Unintended Consequences

    When Central’s City Council votes next Tuesday, I expect they will vote to reduce the pay of James Salsbury, Central’s newly elected Chief of Police, to $99 per month, because Mr. Salsbury himself requested this reduction in order not to interfere with his retirement pay and benefits from BR Police Dept.  (See article on page 1.) 
    I understand the circumstances in this situation and this is clearly not a case of anyone trying to profit off of Central, in fact, the city will save over $25,000 a year because of this.  In addition, there is an Attorney General’s opinion supporting this proposed ordinance. However, if the Attorney General’s opinion is relied upon, a dangerous precedent could be unintentionally established.
    As adopted, the exact wording of LA Statute 33:404.1 states that the Council “shall not reduce the compensation of any elected official during the term for which he is elected.”  In order to reduce the pay of a winning candidate before they take office the wording has to be interpreted as meaning “shall not, during the term for which he is elected, reduce the compensation”  That interpretation would give the Council a couple of months to reduce the pay of the winners.  I believe the statute calls for protection of “the compensation of any elected official during the term for which he is elected.”
    The statute clearly is to protect a candidate who ran for office with a good faith understanding of the compensation package from having their pay changed by a Council who did not support their election.  If the law is there to protect an elected official during their term, it clearly must be intended to provide that protection from election day forward. 
    If we want to say it is okay to reduce an elected official’s pay after the results of the election are known, we need to look at the potential for unintended consequences.  Let’s say a Council supports candidate A, but Candidate B wins.  Under the ordinance being considered, that Council can change the salary from $30,000 to one dollar before Candidate B takes office.
    In essence, the ordinance as being interpreted and considered gives a Council (whether now or in the future) the political power to reward or punish candidates based on political preference.  It also allows for tailoring the compensation according to an individual who has been most recently elected, rather than to the position itself.
    This is why it is apparent to me that the intent of the statute is NOT to allow the pay of an elected official to be changed before they take office.  The rules should be consistent regardless of the candidate or the Council, to prevent the unintended political consequences described. At a minimum, if Central chooses to use this interpretation to reduce compensation, our state officials should be lobbied to change the law to clarify the interpretations and eliminate that possibility going forward.