Salary Increases for the Mayor and Council

[Lynn Farris]

Last night at Council Ryan Demro proposed increasing the mayor's salary from $65,000 to $88,000 with futher increases tied to the CPI index. This is a 35% increase that would not take effect until the next election.

He also proposed increasing Council's salary from $7,000 to $9,000 but to offset that with a deduction for Health Care costs from the members who take that benefit.

Kevin Butler had an alternative proposal. He suggested increasing the Mayor's salary from $65,000 to $95,000. This is a 46% increase. He made no discussion about further increases or Council salaries.

The salary of the Mayor has not increased since 1991 and the salary of city council has not increased since 1982.

I could debate this one all by myself. I love doing all the pros and cons of an issue, but I thought I would step back and hear what you think about the 2 proposals. Do you like one or the other better? Do you think they are both wrong and another proposal should be introduced that is higher or lower?

[DougHuntingdon]

What are the pros and cons of making the salary $1 million/year for the mayor?

Doug

[Jim O'Bryan]

What are the pros and cons of making the salary $1 million/year for the mayor?

Doug

Pros - Very Happy Mayor

Cons - Bad streets

This does bring into play thoughts on City Manager, as everyone that speaks of City Manager also mentions pay between $100,000 and $150,000. Mayor Tom George is on record in this forum as being against a pay raise for the mayor.

I think council needs the raise but i think I would handle it differently. instead of giving council the raise I would look at hiring a helper for each one that can help them digest the data sent to them for approval.

The biggest problem I see with council is that they all must have second jobs to pay bills and live. This makes running "the most densely populated city between Chicago and NY" a part time job. I am not saying that they are neglecting our jobs, but even a good plow horse gets worn down if you whip him to work day after day.

The con to that is do we want professional politicians running the city? This is why I am thinking helpers.

It is all very tough.


.

[Kevin Butler]

Council's Committee of the Whole will meet next Tuesday, October 10 at 6 p.m. at city hall to discuss the salary increases mentioned above. All are welcome.

Kevin Butler
(Ward 1 Council)

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Observers,

Please review my proposal to City Council:

October 2, 2006

Dear Members of Council,

As you may know, Article XI, Section 7 of our city charter requires the Civil Service Commission to produce a report to Council setting forth their recommendations for salaries and other compensation to be established for the offices of Mayor and Members of Council for the next ensuing term of office. While we did not receive that report this year, we recently received an opinion from the chairman of the commission and it is imperative that we consider those recommendations.

Since 1990, the Commission has repeatedly recommended increases in compensation for the position of Mayor and Member of Council. The salary of the Mayor has not increased since 1991, and the salary for the office of Member of Council has not increased since 1982. The 2006 Salary Survey conducted by the Commission reflects that the salaries for each of the aforementioned positions are out of line with similarly situated municipalities within the county. In order to attract and retain qualified individuals for the office of Mayor and Member of Council, it is imperative to pay just and livable compensation.

Therefore, I hereby recommend that the Committee of the Whole consider these changes in salary to the offices of Mayor and Member of Council and I also request that the Law Department immediately draft separate ordinances to reflect the following:

1) Increase the salary of the office of Mayor from $65,000 per annum to $88,000 per annum.
1a) Add a per annum cost of living increase as gauged by the Consumer Price Index.

The cost of living increase is imperative because it can help prevent the necessity of revisiting the salary ordinance for the Mayor on a regular basis.

2) Increase the salary of the office of Member of Council from $7,000 per annum to $9,000 per annum.

2a) This ordinance should include a provision requiring the Director of Human Resources to calculate an accurate cost estimate of the health benefits accessed by a member of council, and to charge that against the salary of members accessing those benefits to ensure equity in compensation between members of council.

These changes would not take effect until the next ensuing term of office in January 2008. Therefore, the Mayor, nor any Member of Council, would be deliberating or discussing a matter that could with any certainty directly benefit them in the future. I would appreciate your timely consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Ryan Patrick Demro, Ward II


I think it is important to have a dialogue on this issue, especially the gravy train City Hall healthcare benefits.

[Grace O'Malley]

Demro wrote:

I think it is important to have a dialogue on this issue, especially the gravy train City Hall healthcare benefits.

Could you elaborate?

Council receives health care benefits as part of their compensation?

Council is considered a part-time position. Therefore, the members typically are employed elsewhere. Are they required to file first with their primary carrier?

How much is it costing the city to provide this benefit to Council members?

[Bill Call]

I have no problem with raising the salaries for the Mayor and council.

