From a simple farmer’s point of view

To the editor:
    Wage and Classification Tool: A method of keeping non-union wages and salaries comparable with other similar communities, agencies and firms, and also maintain a salary schedule for all positions. The city-generated plan was ready to be passed (I believe 5-2), but the City Council was willing to have the second consultant return for his opinion.    After reviewing the plan, the consultant advised that there were issues within the plan that he felt needed work. With the different issues also came suggested corrections. With the suggested corrections came questions from different councilors, and that resulted in an extensive exchange of dialogue among the seven of us. To my surprise, the unanimous opinion of the council was to extend the contract of the consultant to continue to work on the Wage and Classification Tool. When one talks about living, breathing documents, this one was on its third life.
    Several days later the council was presented an e-mail from city administration dealing with a follow-up conversation with the consultant in which four questions were asked of the council. City administration also stated in the e-mail that they had completed their work on the Wage and Classification Tool and would “collect data and employment information in an effort to support the council’s work.” Administration wanted to “remove themselves from further presentation to the council, employees and consultant until such time as the council adopts a system (tool).” Administration wanted to “facilitate” the process as per the council direction.
    Several days later, after a three-hour city council meeting, the council held a workshop to answer the consultant’s four questions. One of the questions he had was: does he (the consultant) continue to use the 20 town comparables for salaried personnel? Those 20 town comparables have been used sine the day I began my council duties two-plus years ago. Where they came from, I have no idea. But nobody, I repeat, nobody had any issue with the chosen towns up to this point.
    I have spoken with many non-union employees during this process and not once has anyone conveyed to me that they had issues with the comparable communities. But that was then and this is now.
    City administration stated that some employees had issues with the selected communities. The population averages were less than Caribou, and not to my surprise, city administration suggested we add some communities to raise that population average. So much for “facilitating”. Once again, a non-issue became an issue two-plus years later.
    After a long city council meeting, with everyone tired, this once non-issue became a debate. One by one council members lined up behind city administration in favor of changing the communities. I made my debating point three separate times: It was my belief that council should not pick the comparable communities based on population only. I also questioned the council as to what happened to the “target marketing area” idea? That would be the communities that one would expect to hire to fill that particular position. In which communities did the last five Caribou city managers originate?
    My final attempt was to explain my feelings to the rest of the council that we should not build a house on a bad foundation. The numbers will be what the numbers are. I have always been careful to look at the position, not the person holding that position. Rather than decide what towns should be used based on the money they pay their salaried positions. I have not looked those numbers up.
    We are supposed to be creating a tool. How that tool was to be used was a council decision for a future date. To build a tool using the following communities as comparables to Caribou, in my opinion, was not a good foundation on which to build that tool. From Caribou’s personnel policy: “To keep wages and salaries comparable with other similar communities …” with “similar” being the key word in my opinion. After three times, I didn’t think a fourth effort would have made a difference, and the council voted 5-2 to accept the city administration’s list of the following communities as being comparable to Caribou: Kittery, Standish, Cape Elizabeth, Yamouth, Freeport, Brewer, Rockland, Bath, Orono, Old Orchard Beach, Winslow, Bar Harbor, Camden, Old Town, Presque Isle, Cumberland, Buxton, Berwick, Farmington, South Berwick, Waterboro, Gray, Ellsworth, Belfast, Fairfield, Rumford, Houlton, Winthrop, Gardiner, Eliot, Oakland, Paris, Poland, Turner, New Gloucester, Bridgton, Lincoln, Waldoboro and Harpswell.
    I opposed this list of towns on which Caribou was to build our Wage and Classification Tool, and I expressed my concerns to the rest of the council. The vote was 5-2 in favor of going forward. I decided to myself that night that I could no longer work on this house with a positive attitude. I believed, that once again, city administration had introduced a non-issue (community comparables) to obtain a desired outcome. And to try to give this tool a fourth life would be a waste of time, because another non-issue would just come along.
    To build this tool solely on population is an incorrect premise. There is that old saying “its location, location, location”. With the additions of the new communities to the list of comparables, the council has now overturned the entire work of the very first consultant. $12,000 poorly spent, but all that counted back then was winning. (For reference, view the taped meeting of the city council)
    I did not attend the following meeting on the Wage and Classification Tool that was held March 24, 2008. I was just frustrated and discouraged by the whole process. Within less than 45 minutes after reviewing the latest city generated plan for the first time, the council voted 5-1-1 to accept the plan that helps represent 51 percent of the Caribou city budget. And to think, I’m trying to implement a “first read” policy. I did not know there was going to be a vote.
    As unfair as I thought the last city-generated Wage and Classification Tool was to the non-union employees, I find this current city-generated tool to be equally unfair to the Caribou taxpayer. What has Freeport got to do with Caribou? When was the last time we hired someone from Cape Elizabeth, Rockland or Old Orchard Beach? Not to mention the differences between our property values and those of southern Maine.
    The results to you, the Caribou taxpayer, in next weeks’ conclusion of the long-winded story. Please do not form any opinions until the whole story is told.
    I’m trying to keep it simple and understandable, but I’m not having much success. When you’re in the minority dealing with this council leadership there’s very little one can accomplish.
“farmer” Mark Goughan
Caribou city councilor