There is a 9.875% increase in salaries and benefits proposed in the upcoming Smithtown library budget. 9.875%!!!!
It would certainly be reasonable to expect that salaries themselves are not increasing any more than 3-3.5%, 4% maximum. Additionally, in consideration of significant exorbitant increases in healthcare costs in recent years for everyone, particularly at a time where more & more of the burden of these costs are already being shifted to employees as time goes by, even in school districts, it is only reasonable to expect to see that the employee-borne portion of the total healthcare benefits are likewise on the order of at least 15% (or more) for all employees. (15 to 18% as
the employee-borne portion of healthcare cost is quite commonplace nowadays and is fairly typical across the board). If it is not at or near that level for those employed in the Smithtown library district, then why is that the case and what is being done about bringing it up to that level?
With respect to pensions, if it happens to be the case that those that manage the pension funds did not happen to invest wisely enough in order to maintain a typical & reasonable average return on investment relative to how well or how poorly the stock market was performing, the taxpayers should not be wrongfully expected to make up the difference as a result of their ineptitude or as a result of how poorly the stock market was performing in a given year as if the taxpayer was erroneously viewed as an unending source or revenue.
I certainly hope and anticipate that is not the case because I'm sure that when the situation is that the stock market does perform very well and the pension sees a higher than average return on investment, that the taxpayer does not likewise see that benefit. As such it would only be fair and reasonable to expect that the pension formulas are devised such that the years that the return on investment is above average would offset those years where the rate of return was less than average, thereby eliminating any need to justify trying to unfairly and unethically saddle any unforeseen shortfall in pension monies onto the taxpayers. Again, I understandably do not wish to hear that that is the case because quite frankly that would in essence be unconscionable besides being unethical.
In light of these valid points, I am understandably bewildered about the basis for such a significant increase in this area, especially with taxpayers getting hit with now having to absorb the cost of the library capital improvement bond which was passed earlier this year. Despite the capital bond being a separate line item which, in and of itself, has nothing to do with salaries and benefits, I make it a point to mention the capital bond because of the fact that this is an expense that now must be paid by taxpayers and which therefore must be considered along with the other operating expenses.
To elaborate, by all rights this expense cannot just be arbitrarily chosen to be disregarded, not considered and/or not factored in by those in position who make decisions about the budget or by those that are directly involved
with negotiating benefits, particularly when it comes to determining the % contribution for employee-borne healthcare premiums, especially if it were to be the case wherein the employee-borne cost was anything less than 15%
at this point.
I sent this in as a letter verbatim on 9/3/08 to the Robert Lusak, the Smithtown Library Director and to Robert Goykin, the Assistant Libarry Director asking for them to please clarify these legitimate concerns and I am presently (still) patiently awaiting a detailed reply as had kindly been requested to clarify these legitimate concerns & questions.
Does anyone have any information or insight as to what is causing for the proposed increase of $711,200 in salaries & benefits (equating to a 9.875% increase) to be so high?
It would certainly be reasonable to expect that salaries themselves are not increasing any more than 3-3.5%, 4% maximum. Additionally, in consideration of significant exorbitant increases in healthcare costs in recent years for everyone, particularly at a time where more & more of the burden of these costs are already being shifted to employees as time goes by, even in school districts, it is only reasonable to expect to see that the employee-borne portion of the total healthcare benefits are likewise on the order of at least 15% (or more) for all employees. (15 to 18% as
the employee-borne portion of healthcare cost is quite commonplace nowadays and is fairly typical across the board). If it is not at or near that level for those employed in the Smithtown library district, then why is that the case and what is being done about bringing it up to that level?
With respect to pensions, if it happens to be the case that those that manage the pension funds did not happen to invest wisely enough in order to maintain a typical & reasonable average return on investment relative to how well or how poorly the stock market was performing, the taxpayers should not be wrongfully expected to make up the difference as a result of their ineptitude or as a result of how poorly the stock market was performing in a given year as if the taxpayer was erroneously viewed as an unending source or revenue.
I certainly hope and anticipate that is not the case because I'm sure that when the situation is that the stock market does perform very well and the pension sees a higher than average return on investment, that the taxpayer does not likewise see that benefit. As such it would only be fair and reasonable to expect that the pension formulas are devised such that the years that the return on investment is above average would offset those years where the rate of return was less than average, thereby eliminating any need to justify trying to unfairly and unethically saddle any unforeseen shortfall in pension monies onto the taxpayers. Again, I understandably do not wish to hear that that is the case because quite frankly that would in essence be unconscionable besides being unethical.
In light of these valid points, I am understandably bewildered about the basis for such a significant increase in this area, especially with taxpayers getting hit with now having to absorb the cost of the library capital improvement bond which was passed earlier this year. Despite the capital bond being a separate line item which, in and of itself, has nothing to do with salaries and benefits, I make it a point to mention the capital bond because of the fact that this is an expense that now must be paid by taxpayers and which therefore must be considered along with the other operating expenses.
To elaborate, by all rights this expense cannot just be arbitrarily chosen to be disregarded, not considered and/or not factored in by those in position who make decisions about the budget or by those that are directly involved
with negotiating benefits, particularly when it comes to determining the % contribution for employee-borne healthcare premiums, especially if it were to be the case wherein the employee-borne cost was anything less than 15%
at this point.
I sent this in as a letter verbatim on 9/3/08 to the Robert Lusak, the Smithtown Library Director and to Robert Goykin, the Assistant Libarry Director asking for them to please clarify these legitimate concerns and I am presently (still) patiently awaiting a detailed reply as had kindly been requested to clarify these legitimate concerns & questions.
Does anyone have any information or insight as to what is causing for the proposed increase of $711,200 in salaries & benefits (equating to a 9.875% increase) to be so high?
