Council pay hike update: There is none
A reader wrote in today asking whatever happened to that proposal Grand Forks Mayor Mike Brown made earlier this year to raise the pay for the City Council as a way to encourage all socio-economic groups to participate in the political process.
Since I was already calling Council President Hal Gershman about the 2,700-square-foot addition to his southend Happy Harry's Bottle Shop, I decided to ask him for an update.
Hal said that there has been no discussion of the issue since, not even during the budget process. "It doesn't seem to be an issue with council members," he said. "Not one council member has brought it up to me. Nobody's in it for the money."
The current monthly pay is $400 for council members and $2,000 for the mayor. City law says the pay rate is set by council resolution, which doesn't require a public reading like ordinances.
The mayor's goal was to increase diversity on the council. The time requirement for council members makes elected office difficult for those that have more than one job or not enough time to balance home life and work life with political life.
The danger, as Hal has pointed out, is if the pay hike is too high, Grand Forks will end up with a professional political class.
Still, even if one doubles the $400 pay, as was suggested at one point, it'd still be a yearly pay of $9,600. That's not professional pay. It's $4.62 an hour. I think I made more at McDonald's the summer of my freshman year in college.
Since I was already calling Council President Hal Gershman about the 2,700-square-foot addition to his southend Happy Harry's Bottle Shop, I decided to ask him for an update.
Hal said that there has been no discussion of the issue since, not even during the budget process. "It doesn't seem to be an issue with council members," he said. "Not one council member has brought it up to me. Nobody's in it for the money."
The current monthly pay is $400 for council members and $2,000 for the mayor. City law says the pay rate is set by council resolution, which doesn't require a public reading like ordinances.
The mayor's goal was to increase diversity on the council. The time requirement for council members makes elected office difficult for those that have more than one job or not enough time to balance home life and work life with political life.
The danger, as Hal has pointed out, is if the pay hike is too high, Grand Forks will end up with a professional political class.
Still, even if one doubles the $400 pay, as was suggested at one point, it'd still be a yearly pay of $9,600. That's not professional pay. It's $4.62 an hour. I think I made more at McDonald's the summer of my freshman year in college.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 5:37 PM
13 Comments:
No elected Official, except this one is going to push for an increase in the Council salary because it will lead to more people running against the incumbent.
Having said that, the time to increase passed with the last election. The next budget that would have an increase is the 2008, the next election year.
Bob Brooks wrote to say that he's the anon. above. Forgot his password. I should've given him credit earlier for supporting the pay hike idea. For some reason, I couldn't dig up the story about that in the archives and I wondered if I imagined it.
Mr. Brooks, are the powers that be that disturbed by the chance of competition that they would intentionally keep council salaries low? I find that to be a very bitter statement that indicates how power quickly and terribly corrupts.
If your assertion is true, then the existing council members have moved beyond objective decision-making to strengthen themselves politically and/or economically, and if your assertion is false, then it proves that you have become a power-hungry, despotic wannabe. Either way, it seems, some council members may have forgotten just exactly what they are: civil servants that are supposed to be putting the interests of the city ahead of themselves, and this includes showboating.
But I digress, and I wishn't to derail this conversation. I do wish to assert, however, a couple of things. Politicians are generally despised no matter the level of the politician, no matter the prestige. But to be sure on the matter, I would like to know the level of voter satisfaction among North Dakota and Minnesota communities and the pay levels for elected officials in those communities with the aim of finding a link between salary and approval rating. However, I do not believe that the typical regional community tracks their elected officials' approval, correct?
Peder, voter satisfaction? What?
Remember, you live in a community where less than 10% of the citizens vote and the mayor and the council president ran unopposed. The spin is, "the populous is satisfied". I don't believe that's true. I believe that the citizens have become so apathetic towards city politics that they've given up. Apathy bred from a history of bad decision making.
I simply wonder if there's a correlation between an elected official's pay and and his average approval rating. I suspect that there is none, meaning that the pay increase would do little to help the council.
Regarding the 10% of the population voting, that's only during the primaries. In a presidential election year, the numbers go up. But further, this is a college town full of college students and out-of-town professors that have little or no interest in local politics. Those not from Grand Forks often vote in their hometowns if they vote at all.
I suspect that there is none, meaning that the pay increase would do little to help the council.
What do you mean? Are you saying pay should be based on voter approval? That would be a scary invite to demagogues and panderers.
Tu-Uyen: Honestly, what on earth...? No! I am not remotely suggesting that. I am contending that good politicians are an anomaly and that pay has little if anything to do with their level of honesty and performance. I believe that a higher caliber of politicians will likely not be had with increased pay, as I have now repeated myself twice.
Double their income. Call it a "Blog Era Adjustment". If I can sit back and whack 'em on the www...anonymously, screenename, or whatever. I say give them a couple extra bucks.
Oh, almost forgot...I don't, and will never, trust the Council Pres.!
Sorry, Peder. The way you phrased it made it hard to understand.
I don't think the argument here is we'll get better quality, that's not how elected officials are chosen anyway. If it were they'd all be taking tests and getting interviewed for 20 hours.
The argument is diversity. More pay means more people that aren't business owners or professionals/managers who can run for council.
City council is not a full-time job. Nor would the city support that.
If it were only true, my friend. It's not a full-time job but many council members make it almost full-time. There are two levels here. There are the formal committee and council meetings. Those are the ones that are publicly posted and I try to attend the important ones.
Then there are the informal meetings between one or two council members with individual staff members. I usually hear about these meetings after they happen. The old HR director told me of a couple of rough meetings with two council members whose name I won't say because I have no direct verification. You can guess which ones have the time for that sort of micromanagement.
What sometimes annoys the heck out of the council members that aren't able to find the time is the undue influence the full-timers have over city policy. These part-timers argue that the council should be more like a board of directors, which means not meddling with city staffers.
You might ask yourself, why hasn't this story been told? The question is how many people are willing to talk on the record about it? You can't have anonymous people making accusations from the shadows. And, to a certain extent, this is normal politics. The best weapon against it is strong leadership, which is more likely if you broaden the pool of leaders.
No, the debate is still part-time. $20k is not even close to full-time for an administrator. Full-time would be like $60k+.
But that's besides the point. We're not talking about $20k either. We're talking about $9,600.
Extra pay will allow those who now must hold multiple jobs to run for office. It'll allow those that depend on overtime to maintain their and their family's standard of living. It'll help the single mom pay for the babysitter so she can attend meetings.
Those are just some examples I can think of. It's not gonna give them the same flexibility as someone who can make his or her own hours, but more flexibility is better than none.
Although, the money equals diversity argument falters when you consider that there are plenty of women who are professionals or who own their own business, but they aren't running. I'm stumped about that one. Maybe the tradeoff between more time with the kids and more time with politicians is too one-sided.
It would be instructive to go back over the last 75-100 years to see how many council members were in situations analogous to people like Gershman, Christianson, and others whose income and professions allow them the opportunity to be in an office which pays a pittance.
Post a Comment
<< Home