failed to seek a committee member response to the assertion confounds me. My prevote presentation covered numerous aspects of the study. The $48,000 cost was omitted as were many other details, not to avoid comment but because I did not feel it was pertinent, just as I felt that other items of information should be omitted, because they, too, were not vital to the presentation, given the time constraints. The man who raised this question after the fact was a member of the audience that night; he had only to speak up and ask.
Sun assertion: "That adoption of the new ranges was 'rammed through' to avoid public discussion of the pay raises."
Wrong again. I asked for the council's vote that night to bring to closure a project that had been on the table for more than a year. It was just that innocent. Our vote did not grant pay raises (we neither grant nor approve staff raises, with the exception of the president's), as the news and editorial pages would have readers believe.
Rather, it accepted the consultant's report and its recommendations regarding salary range modifications. I had commented that in retrospect it might have been wiser to wait for the next council session to vote on the matter. I erred in proceeding so quickly, especially since there was no urgent reason to do so other than to put the study behind us and move on to other pending important issues. I regret having done that. But in truth, I think the time factor is being used as an excuse to criticize. We knew when we embarked on the study that this day would be accompanied by criticism. Even if we had agreed to hold the line on salaries, there would have been those in the community who would continue to insist that CA staff is overpaid. I had hoped that the press would provide an objective, unbiased report of the consultant's findings. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
The Sun editorial concludes that the salary study vote is gas that fuels the incorporation fire. I suggest that biased, sloppy and inaccurate reporting and editorializing might just help. And it sells newspapers to boot. But it sure doesn't do much for the people of Columbia who turn to the press for the information they need to assume their rightful role in the democratic process.
Evelyn Richardson
Columbia
The writer is a member of the Columbia Council from Dorsey's Search.
In response to the editorial in The Sun for Howard County on Jan. 18, you got only one thing right: We did rush approval for the recommendations in the salary study along. In retrospect, we should have had a more thorough public airing of the issues before we made our decision. This was an error in judgment on the part of the Columbia Council, which I expect we will not make again. In all other respects, however, you couldn't have been more off the mark.
Except for a couple mid-level managers, there were no salary increases -- contrary to your assertion in the first line of the editorial. What we did was to make changes in the salary classifications and salary ranges of positions on the basis of a well-researched study for the council by a nationally known human resources consulting firm.
Why did we undertake this study? To determine if the members of the management group in the Columbia Association are being paid appropriate salaries.
What did the study reveal? In virtually all cases, the salaries were reasonable in comparison with similar positions at a variety of public, private and nonprofit entities. Predictably, the editorial asserts that "consultant reports can conclude just about anything that the sponsor wants." Well, all we wanted was the best information we could get -- and I think we got it. Of course, if your assumption is that CA employees are paid too much, then it was a biased study. But I can find no bias in the study, and the council certainly did not ask for a biased study. In fact, the only bias I can find is The Sun's view that no matter what professional researchers discover, CA employees are overpaid.
There is no reasonable evidence backing this assertion -- although special interest groups have said it so often that it now seems like the truth. How could the council possibly conduct the business of Columbia in a responsible manner if we simply acted on our assumptions without trying to find the reality fo the situation?
The editorial also asserts that no consideration was given to the outside world in determining pay raises. Once again, this shows that The Sun's editorial staff completely misread what was happening.
First, the study was not about increasing salaries -- and, with the exceptions given above, salaries were not increased as a result of the study. And second, when the council does look at the issue of salary increases -- which is undertaken in the budget process, not through consultant studies -- we do look at other salary increases. Nationally, wages and salaries increased at about a 3 percent pace over the past year, and most economists expect salary increases to be somewhat stronger this year (far from the overall suppression of pay raises that your editorial claims.)
Finally, the editorial claims that this is a "rubber-stamp" council. While I personally resent this tag, what is worse are the blinders that The Sun's editorial writers have on this issue. When was the last time that any of them came to a council meeting? And if they don't come to the council meetings, how can they have any knowledge of what we are doing? While this council relies upon CA personnel to serve as our staff -- which, of course, they are -- we have been completely independent of staff in determining policy. I invite the editorial writers to come to the council meetings and to talk to the individual council members to find out what's really going on. Don't rely on hearsay -- and certainly don't rely on printed reports, including your own -- in forming your opinions. Find out for yourselves.
