Ken Woolstenhulme and Bob Richer were elected to four-year terms on the Summit County Commission but, since voters decided to switch to a new form of government, they will be forced to step down after serving only two years. Both say they will not file to run for another term. By law, though, they can demand payment for the full four years which would cost taxpayers $60,000 per year for each, for two years.
Richer, who supported the shift to a council/manager form of government, has said he will not take the money. Woolstenhulme, who opposed the change, says he will. What would you do? Post your comments here or send a letter to the editor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"The county is not getting its money's worth from cash provided by taxpayers", Summit County Commissioner Ken Woolstenhulme claimed. I copied this literally from the Sat., March 15 Record article about Recycle Utah's accounting for County funded expenditures. How ironic. Ken, maybe you could donate your next two years' salary as an ex-Commissioner to Recycle Utah.
We should all be asking Ken Woolstenhulme "What are you doing?" If Ken takes the money, he will in effect, be stealing from the County whether or not he is allowed to or not. Bob Richer has it right on this one. Ken, you should do what is in the best interest of the County. After all, that's why you were elected.
The county signed a contract for a 4 year term. If they change their minds mid stream they owe the full amount of the contract. End of story. Typical of PC and western Summit County to expect otherwise.
Recycle Utah? pfffffft, please!
Consider that when these guys took the job it was a 4 year plan. They didn't change the county did.
taigon's claim that Mr Woolstenhulme "is in effect stealing from the County" if he takes the money is wrong. The law allows this and therefore he is in the right if he takes the money. Though I don't agree with a lot of Mr Woolstenhulme's opinions - he has stepped up to the plate for the citizens of Summit County. Instead of focusing on this (and how it will affect future Woolstenhulme's chances for public service) we should ask ourselves if we would turn down $120,000!
why, how and by whom do we have a law that allows anyone to be paid for nothing?
He has the right to take the money. He is not quitting the county, the county is quitting him! He is willing to serve the full term. He may have made personal financial decisions based on the fact that he would be getting this income for the full time. He should not have to suffer personal financial problems due to the fact that the county is laying him off. Many of us have been laid-off our jobs. We get a severence pay, he should also. They should both take the money. It should not effect his position in future elections. He did not change, the county did. HE IS WILLING TO SERVE THE FULL TIME.
As a government employee, if I get fired, or my county council re-organizes the departments and eliminates my job, I surely do not get a severence package. I would be eligible for unemployment benefits. I would be willing to continue working for the government too. I too would have made commitments based upon my forcasted income. Just because he was elected shouldn't make it ethical for him to take the money. Let him apply for unemployment like the rest of the shmucks in the real work force. Of course we all know Ken and with his businesses, he will be just fine. The fact remains his employers (the voters) re-organized his department, he had the choice to re-apply within that department and did not. It may be legal for him to take the money, but it ain't right!
If the law (which in essence is their contract) states the Commissioners can take the $120K then it is certainly not stealing to take it (arguments regarding taxation as legitimized stealing aside).
All my dealings with Bob Richer have been positive and he has always been helpful. Bob is a class act.
Ken, reconsider your position. The $120K was taken from taxpayers and for you to take it in turn from the county without commensurate work just rings wrong to the taxpayer, irrespective of the legalities. If you demand payment and then were to donate the majority of it to your favorite county cause then I would argue that that would sit a lot better with the voters/taxpayers, your fellow citizens and neighbors.
I recall when Ken ran for office it was as a "public servant" and that this position was not a "job" - the statement implies his decision to "serve" was not about the money. In addition, for someone who is willing to take government money for no work and frequently complains about the inefficiency of government and the high cost of government is a hypocrite.
Ken was elected to a 4 year term by the Voters, you. The Voters, yes you, selected a new form of government. You, and only you, have yourselves to blame for approving a law that would pay the removed commissioners after they were removed. Next time, read what you are voting on before voting. For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program.
Post a Comment