Lakewood Mayor & Council Salaries
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:26 pm
Last night, I went to listen in on this meeting. Here is the published announcement.
Lakewood City Council is debating raising the salaries of Mayor and Council. There are some in the community, and some employees of the city, who are against a salary increase for these elected officials. I am in favor of the raises. Most Council members seem to favor raises also (At least for the Mayor.), but have not reached agreement on amounts and effective dates. They, and the Mayor (Also in attendance last night, along with the Law Director, a representative from Human Resources, and a member of the Civil Service Commission.), are quite sensitive to the current economic pressures, but understand how the raises might impact Lakewood’s future governance.
Last night’s meeting was a showcase of lively, informed debate that was not without disagreement and passion. I wish more of the public had been in attendance.
In 2005, after much public discussion and debate, the Lakewood Charter Commission recommended charter amendments that would allow salaries for Mayor and Council, previously frozen by the charter, to be raised by ordinance. To help Council make decisions about what salaries should be, the Charter Commission recommended scheduled reviews by the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission would, in theory, take an academic approach to researching salaries and responsibilities of similar positions in other communities, then present a studied recommendation. City Council could then vote to whether to modify or enact any proposed salary changes.
City Council voted to place the charter amendments on the ballot. The public voted for these new procedures, and the charter was amended 11/08/2005, just a little over 5 years ago.
Recently, the Civil Service Commission made a recommendation to set the Mayor’s salary at $100,000 (It appears that Council is more interested in a $90,000 salary for Mayor.), and council at $11,000 (There was a lot of debate about that last night. If there is a raise, don’t expect it to be that high).
Keep in mind, the Council salary of $7,000 has not changed since 1978. Using online calculators, I found that the salary in 1978 would be the equivalent of $23,000 to $25,000 today.
The salary for Mayor had been frozen since 1993 (I think.) at under $70,000. Since the recent public-voted charter amendments, the Mayoral salary has moved up to approximately $75,000 through cost-of-living adjustments.
For your edification, I have copied the three 11-08-2005 charter amendments directly from the city’s website.
The process is clear. Council’s direction on this is, so far, unclear.
I have heard and read many public responses to this issue. Many, as would be expected, are quite emotional.
Here are some paraphrased responses followed by my own comments:
“Why should we give the Mayor a raise? He just got in. Why don’t we wait and see how he does before we give him a raise?”
When talking about good government, it is good to discuss the position, not the individual. We must take a long view on Lakewood’s future. In fact, no member of Council, or the Mayor, will receive any proposed salary increase during their current term. The next-elected, or re-elected Mayor would receive the increase. Council, if they enact a raise for their positions, would fall under the same rule. During last night’s discussion, Council even talked of moving the effective date of any increase for their positions to 2014. A salary increase may, or may not, benefit any of them.
“How could they even consider a raise in this economy?”
It is way past time to do this. This issue should have been addressed many years ago. There were politics involved with keeping previous mayoral salaries low. Some previous mayors had other sources of income. Low salaries reduced competition for the position, and voters’ opportunities to choose from a broad field of candidates was lessened. That is not to say that there are not qualified people that would happily serve for that amount of money, but narrowing the field is not in our best interest. Council and the Mayor really wrestled with this issue last night. Mayor Summers agreed that the salary for mayor should be increased, but in the face of certain economic conditions he might personally decline a raise if re-elected. That, of course, would be up to him, but it would not reduce the enacted salary of a future mayor.
“Why does the Mayor need a raise?”
I can think of many reasons, as I had to when I served on Charter Commissions. The Mayor is a critical position in our current form of government. The responsibilities are great. The Mayor of Lakewood heads the entire administration of the city, AND is the ex-officio safety director. The position should pay a reasonable salary for that level of responsibility.
I will go as far as to say that a lack of a raise for the Mayor actually puts the city in jeopardy. That is not an exaggeration. The city just went through a situation where Mayor Fitzgerald was elected as Cuyahoga County Executive and would leave his position before his term ended. The Charter defines an order of succession to the position of Mayor.
Here is another quote from the Charter.