If you like the job those men and women are doing then they deserve a raise. If you don't like the job they are doing then a higher salary might encourage others to run.

When talking about council salaries keep in mind that the value of health insurance is about $12,000 per year.

For those of you who think that because the Mayor and council are finally getting a raise that all other city employees should get a raise; I agree.
However, those other city employees should also have to wait 20 years to get it.

[Jim O'Bryan]

For those of you who think that because the Mayor and council are finally getting a raise that all other city employees should get a raise; I agree.
However, those other city employees should also have to wait 20 years to get it.

Bill

Let me take a stab at this on-line instead of over a beer at Sullivan's with you.

First let me start with the Steve Davis Copyrighted Disclaimer - Luckily Lakewood is blessed with a good council, mayor, school board and ____________. But what if we are not so lucky in the future...

Council - What they pay these dedicate servants of the people is nearly slave wages. The guys repainting the streets make union scale. While we can argue the quality of the job both are doing, as we often do. You have to believe that more money to council, or the ability to hire a larger staff, would take any excuses off the table, if they ever popped up. Where the street painter has no excuse for the using the wrong color black, er yellow or white.

I have seen a couple topics appear before council over the last 15 years, where I had to wonder if council had the same information as I did. I do not expect them or anyone to agree with me. But when the numbers are so slanted for or against something that it screams out, and they go the opposite way, you have to wonder if more money might not help them sort through the pages and pages of data they are forced to digest. Think of the thousands of pages on shopping cart information they must be sifting through through right now. Being paid about 1/2 your bar tab for a year at Sullivan's.

Now while that seems enough for you to keep your attention nightly at Sullivan's, most if not all of council have primary jobs, and other activities. You at Sullivan's and me at bela dubby do not have the intense studying as council needs. For you and I it is a reflex, no thought process, especially as the night drags on at Sullivan's.

I think we skip the Beck Study, the flowers, parking lot for world class baseball facilities study, and at least try to double or triple council's budget for pay or staff.

Council Health Care - Now I am sure this will get Ryan 100% support from council, but I know of at least 7 people that are business owners, lawyers, activists in this city, that are currently looking seriously at council because they can continue their work in Lakewood, their job or hobbies and get free health care for life.

Mayor's Raise - When ever I mentioned raising the mayor's salary, Mayor George has been against it. With our budget so tight and the need for a tax raise, I can understand why the Mayor would not want his pay to be an issue. Mom taught me, when offering to pick up the check, only offer twice, any more would be bad manners.

I am not sure I have ever seen Tom at Sullivan's. I have seen Ed Fitzgerald at Sullivan's, Kevin and Dennis Butler at Sullivan's, Mike Dever has been to Sullivan's, and I have seen Nickie Antonio at Sullivan's for the Democrat Club Meeting at Sullivan's. I suppose Bob Seelie has been to Sullivan's. Hard not to believe the Ward 4 Council Woman Mary Louise Madigan has not been to Sullivan's. But you, as a Sullivan's regular, would be a better source, than I who rarely gets to Sullivan's

Promised Benefits - If the city, in good faith,h can renegotiate them. So be it. For the city to vote and just take them away, is nothing more than eminent domain on promises and people. "This was yours, you thought you could bank on it. Well, we found a better purpose. We want to add a study on black squirrels and their impact on nature." I could never do it. Would hope others feel the same way. Some people have their retirement so tightly figured out that they have taken into account how many beers then can drink at Sullivan's.

It creates the same problem. "We only want the best to work/live here. Here is our offer it is good, but please do not hold it to us, we may need to sacrifice you, for my possibly better life." One of the funniest/saddest thing I have ever heard since starting a business, "You going to hold me to the contract?"

FWIW


* Count the number of Sullivan's in this thread, and win an evening with Bill at Sullivan's talking about this and other topics often talked about at Sullivan's or in Sullivan's parking lot. If you are more of a Bela Dubby fan like myself, send in number of Sullivan's mentioned but substitute Bela Dubby. No other other drinking establishments will be allowed to be substituted. unless you have a real problem with Sullivan's or Bela Dubby. Which would be hard to believe as both Bela Dubby and Sullivan's are Lakewood owned, employ Lakewoodites, and offer fine but different ambiance.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Grace,

City Council is entitled to the same benefits as a full-time employee. I heard a rumor that they are worth nearly $14K. 2 arguments against:

1) We have full-time jobs, most provide healthcare.

