Varpness.com

// July 9th, 2009 // Rejoinder

An Associated Press story broke on Tuesday regarding a one-time salary adjustment given to Central Valley Regional Center employees toiling in Fresno and surrounding areas. Unfortunately, due in part to this article’s misleading portrayal of the salary adjustment, along with concerned but ultimately ignorant individuals who have voiced their opinions regarding the adjustment, all 350 employees who were already issued their salary adjustments will be required to figure out a way to give it back.

The fallacy of the argument against the salary adjustments is based on the suggestion that these adjustments are, to quote the AP story, “taxpayer-funded bonuses even as the state’s fiscal crisis threatens the services they manage.” First, these are not bonuses, meaning they are not predicated on an employee’s performance or the company’s success in turning a profit. These are salary adjustments, in the same way that Associated Press writer Garance Burke expects to receive a salary adjustment over time to compensate for cost-of-living increases. Second, saying the adjustments are “taxpayer funded” is misleading and dishonest. CVRC was hired by the state to provide services to the mentally disabled community for a contracted amount, meaning the state has already allocated the funds to CVRC. No additional taxpayer money was required to pay these employees their one-time salary adjustments. The money was already paid to CVRC in order to perform a function, which they did completely and admirably.

You see, the difference between this private company completing the work and the state government is simple: if the government were in charge of CVRC, they would have gone over their budget and demanded additional funds from the taxpayers. CVRC completed the work, and had a little money left over, for which they were legally and ethically at liberty to do with as they pleased. In this case, CVRC opted to provide their employees a small, one-time salary adjustment to help compensate for the difficult economic times and cuts in the past. It is not a matter of the employees deserving the money or not, and to suggest that the employees of CVRC shouldn’t receive this money because is was “left over” is as silly as saying our state representatives shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a new car because they have money “left over” after they paid their mortgage and utility bills.

This leads us to the heart of the issue, and where many people may have gone logically astray. There is a problem growing in America, specifically in California, where people who make poor choices are rewarded, while people who make good choices are punished. We have seen this with the mortgage, bank, and auto manufacture bailouts so frequently this past year that all of us have become quite wary of it, and rightfully so. Naturally, a person hearing about the CVRC salary adjustments is inclined to lump this in with all of the other companies that gave their employees bonuses, even as they were receiving federal bailout funds. However, this is not the case with CVRC. This local company did not request nor receive additional federal or state money in order to remain solvent for another year. Central Valley Regional Center performed so fically responsibly, that there was money left over, even after all budgeted expenses and services were paid for. To complain about CVRC rewarding it’s employees is a slap in the face to those people who, instead of squandering money or figuring out how to play the system, acted in a forthright and responsible manner.

I realize though, some people won’t be swayed by the logic or ethics of this argument, so I’ll end with some hard facts concerning the $500,000 salary adjustments. Suppose CVRC were to give the money back to California, as was suggested by Chuck Genseal in the AP article, what do you think California would have done with that money? Reallocated it to more important state services? Used it to pay down the ungodly debt California has amassed? Given it as bonuses to their own employees? Who knows? And as likely as anything it would have simply disappeared as money in California has a tendency to do. But one thing is for certain, the state would realize CVRC is getting by with even less money than they were allocated, which means less money for CVRC next year. Does the disabled community really think this is a good thing? So what if the extra $500,000 were given to the 230,000 people with mental disabilities who receive services from CVRC? Well, this would mean those 230,000 individuals would enjoy another $2.17 of services each. That’s two dollars and seventeen cents. I’m not sure what Chuck Genseal of Madera expects his granddaughter with autism to receive for $2.17, but it wouldn’t be much.

Never mind the fact that most CVRC employees have spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars each on extra expenses that were never reimbursed. These employees pay for their own pre-paid cellphones and use them everyday in order to communicate with care providers and arrange meeting schedules and services while on their way to appointments. The taxpayers do not pay for this. These employees make cookies and other treats with their families, on their own time, and deliver them to clients during holidays. The taxpayers do not pay for this. You see, the employees of CVRC are not state workers who sit atop fancy offices in Sacramento, pushing papers all day. These people are a part of our community, living and caring for people that many in our society look down upon and mistreat. Instead of bemoaning these salary adjustments, Chuck Genseal and others like him should be celebrating the fact that those individuals, who go well beyond what is asked of them in order to serve the disabled community, are receiving a little help for their own families during these difficult economic times.

Unfortunately, it has been announced today that those justified and ethical salary adjustments are going to be rescinded. So go ahead and score another one for the responsible people being punish, and the irresponsible people being rewarded, just like the banks, mortgage holders, and automobile manufacturers. Hollow victories are the worst, aren’t they?

(Matthew Varpness is a local educator who hopes this article might educate someone who reads it.)