To the editor:

Recently, the mayor introduced a mid-term pay raise proposal for certain Department of Public Works employees involved in “Capital Improvement Projects.” While fair compensation is crucial, this proposal and the way it came about raise serious concerns about this half-baked decision-making process and its implications for long-term trust and accountability.

First, the lack of critical details in the resolution is concerning. Nowhere does it specify which job titles qualify for this increase, the projected annual cost, or how the raise will be funded. Clear financial information should accompany any proposal with direct budgetary impacts, enabling board members and the public to make informed evaluations. The mayor’s rushed process — moving from executive session to formal resolution in two weeks — with scant board input left little time for essential participation from board members, department heads, and union representatives. It was a one-man show.

The mayor’s statements also raise questions. In previous meetings, he stated that the last union contract negotiation secured “everything they (the union and represented staff) wanted.” If this was indeed the case, why is a raise necessary now? Additionally, the mayor mentioned he conducted the contract negotiation without consulting our retained legal counsel, despite our $2,000 monthly retainer with Roemer Wallens Attorneys. Has legal counsel been consulted on this proposal? Ignoring the advice of our labor attorney on a wage decision involving union employees is not good government, especially given future contract implications.

Another issue is the lack of direct union involvement. Our contract with the Teamsters union outlines specific annual increases, typically reserving mid-term adjustments for promotions or reclassifications. Bypassing the union on wage adjustments undermines our contract’s intent and risks setting a precedent that could complicate future negotiations, possibly breeding distrust among staff and sparking grievances.

The targeted nature of the raise — only for DPW employees involved in Capital Improvement Projects — is likely to affect morale among employees not selected for this increase. Without transparent criteria for eligibility, this approach appears arbitrary and could lead to division within our workforce, as it leaves other employees uncertain about their standing and contributions.

Let’s consult with legal counsel, involve union representatives and most importantly, let’s find out what this will cost our taxpayers, not just today but years down the road. Heaven knows village taxpayers are burdened enough. Mid-contract handouts without negotiations and legal guidance to a favored few with no board say or taxpayer feedback is not the open government that Saranac Lake deserves. Wage decisions should be well-considered and foster the trust necessary for future teamwork, a concept we don’t see much of from the mayor.

Aurora White

Saranac Lake