More wasted money

Published 1:14 am Sunday, March 11, 2012

Here we go again taxpayers of Vicksburg.

I am getting very concerned about our city. Once again we have the issue of a union. The administration should have put that to rest last April or May.

Now we have another taxpayer challenge. I have read that an ex-employee has a legal issue with the “City” as a result of the Mayor’s actions. It should be noted that we taxpayers couldn’t care less what the mayor or any of his administration do on their personal time. We simply do not care.

Email newsletter signup

Sign up for The Vicksburg Post's free newsletters

Check which newsletters you would like to receive
  • Vicksburg News: Sent daily at 5 am
  • Vicksburg Sports: Sent daily at 10 am
  • Vicksburg Living: Sent on 15th of each month

However, when the Administration established a chief of staff position paying $72,000 for a job that the entire community knew was not needed and was at taxpayers’ expense, that raised a red flag. Two years later, the position was eliminated; praise to the administration.

A short time later it was decided that we taxpayers owe this person almost $10,000. Get this, with the infinite wisdom of the administration; they did not know the difference between exempt salaried and non-exempt salaried employees. So we pay again. Any business person could tell the difference by reading the job description if, in fact, there was one. The city has several attorneys on the payroll. It seems that they should have been aware of the situation.

The above is to bring us to the present. The taxpayers are paying for an attorney for the mayor. We will also pay the attorney for the ex-employee and the kicker is that we will then pay the settlement. I realize that the administration is bonded and/or has a liability policy; but we, the taxpayers, pay for that plus any premium increase as a result of “the settlement.”

Fellow taxpayers of Vicksburg, a very high percentage of these issues are always settled. My odds are 98% that this case will be settled. If it goes to trial, taxpayers will be out even more money. I don’t have a clue if the charges are valid or not and do not care except from a taxpayers point of view. When this issue is settled, since taxpayers’ money is involved, the conditions of the settlement should be made public. So city Administration recognize the union, settle the sexual harassment issue, raise taxes, water, sewer and gas rates. In my opinion it is not only comical but expensive to run a business in this manner.

Ray C. McLaurin