Treasurer’s position to go to referendum

Appointed or elected? Voters will decide

Friday, May 12, 2006

What is unclear is whether the referendum, if adopted, would apply to this year’s election or would become law in 2010, after this year’s treasurer-elect serves out his or her term.

The decision to float the referendum came during a discussion of the salary proposed by the county’s salary commission for the incoming treasurer.

Commissioner Allan R. Smith (R) renewed his call to raise the salary for the next treasurer.

‘‘I still believe that the position is inadequately funded,” Smith said, calling for the position to receive an $80,000 salary. ‘‘I think we stand to not attract someone who is qualified.”

The county’s compensation commission recommended earlier this year that the county treasurer receive $46,000 annually starting next year, topping out at $52,000 in 2010. The commissioners held a public hearing on the recommendations last month, and a handful of speakers urged them to raise the salary.

County Treasurer Jerome E. Peuler Jr. is currently paid $45,000 per year. The county’s deputy treasurer makes $65,000, and the La Plata treasurer makes $71,000.

‘‘It’s just totally out of whack,” Smith said Tuesday.

Commissioner Robert J. Fuller (D) disagreed that an elected treasurer should receive higher pay, since the election requirements only call for a candidate to be 21 years old and live in the county.

‘‘The way things are today, I’m not going to vote to give [the treasurer] $80,000 per year,” Fuller said. Fuller signaled that he would consider such a salary for a qualified appointed candidate.

Smith’s calls to raise the recommended salary were stymied by a provision he called for when the commissioners drafted legislation to create the compensation commission. According to the law, the commissioners are allowed to lower the amounts recommended by the commission, but they are not allowed to raise them.

When this was pointed out to Smith, he explained that he was concerned that the commissioners would raise salaries for the commissioner board, but admitted, ‘‘I never anticipated that the treasurer’s salary wouldn’t come back much higher [from the compensation commission].”

Smith voted with the rest of the board to approve the compensation commission’s recommended salary increases. He then moved for the board to float a referendum on the office. Changing the office to an appointed position, he reasoned, would allow the commissioners to set the treasurer’s salary and qualifications at will.

Commissioner Edith J. Patterson (D) seconded the motion, saying, ‘‘Hopefully, with a referendum, ... that position will come in line with a salary that reflects the level of responsibility.”

Then Fuller asked the tough question, saying, ‘‘What happens on Election Day?”

A sticky situation could arise, Fuller said, if a new treasurer is elected in the fall and the referendum passes, effectively eliminating the elected office. Fuller asked if the new treasurer would immediately lose the job, or would the referendum take effect after the new treasurer’s four-year term was complete?

‘‘I don’t know the answer to your question,” replied County Attorney Roger Fink, but promised to research the answer.

‘‘Four years is a hell of a long time to correct this situation,” Smith said.

‘‘I didn’t realize we were correcting anything,” Fuller rebutted.

Commissioners’ President F. Wayne Cooper (D) called for order. He then addressed Smith, saying that the treasurer would have to be paid $200,000 annually to compete with the market rate.

‘‘It’s a job that you’ve got to want to do,” Cooper said. ‘‘That’s why most people in these [elected] positions are retired or semiretired. They couldn’t afford to do it otherwise.”

When contacted Tuesday for his reaction to the referendum decision, Peuler said he was conflicted about it. He said he was ‘‘seriously considering” a run for the office this year, but acknowledged that it is time for the office to change.

‘‘This is not a corner store, mom ’n’ pop-style business anymore,” Peuler said. He said he would hate to see the centuries-old office be folded into the county bureaucracy, but added, ‘‘tradition is a wonderful thing until it stops progress.”

Over the years, Peuler said, the treasurer’s office has evolved from a traditional tax-collecting and investment office to a one-stop shop for nearly all of the county’s fee and license collections. Peuler estimated that the office deals with $500,000 to $5 million a day. The treasurer is tasked with properly accounting for and allocating that money.

‘‘That’s a weighty responsibility,” Peuler said. ‘‘I’m basically the county banker.”

Peuler also said that the treasurer’s office is not a ‘‘policy-making position” and could stand to have more interaction with the county’s fiscal services office. However, he warned that the treasurer should not serve at the pleasure of the commissioners.

‘‘I think it has to be somewhat of an independent agency,” Peuler said.

The commissioners agreed to hold another work session on the referendum to work out the language before forwarding it to the county’s election commission.

E-mail Jay Friess at jfriess@somdnews.com.