The last Winslow City Council meeting saw several citizens criticize some of the actions of the council during the call to the public, some of which have been debated by council members themselves.
One of the recurring issues before the council, and sometimes before the Winslow School District Governing Board, is the retire-rehire policy which both entities currently have in effect. At the council’s last meeting, a representative of Smartworksplus Inc. spoke in favor of the plan, the contract for which was renewed unanimously after her presentation. She acknowledged that the practice has been widely criticized lately as being harmful to new workers and to workers who retired without going through the retire-rehire process.
Former Councilwoman Judy Howell has long been critical of the program, and stated during the call to the public after that meeting that her husband is a retired teacher who has not had a cost of living adjustment in over 10 years. That is the experience of many under the Arizona Retirement System.
Most of the people who object to the system say that the money the city and school board save by the retire-rehire policy is actually at the expense of retirees, as neither the retired-rehired person nor the employer were paying into the retirement system. This becomes even more harmful when the retire-rehire person is an administrator and one of the most highly paid employees.
Howell has voiced this argument before, and while the argument that it is cheaper to rehire skilled and experienced people, there has never been any realistic argument that it does not hurt the retirement system. The state legislature has enacted some changes that are hoped to lessen that damage.
Another recurring issue is the animal shelter, which replaced the Humane Society and enforces animal control in Winslow. There have been some serious mistakes made at that facility since the city took over the operation. Several people have addressed the council on this issue.
An issue which has arisen at the last two council meetings and has been discussed at length is the possibility of halting trash collection fees for persons who are away for extended periods of time or who do not use the collection system.
Those who wish to see such a system in place have been trying to determine how long a person or family would need to be away to stop the fees and what needs to be done to restart them. There are a plethora of ways this is done in cities which have such a system, but a majority of communities apparently have no such provision.
Those who oppose attempting to come up with any such policy usually argue that the city or the company it contracts for the work must have the equipment and manpower to collect trash from the maximum number of possible users even if some do not use it every time it is available.
An issue that may divide citizens and possibly the council relates to charges that the county expects for providing services in the criminal justice system such as the county attorney and use of the county jail. This will add a substantial fee to an already burdened city budget. These are also services which state law says are the county’s responsibility.
This problem is really caused by the failure of the state legislature to provide funds for many needed services, and its using funds that formerly went to counties and cities to pay for these services. Unless there are changes in the legislature, this will be an area of difficulty for both the cities and the counties.
