Laserfiche WebLink
e <br />- 2- <br />(3) I have stood for frugal management of our Village <br />funds since I have been elected in office. We should spend the <br />taxpayers money only where it will benefit each and every tax- <br />payer. If that goal is not achieved, then money should not be <br />spent. It would not benefit every taxpayer to pay their Mayor <br />more money. A person should not be more responsible, more <br />sympathetic, or more attentive to the Villagers problems and <br />desires merely because he is paid more money. You can't b_~r <br />dedication to .the public good. Our Village is still small enough <br />to aslc its officials to sacrifice their time and energies to <br />preserve the good things we have and make a better future for the <br />Village. With sacrifice comes awareness, and with the awareness <br />comes better government. <br />The Finance Director's position, however, requires a person <br />with specific skills in municipal fiscal management and reporting. <br />He must carefully maintain proper budgets, records and reports. <br />To assure that skill, we must pay our Finance Director commensur- <br />ately with the time, talents and energy required. I therefore <br />would approve the increase in the Finance Director's salary to <br />$7,000 annually. <br />One further thought. Council acted with careful dilligence <br />and discussion concerning this matter. I was well advised of <br />their thinking long before it was passed on June 16, 1975. I <br />veto-the measure only because I am in the unique position to <br />evaluate the Mayor's duties and the place money should play in <br />going about the daily routine of administering the Village. I <br />therefore think the Council miscalculated (a) the impact salary <br />has on the Mayor's everyday decisions and (b) the better interests <br />of all Village residents concerning this matter. <br />es ectfully ubmit , <br />ohn D. Leech <br />