In a 3-2 vote at its October 7 meeting, the Mamaroneck Town Board approved 2.75% raises for its non-union managers and staff for 2009 retroactive to January 1. A split decision is a rare occurrence for the Mamaroneck Town Board, where votes are typically unanimous and discussions are invariably cordial.
The Raises: The 2009 salaries range from $149,748 for the Town administrator (who gets an additional $31K as superintendent of the Joint Sanitation Commission), to $51,000 for the administrator’s secretary, who got an additional raise to ensure her salary was commensurate with that of unionized staff. The general foreman and garage foreman also earn overtime wages. The Town will pay an additional 35% of salary for benefits (Social Security, pension, health care, etc.).
The police chief will make $136,575 after a 4.1% increase; his raise is pegged by New York State law to the police contract. The director of community services and assistant director of recreation got no raises; they received increases last year when their positions were modified. See the chart below for other salaries.
In developing the 2009 budget last December, funds were included for the raises. But the final decision was deferred until all contracts were settled with the unions.
Compared to raises for the different bargaining units, the non-union raise of 2/75% falls somewhere in the middle. Police received a 4.1% raise for 2009 and 2010 based on a 4-year contract concluded in 2007. (See: Mamaroneck Town Approves 4-Year Police Contract. )
This April, firefighters got a 2.5% increase for 2009 and 2010 and a 2.75% raise for 2011. Members of the Civil Service Employees Association (highway department and office workers) got a 2.5% raise for 2009 plus a one-time $1000 payment.
The Vote: Supervisor Valerie O’Keeffe said the 2.75% raise was “fine,” but took issue with the timing. “We’ve had a practice of voting way late in the year on the non-union salaries and making them retroactive to January 1,” she said. “I don’t think we should continue that practice.
Also voting for the raises was Councilwoman Nancy Seligson, who recognized the timing was “casting a pall over the situation.” Municipal workers should not be immune to the recession, she said, but they don’t benefit from private sector pay scales or rewards and so “depend on not sharing in the downturn.”
The third aye came from Councilwoman Phyllis Wittner, who said she saw no “reason to penalize this group – they are all very hard working people who are very important to making this government work.”
Councilman David Fishman agreed that the group was “totally deserving” but he was “concerned about the signal we’re sending” given the “very significant recession” impacting the community. He was also looking forward to next year’s negotiations with the unions and wanting to telegraph that management was considering lower increases.
He voted no along with Councilman Ernie Odierna, who said he would have preferred a 10% reduction or no raise at all because he opposes “automatic increases the same for everyone” and because of “the reductions and cut backs our residents have to be making.”
Also at the Board: Section 8 & Grafitti
Requests for Housing Help Soar: Director of Community Services Anna Danoy presented both an annual report and a 5-year plan for the Section 8 Housing Program, which since a merger last year administers federal housing subsidies for all of Larchmont and Mamaroneck. The new plan clarifies some policies and modifies others, including restrictions on residents who abuse drugs or alcohol and requirements on reporting and repayment when there are changes in a resident’s rent or income.
Cutbacks in federal subsidies last year limited Mamaroneck’s ability to extend housing vouchers to any new applicants in 2009. The program provided vouchers for 647 households, including 325 from Larchmont or Mamaroneck. However, there are 1149 households on the waiting list, 71 local.
“Before last summer, we were getting 2 or 3 applications a month,” Ms. Danoy told the Gazette after the meeting. That picked up to 5 or 6 a week, she reported.
“2010 is looking much better than 2009,” Ms. Danoy said. She expects to have sufficient funding to cover all current clients and to take new ones from the waiting list. Local applicants will have priority.
Graffiti on the Weaver Street Bridge: Ms. O’Keeffe and Mr. Altieri reported good and bad news in their quest to replace the graffiti marred plastic panels on the Weaver Street Bridge over the train tracks and I-95. They’ve determined who is responsible: it’s not Metro North, which installed the panels, but the New York State Transportation Department (DOT), which can take “months and months or years and years,” to respond, said Ms. O’Keeffe. The Town is giving DOT one week, after which they will go to Plan B: requesting help from Albany.