2) INEQUITY. Councilmembers who do not take healthcare are compensated at $7K per year. Those who do, potentially $17K per year. That is not supposed to happen.

The argument that you will hear from some members of council is that it is a nice benefit and I am sure it is, but what they fail to tell you is that we have employees at city hall who work part-time that do not have health care. Let me give you a great example:

The LEGISLATIVE LIAISON to City Council is a part-time employee mandated to work 32 hours a week. No health care. Did I mention she is pregnant by the way?

This is the kind of garbage that people hate about politics. Its like Congress being able to opt out of Social Security for a better system. Ask members of city council why they feel they are entitled to better benefits than the people who elect them. I guarantee nobody puts that on their campaign literature.

PS- Jim O'B, don't be fooled by Tom. Depressing the Mayor's salary means you pare down the crop of potential opponents in the upcoming election.

[Shawn Juris]

I must have this wrong. Has it been confirmed that the city pays $1,000/month for health insurance for one council member? Are they not on a group plan? Individual is going at about $160 for some reasonable coverages. Is this just an expense that needs to be reviewed across the board or was the number just made up?

I agree that the factors of part time employees and the discrepancy of those that take health care and those that don't should be considered. I think this issue appears to be inflated though.

The flip side of this coin is that if the rates are accurate and a council member selects the benefits package offered he/she may owe the city for serving on council and using the "benefits" they were offered. Classic case of it being cheaper to not work than to work. I'm guessing an individual may be healthier by simply avoiding the stress of serving.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I'm guessing an individual may be healthier by simply avoiding the stress of serving.

Priceless.




Ryan

Thanks for the warning.

I'll try to not let Mayor Tom George fool me.



.

[Jason Stewart]

City Council is entitled to the same benefits as a full-time employee. I heard a rumor that they are worth nearly $14K.

Rumor??? Why not ask your finance department for an ACTUAL figure before you start spreading unverified data to the public. Hell, you undoubtly receive a montly finance report and if it has any level of detail, you should be able to figure it out, earn your $7k and look at it.

[Suzanne Metelko]

Jason, you may presume too much. Perhaps a trip to a city council meeting is in order. The city just hired a fulltime finance director. I have high hopes that Ms. Pae will bring the professionalism, education and experience to her job, to the administration and to the council that we have sorely needed.

One of the limitations of our present form of government is that by having an elected mayor and an elected council we set them up to be adversarial in their relationship. Council can only oversee what the administration provides.

With a City Manager the oversite is clear, the responsibility is clear, the accountability is clear. Those reports would be expected AND provided at the pleasure of the governing body - the elected representatives - Council.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Jason,

I have asked for a number at City Hall and everyone tells me that a definitive number cannot be given. The closest I got to a real answer is that, because we are self-insured, the cost for the healthcare is the cost of the claim for a councilmember. The other answer I got is that the closest comparable thing is COBRA, which would be approximately $395 a month. If you think you can find the answer in more concrete terms then be my guest.

[Kenneth Warren]

Councilman Demro:

Perhaps the simplest, quickest and dirtiest way to get a fix on current cost number is to determine the COBRA charge to an employee separating from service?

When an individual leaves group insurance, under COBRA (acronym for
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) the city would be required to offer to dependents and individuals the opportunity to stay on the group health benefits for a specified period, depending on the reason for the break in service.

There may be a personnel director or even department head responsible for the execution of COBRA when someone separates. That number should be floating around somehwere.

Simply find out what is the monthly rate and then multiply by 12 months? Ask whether the city charges full rate and whether any additional administration fee is charged?

That should give you a general line on coverage cost.

If you wish to plunge deeper into inquiry, I would suggest the following lines:

1. Obtain total number of employees covered and any COBRA individuals in 2005

2. Obtain costs for hospital/physician benefits and prescription drug benefits, and additional dental or optical benefits (if provided) in 2005
and combine.

3. Determine if any outside administration/self-insurance costs need to be identified.

4. Divide total cost (reconcile COBRA charges/reimbursements if any from separated employees) by number of employees.

5. Ask if any historical trend data of annual self-insurance costs has been gathered for budget purposes, or Grow Lakewood, or the various other committees that work on issues from time to time?

Self-insurance costs may be a cost effective approach, because insurance company profits are presumably squeezed out of the process. However, the costs each year may gyrate considerably. Hence the need to track the trends seems evident. The context of a trends fro five to ten years will give you a sense of how the costs are escalating.

Insurance and benefits can be confusing matter. I hope this input is useful to the formulation of a meaningful inquiry.

Kenneth Warren