Two headlines on Wednesday’s front page made for an interesting juxtaposition. One was about how the county will begin searching for ways to save money or increase revenues to match an expected cut in state funds; the other was about a 14 percent pay increase for County Attorney Craig Nelson.

Nelson had been slated to get a 3 percent raise, like the rest of the reelected officials in the county. It was a decision made by the county board. But feeling the determination was arbitrary and unfair, Nelson took his case to court &045; he is a lawyer, after all &045; and the judge sided with him, telling the board to increase his pay.

The fact is that Nelson won fair and square. He made his case to a judge, and that judge found merit in his arguments. It is indeed true that Nelson wasn’t paid as much as county attorneys in other similar counties, and that his workload has increased, and that he convicts a large percentage of the criminals in his jurisdiction, and that the county board didn’t consider any of that when they set his salary for 2003.

All that is true. But the timing still stinks.

In a year when the state is tightening its belt and local taxpayers must do the same to help pay for a much-needed but expensive courthouse addition, the last thing people want to see is a public official getting a big pay hike. Other areas of county government will be forced to make sacrifices, yet Nelson is getting a raise.

In the scheme of things, the few thousand extra dollars Nelson will make this year isn’t going to be a difference maker in the budget. But the symbolic value is high. Based on his job performance, Nelson may well deserve all the money he will get and more &045; but he also deserves some criticism for not making a sacrifice that would have been welcome in a time of need.

Tribune editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper’s management and editorial staff.