Is this the right time to give the Davis City Council a raise for the first time in twelve years? In the next four months we will hear buzzwords like shared sacrifice coming from the council, as they ask city employees to take pay cuts and pay more of their retirement pensions, but three members of the council still believed this was the correct time in which to vote a raise that will take effect after the next council is seated.
The council also voted 4-1 to make changes in their health care plans that they will believe will ultimately save the city a modest amount of money, allowing the councilmembers to exercise a deferred cash-out plan of $500 per month rather than taking the more expensive full health care plan. (Details of both proposals can be read in this article from last week.)
The cash-out plan would seem to be a no-brainer. As Mayor Joe Krovoza, a strong proponent for both proposals argued, “This would seem to be a significant cost savings to the city.” He argued that it simply applies the same policy that new employees take on as well.
Mayor Krovoza moved that staff return with an ordinance for a deferred compensation plan that would return for a first and second reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, in seconding that motion, argued that with this option, councilmembers who already have insurance plans would be able to take the deferred compensation plan leading to savings for the city.
“It’s good for us especially moving forward as we look for additional ways that we can be creative and yet remain equitable and provide good benefits for everyone,” she said.
Councilmember Stephen Souza said that this benefit would benefit him personally. However he added, “But having said that, the whole package I’m going to have a hard time with in these times, when we’re asking of our employees to pay more out of their pocket through negotiations. Everything that we’re talking about for our employees is less for them, while everything that we’re talking about right here is more for us.”
“That’s an interesting irony in and of itself,” he said. “But, you’re absolutely correct of the two positions, whether we want to compensate with more stipend versus give us the ability to move us off of taking medical benefits, this would… save the city money.”
Councilmember Sue Greenwald, “I think this is logical.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk was the lone dissenter on this vote. He said that while he thinks that this makes a lot of sense, he argued, “I just can’t support it in the middle of contract negotiations like this.”
He added, “I won’t be supporting it, but I think your heart’s in the right place on this one.”
The compensation increase, however, was more contentious. The current salary is set at $669.49 and has been in place at that level since April 2000. The amount may be increased up to 5% each calendar year since the last adjustment, non-compounded.
The staff report says, “The City Council could increase the annual salary amount anywhere from 0% to 60% (12 years x 5% per year), or to a total of $1,071 per month. The City Council may choose to adjust the salary anywhere along the spectrum between 0% and 60%, via a Council-adopted ordinance.”
Harriet Steiner clarified during the meeting that any increase in salary effectively resets the clock.
The Vanguard previously noted that, while we are sympathetic to ultimately raising council compensation, we believe that this is not the appropriate time to do it – at a time when the council is asking city employees to sacrifice and take concessions.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson argued for the increase, arguing the current arrangement has unintended consequences.
“It puts it to the point where it is mostly only workable for people who are retired, [or] who are lucky enough to have a spouse, or are in some way independently wealthy, or don’t need to sleep and can do their sixty hour job and the forty hour council job,” she said.
The Mayor Pro Tem added that the short-sightedness of the current policy is such that some people who would be amazing as councilmembers are unable to make it work financially. “They can’t do it because of the lack of compensation,” she added.
She argued that they needed to be mindful that, while the goal is not enrichment, at least moving the compensation forward would start to move things in the right direction.
Councilmember Stephen Souza agreed with the core argument, but believes we need to go the route of a charter city in order to be able to provide councilmembers with a real salary.
“Even with 1071 per month, I don’t see that as an attractor factor,” he said. “I think the service on the behalf of the community is supposed to be the attractor factor.”
He praised the hard work of both Mayor Joe Krovoza and Mayor Pro Tem Swanson, “I totally agree it would be nice to compensate ourselves a little more for that time, but going from $600 to $1000, it’s a small compensation…but I CANNOT bring myself to saying that within a year in which we are asking others to not be compensated, to take reductions, that it’s the proper year to do it.”
Sue Greenwald was a strong advocate for the increased compensation. She argued, “Some councilmembers are wealthier than others.”
