Editorial: Gov's pay raise poorly timed, costly to New Yorkers

Sure, it was time for the governor to see a raise.

The last one was in 1999.

But an increase hovering around 39 percent is ridiculous.

Especially in the face of the state's debt load.

Especially in the face of the unfunded mandates incorporated into the just-passed $175.5 billion state budget, including election reform.

Especially with, according to State Sen. Betty Little (R-Queensbury), $1 billion in new taxes.

As Gov. Andrew Cuomo anticipates that huge pay raise, North Country municipalities are wondering how to compensate for the loss of Aid and Incentives to Municipalities funding.

Sure, the governor intends to see that money replaced by internet sales tax to the tune of almost $60 million statewide.

But he's robbing Peter to pay Paul — those funds would have come to the counties as local sales-tax revenue.

That loss to Clinton County could be as much as $430,000 annually, county Administrator Michael Zurlo told us.

"Money that could have been used to fund local priorities and lower property taxes,” he said.

And some vitally important programs see no funding at all in the spending plan, for example an initiative to study tick-borne diseases.

A $1 million allocation last year helped fund a first-time study of harvested deer blood in the Adirondacks — it found a potentially lethal virus called Powassan was more widespread than had been previously thought.

And we know ticks are moving northward and into higher elevations. Lyme disease, not to mention other illnesses delivered via ticks, can be devastating. 

Further study is crucial.

We know the new spending plan gives more money to schools and funding for numerous other programs.

It looks as if $1 million is going to New York Mental Health Association's School Mental Health and Training Resource Center that is helping schools incorporate state-mandated mental health education in curriculum in kindergarten through 12th grade.

We applaud Gov. Cuomo and the Legislature for recognizing the need to support that very vital mandate.

And we do believe elected officials should be given adequate pay.

At the local level, some towns have kept salaries the same for many years. That might seem a smart move with budgets tight, but it can also discourage worthy individuals from running for office.

What makes sense is giving reasonable increases on a regular basis — not huge lump sums that seem to thumb the nose at the "little people" whose programs get nothing.

No one expects to get rich serving in an elected position, but the pay should still be fair.

What's fair for a state's governor?

Not a jump of close to 39 percent. 

And speaking of fair, it wasn't — that Cuomo would tie the raises for legislators to on-time budget passage (and yes, their pay should have seen gradual increases, too).

Or that, as always occurs, the details of the spending plan got hammered out in backroom fashion.

As Assemblyman Dan Stec (R-Queensbury) pointed out, the process was glaringly lacking in transparency.

"Half the bills were printed Sunday and voted on in the dead of night, yet again," he told us, "without time for the legislature and public to properly vet them."

That's how some important details get missed, either by accident or design. Perhaps that's how the expected agreement to close two state prisons became "up to three" once again.

On time isn't always best.

But what do we know? The governor got the budget passed, got his raise.

Guess it was best for him.