In the final analysis, there is only one measure of the council's performance: Are the residents better off or not as a result of our actions? In this case, we have been able to determine that salaries are reasonable while we have given CA senior staff more flexibility in managing their employees -- without raising the average level of salaries. This will make the provision of services to the residents of Columbia both better and more efficient.
We did err in not fully discussing the study before we made our decision, but that was an error of process and not one of substance. While process is important -- and we won't make this process mistake again -- substance is far more important to our residents. And in this case, the substance of the issue clearly was positive for the residents.
avid W. Berson
Columbia
The writer is vice chairman of the Columbia Council.
David Berson, vice chair of the Columbia Council, wrote in these pages some weeks ago. (The council is the governing board of the Columbia Association, or CA.) He said that the council has power to do a number of things, but has chosen not to do them for good reasons.
Here are some of those things:
* One-person, one vote.
* Elections tied to government elections.
* Open and competitive bidding.
* Assessment of property as the county does.
These are tried and true methods. Look what happens when they are not used.
One-person, one vote: Do you remember the 1993 Long Reach election?
Elections tied to government elections: Villages struggle to meet 5 percent to 10 percent quorum requirements.
Open and competitive bidding: Have you been reading about the Wilde Lake dam and dredging project?
Assessment of property as the county does: CA assesses our property at least 25 percent higher than the county does.
What are the reasons for CA not doing these things? David Berson doesn't say. Why don't you ask him, your own Columbia Council representative or your village board?
Chuck Rees
Columbia
The writer is a Columbia Council member.
CA has unveiled its proposed annual budget, and it's bound to rub a lot of residents the wrong way.
Here are some examples:
* $75 increase in family Package Plan. CA staff wants residents to pay a lot more for the Package Plan, even though the Columbia Council had previously promised to keep increases minimal and recreational facilities affordable. While residents are told to pay more, CA staff get their Package Plan each year free of charge. Must residents pay so that the bureaucracy can play?
* $1 million to be paid to the Rouse Co. for land. The land would be used for a recreational vehicle storage lot. Since the Rouse Co. wrote the covenants prohibiting parked recreational vehicles residences, one would expect it to do the right thing by at least donating some decent property to store such vehicles. Instead, it wants to profit from those covenant restrictions by unloading some undesirable property on CA at an inflated price.
In exchange, the Rouse Co. would have the Snowden Square area start paying CA taxes, but it's still a very bad deal. Strangely, CA staff refuses to get an appraisal for the property. It could be that the land really isn't worth $1 million because, guess what? There may well be a serious hazardous waste problem in or next to the property. Has CA lost its mind?
* 6.6 percent increase in total salaries and wages. The costs of CA's bureaucracy are swelling at a higher rate than before. This is in contrast with other governments and businesses that are finding ways to keep the lid on costs and to become more efficient and productive. Does CA's voracious appetite have no bounds?
* CA's public hearing on the budget is coming up soon, so it's extremely important for residents to make their own views known. They can either speak briefly at the hearing, which will be held at 8 p.m. on Tuesday at Kahler Hall in Harper's Choice. Sign up in advance by calling CA at 715-3000, or write or phone their village's Columbia Council representative. They may call their village association or CA to get a free copy of the budget. And, for more information, they may call me at 730-2583.
Alex Hekimian
Columbia
The writer is president of the Alliance for a Better Columbia.
The Sun on Jan. 13 covered the debate between James Rouse, whose investments spawned the new town of Columbia, and long-time Columbia resident Rabbi Martin Siegel, concerning establishment of a government for the new town district.
Mr. Rouse resorted to an ad hominem attack on Rabbi Siegel for failing to attend Columbia Council meetings. Rabbi Siegel replied, charitably, that the meetings are largely ornamental.
Mr. Rouse and his associates constantly harp about attendance at the council's weeknight, uninformative, soporific get-togethers. This is to obscure the fact that CA fails to fulfill its obligation to provide the residents of Columbia with truly meaningful information about its activities.
Take it from those of us who have fought to stay awake at council meetings, which can run past midnight: You ain't missin' nuthin'. Besides, the council's real debates often occur in closed executive session. (No one would dare try to tell you that you don't know what's going on in the federal government unless you attend sessions of Congress.)
One also tires of hearing the Rouse crowd blaming Columbia residents for failing to vote in Columbia Association elections.
Why vote if you don't know what you're voting for? And we can't know what we're voting for when the Columbia Association won't send its "stockholders" any annual reports or provide other forms of meaningful budget information. (An immediate result of incorporating Columbia would be meaningful budget figures, and elections which coincide with state elections, ensuring that they are at last as well attended.)