“There are councilmember that do not [make a lot of money],” Councilmember Greenwald continued. “There are councilmembers for whom a small raise would not just be a token. I think we have to be mindful of that. Right now we tend to have more people who make a lot of money on the council because of this problem that it doesn’t pay at all.”
“I think we might be more inclined to get people who don’t make as much money and keep them there, people like Lamar Heystek for example, if there were some compensation,” she continued.
She noted that the council does not have any offices, whereas not only do the County Supervisors get a salary, but they get two staffers and two offices.
Sue Greenwald argued that it takes a lot of space to be on the council in terms of the paperwork, and that she has used her granny flat as an office.
Likewise, Joe Krovoza argued that there was a full room in his house devoted to the council and his dining room table is where he often conducts meetings.
Dan Wolk agreed with the notion of giving councilmembers more compensation, but again argued this is not the right time to do so.
“For the reasons that I voted against the other measure, it does feel like a particularly difficult time in which to vote for something like that,” he argued.
Mayor Krovoza argued that their compensation is actually negative, in that they do not get enough of a travel stipend to attend even regional events without going out of pocket.
“We don’t invest in sending us to go to conferences, if we do, we can maybe afford to go to one,” the Mayor said noting they get about $1500 a year.
Stephen Souza would counter that if they wanted to fix the travel expenses for going to conferences and other events, that should be done separately.
However, the mayor’s point was, “We’re not just getting compensated at a low level, we’ll all spending our personal money to serve on council.”
He said that people are shocked as to how many hours they put in a week and what they get compensated for doing that.
“We are, in fact, subsidizing the city by doing this,” he said. “I do think we’re creating a bit of a rich man’s game here for this council.”
“I think the city wants independent hard-working people and this is a step toward [that],” he said.
“We just went toe-to-toe for hours to protect this community against the unsightly, against talent that’s being paid hundreds of dollars an hour to appear before us,” he continued. “If we were all making a hundred dollars an hour, we would have just earned our stipend in one night.” He joked in a deadpanned manner, “The city’s clearly violating labor laws with my $600 a month [stipend], I’m in around $4.50 an hour for my time.”
“I think this is the right thing to do for good government and we have no need to apologize for it,” he said claiming he would take the heat if they get attacked mercilessly in the press.
Dan Wolk responded to a comment from the mayor that implied that others were voting against this because they were up for election. “It has nothing to do with the election,” he said, arguing that his bigger concerns were contract negotiations.
Sue Greenwald responded, “It’s not going to be a good time to do it for a long long long time.”
Stephen Souza argued, “I believe that you cannot at the same time you’re asking those to give up… even though the number is only $402 more a month if we go to the maximum, I just don’t believe in it.”
“That’s why I’ve never taken the medical benefits from the city,” he added.
Sue Greenwald again made the case that she saved the city $80 to $100 million on the wastewater deal and argued, “I could not have done that in my first term. I probably couldn’t have done it in my second. You get better at any job you do.”
“I’m a better councilmember now than when I was first elected,” she said.
Stephen Souza argued that this will not make a difference as to whether or not someone wants to serve this community. “What will make a difference is if we increase the events stipend so that we can go to more events. So that we can be participatory,” he said.
He said he would support that but he doesn’t support the symbolic act of spending $402 more per month on the council, “while at the same time we are asking others to give up far more than that.”
He said, “It would be nice to go in the other direction, but my preference is to do it through a charter city status and do it with real money, so that we really do attract people who can serve, who can’t serve right now, and I don’t think $1000 will do it.”
The council voted 3-2 to pass this raise, which will now come in the form of an ordinance, which means the public will get a chance to weigh in before it becomes a done deal.
As I said previously, councilmembers should not have to pay out of pocket for doing work on behalf of the city. The Vanguard would like to see a full layout of expenses, the current travel account, and see how feasible it would be increase that amount.
In summary, the Vanguard believes that salary compensation at this time would be a political nightmare, given the state of current bargaining and budgetary considerations. We believe ultimately in raising the salary.
