The article in the April 29 U-B discussing the decision to increase the former police chief's salary demonstrates an unfortunate common practice of the City Council, namely to cast votes on proposals whose consequences are unknown.
This is reminiscent of the decision last year to consider make zoning changes easier for the city than for citizens. It was subsequently reversed. Remember?
One member voted against the raise on principle, not on knowledge. The two new members voted for the raise. What can one say about their knowledge of the consequences?
The member who proposed the raise did so in such a way as to lessen the time for discussion or to learn about its consequences. Or did he really know the consequences?
And three members apparently voted out of ignorance on the principle of let's just go along. After all, who really cares?
The right thing now is for the former chief to refuse the gratuitous salary increase, and to refuse the pension increase. If he can't get along on a yearly pension of $92,000 a year ($7,700 amonth), will getting an increase to $101,000 ($8,400 a month) mean that he will just be squeaking by?
Of course, this pension is being provided by the taxpayers of Washington, so what the heck?
Some on the Council have individually declared themselves to be conservative and Republican. Does this justify the idea of socialize loss, privatize gain - greed is good? One wonders.
Of course, we would never introduce the word "entitlement" for this situation, would we?