Is it Time to Raise the Mayor's Salary?

[Bill Call]

Yes.

We can't expect a qualified canidate to take on the most difficult job in politics for a compensation package that is less than that of hundreds of City employees.

The last time I looked there were about 160 employees who earned more than the Mayor. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if three hundred City employees had a total compensation package greater than the Mayor's. A larger salary is no guarantee of more competence. But a larger salary might expand the field of candidate’s which might include a strong leader who might get elected.

A strong leader would be able to restore the deteriorating level of City services, get more productivity from City employees and take strong action to control the exploding costs of City wages and benefits.

I get a little discouraged when I read that a City manager expressed surprise that Lakewood’s parks are poorly maintained. He said no one told him. No one told him? It’s his job to know.

City management and public works have been going on for thousands of years. Applus Claudius, builder of the Appian Way in ancient Rome, was blind towards the end of his life. He supervised the construction of the road by crawling on his hands and knees to test the quality of the work.

It seems a blind Roman could see more than a sighted City department head. Maybe strong leadership will restore some sight to City Hall.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Lakewood has no money, or so we keep hearing. Maybe if the mayor can cut some of those 300 jobs or lower the cost of employment, he can have a raise.

If we're truly in as desperate shape as we are, then no, he can't have one IMHO. Maybe we change the way the mayor is compensated completely and create some sort of bonus incentive for them to meet certain goals or achieve certain growth levels.

Maybe what needs to be done is for city government to function more like a corporation that holds its employees accountable for performance and less like a huge, bloated government bureaucracy beholden to union contracts and pandering to special interest groups.

[DougHuntingdon]

I propose we institute an annual head tax to pay for the mayor's salary. $1 million would require less than a measly $20 per person per year, i.e. about 5 cents a day.

Doug

[dl meckes]

But a larger salary might expand the field of candidate’s which might include a strong leader who might get elected.

I support a salary raise for the Mayor and Council.

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.

[Jeff Endress]

Bill "Raises" an interesting issue...and it is an issue that shouldn't depend on whether you support the current administration, wnat a change at city hall or want a city manager. Our Chief administrative officer is woefully underpaid. While DL correctly points out that there exists a high level of community spirit for accepting a demanding and underpaid job, without question, many persons who would be otherwise qualified to serve in such a managerial position simply cannot afford the pay cut it would entail. It would be different if the Mayor's job were a part time gig.....but in point of fact it's a double time gig.

Jeff

[Mike Deneen]

The answer is no.

Bill's theory that higher pay would increase the number or quality of applicants if fundamentally flawed. After all, why do candidates pay millions of dollars for the $200,000 job of President? (Hold you fire lefties, I don't want to hear "so that they can start a war for Halliburton and cash in their stock options")

I have known many actual and potential mayor and council candidates over the years. I have even considered running myself. In my conversations with potential candidates, the issue of pay never comes up. The issues that keep people out of local politics include:

1. The humiliating task of begging strangers for money (aka "fundraising")
2. The Amway-esque task of peddling yourself door-to-door
3. The fact that your personal life becomes public
4. The fact that you are constantly open for criticism and complaints
5. For the mayor's office, the prospect of giving up a stable full-time private sector job in return for a four-year temporary job

I have never ever ever heard anyone say "I won't do council for 7 grand, but for 10 I'm all over it!"

There are two kinds of folks that run for local office. Some are the genuine do-gooders that want to help the community. The others are the self-perceived "rising stars" that plan on using it as a stepping stone to higher office. Salary doesn't effect either of these two groups.

[Jeff Endress]

Mike

Difficult to draw a parallel between the Pres. and mayor...a former president gets how much for a speaking gig? Staff? Secret Service? Memoirs? and the Mayor? Let's also not forget that the majority of our Presidents in recent years have been quite wealthy...they could afford to work for free just for the ego trip (like owning a money losing sports franchise).

So, in addition to :

1. The humiliating task of begging strangers for money (aka "fundraising")
2. The Amway-esque task of peddling yourself door-to-door
3. The fact that your personal life becomes public
4. The fact that you are constantly open for criticism and complaints
5. For the mayor's office, the prospect of giving up a stable full-time private sector job in return for a four-year temporary job

the mayor should also welcome being paid substantially less than the job is worth? If it's because of being civic minded, let's just make it a voluteer job and maybe throw in a mayorial residence at Rockport, meal tickets to the Highlander and a couple of shirts and ties from Geigers?

