An old political adage states "The trough stays the same, only the pigs change."

The same principle applies to Harrisburg City Council, especially in light of the recent pay raise fiasco. From my sideline, I imagine the closed-door talks having gone something like this:

Richard K. House, city council president: "We need a solid block of five votes to pass our 50 percent pay raise. We need to hold that voting block together should Mayor Stephen Reed veto our measure."

Zane G. Phoenix: "I’m with you Mr. President."

House: "You better be. You think it’s been easy supporting you every step of the way — and you’re being chairman of the Public Safety Committee?"

Vera White-Reynolds: "I’m in favor of my own pay raise. With a 50 percent increase in my pay — and a 28 percent increase in city real estate taxes — I can do so much more for our children."

Patrick M. Gallagher: "I’m not with you Mr. President. Since I wasn’t re-elected I’ll be leaving my seat. I don’t have to grant any favors or plan for my own political future. As far as I can tell, I don’t have any political future."

Peggy A. Grove: "I can’t see starting a mayor off at top salary Mr. President. I’m afraid I’ll have to vote against that part of the pay hike. As far as council members go, $2,500, not $5,000, would be enough of a raise."

House: That’s not high enough if I’m going to be the next mayor. You know I want to run in 2002 or sometime — and start at the top of the salary scale. By then I’ll have been on city council for over a decade. I’ll know city government inside and out."

Sandra K. Mosten: "I’m all for the pay raises. I’m going to be a county commissioner or maybe a judge someday. I’ll need all of you to support my future campaigns. I’m on your side. I know how to butter the bread."

John H. Wright: "I’m with you too Mr. President. If you’re elected mayor in 2002, and Mosten moves into higher elected office, that makes me a good candidate for chairman of city council."

House: "Good. I thought you’d all understand."

House: "Now, about these public meetings on the city’s 2000 annual budget. Let’s agree to stick together, no matter how much the public objects. Since voters are traditionally pretty smart, they’ll see right through our double-talk about how the pay raise isn’t connected to the 28 percent real estate tax. So, remember, double-talk, double-talk, double-talk. Say after me ‘double-talk’."

Group: "Double-talk."

House: "Ok, now just for reinforcement purposes, let’s do the "Animal Farm" chant. What do we say when running for office?"

Group: "All pigs are created equal."

House: "Good. And what do we say after being elected?"

Group: "Some pigs are more equal than others."

House: "Wonderful. I think we’re all set for our public meetings. No matter what we hear, we can disregard. We know best."

Meanwhile, at the December 13 public meeting, city council conducted a proceeding that required taxpayers to wait two hours before being asked to speak. During the first two hours of the meeting, council questioned city department heads and other elected officials on their budget requests, a necessary task that could have been completed in another setting.

Council could have opened the meeting by soliciting public opinion. Why is it that taxpayers, who foot the bill for all city council business, are always listed last on the agenda? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to list public comment first? That way any action taken later in the meeting could at least have the advantage of the public’s thoughts.

That’s if you care.