Question:
OK, here's a topic of local controversy which seems to be getting but
minimal attention: Salaries for City Council positions.
I have lived in Eugene for 20 years, and have long felt that this should be
done. City Council business requires a minimum of a 20-30 hour weekly
commitment, and in reality it's more like a full-time 40+ hour/week job.
Attempting to adequately fill a council seat while also supporting one's
self with a regular full-time job is daunting, to say the least, and all
the more so if one is also supporting a family.
The result of NOT paying council members is that we persistently get
councils primarily made up of those who have independent wealth or a
maintenance free guaranteed income. Council representation is thus
significantly biased in favor of the "haves" in the community.
Local "powers that be" have consistently opposed the idea of a salaried
council. Several years ago, in an interview with Alan Siporin, Mayor Brian
Obie proclaimed the he didn't think a salaried council was a good idea,
because he didn't like the idea that people might run for the council "just
for the money."
Does that comment make anyone else laugh? First of all, we're
talking something between maybe $20-$30,000, tops -- no one's
going to get rich off a councilman's salary. Secondly, the
implication is that only people who can "afford it" should run
for the council. So, the choice is either a council of the well-to-do
and wealthy, or one has to become homeless to serve on the council?
More recently, the Register-Guard came out against the notion of a
salaried council. Their angle was that council members were taking on
tasks that should be delegated to existing paid staff, and that if council
positions were salaried they would find themselves having to take on even
more work.
So what if they would have to take on more work? They would be
getting -paid- for it! I see this as a suggestion that the Council
simply become a rubber-stamp committee for the moneyed
movers-&-shakers, and whatever projects that elite group decides
are "necessary." (And I've pretty much come to the conclusion
that this is what the council already -is- in the present system.)
I see the sturcture of the Eugene city goverment as a key factor in many
other issues of local controversy. Personally, I would like to see the
salary idea carried even further and pay both council members AND the mayor.
Then scrap the city manager form of government, and make the -mayor-
responsible for city management (as is done in many cities elsewhere).
In this system the City Council is not merely responsible for formulating
policy, but for implementing it as well, and the de facto city manager (the
mayor) becomes directly accountable to the voting populace, and not merely to
the whims of an elitist council. And *any* qualified person could run for,
and serve in these positions, regardless of personal assets.
Sure, such changes would require overhauling the city charter -- but again,
so what? We seem to be ready and willing to ammend the state constitution
at the drop of a hat, so why not the charter?
Comments?
Answer:
A. My recommendation is that they be paid the median income of the
community. This amount has a couple of points going for it. First there is a
element of fairness, exactly half the population has a income that is more
then the council and exactly half less. Second, once enacted the topic never
has to be revisited, once a year when the median income figures are
released their salary for the next year is adjusted up or down. Thus no need
for cost of living adjustments and the like. And lastly there is a direct relation
between any effect that they may have on the economy (good or bad) and
what they are paid. As to retirement and benefits, state law would require
they be included in PERS like all the rest of the city's employees so
retirement is easy. As to the rest, my thought is to use the same package that
the hourly employee's get.
B. The present governmental structure has one advantage over any new
system, we know how it works and how to manipulate it. It would take some
time to figure out how it would really work in Eugene and it might turn out not
to work the way we thought it should. Which is why I would rather see some
"tweaking" of the present system before I would consider junk it all and start
over. I do have some specific ideas for some "tweaks"
1. The council should be allowed to hire employees to assist them in their
policy making and oversight functions. I am casting no dispersions on any of
the City Employees that are currently supporting the Mayor and Council, only
that I think it would be much better if there was no possibility of divided
loyalties.
2. The Charter needs to be modified to make it clear that the Council has
both policy making and oversight responsibilities.
3. Require that the Council approve of the hiring of senior staff members.
This would be an "advise and consent" power. The City manager would select
the individual to fill a position and then submit the name to the council. The
council after a public deliberation and possibly public hearing, could either
approve or disapprove of the individual. The management level position I am
referring to are the Assistant City Manager, the Police and Fire Chiefs, and
the Directors of the Planning and Development, Library Recreation and
Cultural Services, Public Works and Administrative Services.
4. Permit the council to pass a resolultion of no confidence on any of the
above listed managers. These would be non-binding but they would have
major influence on any City Manager who is able to count to five.
5. Require that the Council approve all contracts that have a duration of over
1 year, would result in the extension of a contractual relationship that extends
over 3 years without a break of at least 6 months or have a value of over a
million dollars. Any contract with an extended duration or high dollar amount
has major policy implications as such need to evaluated by the cities policy
makers.
6. The council should have absolute control over its own agenda. With its
staff doing the scheduling.
7. The council should have be able to set the format for the budget. That is if
5 members of the council wanted a zero based line item budget format rather
then the present system/service based one they would get it.
One last thing the window for getting a series of charter amendments on the
November 2000 ballot (the next election after that is November 2002) is
starting to close.
