The Observation Deck

The state of our economy is in shambles, worse in the Midwest than other regions of the country. More people losing jobs than getting raises, yet Lakewood City Council thinks it is a bright idea to raise their pay?

Several years ago I did the research for City Council and wrote my own ordinance to raise the pay for Council ($9K) and Mayor ($90K). After a majority of members giving clear indications that they would support it, it was surprisingly voted down. What is different about this issue now?

Back then the idea was that we could continue to attract better candidates for these elected posts only if the salary kept pace with the market (the "market" is a dubious concept as "altruism" can play a significant role). Yet, members of council could be seen blathering in the local press about how great the candidates for city council were in this recent round of interviews and appointments.

So what is the real story here?

I've always loved the "better candidates" excuse for pay raises. That implies our existing council members and all those who have run in the past 20 years have been poor candidates? Just funny really.

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Several years ago I did the research for City Council and wrote my own ordinance to raise the pay for Council ($9K) and Mayor ($90K). After a majority of members giving clear indications that they would support it, it was surprisingly voted down. What is different about this issue now?

A cynic might say they opposed it because you supported it.

I think it more likely that they were afraid to vote in favor of the raise because it is the kind of issue that gets people to attend City Council meetings. Over one hundred people attended the City Council meeting when they were discussing the skate park. I wondered at the time if anyone on council was thinking "where all these people when the budget is being discussed?"

A lot of people attended the last council meeting. The most eloquent opposition to the raise came from a City employee who lives in Avon who was concerned that if Council and the Mayor got a raise his raise would be smaller.

Council salaries haven't been raised in over 30 years. Council should do the right thing and approve the raise.

Well Bill, there was bi-partisan support for it until Ed weaseled out of it. Remember, it was an election year.

Regardless, what is the logic for doing it now? The Civil Service Commission has been recommending it for years. We had the opportunity to do it when things were flush and we ignored it. Why do it when things are tight?

Let's go beyond making the case for or against. Please explain to me why the recommendations were so far over the "market" wage. There are documents at city hall that reflect what politicians in other cities are making. When I wrote the ordinance in 2007 the market was $9K for Council and $90K for Mayor. These salaries do not change often, so to make the case that inflation would put them at $11K and $100K respectively is simply wrong.

If you analyze the civil service commission's data compared to the surrounding cities the average salary and the size of Lakewood's budget the councils members salary should be raised to $8,808 and the Mayor's to $79,900. It would also eliminate health care coverage for the part time council.

My view is that the job should be done for the right reasons which do not include money.

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Let's go beyond making the case for or against. Please explain to me why the recommendations were so far over the "market" wage. There are documents at city hall that reflect what politicians in other cities are making. When I wrote the ordinance in 2007 the market was $9K for Council and $90K for Mayor. These salaries do not change often, so to make the case that inflation would put them at $11K and $100K respectively is simply wrong.

Good question.

If I had any sense I'd stay out of this.

Anyway...

Times are bad and they aren't getting any better, at least not for this region. If bad times were a good enough reason to vote against a pay raise there wouldn't be a pay raise for another 30 years.

I think the salaries should be raised, the vote should take place sooner rather than later and members of council shouldn't be bashful about voting for it. If they are too bashful to vote for it then they should have tabled the recomendation and moved on. Perhaps the amount could be in the range mentioned by Steve H or your numbers from 2007.

Perhaps council can learn from government unions and explain with a straight face (faces?) that since the recomendation was for $11,000 and we voted for $9,000 we have cut our pay by nearly 20%!!!

Ryan:

You need to correct your post. A pay increase passed City Council after being recommended by the Civil Service Commission in approximately 2006, and I voted for it and advocated for it. It was vetoed by Mayor George, and Council did not override the veto, although I again voted in favor of it.

I knew that if I voted for it I would be criticized for it during the 2007 election, but I supported it because it is long overdue. I would support this proposal too, for the same reasons.

Ed,

You might be right, but I think we are talking about two different issues. My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I know that I wrote a stand alone ordinance. I think that Kevin proposed the same ordinance or a similar one and the only difference between the two was the salary range. Resolution for this will have to wait as I do not have the time or capability to research it from Iraq.

Nevertheless, this type of action in the worst recession since the Great Depression is similar to the indifference to the public will expressed by Congress over the past two years. Thankfully they were ushered out of office. I would advise that there might be a better time for this ordinance. If you were afraid to vote for it then due to political consequence, those on City Council should fear it now more than ever.

Ed FitzGerald wrote:Ryan:

You need to correct your post. A pay increase passed City Council after being recommended by the Civil Service Commission in approximately 2006, and I voted for it and advocated for it. It was vetoed by Mayor George, and Council did not override the veto, although I again voted in favor of it.

I knew that if I voted for it I would be criticized for it during the 2007 election, but I supported it because it is long overdue. I would support this proposal too, for the same reasons.

Bill Call wrote:If I had any sense I'd stay out of this.

Anyway...

From the Sun Post, 12/30/10:

"Fitzgerald said.....he admitted that he "chickened out" and voted against a pay raise when it came before him during his time as councilman."

Ah, who cares about the facts, right?

No, that was a previous proposal made around 2001. I supported the last two Civil Service commission proposals.