My understanding is that the outcome is likely to be a leaving alone or a lowering of the salary, so this isn't a strange post-election payoff, but it is a strange post-election tinkering.
Changing the salary of an elected official during their term apparently requires a referendum, but doing it before the term starts apparently doesn't.
I've heard arguments that a less-experienced Highway Superintendent deserves a lower salary, but this seems like a very strange coda to an upset election. It's not even the newly elected Town Board considering the action. After past conversations about how making this a civil service position would create turmoil, I'm suddenly wishing the job had civil service protections.
Update: The Board voted 4-1 to keep the salary the same.
It was a short meeting, less than half an hour, and the minutes will likely show more of the discussion. Two 4-1 votes, both with the Supervisor in the minority, kept the Highway Superintendent salary as it had been budgeted, around $68,000.
First, Town Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner moved a $52,000 salary. No one seconded that.
Next, Linda Lavine moved a compromise $60,000. Sumner seconded.
Resident Joanne Cipolla-Dennis asked why the town was doing this and got a mix of answers from Sumner about experience and inflation. New Highway Superintendent Rick Young spoke, and was pretty restrained, though he described the pay cut proposals (especially an earlier $37K one) as "a kick". He made it clear he would be sticking around whatever the salary.
The vote on Lavine's compromise was 4-1 against, with only Sumner in favor. (Lavine voted against her own compromise.)
Lavine then offered a motion to keep the salary as listed in the 2014 budget (around $68K). I think Steve Stelick seconded it. The vote was 4-1 in favor, with only Sumner against.
Stelick suggested that the Town needs to figure out some standard way to have this work, and said that the lack of such a plan was why he voted to keep the salary the same.