To the Editor:

The article by Sen. Sanders in the Friday paper was interesting on a number of levels.

I fully understand that our elected officials are busy people, but they knew that when they took the job.

I realize that they have responsibilities besides the actual legislative sessions, but that’s part of being elected.

I also agree that they deserve to be paid, but that pay is part of the entire package also.

Sen. Sanders mentioned that the position is not full-time nor part-time, but overtime.

Those elected know what they’re getting into when they run for office.

But it seems that the letter was justifying an inordinate pay increase for what is done.

It is stated that the expense account covers a lot of things.

But that is the same for the majority of those who work a job anywhere.

Many people drive from Selma to Prattville or Montgomery to work.

They don’t get reimbursed for it.

To mention that their income, businesses and families are adversely affected is sadly part of what it is to be an elected official.

That’s part of the price, whether we like it or not.

No one forces us to run for office.

But the really offensive thing to me is the statement that $46,000 is considered to be “part-time pay” (“we are doing overtime work for part-time pay” – Last paragraph).

I would LOVE to find a job that considers $46,000 “part-time pay,” as would most people I know.

For Sen. Sanders to consider this amount of money “part-time pay” while many living in our city don’t make that as a full-time salary is baffling to me.

I really do appreciate our elected officials, but the temptation for impropriety is real and must be guarded against.

A little sensitivity would be in order toward those who work hard, but can’t even make what is spoken of as “part-time pay.”

Wayne Craft