All three directors in the line of succession have a salary higher than Mayor. In the aftermath of the Fitzgerald election, all three declined the position of Mayor. Council President, Kevin Butler also declined the position. I don’t know why they declined, but last night, Kevin mentioned that at least one in the line of succession had turned down the position because it would require a cut in pay. In the end, Mike Summers stepped up, put his personal business in order, and Council appointed him Mayor.
This time, there was enough advanced notice that a mayor could be appointed from outside the first four eligible. Summers, with the help of the Fitzgerald administration, was able to have what was probably the friendliest and smoothest mayoral transition in Lakewood’s history.
Consider, though, an emergency vacancy of the Mayor’s office (Death in office, for example.). If the salary of the Mayor is again an issue that disrupts the succession order, Lakewood could be without a Mayor and Safety Director for an uncomfortable or dangerous amount of time while Council searches for someone to appoint, and that person can subsequently step in.
“The people should be able to vote on any salary increase.”
We live with a combination of direct AND representative democracy. A direct vote of the people established the process for increases just 5 years ago. The people also get to vote for the members of Council who act on the established process. The voting is done. I would recommend that people contact their elected officials to express their opinions.
In the previous two weeks, I managed to talk with the five council members that I know (Butler, Madigan, Smith, Powers, and Bullock.) about this proposed ordinance. Take note that every one of them answered or returned my call. Each listened politely, shared their concerns, and thanked me for calling.
“Why does Council deserve a raise?”
Personally, I feel it is time. Thirty three years of no raise for that position is an awfully long time. The pay is quite low for the hours spent. I would be hard pressed to name a position of responsibility that has not been awarded a raise in that amount of time.
Councilperson Monique Smith presented a good argument about “opportunity costs”. I can only paraphrase, but she argued that Council positions can be expensive to get and maintain. Campaign costs, possible babysitting costs, and the loss of work and overtime hours might really be prohibitive to some qualified and desirous of serving on Council. By extension, I think she also believes that voters should have a broad field of choices, and that citizens should have broad opportunities to serve, and that a pay raise for Council could help insure that in Lakewood’s future. (I invite Ms. Smith to respond if I got this wrong. I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth.)
I think Council is less resolute about their own salaries than that of the Mayor. It will be interesting to see where that goes.
“Council should work for free.”
In a perfect world, yes, but this is a romantic notion that I think could be dangerous. During the recent race for the County Executive position, we had one candidate, Ken Lanci, promise to only accept $1 of his $175,000 salary, or effectively nothing. It is my opinion that if you accept no pay, you are able to define your actions, responsibilities, and constituency as you please. It is like a contract without consideration (My degree is in Art, not Law. Correct me if I am wrong.). Paying an elected official sort of completes the contract. At least symbolically, it demands that the official responsibly represent a broad constituency for that money.
Council members do a lot of work. They should be compensated.
Council seems committed to reach some consensus on these salary issues. It will be fun to watch it play out.
I know I have been long-winded and boring, but this is an issue that will certainly be discussed by many over the next month or so. I got it started here. I expect some disagreement. Bring it on.
Steve
.
Kevin Butler wrote:The Committee of the Whole will meet Monday, January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM in the Jury Room of Lakewood City Hall, 12650 Detroit Avenue. The agenda is outlined below:
Communication from Council member Butler regarding Civil Service Commission Recommends for Mayor/Council Salaries.
ORDINANCE 109-10 - AN ORDINANCE to establish the base salary of the mayor at One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) per year pursuant to Article II, Section 5 of the Second Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood, and to establish the base salary of council member at Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000.00) per year, plus an optional health-care benefits package not to exceed Three Thousand, Three Hundred Dollars ($3,300.00) per year, pursuant to Article III, Section 3 of the Charter, for the purpose of adopting the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission dated December 20, 2010. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 12/20/10, 2ND READING 1/3/11)
Discussion of Boards & Commission Appointments
Kevin M. Butler, Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Lakewood City Council is debating raising the salaries of Mayor and Council. There are some in the community, and some employees of the city, who are against a salary increase for these elected officials. I am in favor of the raises. Most Council members seem to favor raises also (At least for the Mayor.), but have not reached agreement on amounts and effective dates. They, and the Mayor (Also in attendance last night, along with the Law Director, a representative from Human Resources, and a member of the Civil Service Commission.), are quite sensitive to the current economic pressures, but understand how the raises might impact Lakewood’s future governance.