2008 & 2009 Salaries for Town of Mamaroneck Non-Union Staff
| Name | Title | 2008 Salaries | 2009 Salaries |
| S. Altieri | Town Admin + | $145,740 | $149,748 |
| G. Edmond | Sec Town Adm | $47,500 | $51,000 |
| M. Liverzani | Admin Ambul | $81,350 | $83,587 |
| S. Thomas | Assessor | $95,755 | $98,388 |
| R. Carpaneto | Dir. Bldg | $93,215 | $95,778 |
| M. Orchanian | Bldg. Supt | $62,430 | $64,147 |
| A. Siligato | Comptroller | $130,000 | $133,575 |
| E. Paul | Env. Coord | $53,540 | $55,012 |
| A. Castarella | Genl Foreman | $67,555 | $69,413 |
| L. Martirano | Supt Highways | $93,000 | $95,558 |
| M. Pinto | G’age Foreman | $67,555 | $69,413 |
| M. Stanton | Asst Town Ad | $74,910 | $76,970 |
| R. Rivera | Police Chief | $130,040 | $136,575 |
| K. Simon | PD Records | $66,530 | $68,360 |
| J. Fisher | Supt of Rec | $99,875 | $102,621 |
| M. Gallagher | Asst Supt Rec | $75,160 | $75,160 |
| R. Lunde | Ice Rink Mgr | $62,790 | $64,517 |
| A. Danoy | Dir Com Serv | $91,000 | $91,000 |
| F. Antonelli | Supv Secy | $57,175 | $58,747 |
[public employees] don’t benefit from private sector pay scales or rewards ? excuse me ? all statistics prove that public sector pay (including OT or not) is higher than private sector, sometimes in a factor of 2. That is before (rewards ?) taking into account non-contributory healthcare, insane mostly non-contributory defined benefits pensions, more off days than the private sector for a myriad of reasons. Times have changed, I believe the official trade-union campaign-supported speech should change too. BTW, I trust that our beloved Senator the Suzy, so keen to “teach” leadership in difficult times, will show her leadership in responding to Gov Paterson call for cuts.
What a disgrace! Many people work hard on their jobs but aren’t entitled to raises. You mean to tell me that these people would quit if they didn’t get these raises!? I don’t think so.
Gee, I wonder why our taxes keep going up…Unbelievable.
My heart goes out to “pathetic’s” comments. How many of us have lived by an understanding which–in a blink of an eye, it seems–gets turned on its head?
How frustrating is that?
So it is instructive to consider the dynamic that are in operation in this case. Private sector for-profit compensation expands and contracts commensurate with its value (i.e. demand). In a contracting economy such as ours, wherein less is being spent and therefore fewer workers are needed to serve the demand, salary escalation diminishes and layoffs increase.
This causes an upswing in the demand for supportive social services as people impacted by the contraction seek assistance in making ends meet.
So, what strikes you as an unconscionable conundrum–the rise in public salaries as private sectors salaries shrink–is actually not the incongruity it seems to be but, in fact, simply the dynamics of the free enterprise system in action.
Lee – I have no issue with economic mechanisms playing out. Let them play out in the provision of public services too : pay for performance, performance measurement, survival of the fittest, weed-out of dishonesty and fraud, free access to provider of choice etc etc . Until we are there, I will continue to believe that the economics of public sector recruitment, retention, pensions and pay are completely flawed. This is in the process of being proven as the public budgets are eaten up by pension costs and debt service. Once 100% of the public expense will be dedicated to these unproductive uses and 100% of the revenue will be taxed, the merry-go-round will stop. Luckily, it will stop well ahead of those thresholds (which trade-unions don-t see as a problem, since the solution is to tax the rich) . NYS better brush up its IOU legislation.
Okay, by the numbers there is a certain possibility of outrage. But from another angle, there are people in these public service jobs–other than politicians. They do the infinitely more elusive job of attempting to tend to, service, and empower broken lives. The work is much harder to define and quantify then the numbers on the bottom of a P and L sheet. And the ceiling on earning is, despite raises in the rank and file, by far lower than that in the private sector. I certainly wouldn’t want to deny the people who do this thankless, often frustrating work, a viable pension at the end of the day.
You know we don’t actually need ipods, however much our demand for them escalates the pay of those who produce them. But we do need care givers. We have given trillions in tax dollars to the auto and banking companies. And push come to shove we don’t actually need these things either. They are great conveniences, but are not essential to existence. If we’re going to kickabout squandered tax dollars let’s start there and give the little guy trying to do some good a break.
