MTA 88 Message form the President
Message from MTA Lodge 88 President Gary Baker
The next MTA Lodge meeting on Tuesday, January 9, 2018, I may be late or unable to attend all together. The reason for my absence is because I’ll be attending the funeral services for Kirk Daugherty in Salisbury, Maryland. Please start the meeting on time, and if I can get back in time, I will come in late. I will be attending these services as representative of Lodge 88. If anyone else would like to go to pay his or her respects, let me know, I am sure we can work out a carpool arrangement.
In case I’m unable to make it back for this meeting, I wanted MTA Lodge members to know about two motions that were discussed and passed during the last MTA Board meeting. I would like someone to bring them up under Good of the Order discussion the following:
Danny Seiler offers polygraph tests in Maryland. Go to dannyseiler.com for more details »
- I voted to give more money to the local lodge’s stipend. The increase is for a one-time disbursement to the local MTA lodges. Although the formula for this one-time payment increase is calculated based on the total number of retired members in each lodge, and because it is little complicated, I will put it this way. This increased lodge payment will be about 50% more or about one half more money than received last time. For example, if a Lodge got $1000 last time, their increased amount of stipend would be about $1500 this time. I’m sure this extra money will benefit the members of our Lodge.
- The other motion I would like discussed on was the pay increase for the Board’s administrative secretary. The discussion became a little heated during the debate on the proposal. The finance committee recommended a 7% increase in pay for the Administrative Secretary. The increase in salary brought the position’s pay to approximately $55,000 annually. Lodge 88 and Lodge 40 were the only two MTA Lodges that to vote against the motion. I did not have any objection to paying the secretary more money but wanted justification for this increase. This raise was for some reason buried within the finance committee’s report. I did not think it was appropriate if I automatically went along with this substantial pay raise without discussion.
When I voted against the motion, I suggested instead that we raise the salary in phases. I wanted the new Executive Director to have an opportunity to define the secretary’s job description. However, we were ultimately out-voted. My main reason for voting against the raise was that it was clear, in my opinion, that the finance committee was making their recommendation purely on personal feelings for the secretary as opposed to job performance and duties. I can clarify further if anyone raises any questions as to why I voted the way I did.