City POA card plan flawed, inevitably unfair
A while back our city, considering a wellness program for its employees, explored with the POA Board possibilities of using POA facilities. The Weekly Vista reports, "It was determined that because of both cost and privacy concerns," it was not feasible. Yet.
"The POA Board still believed it would be valuable to city employees to have use of POA facilities." Over and above every other facet of this whole notion, what in heaven's name makes it the concern of our POA Board to come up with benefits for employees of the city?
Board chair Bob Brooks explained that because the POA "membership refused to pass an assessment increase in the last two elections," the board has "to find other revenue sources." So, the board's interest in all this is to raise more money?
So "they developed the plan to offer a photo ID card to (city) employees for $35. The card will lower fees at all facilities." Say again? In order to raise more revenue, the board will "lower fees at all facilities?" What am I missing here?
The simple fact is that there is already a path for city employees to use POA facilities. They can, as many area residents have done, purchase a membership lot for as little as $500. And the POA Board would then also gain an additional $16, every lot, every month.
Add this to the mix: The POA Board recently hired a whole staff of marketing people at an incredible outlay of funds. What is their job? To sell POA lots! Duh?
And the basic question: By what rationale do the employees of the city have a status whereby they receive this special privilege? What of the hundreds of people who work in, but not for, the city?
Think of the people who work in our post offices and bring our mail six days a week? My paper carrier is unbelievably faithful seven days a week. They sure benefit me far more than any city employee I know. Understand, I have nothing against the employees of the city. I just don't understand why they form a special category for the POA Board.
Beyond that, it is an idea that is flawed, inevitably unfair. What of our garbage collectors? They do not work for the city, do not draw a city paycheck. How many others demonstrate that this whole notion is untenable before it even begins?
And how's this for just plain silliness: The board wants to give cards to people who work 40 hours or more per week. Why? So that they will play a lot of golf and thereby make money for the POA! Duh?
Finally, by Mr. Brooks' specifically citing the failure of two attempts to raise our monthly assessment as the board's impetus to do this, do we detect a certain "in-your-face POA membership?" I hardly believe this will help the already-strained feeling of a vast number of POA members about its Board.
J. R. "Doc" Irwin, Ph.D.
Bella Vista
Editorial on 02/03/2016