The Vanguard believes that the $500 in lieu of health care is a no-brainer and that the council, instead of a salary increase, should analyze the need for travel expenses and adjust appropriately.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As promised, I am glad to be the lead dog on the sled for this one. Here is some thinking.
David’s summary above is good and fair. No doubt. I would add that this decision has to be made before the election for the coming two-year cycle of each council. We should take this up mid-cycle, not close to an election. Why past council’s haven’t addressed this, or did and didn’t make a change, I don’t know. A better approach will be to have our Finance & Budget Commission advise us on this, not take it up directly.
I would hope this issue is considered in the context of good policy, long-term for the health of the council.
Stephen Souza and David are certainly correct that the $1500 per council member expense account and the $5,000 total budget for all council members’ travel should be reviewed. These are budget issues, not compensation issues, and so they aren’t part of the decision needed now.
Average budgeted amount for employees over the last twelve years while the council stipend has been flat: Management 92%, Fire 108%, Police (sworn) 98%, Police (Civilian) 100%, PASEA 82%, DCEA 95%. (These numbers based on benchmark positions within the groups and what was budgeted; correctly, they do not capture staffing levels or total staffing numbers; not perfect apples-to-apples, but one gets the picture.) I don’t follow how a stipend increase of 50 percent over the last twelve years (built on a very small base) chills labor negotiations. I can’t imagine a labor negotiator making that point.
Updating the health care policy for council members to match the policy for all new employees will likely offset or produce more savings than the expense created by the proposed stipend increase.
Other cities: Berkeley $29,519, Santa Cruz $16,754, San Luis Obispo $12,012. Certainly there are some that are lower or much lower, but with our level of community engagement? We are essentially at $8,000 now and would move to $12,000 if this is approved.
The Davis City Council oversees an All Funds budget of $170 million for 2011-12, of which $38 million is the more “discretionary” General Fund.
I believe there are still other actions we should take to create a stronger council. More training is needed as we make large decisions on such a diverse set of issues. In some areas council members have lots of background and expertise, in others we have none. Some re-look at campaign finance is in order too. In my election I took the stand that I would not accept funds from anyone doing business directly with the city council. This meant that I did not solicit or accept funds from employees (given possible labor negotiation conflicts) or from developers who might seek land use entitlements from the city. Rochelle largely followed this commitment as well. None of our current candidates have picked this up. It does take lots of work within a campaign to stick to this pledge, and one gets snickers of “holier than thou,” but the gesture is important as is the context for future perceptions or reality in decision making.
Joe is absolutely spot on on all of his points except the issue of timing and whether this will be an issue in labor negotiations.
Re: “I don’t follow how a stipend increase of 50 percent over the last twelve years (built on a very small base) chills labor negotiations. I can’t imagine a labor negotiator making that point.”
I don’t think you have ever been involved in unionized labor negotiations, Joe. There are pretty bare-knuckled and every advantage, no matter how insignificant it may seem, will be employed by labor negotiators to get what they want. I guarantee you that the Staff’s negotiators will make this a huge bargaining point and used to rally the troops and in the arena of public opinion. It is all about the symbolism.
Re: “We should take this up mid-cycle, not close to an election. Why past council’s haven’t addressed this, or did and didn’t make a change, I don’t know.”
So why not wait until after the election and the labor negotiations are completed?
This is disgusting. Krovoza, Swanson, and Greenwald should be ashamed of themselves. Souza and Wolk continue to be the only members of who seem to have any sort of perspective or conscience. Krovoza can put whatever spin on it he likes to justify it but in the end it is just wrong. $400 per member per month may not seem like a lot but in the end that’s one Office Assistant position. One they’ll probably eliminate and put on the unemployement line. Oh well, at least they get some extra cash out of it. I can’t believe they’re doing this at a time when they are asking employees to bite the bullet. They’re claiming that there’s this bitter pill that everyone has to swallow but not only are they not swallowing – they’re giving themselves a sugar pill. They’re becoming classic politicians just like the ones at the state and federal levels. Spewing out their justifications for cuts and tax increases while voting themselves raises. Deplorable.