Lee, those are numbers on P and L sheets – yours and that of each of your neighbors. We’ll all see them on our Accounts Payable with our tax bill. Hopefully none of our neighbors will Lose their homes or access to their basic needs and services because they have to pay them.
Consider,
- What can the entity afford to pay?
- What is the individual’s performance worth?
- What is paid in other comparable positions?
None of these, or any of the issues you raised, were factors in this across-the-board increase.
Perhaps another look, and in reality, what you want are what others here have commented.
Regardless of how the reader feels about the information, this publication is a valuable and appreciated public service. Beyond the salary list, I noted 35% additional cost for benefits. Does anyone out there have comparable data for other public employees and/or for private sector employees?
My argument was a more general one: that we might examine what it is appropriate to spend tax revenues on and understand that it costs, rather than simply react to escalating numbers. In the final analysis, however, when it comes to Mamaroneck, I suppose closer scrutiny of the workers and the value they add to our lives should likely be an element upon which any salary bump would be configured. And this in the context of what similar wages are in comparable municipalities. Still and all, if high taxes is the core issue, there are a whole host of expenditures aside from salaries that need to be vetted. The argument can’t just be “I’m tired of high taxes so let’s not raise any pay any more.”
Lee, yes, examine all and determine the best action. Agreed, an excellent approach.
Didn’t appear that any of what you proposed happened though; just the same increase for the bunch. No evaluation of services required or efficiency of delivery, etc. But if you add the ‘standard’ increase plus the benefits factor, total cost is around 4%. To be paid this year, and next year, and next year and so forth plus any further increases.
Reference points: COLA expected to be zero this year. Big components of Town budget are salaries and contractually obligated expenses which includes benefits.
Anybody remember the tax increase percentage last year? Anybody want to guess what it will be this year?
So who’s looking at those tax revenues and costs you mentioned? Will it be only those leaving when they get their tax bills and care only about the bottom line ?
Or will there be a in-depth look at the numbers and
what they represent while there is still time?
Came across this . Seems one or two on our Council give a damn and are doing something about it. Sure hope you and the others commenting here, and there, and others in the Town will too.
AEM,
If you have such strong convictions, then go to the budget hearings (posted on this site) and let the board know how you feel. If you think, feel, or know that certain members of the Town staff do not deserve raises please bring it up at a public meeting. Spouting off on this site, which you do on many topics, makes me belive that you have much to offer. Maybe you should volunteer your time as a board member, and see what these people actually do for their salaries. I know as a resident who has volunteered for over 20 years that the majority of the people on the list deserve more than what they are paid.
10538er, compliment appreciated. But, some points to add:
1. Yes, the public can go to budget work sessions, but does not have the right to speak at those. Residents can speak at the “public hearing,” at the end of a long budget process; not an effective way of public influence. BTW, see here, , finally at least the public will be able to see one of the budget hearings on either TV or the internet. In a Town that is supposed to be conservation minded, why would we encourage people to drive to hearings when the same things can be accomplished with more consideration of the environment and people’s time – commonplace technology?
2. The Larchmont Gazette is a great way for the public to learn about what is going on in the Town and to provide feedback to the our Town government. Probably some of our elected officials read it and probably more people of the Town get information from the Larchmont Gazette than they do directly from the Town. The press has moved to the internet, and its role as the ears and voices for the people has increased.
3. No issue with your statement that the majority of people on the list deserve more than what they are paid. Did not take issue with that previously, although how such was determined remains a question. But your statement also indicates that some don’t. Therefore, an equal percentage across-the-board raise is an inappropriate way to reward performance. So just how was performance and the value of various services determined and by whom before the increases were determined? An inquiring mind would want to know. Also, some of your neighbors may also deserve more than what they receive in this economy and they may not deserve to lose their homes or have trouble meeting their basic needs in this economy. The laws of supply and demand and appropriately valuing all resources including labor resources, must be considered, especially so in this current economy. Also, what one deserves or something is worth is irrelevant when the money to pay it may not exist.
You are to be commended for the years you have volunteered for the Town–weren’t you worth more than you were paid for that? And that reserve fund that was built up during the years you volunteered, unfortunately only lasts so long when the Town continues to dip into it to pay current expenses.