Last night’s meeting was a showcase of lively, informed debate that was not without disagreement and passion. I wish more of the public had been in attendance.
In 2005, after much public discussion and debate, the Lakewood Charter Commission recommended charter amendments that would allow salaries for Mayor and Council, previously frozen by the charter, to be raised by ordinance. To help Council make decisions about what salaries should be, the Charter Commission recommended scheduled reviews by the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission would, in theory, take an academic approach to researching salaries and responsibilities of similar positions in other communities, then present a studied recommendation. City Council could then vote to whether to modify or enact any proposed salary changes.
City Council voted to place the charter amendments on the ballot. The public voted for these new procedures, and the charter was amended 11/08/2005, just a little over 5 years ago.
Recently, the Civil Service Commission made a recommendation to set the Mayor’s salary at $100,000 (It appears that Council is more interested in a $90,000 salary for Mayor.), and council at $11,000 (There was a lot of debate about that last night. If there is a raise, don’t expect it to be that high).
Keep in mind, the Council salary of $7,000 has not changed since 1978. Using online calculators, I found that the salary in 1978 would be the equivalent of $23,000 to $25,000 today.
The salary for Mayor had been frozen since 1993 (I think.) at under $70,000. Since the recent public-voted charter amendments, the Mayoral salary has moved up to approximately $75,000 through cost-of-living adjustments.
For your edification, I have copied the three 11-08-2005 charter amendments directly from the city’s website.
In 2005, the Citizens of Lakewood wrote:ARTICLE II. THE EXECUTIVE
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)
In 2005, the Citizens of Lakewood wrote:ARTICLE III. THE COUNCIL
SECTION 3. SALARIES.
The salaries of the members of Council 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 nomination petitions by candidates for the office of member of Council of the City for the next succeeding term, and subject to further provisions of this Charter. The biennial report of the Civil Service Commission shall recommend the Council salaries to 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 Members of Council. No recommendation under this Section shall have any effect without Council action. The salary of a specific member of Council shall not be increased or decreased during the term in which any change in the salary is made.
(Amended 11-8-05)
In 2005, the Citizens of Lakewood wrote:ARTICLE XI. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
SECTION 7. ADVISORY SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS.
On or before July 1 of each even-numbered year, the Civil Service Commission shall review and make a written report to Council, which report shall be filed with the Clerk of Council and the Mayor, setting forth the Commission's recommendations for the salary and other compensation to be established for the offices of Mayor and members of Council. Article III, Section 3 and Article II, Section 5 of this Charter shall govern the recommendations of the Commission.
(Amended 11-8-05)
The process is clear. Council’s direction on this is, so far, unclear.
I have heard and read many public responses to this issue. Many, as would be expected, are quite emotional.
Here are some paraphrased responses followed by my own comments:
“Why should we give the Mayor a raise? He just got in. Why don’t we wait and see how he does before we give him a raise?”
When talking about good government, it is good to discuss the position, not the individual. We must take a long view on Lakewood’s future. In fact, no member of Council, or the Mayor, will receive any proposed salary increase during their current term. The next-elected, or re-elected Mayor would receive the increase. Council, if they enact a raise for their positions, would fall under the same rule. During last night’s discussion, Council even talked of moving the effective date of any increase for their positions to 2014. A salary increase may, or may not, benefit any of them.
“How could they even consider a raise in this economy?”
It is way past time to do this. This issue should have been addressed many years ago. There were politics involved with keeping previous mayoral salaries low. Some previous mayors had other sources of income. Low salaries reduced competition for the position, and voters’ opportunities to choose from a broad field of candidates was lessened. That is not to say that there are not qualified people that would happily serve for that amount of money, but narrowing the field is not in our best interest. Council and the Mayor really wrestled with this issue last night. Mayor Summers agreed that the salary for mayor should be increased, but in the face of certain economic conditions he might personally decline a raise if re-elected. That, of course, would be up to him, but it would not reduce the enacted salary of a future mayor.
