Candidates should discuss council member compensation and read the sign ordinance
This week’s column again focuses on an important issue ignored—so far—by all six candidates seeking the two City Council positions up for grabs in the Nov. 2 election.
Previously, I’ve written about declining revenues and city subsidies at the Black Gold Golf Club and potential higher-density zoning for 11 west side land parcels, which the contenders have overlooked or glossed over with vague, generic statements.
Also missing from their various “contracts” or “pledge lists” is any mention of the 13.4 percent increase in fringe benefits council members awarded themselves in a quick 5-0 vote with no discussion as part of the routine “consent calendar” at an Aug. 17 meeting.
And, not surprisingly, the little-noticed enhancement has been omitted from newsletters two council members e-mail constituents and websites and Facebook pages two council members use to publicize their campaigns and selected council actions.
The benefit boost for council members is the same $112 per month increase they granted city employees for “cafeteria” benefits to begin Jan. 1, 2011. A past council’s 3-2 vote in 1996 added the governing body to the “cafeteria” plan, in which dollars can be used for a health plan premium, cash-out payment and/or 401k-like retirement plan.
But the increase in “cafeteria” benefits—from $833 to $945 monthly—for employees was accompanied by a five percent salary reduction due to 13 furlough days in the 2010-11 fiscal year. On June 30 council debated but discarded plans to trim their own salaries.
At that June 30 meeting council members proposed 10, 25 and 50 percent reductions in their $500 per month pay. The 10 and 25 percent cuts were defeated 3-2, and the 50 per cent cut motion wasn’t even seconded.
The council did vote 3-2 to pay the $30 per meeting Redevelopment Agency salaries only “for those meetings where actual Redevelopment Agency business is discussed.” The city also covers council’s dental, vision and life insurance benefits and cell phone allowances.
Certainly, an extra $6,720 for council members next year won’t break the treasury, and council is allowed to discuss employee compensation packages behind closed doors, as long as a public vote is taken, even if the vote is tucked into a 10-item consent calendar.
But symbolism is important, especially when council members plead poverty as they deny other expenditures and agree to reduce employee pay but not their own salaries.
And sadly, candidates also are ignoring parts of the city’s zoning code regulating the placement of temporary campaign signs on public property.
According to a list of rules each contender was given when they signed up to run, signs are not to be placed within 15 feet of a driveway, street intersection or fire hydrant, and they must be “freestanding” and not affixed to fences, posts, traffic signals, utility poles, light standards or trees.
Previously, I’ve written about declining revenues and city subsidies at the Black Gold Golf Club and potential higher-density zoning for 11 west side land parcels, which the contenders have overlooked or glossed over with vague, generic statements.
Also missing from their various “contracts” or “pledge lists” is any mention of the 13.4 percent increase in fringe benefits council members awarded themselves in a quick 5-0 vote with no discussion as part of the routine “consent calendar” at an Aug. 17 meeting.
And, not surprisingly, the little-noticed enhancement has been omitted from newsletters two council members e-mail constituents and websites and Facebook pages two council members use to publicize their campaigns and selected council actions.
The benefit boost for council members is the same $112 per month increase they granted city employees for “cafeteria” benefits to begin Jan. 1, 2011. A past council’s 3-2 vote in 1996 added the governing body to the “cafeteria” plan, in which dollars can be used for a health plan premium, cash-out payment and/or 401k-like retirement plan.
But the increase in “cafeteria” benefits—from $833 to $945 monthly—for employees was accompanied by a five percent salary reduction due to 13 furlough days in the 2010-11 fiscal year. On June 30 council debated but discarded plans to trim their own salaries.
At that June 30 meeting council members proposed 10, 25 and 50 percent reductions in their $500 per month pay. The 10 and 25 percent cuts were defeated 3-2, and the 50 per cent cut motion wasn’t even seconded.
The council did vote 3-2 to pay the $30 per meeting Redevelopment Agency salaries only “for those meetings where actual Redevelopment Agency business is discussed.” The city also covers council’s dental, vision and life insurance benefits and cell phone allowances.
Certainly, an extra $6,720 for council members next year won’t break the treasury, and council is allowed to discuss employee compensation packages behind closed doors, as long as a public vote is taken, even if the vote is tucked into a 10-item consent calendar.
But symbolism is important, especially when council members plead poverty as they deny other expenditures and agree to reduce employee pay but not their own salaries.
And sadly, candidates also are ignoring parts of the city’s zoning code regulating the placement of temporary campaign signs on public property.
According to a list of rules each contender was given when they signed up to run, signs are not to be placed within 15 feet of a driveway, street intersection or fire hydrant, and they must be “freestanding” and not affixed to fences, posts, traffic signals, utility poles, light standards or trees.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home