Is it Time to Raise the Mayor's Salary?

[DougHuntingdon]

Mike, who cares about evidence? Just throw money at it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doug

[Mike Deneen]

Doug's posts bring up one of my greatest concerns about this matter.

Whenever people hear about politicians getting pay raises, it only serves to make the public more cynical and turned off to the entire process.

[DougHuntingdon]

Mike, I think you misunderstood my post. Maybe I misunderstood your post, too. I was responding to this from your post:

<><><><><>"Do Bill or Jeff have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE that raising pay leads to more or better candidates? For example, is there a case study somewhere in the US where an increased salary brought a fresh, new crop of mayoral candidates into the fold? If so, how much was the raise and what was the result of the new candidates' campaigns?"<><><>

Now, if paying a mayor $200000 instead of $150000 will get better candidates, why stop at $200000? At what point do you get the most bang for the buck? $300000? $400000? $500000? $1 million $2 million $3 million? Keep in mind, though, that we are dealing with limited resources. We need to keep some money saved up for converting doubles to singles, etc. (mentioned in other post so won't go into detail here).

Doug

[Jim O'Bryan]

Doug/Mike

Usually pay raises do not effect those in office. Let me also mention that no politican has put me up to asking for more money. Most seem almost offended by the thought. Let's also remember that a recent thread about raising taxes had no complainers as long as the money did not go for salaries.

I am not talking of throwing money, I am talking real issues, and saving money. Go back and look. One group is suggesting "city manager" and "mayor" The total cost would hypothecially be $210,000. So wouldn't a mayor at $150,000 be a savings?

Now the question is pay more to one person, or get them more help?

FWIW


.

[Jeff Endress]

However, politics is a different animal

And the evidence for this is......

I can find more kids willing to mow my lawn for $30 than for $15, and a baseball owner can get better players with a $200 million payroll than with a $56 million payroll

But, somehow, we EXPECT, that either out of a sense of community pride (like say...Jim Thome?) and because the "job interview" is conducted in the public forum (ie, an election), the salary level need not be commensurate with the job description.

Mike...believe it or not, we actually agree at the base of the discussion. Politicians ARE a different breed. People who enjoy the public spotlight are willing to accept the negatives that go with that spotlight, sometimes out of a sense of civic duty, sometimes as a rung on the upward ladder, sometimes as a power trip....

My point is simply this: We should be willing to pay what that job is worth. I'm not advocating selling the farm in the hope that Lee Iaocca will want to run for Mayor. We should, however, strive to see that the compensation does not eliminates people would might otherwise be qualified because their lack of a sense of civic duty, desire for higher public office, or egos don't offset the inequity in the salary market place.

I think where we disagree is more on whether "market value salary" would have any impact on the "applicants" we see.. I tend to believe that the compensation of elected public officials is at the root of the type of officials we end up "getting", leaving us with the aforementioned civic servant, climbers and egos. I think you tend to believe that anyone smart enough to understand compensation parity is also smart enough not to want to live in a fishbowl. And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that therein lies the answer.

Jeff

[Bill Call]

One could also argue that because we don't pay our mayor half enough for all that position entails, that whomever runs for that job does so out of a deep love and committment towards the city and not because the job pays well or will lead to bigger things.

We don't pay our mayor enough.

A mayor is responsible for the basic tasks that people judge every day; police, parks, streets, rubbish, all those none sexy things that are the core of what government is meant to provide. Any idiot can be a congressman or senator, most of them don't run anything except their mouths.

Mayor George is not a bad mayor. I voted for him once and I might vote for him again. I even send his campaign some money now and then.

Even though I take shots at the management of the City it doesn't mean I won't vote for Tom George next time around. Unless he throws up his hands and says ...#$#$####??><!!!

[Lynn Farris]

This was one of the issues that was debated in the Charter Review heavily.

The way the system works now is that the Mayor and City Council appoint the Civil Service Commission, a group that recommends salary for the Mayor and City Council among other officials. Until now, that recommendation had to go to the voters for approval - but now it doesn't. This is one of the few, if not the only commission that gets paid, I believe. I'm not questioning the work they do or that they deserve a salary - just that it is a little too inbred for my tastes - to hire a person who recommends your salary increase.

(Feel free to search Civil Service Commission in the Charter http://www.ci.lakewood.oh.us/citygovern_council_charter.html

We looked at comparative figures for Mayors and City Councils throughout Cuyahoga County and our councils salaries were within keeping with other cities when you consider adding the health care benefit to the salary. Our Mayors salary was on the low side of average if I remember, but not outrageously low in comparison. A compromise had been to do a one time adjustment of the mayor's salary and then tie a COLA to his salary commensurate with the COLA tied to Social Security. So when people on social security get a 3% increase, so do our government officials. Another suggestion had been to tie the increase of our governmental officials to the average increase in income in Lakewood. So when the average income of the citizens goes up 3%, so does the government officials.

The Mayor's salary shouldn't be stagnant, but it should be something that is logical with the community and their resources.

I think very highly of city council and of the Mayor and this is no way intended to imply that they shouldn't have an increase, only to share some thought processes on getting there.

[Joan Roberts]

I think the "compromise" is a good one,

It all hinges as to whether you believe the mayor's positiion is a "political" or "professional" one.

I would say it's professional. Since we don't have a city manager, it does, as Mr. Call says, fall to the mayor to administrate the various department. That includes recruiting and retaining various key personnel.

