A school superintendent's action regarding a pay raise should become infectious.
Don't expect a stampede of people refusing pay increases to help in a serious situation. But at least there are some among us who are willing to make such noble gestures. And if more people with high pay and benefits would do likewise, many would be far better off.
Carol Johnson, superintendent of schools in Minneapolis, Minn., has given back at $30,000 salary boost. She says she cannot accept it given the budget cuts her district is facing. The gesture was made at a recent school board meeting where Johnson outlined more than $30 million in cuts that include eliminating busing for high school students, freezing wages for support staff members and increasing class sizes by one student byond the level promised voters in a 2000 levy referendum. Johnson was voted the hike but wants her salary, least for now, to stay at $160,000.
She adds that if the school board is intent on spending the $30,000 it should go to the Arts for Academic Achivement program.
That amount of money, of course, is a drop in the bucket considering the financial problems of the school district. But it shows an attitude that is highly commendable and which should be emulated.
Not long ago, a flashback item in the sports section of a newspaper told about onetime Clelveland Indian baseball pitcher Bob Feller who refused a 1940s salary hike of about $10,000. He said his record the previous years, something like 15-9, did not justify a raise. In today's out-of-control baseball climate, Feller, who lost four years to World War II Navy duty, would have received at least a million-dollar hike, probably much more.
Where are such citizens anymore?
Consider that the United States Congress continues to sneak in new pay and benefits for its members while the economy struggles, many lose jobs and others find it tough to make ends meet. Shameless are those overpaid executives of major businesses and industries who grab their outlandish money and run while others in an organization are fired due to "downsizing."
How many times of late have we read about greedy top-level people snatching lavish pay hikes and bonuses, then we learn later that their company is a disaster, perhaps bankrupt. Consider the Enron scandal, for example.
People in public service, most notably members of Congress, are notorious for boosting their take-home packages despite what is happening to the rest of the country. One of the best measuring sticks would be for Congress to go without pay and benefit hikes until the economy is working right. How much sooner could we get a balance of income and outgo in that format?
We're not talking thousands of dollars here, as in the case of the Minnesota school superintendent, notable though her gesture may be. Millions of dollars that could be far better spent in other ways are being drained away by self-serving executives with no apparent concern for the "little people" who have done so much to make their ill-gotten largesse possible.
Somebody has to take the first steps in economic and financial affairs which are spinning out of control. Critics of such a plan will say refusal of pay hikes and such are only window-dressing and don't really solve things. Yet there has to be a start.
Both public and private entities need more examples such as Carol Johnson of Minneapolis. If there were such, perhaps the economy would start doing better sooner than predicted.
Now wouldn't that be a treat for the year 2002?
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.