The net of the actions is a wash or positive fiscally for the city. To Alan, we can always put off to tomorrow… In this case if we do so, a change post this council would be for the 2014-16 council.
We should pay council members a fair amount for their jobs and should reimburse them for all expenses they incur working for us.
We pay such a small amount–how much an hour, I wonder?–that it cannot matter one way or another in determining the quality of candidates we get. There’s one exception, we might end up underrepresented in the low-income category.
Furthermore, the amount of the proposed increase is so small that it’s hard to imagine that approving it will affect voters’ views or employee negotiations in the tiniest way.
On the other hand, the health insurance cash-out seems more complicated than it first appears. It appears the $500 payment’s only purpose is to discourage folks from accepting city insurance they don’t really need because they have insurance from another source. Wouldn’t it be a great message to send voters and employees that the council will forego this essentially undeserved and unnecessary monthly bonus?
There never will be a time when someone won’t complain about giving the council members a deserved raise. The fear reflected here is unnecessary. The biggest surprise to me is how council members personalized the issue so much during the debate. Wasted time and makes them look petty and selfish.
PS–I’ll be glad to start a PAC encouraging residents to donate $1 a month if Sue quits justifying things by pointing out her exceptional $80-100 million lottery win for the city.
To Joe Krovoza Re: “To Alan, we can always put off to tomorrow… In this case if we do so, a change post this council would be for the 2014-16 council.”
Does that mean that a Council cannot raise it’s own salary but can only raise the compensation level for the next Council?
Can the Council also only change travel and expense reimbursement policies and/or medical insurance reimbursement-compensation for the next Council?
If yes, then that speaks to taking action now with respect to expense reimbursements.
Even so, the symbolism of a Council salary increase as we enter into labor negotiations just does not smell right even though the sums involved are undeniably insignificant compared to our sky-high labor and personnel costs.
The monthly stipend is too low, but now is a terrible time for the CC to give itself a raise.
Also, is the raise based on merit pay?
What about: DACHA debacle that has cost the city well over a million, no end in sight, and where the CIty has gone on an illegal crusade to destroy the mutual coop housing model in Davis and two local developers who have given more to this town over the years than nearly anyone else I know; surface water plant rate increases that were bogus, and a plant project that is highly questionnable; the City’s complete failure to effectively deal with with the budget cuts, and letting staff delay after ther 3/2 vote to make the $2.5 m cut; failure to cut the unneeded 4th member of the fire crews, while meanwhile closing pools and gutting the family programs for our kids? I could go on.
So no, the CC has not earned a merit increase.
Sue, you should be ashamed of yourself to be the third vote for this.
“Does that mean that a Council cannot raise it’s own salary but can only raise the compensation level for the next Council?”
It appears that they can raise their salary 5% per year. But it only takes effect with the new council.
Sue crying poverty is a bit unseemly for me. Perhaps she will be willing to disclose both her husband’s income and their total net assets. I recall from reading her disclosures and her recusals they own at least two properties. Seems her crying poverty is unseemly.
This piece and the responses, as I write this, isn’t just ‘food for thought’, it’s a veritable banquet.
First, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a response to a question, from weeks ago… where can the public find a complete picture of what council members get as salary, as benefits (medical, dental, life, pension, “post retirement medical”, etc. A little ‘transparency’ would be good here.
I’ve seen a couple of posters indicate what %/number of employees take ‘advantage’ of the “cash out’ on cafeteria. I recall from a previous ‘article’ that CC members can’t cash-out currently. It is pretty clear that CC members do NOT have to use their medical benefit coverage if they don’t want it. If a CC member wants to save the city money, they can rely on their own, or separate coverage (spouse), decline ANY city contribution, and save the City up to 5 X 12 X 1400 = ~ $84 k. If a CC member IS covered, this is actually a $6,000 increase in compensation, though it goes into deferred comp.