“Why does the Mayor need a raise?”
I can think of many reasons, as I had to when I served on Charter Commissions. The Mayor is a critical position in our current form of government. The responsibilities are great. The Mayor of Lakewood heads the entire administration of the city, AND is the ex-officio safety director. The position should pay a reasonable salary for that level of responsibility.
I will go as far as to say that a lack of a raise for the Mayor actually puts the city in jeopardy. That is not an exaggeration. The city just went through a situation where Mayor Fitzgerald was elected as Cuyahoga County Executive and would leave his position before his term ended. The Charter defines an order of succession to the position of Mayor.
Here is another quote from the Charter.
The Citizens of Lakewood wrote:SECTION 8. ACTING MAYOR.
(A) If the Mayor’s office becomes vacant, the following individuals shall succeed to the office in the following order: Director of Law, Director of Finance, Director of Public Works, President of Council, and an elector of the City chosen by Council.
All three directors in the line of succession have a salary higher than Mayor. In the aftermath of the Fitzgerald election, all three declined the position of Mayor. Council President, Kevin Butler also declined the position. I don’t know why they declined, but last night, Kevin mentioned that at least one in the line of succession had turned down the position because it would require a cut in pay. In the end, Mike Summers stepped up, put his personal business in order, and Council appointed him Mayor.
This time, there was enough advanced notice that a mayor could be appointed from outside the first four eligible. Summers, with the help of the Fitzgerald administration, was able to have what was probably the friendliest and smoothest mayoral transition in Lakewood’s history.
Consider, though, an emergency vacancy of the Mayor’s office (Death in office, for example.). If the salary of the Mayor is again an issue that disrupts the succession order, Lakewood could be without a Mayor and Safety Director for an uncomfortable or dangerous amount of time while Council searches for someone to appoint, and that person can subsequently step in.
“The people should be able to vote on any salary increase.”
We live with a combination of direct AND representative democracy. A direct vote of the people established the process for increases just 5 years ago. The people also get to vote for the members of Council who act on the established process. The voting is done. I would recommend that people contact their elected officials to express their opinions.
In the previous two weeks, I managed to talk with the five council members that I know (Butler, Madigan, Smith, Powers, and Bullock.) about this proposed ordinance. Take note that every one of them answered or returned my call. Each listened politely, shared their concerns, and thanked me for calling.
“Why does Council deserve a raise?”
Personally, I feel it is time. Thirty three years of no raise for that position is an awfully long time. The pay is quite low for the hours spent. I would be hard pressed to name a position of responsibility that has not been awarded a raise in that amount of time.
Councilperson Monique Smith presented a good argument about “opportunity costs”. I can only paraphrase, but she argued that Council positions can be expensive to get and maintain. Campaign costs, possible babysitting costs, and the loss of work and overtime hours might really be prohibitive to some qualified and desirous of serving on Council. By extension, I think she also believes that voters should have a broad field of choices, and that citizens should have broad opportunities to serve, and that a pay raise for Council could help insure that in Lakewood’s future. (I invite Ms. Smith to respond if I got this wrong. I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth.)
I think Council is less resolute about their own salaries than that of the Mayor. It will be interesting to see where that goes.
“Council should work for free.”
In a perfect world, yes, but this is a romantic notion that I think could be dangerous. During the recent race for the County Executive position, we had one candidate, Ken Lanci, promise to only accept $1 of his $175,000 salary, or effectively nothing. It is my opinion that if you accept no pay, you are able to define your actions, responsibilities, and constituency as you please. It is like a contract without consideration (My degree is in Art, not Law. Correct me if I am wrong.). Paying an elected official sort of completes the contract. At least symbolically, it demands that the official responsibly represent a broad constituency for that money.
Council members do a lot of work. They should be compensated.
Council seems committed to reach some consensus on these salary issues. It will be fun to watch it play out.
I know I have been long-winded and boring, but this is an issue that will certainly be discussed by many over the next month or so. I got it started here. I expect some disagreement. Bring it on.
Steve
.