OK, just one surprise, and maybe it isn't a surprise. I happened to switch over to channel 23, and Stewart was talking about cancelling the pay raise for the board. He admitted it didn't make any difference, that the amount of money is very small, but it was a gesture showing the board was taking part in "the pain".
Caddigan spoke next. And she actually argued FOR the pay increase, complaining they didn't get a raise before. Jenkins then came in and also complained about it.
To which I want to respond -- if the pay was too low, you shouldn't have run for office. There were other people who would have been HAPPY to take your spot.
Then Mike May also spoke on the it -- and said he would accept a larger office account cut in place of the salary freeze. I guess that might be an easier vote in the end because of some question over how you stop pay increases that were set by a previous board. Maybe I'll send him an e-mail to ask him about it.
Now they are arguing over a cut to the discretionary fund. Jenkins is upset because cutting the discretionary funds would take away a lot of money he uses to buy votes.
Apparently Jenkins gets a lot more public inquiries than some of the others.
I think Principi spoke up and also complained about the cuts. Stewart said it wasn't "discretionary funds", they were "excess office funds".
Only TWO people were willing to vote against their own pay increase (Stewart and Stirrup). THREE voted to cut $10,000 from the office accounts (Stewart, Stirrup, and May).
Remember, when they were raising taxes on business by 32%, Caddigan said they wouldn't miss the money. Now we see that when it comes to a few thousand dollars at most in salary, Caddigan (and most of the board) can't show the same level of self-sacrifice that they expect from the taxpayers.
Of course, I'm guessing if those business owners had a vote, they'd be happy to vote to lower their taxes, and cut the pay of the supervisors for them.