While your experience with potential and actual candidates may not bring up salary issues, those who would be otherwise qualified, and choose not to seek that job because of the salary inequity would not, by definition, be a part of that pool. I would suggest that the salary question is a threshold issue, one that any job applicant examines first, before going on to weigh the pros and cons. And because of the salary level, as well as the 5 factors above, there are certainly well qualified individuals who never cross that threshold.

Jeff

[Jeff Endress]

Mike

There are two kinds of folks that run for local office. Some are the genuine do-gooders that want to help the community. The others are the self-perceived "rising stars" that plan on using it as a stepping stone to higher office. Salary doesn't effect either of these two groups

Perhaps if we paid what the job is worth, we could add a third category...qualified persons with managerial skill in overseeing a multimillion dollar budget ?

Jeff

[Jim O'Bryan]

Mike/Jeff/Bill


Let me throw some ideas out there and then will invite council and the mayor to discuss if the four of us make enough money.

Also let me point out that none of this has anything to do with anyone in office. To quote Steve Davis, "We have been lucky so far but..."

There is talk in some circles of trying a city manager. A good city manager will cost at least $150,000. So with a city that is looking to save maybe we start by making the mayor's pay $100,000 - $150,00, and see what shows up.

Last week I was speaking with a couple members of city council, and ask them if $25,000 a year would be better than $7,000. While everyone mentioned sure, I wondered to myself it it would be? While $25,000 would make it interesting, it would not compete with most if not all of city's councils full time job pay. To do that we must run into 6 figures there. So in the blink of an eye, budget for council and mayor is up to almost $1,000,000!

Would it be better and cheaper to allow each council person to hire council a staff member just for themselves?

Pay the mayor more but also give him more staff?

Privatize the entire city, and let the mayor cut ribbons? Of course the second this happens I am hoping the residents get first chance to buy the departments.

Or do we look for even more radical concepts?

Just a little fuel for the fire.


.

[dl meckes]

...and then will invite council and the mayor to discuss if the four of us make enough money..

The residents of Lakewood employ the mayor and council (etc.).

I do not believe Mike/Jeff/Bill are on the city payroll, but if they are, they would also be our employees.

How is it inappropriate for employers to discuss employees salaries?

Just wondering...

[Jim O'Bryan]

...and then will invite council and the mayor to discuss if the four of us make enough money..

The residents of Lakewood employ the mayor and council (etc.).

I do not believe Mike/Jeff/Bill are on the city payroll, but if they are, they would also be our employees.

How is it inappropriate for employers to discuss employees salaries?

Just wondering...

DL

Guess I was just raised differently.

While they are our employees, they are also humans, and even a couple are residents. I just feel funny talking about other people's pay in an open forum.

Wierd, I guess so.


.

[dl meckes]

Jim-

One of the realities of being a public servant is that your salary is public. Pretty much everything you do is public. This is one reason why that type of employment is not as sought-after as it might be. You have to be willing to be under public scrutiny at all times.

It's not reasonable to pretend that we don't know the salaries for the office of mayor or council - or any public position.

Because we can look these things up, we can also compare what employees in similar positions in other cities are paid and we can better analyze such things by looking at comparable populations and city incomes, etc.

It is through a reasonable, analytical process, comparing apples to apples, that we can make informed decisions.

Then we can, as informed and reasonable employers, make decisions via a ballot.

Public service is not a job for most. Imagine having to be on call 24/7. Imagine that most of the input you get from your MANY employees is negative. Imagine having your family put in the same situation by default. Imagine that you can't get a raise unless (arbitrary number to follow) 3000 people say ok.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim-

One of the realities of being a public servant is that your salary is public. Pretty much everything you do is public. This is one reason why that type of employment is not as sought-after as it might be. You have to be willing to be under public scrutiny at all times.

DL

I agree with everything you wrote.

That does not make it comfortable for me to discuss other people's finances to others. Again the way I was raised.

It just makes me feel out of place. While talking with council, just mentioning "they need more money" is always read as. How much more would it cost for you to do your job..." and this is not the case.

I go back to the Steve Davis comment, "So far we have been lucky..."

I can only speak for me, I am old fashion. You talk money and make out in your home. Public is for heated talk on politics and religion!

.

[Mike Deneen]

I base my views on my extensive REAL WORLD personal experience in this area, not on hypothetical, abstract concepts based on economic theory. These theories are often accurate, which is why they are taught in business school (for example, 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). However, politics is a different animal.

So I pose these questions:

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?

Also, is the wonderful effectiveness and popularity of our US congress due to their frequent and hefty pay raises? Based on your abstract theory, shouldn't we be getting better candidates for Congress?

[dl meckes]

Jim-

Who should have the discussion about the mayor's or council's salaries?

Where should the discussion take place?

Who should make the decision regarding salaries?