The school district has no elected "mayor" but an appointed "professional." Competition for qualified candidates is keen, which is one reason why our school superintendent makes more that double what our mayor does.

.On the other hand, if you believe the position is a political (or to put it more nicely, a "public servant") one, then money shouldn't be an issue.

All the more reason why the compromise Ms. Farris outlined makes sense.

Council is a different story. Individual council people have no real power or responsibility (midnight phone calls notwithstanding). They are there to represent our interests, not actually RUN the city. It's a part-time job that pays OK and offers some benefits. I'm fine with what council gets

[Bryan Schwegler]

A compromise had been to do a one time adjustment of the mayor's salary and then tie a COLA to his salary commensurate with the COLA tied to Social Security. So when people on social security get a 3% increase, so do our government officials. Another suggestion had been to tie the increase of our governmental officials to the average increase in income in Lakewood. So when the average income of the citizens goes up 3%, so does the government officials.

A compromise is good but the first suggested one is not. Automatic COLA increases do nothing to give incentive to local officials to increase income or reach other goals. They get a raise either way.

The second suggestion is much better. Tie their raises to achieving income, population, or growth goals. Pay for performance. Most of the rest of the working people live in environment, so should our civic officials. Give them pay raises based on merit and accomplishment. It will make them work harder.

[Joan Roberts]

A compromise had been to do a one time adjustment of the mayor's salary and then tie a COLA to his salary commensurate with the COLA tied to Social Security. So when people on social security get a 3% increase, so do our government officials. Another suggestion had been to tie the increase of our governmental officials to the average increase in income in Lakewood. So when the average income of the citizens goes up 3%, so does the government officials.

A compromise is good but the first suggested one is not. Automatic COLA increases do nothing to give incentive to local officials to increase income or reach other goals. They get a raise either way.

The second suggestion is much better. Tie their raises to achieving income, population, or growth goals. Pay for performance. Most of the rest of the working people live in environment, so should our civic officials. Give them pay raises based on merit and accomplishment. It will make them work harder.

The "incentive", I believe, would primarily be re-election, wouldn't it?

[Bryan Schwegler]

The "incentive", I believe, would primarily be re-election, wouldn't it?

While you would hope that would be the case, given an extremely apathetic electorate that has a lower percentage of voting adults than almost any other democratic nation that's not good enough. Most of the electorate are just sheep in the line of the entrenched political powers that be. I would be shocked if Lakewood were different in that regard.

I still say, tie pay to performance. Most public sector jobs need to prove performance to get pay increases so I see no reason why our government officials don't. I think a system of no accountability (and no, I don't count re-election as accountability for the reasons I give above) has given us the bloated, inefficient government we have today.

Let me turn this around and ask the question:

If it's fair for most of the people of Lakewood to work in jobs where our pay is based on performance, why is it not fair to expect the same of our government officials?

[Joan Roberts]

You're getting into a really political-philosophical area here. It's interesting.

I belive that ultimately, the accountability a public official faces is at the polls. If we change that to an objective standard similar to what, let's say, a car salesman faces, we run the risk of re-defining "leadership."

We've seen what havoc that can wreak in the private sector. We've seen people massage the bottom line to get the stock price up, even if it screws the company in the long term.

Is that what we want in our public leadership? I think we may already be too "results-driven" for our own good. While I don't always agree with who my peers choose to lead them, I MUST respect their choices, and the consequences.

It all comes down to that old saw, democracy is the worst system of government there is, except for all the other ones............

[dl meckes]

I still say, tie pay to performance. Most public sector jobs need to prove performance to get pay increases so I see no reason why our government officials don't.

Upon what criteria would you measure performance?

[Bryan Schwegler]

You're getting into a really political-philosophical area here. It's interesting.

I belive that ultimately, the accountability a public official faces is at the polls. If we change that to an objective standard similar to what, let's say, a car salesman faces, we run the risk of re-defining "leadership."

We've seen what havoc that can wreak in the private sector. We've seen people massage the bottom line to get the stock price up, even if it screws the company in the long term.

Is that what we want in our public leadership? I think we may already be too "results-driven" for our own good. While I don't always agree with who my peers choose to lead them, I MUST respect their choices, and the consequences.

It all comes down to that old saw, democracy is the worst system of government there is, except for all the other ones............

You're absolutely right, there could be problems, but there are problems with the way it is now also. A blend might be good.

My issue is that I don't know if it's right for a city with declining revenue to give its government officials automatic COLA raises each year despite the state of the city. I also think that it's not right for them to vote for their own raises or appoint the committee that does it for them.

If the electorate is truly to be the judge of their worth, let them bring all pay raises to the people to vote on. If they're doing a great job, they'll get a raise. If they're merely treading water, they won't.

But in times of deep financial crises, to quote Jim, we need to think outside the box

[Bryan Schwegler]

Upon what criteria would you measure performance?

Well I would be naive to even think that I would be qualified to state for sure. There's alot to city government that I know I don't know about so I'll start with that realization.

I would say you could come up with some kind of formula that would include revenue growth or protection, cost savings goals, population goals. I'd also like to see a bi-annual survey go out to a random sample of residents to gauge their satisfaction with government and city services. This will allow the mayor and council to gauge their performance more objectively by comparing results of the survey to see if they improve in areas or if other areas slip.

The key to accountability though is to keep all this information public. We would all have access to all of this information at all times.