Is it Time to Raise the Mayor's Salary?

[Joan Roberts]

It dawns on me that if you're going to go that route, what you're really talking about is a conversion to a city manager form of government.

In that case, you COULD set criteria for performance, including the ones you mentioned.

As long as we ELECT someone to do all those jobs, we are back in the box in which individuals' criteria can vary widely. Some residents don't really want growth, or increased police presence, or whatever. They want a guy they can trust and like. "Trust" and "personal affection" are hard things to put into an evaluation form. How many well-liked mayors have gotten reelected while their cities, by "objective standards" go right into the tank? It happens a lot.

So that's what I think you're really advocating, whether you realize it or not.

[Jeff Endress]

I have to agree with Ms. Roberts. I don't believe there is any way to impose job performance benchmarks on a Mayor.

To begin with, since the Mayor is "an employee of the electorate", who would have the power to declare benchmarks (whatever they would be) over the elected official? Certainly not the Council, they as the legislative branch, have no ability to dictate how or what is done by the executive branch. So, if it were to be done, I suppose it would be by way of Charter Amendment, or some other plebiscite, setting the salary to various performance goals. Assuming that was workable, and didn't involve constant changing conditions which may require sensitivity to the goals, how do you determine what those salary benchmark goals would be?

That second question, no doubt would involve the morass identified by Ms. Roberts.....We all have differing ideas of what would constitute "good performance. I suppose you could, once again, have the electorate vote on the benchmarks, say every 6 years or so, but clearly that would be unworkable.

A City Manager, however is an entirely different animal. Not that I've made up my mind on the issue, but it seems clear that if you want performance criteria for the salary of the executive, you are, of necessity, looking to a City Manager.

Jeff

[Bryan Schwegler]

So are you advocating automatic cola increases for council and the mayor without voter approval? Or the "compensation commission" that's appointed by the person they determine salary for?

If a city manager is what we would need to gain real accountability, then yes, I would be for a city manager over unaccountable politicians.

[Joan Roberts]

So are you advocating automatic cola increases for council and the mayor without voter approval? Or the "compensation commission" that's appointed by the person they determine salary for?

If a city manager is what we would need to gain real accountability, then yes, I would be for a city manager over unaccountable politicians.

Since the mayor is a full-time administrator/executive, yes, I would go along with the automatic COLA. As Ms. Farris indicated, this has some support among the compensation commission.

As far as council, I think the present system is fine. Voters can vote on a pay raise, which would take effect AFTER the next election.

And a city manager has its pros and cons, with good arguments both ways.

[Bryan Schwegler]

So are you advocating automatic cola increases for council and the mayor without voter approval? Or the "compensation commission" that's appointed by the person they determine salary for?

If a city manager is what we would need to gain real accountability, then yes, I would be for a city manager over unaccountable politicians.

Since the mayor is a full-time administrator/executive, yes, I would go along with the automatic COLA. As Ms. Farris indicated, this has some support among the compensation commission.

As far as council, I think the present system is fine. Voters can vote on a pay raise, which would take effect AFTER the next election.

And a city manager has its pros and cons, with good arguments both ways.

I understand where you're coming from. I think my biggest issue though would be automatic pay raises for the mayor. I believe his raises should also either be delayed until the following term or need voter approval as should council.

Giving people automatic raises gives no incentive to improve performance. What's the point? They'll get the raise either way. If the electorate is truly supposed to be the force that holds him accountable, then delaying raises until the next term would allow the electorate to effectively vote on his raises by electing him or not.

[stephen davis]

This following quote is from the Lakewood City Charter. It should answer some of the questions about the mechanics of the Mayor's salary.

SECTION 5. SALARY OF THE MAYOR.
The salary of the Mayor shall be established by ordinance, provided that such ordinance must be adopted not less than thirty (30) days prior to the final date fixed by law for the filing of nominating petitions by candidates for the office of Mayor for the ensuing term, and subject to further provisions of this Charter. The biennial report of the Civil Service Commission shall recommend the Mayor's salary to the Council. Council shall accept, reject or modify the Civil Service Commission's recommendations within 60 days of its receipt. No modification can increase the salary recommendations for the Mayor. No recommendation under this Section shall have any effect without Council action. No change in the base salary for the Mayor shall take effect during the current term, except that in January of odd numbered years, and in any year in which the base salary is not changed pursuant to the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission, the salary of the Mayor shall be increased by the same percentage as used for the last preceding increase in Social Security payments.

(Amended 11-8-05)

As you can see by the Amedment date, this has just been voted on by the people of Lakewood less than a year ago.

[stephen davis]

Oh, and yes it's time to raise the Mayor's Salary.

It's also time to really investigate the City Manager option, but that should be its own thread here on the Observation Deck.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Oh, and yes it's time to raise the Mayor's Salary.

It's also time to really investigate the City Manager option, but that should be its own thread here on the Observation Deck.

So for everyone here who wants to give Mayor George a big raise, where does the money come from?

If Lakewood is truly is such dire financial straights as some here like to remind us, how do we do this increase?

[Jeff Endress]

Which leads directly to the thread "Where's our speedtrap"....

[stephen davis]

So for everyone here who wants to give Mayor George a big raise...

Bryan,

I don't think you have this right. There has been long discussion about what a Lakewood mayor should be paid, and why. I have been on two charter reviews. We never talked about Mayor George's or Mayor Cain's salary. We talked about A mayor's salary and how it might impact the future pool of QUALIFIED candidates.

