The Butler County commissioners are giving county residents an opportunity to become actively involved in the issue of county elected officials' annual cost-of-living (COLA) raises.

Residents should seize the opportunity prior to a public meeting on the topic set for 6 p.m. Sept. 21 in the county Government Center's meeting room.

Residents can express their opinions by e-mail (salary-comments@co.butler.pa.us), by fax (724-284-5400), or by way of a letter addressed to William O'Donnell, Chief County Clerk, P.O. Box 1208, Butler, PA 16003. It's also an issue deserving of public attendance on Sept. 21.

As an Aug. 18 Butler Eagle editorial pointed out, the county resolution setting minimum pay raises each year for elected officials, which according to county solicitor Julie Graham dates back to 1984, "was a bad idea when it was adopted, because it failed to account for changing economic conditions." Commendably, the current board of commissioners, with the cooperation of county row officers, is moving to effect a policy change to bring future raises in line with the kind of raises being given in other segments of the economy.

The 1984 policy authorized annual raises of 4 percent to 8 percent — excessive by current standards and today's economic conditions. County officials' current thinking is that the raises ought to be within a more reasonable range of 1.5 percent to 4 percent.

"You have to look at the economy and nobody is getting those big increases any more," said commissioners Chairman Dale Pinkerton. "You have to be more like what the county residents are getting."

For many or most of those other workers, raises are nowhere near the 4 percent that the current policy allows.

But there's another way to look at the issue. The question should be whether county officials should get annual raises at all — considering that the officeholders knew what their salary would be when they sought their current terms.

If they didn't like the salary, they shouldn't have run for office.

Having the current cost-of-living plan in effect, or the one being considered, eliminates the touchy political subject of officials voting periodically on raises for their own offices. Officials on all levels of government, cognizant of public sentiment regarding the raises issue, prefer to avoid having to justify or defend such action, especially during a subsequent re-election campaign when such a vote might be criticized and kept in the forefront by a challenger.

That's why an automatic-raise policy like the one in effect is the preferred option for most elected officials.

But that has created a situation where, for too long amid sour economic conditions, this county's elected officials have been getting raises much larger than the pay increases being received by the people whose taxes fund those increases.

It's no wonder elected officials' guaranteed cost-of-living pay increases have become such a point of public disgust in recent years. And, unless there's a major, quick economic upturn, which is not being predicted, the public is likely to become even more disgruntled as their personal financial situations fail to improve.

The county raise issue is a no-brainer. The current policy should be dumped.

Current officials weren't responsible for enacting the current bad policy, but they have the power to exercise fiscal responsibility and do away with it — even if no input comes from county taxpayers in the days leading up to Sept. 21 and even if not one taxpayer attends that day's meeting at the Government Center.