Soap Box: City Council deserves a salary

by Larry Schuster

February 22,2008

A fair amount of steam pressure is building around the issue of compensating the members of our city council. In some circles, it is coupled with the notion of council member expansion. Now settle down, food and health Nazis; this talk is not about council members eating more but about adding more members to the council. Speculation ranges from nine members to possibly 17—or even 19—people on the council. Along with this conversation is a parallel conversation most easily summarized as "power to the boards and commissions." As a member of the Governance and Structure subcommittee of the city's Visioning Committee, I learned much from other members of the community about what the true or underlying concerns were.

Council accessibility—being able to actually sit and visit with a council member—was a very important issue. A pre-registered slot at the beginning of council meetings and three to five minutes on specific council agenda items simply do not hold the same value as one-onone, extended interaction. Most who follow my rants here in the CBT know that I believe we live and work in a wonderful community. Most also know I believe we are spoiled brats who do not appreciate our good fortune. However, we could use some adjustments in the way we conduct public business. Expanding the number of city council members will not solve the access issue if the council continues to operate in the same manner.

Suggestions by the Government and Structure subcommittee, as with all committees, ran the gamut. Of particular value, though, were the following suggestions: a) Increase the number of required council meetings to four; b) Hold one of those meetings during normal working hours; c) Require some office hours of each council member; d) Expand the number of members on the city council. If these suggestions were adopted to a serious degree, the underlying complaint of access to the council would be addressed in a substantive and meaningful way. Some people would still complain, but we all know that is a fact of life. Expectations of this magnitude should change the opinion of all naysayers in regards to compensating council members. We are a community with high expectations and generally are willing to pay for the amenities we desire. So seems to be the consensus of the subcommittee in regard to council pay.

Here is my concern in regard to compensation of the city council members. It most often includes the term "stipend." Let's be honest here. Stipend, "the price that is paid for his / her labor" carries with it the connotation of a meager amount. Either let us pay these folks a serious salary or forget it. Regardless of political stripe, there is much work performed by these people, and that workload is expanding. Coupled with the current modus operandi and the suggested new duties, true pay is reasonable. My suggestion is to pay council members $1,000 a month and the mayor $1,500 a month.

These are not fulltime salaries, but they are real and substantive amounts. They are indicative of the work and effort we expect from our council members. As citizens, we have a duty and a responsibility to fairly compensate these individuals. Any argument to the contrary is selfish, at best, and narcotic, at worst. These folks are not civic club members. The decisions they render affect people's lives. The ability to earn a living, pursue happiness as we see fit and live in a well-ordered community are all affected by the actions of our city council.

Boards and commissions, with the exception of the Board of Adjustments, do not administer any duties other than to advise the city council. Roles that extend beyond advice do not belong to unelected board and commission members. The city council members administer all duties as prescribed by the city charter and, as elected officials, are accountable to the voters of this community. They are sworn to uphold those duties. Those duties are real work. We should not shirk our duty to see that the worker is rendered his due.

Popularity: unranked [?]