Increased City Council benefits: last of a two-year string of contentious 3 to 2 split votes?
A two-year string of 3-2 City Council votes on key issues might become political history on Dec. 7—which oldtimers remember as Pearl Harbor Day—when Tom Lindsey assumes a seat at the dais with four council members who endorsed his candidacy.
After the 2008 election, Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing joined John Anderson to form a majority bloc, and a 3-2 pattern began when Jan Horton was denied the mayor’s chair by the now-familiar tally. She’s the only retiring member to never serve as mayor.
Lindsey is expected to add a fourth vote to the majority, since he campaigned with Anderson and was endorsed not only by Rikel and Schwing, as anticipated, but by Jim Winder, who also endorsed Horton and Brenda McCune for the two seats on the ballot.
One of the last of the contentious 3-2 votes came at the council’s election night meeting. Horton and Winder wanted to rescind a 13.4 per cent fringe benefit increase for council members that council quietly approved Aug. 17.
The 5-0 Aug. 17 vote boosted council’s “cafeteria” plan monthly benefit from $833 to $945, city-supplied cash that can be used for health and/or 401k-style retirement plans.
The resolution granting the increase for council members and management employees was one of 10 items placed on the agenda for a single, routine “consent calendar” vote.
Council members removed four items for separate discussion and votes, but the benefit enhancement was among the six items adopted without comment.
Two months later, Horton asked that staff prepare a report on segregating council’s benefits from other employees, a request approved 3-2, with Anderson, Horton and Schwing in favor and Rikel and Winder opposed.
On Nov. 2, a resolution splitting council’s benefits from other staffers gained a 5-0 vote, but Anderson, Rikel and Schwing opposed returning council’s benefits to $833 monthly.
(Council was added to the management resolution in 1995 on a 3-2 vote with Schwing, Barbara Kiley and Gene Wisner in favor, and John Gullixson and Dan Welch opposed.)
Although Anderson rejected returning benefits to the prior level, he said he wouldn’t take the $112 monthly increase that begins Jan. 1. In an e-mail reply to my questions, Finance Director David Christian explained council members could refuse the increase:
“If any council member requested a reduction in [the] benefits, we would certainly accommodate [the] request and treat it strictly as a voluntary reduction. The request would not automatically be tied to the start and end date of any particular enrollment period unless the requestor specifically stated such.”
Christian noted, “The council member would not be under any obligation to continue the reduction indefinitely, and upon rescinding the request, we would restore the benefits to the amount allowed under the resolution.”
Council members also qualify for a city-paid PERS retirement benefit.
After the 2008 election, Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing joined John Anderson to form a majority bloc, and a 3-2 pattern began when Jan Horton was denied the mayor’s chair by the now-familiar tally. She’s the only retiring member to never serve as mayor.
Lindsey is expected to add a fourth vote to the majority, since he campaigned with Anderson and was endorsed not only by Rikel and Schwing, as anticipated, but by Jim Winder, who also endorsed Horton and Brenda McCune for the two seats on the ballot.
One of the last of the contentious 3-2 votes came at the council’s election night meeting. Horton and Winder wanted to rescind a 13.4 per cent fringe benefit increase for council members that council quietly approved Aug. 17.
The 5-0 Aug. 17 vote boosted council’s “cafeteria” plan monthly benefit from $833 to $945, city-supplied cash that can be used for health and/or 401k-style retirement plans.
The resolution granting the increase for council members and management employees was one of 10 items placed on the agenda for a single, routine “consent calendar” vote.
Council members removed four items for separate discussion and votes, but the benefit enhancement was among the six items adopted without comment.
Two months later, Horton asked that staff prepare a report on segregating council’s benefits from other employees, a request approved 3-2, with Anderson, Horton and Schwing in favor and Rikel and Winder opposed.
On Nov. 2, a resolution splitting council’s benefits from other staffers gained a 5-0 vote, but Anderson, Rikel and Schwing opposed returning council’s benefits to $833 monthly.
(Council was added to the management resolution in 1995 on a 3-2 vote with Schwing, Barbara Kiley and Gene Wisner in favor, and John Gullixson and Dan Welch opposed.)
Although Anderson rejected returning benefits to the prior level, he said he wouldn’t take the $112 monthly increase that begins Jan. 1. In an e-mail reply to my questions, Finance Director David Christian explained council members could refuse the increase:
“If any council member requested a reduction in [the] benefits, we would certainly accommodate [the] request and treat it strictly as a voluntary reduction. The request would not automatically be tied to the start and end date of any particular enrollment period unless the requestor specifically stated such.”
Christian noted, “The council member would not be under any obligation to continue the reduction indefinitely, and upon rescinding the request, we would restore the benefits to the amount allowed under the resolution.”
Council members also qualify for a city-paid PERS retirement benefit.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home