The ongoing debate about an earned sick-and-safe time ordinance is missing the point. The City Council early on decided, since it had five to seven votes in the pocket, that it could pass an unfunded mandate that wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime and reward its political base at the same time. Somebody else would pay the tab.
If this new entitlement program is truly a priority for the community, a different approach is needed. It can start with the proposition that the end result should be a win/win, not a we win/you lose. It can start with a program that brings the community together rather than tearing it apart.
How would the entitlement be administered and enforced? The city administration has been silent on this. At budget time a few months ago, the administration said: This is it; any more spending will require cuts, including to public-safety budgets. Has this changed? How much will taxpayers have to pay for this new entitlement? We should know this up front.
How much would employers have to pay to set up, administer, and set benefits aside for employees as opposed to other benefits they offer? How many employees would be affected?
If this entitlement is a priority, get the facts and fund it as part of the debate so we know what we are getting and what the cost will be. Include in the funding a partial or total reimbursement for those shouldering the cost.
ADVERTISEMENT
Consider letting the voters decide, since this should be a community priority rather than a forced mandate. Remember that a controversial ordinance is subject to a remonstrance petition, forcing a referendum. Do it up front and convince voters this ordinance is a priority and good legislation.
Maybe, after all, it isn't a real priority.
Richard Loraas
Duluth