Barry Blyveis
Columbia
The purpose of this letter is to advocate that the basic form of Columbia governance remain unchanged. Please consider my rationale offered below in your deliberations on this issue. I urge you to speak out against a change to a municipality.
I have lived in Columbia for 24 years residing at five different addresses in several different villages. I initially moved to Columbia as a single person living in a Columbia apartment. I am now married with two teen-agers living in a Columbia single-family house.
I initially moved into Columbia because of the unique structure of the government and the other aspects of the Columbia "concept." I understood then and now the responsibilities of the Columbia Association vis-a-vis the county as well as my own responsibilities for fees.
I don't believe that the current form of government is "broken" and in need of drastic changes. I am very pleased with my services -- particularly open space management and recreational amenities. I have found my village management and Columbia Association to be very responsive to my suggestions.
I don't think that other traditional forms for city management in our country, state and county work as well as our current form. I believe that the current form of governance offers more objective professional management without bureaucratic and political interference. I think that the current appearance of voting apathy in Columbia elections is in reality a statement of satisfaction.
I recommend that change be incremental based on a program of continuous improvement. Perhaps the Columbia Council and CA could adopt and adapt a total quality management concept if they have not already done so.
In any event, please do not convert our unique form of government to some new form that bears resemblance to other municipalities.
I am particularly displeased with groups such as the Alliance for a Better Columbia and the Coalition of Governance Concerned Columbia Residents, who in my opinion continue to tear down the Columbia legacy and concept. I don't understand why they moved here in the first place. . . .
Alan Pflugrad
Columbia
The recent encounter between James Rouse and Rabbi Martin Siegel -- both outstanding men -- demonstrates the urgent need for even more courses and programs on conflict resolution. Public schools and colleges might consider expanding these courses to leaders in the community. All of us need help in this area. Life is conflict; we must learn early how to deal with it.
Virginia Bates
Woodbine
Graffiti vandals
I was pleased to see Dana Hedgpeth's article headlined, "Graffiti vandals sent out to cover up their deeds," in The Sun for Howard County on Jan. 10.
Graffiti is not an epidemic, but is a problem that needs to be controlled. The city police should be commended for the way they are apprehending and punishing these vandals. These days, graffiti artists have to paint over their crime -- a simple yet effective punishment for several reasons.
Most importantly, the vandalized areas are being kept clean. The city is saving thousands of dollars that it would normally have to shell out to clean up the streets. In addition, designated cleanup work keeps the criminals out of jail . . .
Several of the vandals who have served a portion of their 100 to 300 hours have begun to see that their art really does degrade and wear down buildings and walkways. After repainting the neighborhoods for 30 hours, one of the criminals even said he was going to give up graffiti. Since the institution of community service as a punishment, the vandalism rate in the city has gone down. I hope that more vandals will be reached and can influence their associates to stop wasting their time destroying property the community would like to enjoy.
aniel P. Adler
Ellicott City
Teaching morals?
I am writing in response to a letter to the editor of Jan. 8, titled "Godless Schools." As a student at Centennial High School in Howard County, I was both shocked and offended by this letter.
The writer claimed that public schools cannot teach students morals without the subject of theology being taught as well. He states that, "There is no way that you can teach 'morals' outside of some philosophical context that speaks to where man fits into the universe," and advocates the privatization of schools as the only way to properly teach morals.
Morals and ethics are a very personal matter, an integral part of each person that develops with the individual as they mature. Morals must be formed by that individual, not "taught" by the school they attend. Everyone can create their own morals as long as their morals do not infringe upon the rights of others.
Each person has the right to develop his own set of beliefs as long as this set fits within the laws of society; i.e., it is illegal to kill or steal, etc. It is the teaching of the laws society sets that is the duty of the educational system. These laws are taught by public and private schools alike; it is up to the individual to interpret what is moral and what is not.
Brittany Deuchler
Ellicott City
Senior Job Club
On behalf of the Office on Aging, Client Services and members of the Senior Employment and Senior Job Club, we wish to express our appreciation for the article Dolly Merritt wrote in connection with our job club Jan. 8 in The Sun for Howard County. The enthusiasm you expressed and your time and effort to inform the community regarding our club and possible new members has been gratifying. Also appreciated was the promptness with which you responded to our request.
Charlotte LeFevre
Columbia
The writer works with the Howard County Office on Aging.