The best, and most productive way to establish policies and plans in Lakewood, and probably everywhere else, is to depersonalize the process. If you establish a goal, as in wanting to improve the quantity and quality of candidates, then you try to gear your solutions to that. Inclusion of specific names in the discussion makes the discussion less rational and long term planning less effective.

Earlier in this thread Mike Deneen said,

Do Bill or Jeff have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE that raising pay leads to more or better candidates?

I don't know about Bill or Jeff's experiences, but I DO know people that were approached years ago to run for mayor. They had the desire, but couldn't swing it financially. That indicates to me that there is some evidence that raises may have lead to at least "more" candidates. As much as I might have liked to see them run, I will cede that there is no ACTUAL EVIDENCE that they would have been "better".

All of this is an impure science. As far as the money, some things we have to pay for, and some things we choose to pay for. Sometimes we have to invest is the future of the community in ways that are based on our best guess.

Steve

[Mike Deneen]

What do you mean by "swing it financially"?

Are you talking about fundraising for the campaign, or actual life expenses if elected?

I don't want you to betray any confidence, but would you mind sharing with us the profile of these folks? What type of work did they do? About what age range were they? Do you think they were viable candidates? Did they mention how much money would have made a difference?

[Bryan Schwegler]

Bryan,

I don't think you have this right. There has been long discussion about what a Lakewood mayor should be paid, and why. I have been on two charter reviews. We never talked about Mayor George's or Mayor Cain's salary. We talked about A mayor's salary and how it might impact the future pool of QUALIFIED candidates.

Ok so we want to raise the "mayors" salary, whoever that might be. I again ask, where does that money come from. Understanding that a tax increase probably would never pass for a mayor's salary increase, where would you recommend to cut the budget to increase the mayor's salary?

[stephen davis]

Mike,

I don't want to get into the details about those potential candidates. These conversations were over 10 years ago. I will say that they made enough more money than the mayors salary that they would have had to adjust the family lifestyle in a way that they weren't comfortable with. They weren't rich, just upwardly mobile family people. I never knew their income.

Bryan,

I don't have any figures in front of me. As I recall, the mayor is paid somewhere in the mid 60's, and is something like the 150th highest paid city employee. (I invite anyone to jump in and correct me.) There is a lot of money in the city budget. (Maybe you could do the research on this one, and tell me how many millions.) Let's just say it was decided to raise the mayor's salary to the mid 90's or mid 110's. Do you really believe that we would have to go to the ballot to raise taxes to come up with the 30 or 50 thousand dollars? Money is often found for other projects that we don't have to raise taxes for. I kind of think this is one that a smart person could figure out.

Both of You,

I'll just ask you, why don't you tell me what we should do about the mayor's salary? Lakewood has been LUCKY enough to have qualified mayors that can afford to take the position. In years to come, how can we encourage our best to step up? I'm obviously too naive and idealistic to solve this. I think you both could come up with a really practical solution that we can all live with for the next couple of decades.

Steve

[Bryan Schwegler]

Well before we even started look at raising the mayors salary by 30% or more, maybe we ought to study whether or not the current salary has deterred anyone from running or are we just guessing here based on feeling?

If we decided to do it, my opinion would be to start taking a tough stance with the unions and and civil service commission. Stop pandering to them for votes.

Or, how about we just get rid of one city employee to pay for the increase? Which one would you recommend?

Personally I haven't seen much out of the last few administrations that in any way justify a 30% or greater increase. I would certainly hope that if it happened, we would expect more and hold them more accountable.

As for your comment about being "lucky enough to have mayors that can afford to take the position" I fail to see how $60,000 a year is chump change. Tell that to most of the Lakewood residents who don't make that much or to a family of four struggling to survive with half the mayor's salary.

[Bill Call]

If we decided to do it, my opinion would be to start taking a tough stance with the unions and and civil service commission. Stop pandering to them for votes. .......
..........As for your comment about being "lucky enough to have mayors that can afford to take the position" I fail to see how $60,000 a year is chump change. Tell that to most of the Lakewood residents who don't make that much or to a family of four struggling to survive with half the mayor's salary.

Bryan:

Your points are well taken.

Over the last twenty years employees in the private sector have seen declining real wages, loss of pensions, health care and job security. Government employees have been generally protected from that economic reality.

The platinum level of benefits given to City employees was excused in the past with the explanation that they are paid less than comparable private sector jobs. That hasn't been the case in 20 years. Yet the benefits keep flowing.

Can you retire at 52?
Do you have 15 or more sick days? City employees use 50,000 sick hours each year.
Do you have 5 weeks vacation?
Do you have a health plan with no co-pays and no deductable?
Do you pay virtually nothing for health care premium?

You would be astounded to know the number of City employees whose compensation package exceeds $85,000 per year.

One of the problems I have with the current administration is that acts like the first function of government is to provide an ever increasing level of pay and benefits to City employees. I am not willing to accept a tax increase to pay for that philosophy. Escpecially not for employees who don't live in Lakewood and whose attitude is "F... Lakewood, I don't give a G. D. about Lakewood. I don't live in Lakewood" (actual quotes).

My support for an increase in the Mayor's salary is predicated on the belief that it would encourage a more qualified candidate pool. I have no evidence to support that assurtion. It is just a hope.

After reading some of the well reasoned responses to this post I think maybe the answer is not to raise the Mayor's salary in the hope that someone will run. Perhaps we need to hire a city manager.

Cleveland Heights has a city manager and it is better managed.