The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1932-06-23
King Blames Olson
for Increased Payroll
Continued From Page Onc)

$616.25; oil inspection, $4,770;
department of banking, S.
$500; tax commission, $780,
60; department of agriculture
with an addition of 81 new
employees), S23,329.s0 a year;
game and fish with 116 addi-
tional employees), $S9,670S4 in
crease per year.
These ,gures." Mr.. King said
"are based upon a comparative
schedule of salaries as of May, 1880
and May, 1882, and show a total in
crease for the departments listed of
233 employees, at an added salary
cost of sos, 276.67. This is an in
crease of S16,939.72 a month" o.
son became governor in January
1881.
The state auditor wrote the let
ter, he said in view of the fact that
you have stated you are at loss
to explain my failure to join in
your wage-cut plan, and to pre-
vent further misunderstanding on
your part of my position.
AS auditor he said, have at
tempted cost reduction in my own
department. Substantial savings
have been made on travel; individ-
uals have as long ago as January
1892 accepted voluntary payless
layoffs, and recent salary adjust
ments downward have been made.
Still additional economies will be
put in effect.
You are alleged to have stated
that the failure of cooperation on
the part of the state treasurer, the
secretary of state and the auditor
would mean saving of but $780,
900 rather than the $1,000,0O0 you
originally predicted. These figures
are incorrect. The total monthly
salary for these three departments
is less than $4,000. A full two
weeks cut would approximate SIS,
600 rather than the $4,000 pur-
ported to have been your estimate.
I believe a salary cut by any
name is unjustified unless the en-
ployee has opportunity to adjust
himself to the loss of income, and
arrange credit in accordance there
with.
You state the cut is but one
week for employees receiving less
than 500 a month but such dicta-
ton upon your part does not cor
rect the injustice to this particular
type of employee. AT best it only
lessons the burden so per cent over
your original plan. Such plan is
unfair in that it places an added
burden of cost on the individual
employee by demanding definite
wage loss and definite vacation
period.
Had you been good enought to
invite my comment prior to intro
ducing your plan to the press, I be-
lieve we could have worked out a
reorganization of salary schedules
over a period of II months which
would have provided cost reduc-
ton and considered the welfare of
the individual employee. 1t might
not have been as effective for your
purpose either from the stand
point of publicity or from the more
immediate one of balancing your
budget.
Frankly, I feel you to be insin-
cere in the whole matter; other
wise you would have used the veto
at the time the salary appropria-
ton bill was introduced to you by
the last session of the state legIs-
lature. However, it was approved
by your budget commissioner and
failed to secure your veto in whole
or in part.
After commenting on the in
creases in departments under Gov
ernor Olson's jurisdiction, Mr..
King said: 50 -,
1 am@willing to do anything pos
sible toward the reduction of gov
ernmental expense. 1 proved it by
a reduction ofthe general tax levy
in the amount of some 100000
when the Supreme Court ruled last
year, that the costs of the depart
ment of motor vehicles licenses
could legally be taken from it's
nxuy