It's September, time for final preparations for tailgating, Razorbacks and high school football, and the annual talk of pay raises for government employees.

Local government officials head into each fall with the responsibility to set budgets for the approaching calendar year, so that's what often sets off the sound of gnashing teeth. But it's a huge part of the job of city councils and quorum courts. Budgets say a lot about the governing philosophy of a community and what's viewed as important. It's literally putting money where one's priorities are.

In putting together a budget each year, a question that always comes up is whether employees will get raises. Generally speaking, elected leaders love to give public employees raises. It's a feel-good vote and it gives life to all the talk of how any enterprise is only as good as the people who keep it operating effectively and efficiently.

The tough part of the job is balancing the desire to give raises against the expectations of available revenue. Northwest Arkansas' economic and population growth has fueled years of budgetary expansion for many local governments, so every new expense doesn't necessarily have to be followed by talk of a tax increase. Still, the money can be tight. Even small raises for government employees usually total six or seven figures in added expense.

Washington County recently started discussing the 2015 budget. Employees got a 3 percent raise in 2014, adding about $1.2 million to the cost of doing business. A salary consultant has suggested another 2 to 3 percent increase in 2015 would be necessary to keep up with the Jones, which in this case is local businesses and other hiring organizations.

Members of the Quorum Court no doubt have some challenging decisions ahead, but one portion of the recent discussion left us shaking our heads. On the subject of merit-based raises, some of the justices of the peace flatly opposed them.

What's the deal with merit-based raises? These are the kinds of raises seen in most private business. These are kinds of raises that rely heavily on an employee's contributions to the success of the organization. These are the kinds of raises that recognize the exemplary employees by giving them more pay.

At the recent discussion, some ludicrous notions about merit- or performance-based pay were tossed out, ostensibly as supporting arguments for across-the-board pay rates that treat everyone the same. There was the suggestion that there are legal risks as employees who feel they are unfairly denied a raise can sue.

How many organizations or projects elicit exactly the same contributions from everyone involved? Where do governments get this cockamamie idea that rewarding the exceptional is somehow unfair? Isn't there inherent unfairness in rewarding the employee who gives minimal effort at the same rate as the one who gives effort above and beyond expectations?

Across-the-board pay increases are easier and they look attractive because everyone gets something. If that's the way a governing panel wants to go, more power to them. But nobody should suggest merit-based base is somehow impossible because of a threat of lawsuit or because it's more "fair" to treat everyone exactly the same.

That's utter nonsense.