I actually have no real grief with what is proposed (except for the message it sends to other employees), but I take umbrage that the changes, particularly on the cash-out, is portrayed as “cost-savings”. I’d rather have the $500 per month added to the stipend, and keep the cafeteria cash-out off the table.
BTW, will the CC impose the same “cost-sharing” of health insurance premium increases in the same manner as exists/proposed for other employees?
As for retirement ‘pension’ and/or post ‘retirement medical’, will the same vesting rules apply as they do to other employees? If the concept of changing retiree medical to legal minimum until age 65 also be applied to the CC?
David, perhaps a good question to ask all the candidates (3 have “weighed in”) what they think of the proposal, and whether they intend to decline, accept the benefits proposed.
And it’s ironic the mayor wishes to add money for CC conferences, etc., when TRAINING, not just conferences/”junkets”, have been severely cut from department budgets.
To hpierce re: “And it’s ironic the mayor wishes to add money for CC conferences, etc., when TRAINING, not just conferences/”junkets”, have been severely cut from department budgets.”
The conferences attended by the Councilmembers are perhaps the best way for the Councilmembers to ensure they are aware of all governmental funding opportunities in order to “bring home the bacon”. I bet we get a 20 to 1 return on our investments by sending our Councilmembers to these various public meetings and symposiums. Continuing to reimburse and to increase reimbursement for these activities by Councilmembers is money VERY well spent IMHO.
Sue Greenwald was on the money when she noted that the lack of compensation is keeping some really high quality lower/moderate income people from serving on the Council. She pointed to Lamar Heystek as an example. Lamar was the epitome of what I think a good leader should be – bright, articulate, analytical, soft spoken but always voiced his honest opinion, respectful, fair, balanced, consistent, unbiased, and a true and shining example of how our leaders should behave. But Lamar was just starting out in his professional career when he joined the Council and just could not make it work for him because of the time demands. I would gladly fork over $80K/year (County Supervisors salaries) if we could get 100% of people’s time of the quality of Lamar. I really, really miss him.
[quote]I bet we get a 20 to 1 return on our investments by sending our Councilmembers to these various public meetings and symposiums.[/quote]And, despite what some CC members might say, I bet you’d lose that bet.
[quote]If a CC member wants to save the city money, they can rely on their own, or separate coverage (spouse), decline ANY city contribution[/quote]
Despite all of the negative press he seems to get from the Vanguard. I believe Souza already does this.
There is no purpose served by giving council members cafeteria health money except as a route to boost their pay in a hidden way. Good for Councilman Souza if he’s turning down the payment. But, it just should be eliminated since the five council members either will take city-financed health insurance because they need it or they can be depended on not to waste city funds if by doubling up with city insurance if they already are covered.
City employees don’t have the same motivations and public oversight as council members, so they probably need some cash payments to keep them from wasting our money duplicating health insurance plans. $500 is more than enough.
Are you sure Lamar is a good example of how our “lack of compensation is keeping some really high quality lower/moderate income people from serving on the Council”? The pay scale didn’t keep him– a student/grocery clerk whom you and Sue found a top-notch councilman–from deciding to run and serve. Nothing was said when he left that suggested he was blaming the “lack of compensation” for his decision. Are you really sure you want to pay five of them $80,000 a year each?
Joe called me and asked me to vote for this, and I was initially reluctant due to fears of political fall-out. But after giving it much thought, I decided that it was the right thing to do.
Everyone deserves fair pay for their labor, period. While this long overdue increase is a mere token — bringing us to only a $12,000 a year salary — at least it illustrates we are not afraid to say that our labor is, in fact, worth something.
In terms of labor negotiations: We have shown that we are willing to work 40 or 50 hour a week for only $12,000 a year. That is setting a very good example indeed.
To put this in perspective, according to Rich Rifkin, the five County Supervisors spend about $1.5 million a year on themselves and their assistants; the five councilmembers now spend about $200,000 total. Duane Chamberlin told me that he took home over $80,000 last year. The County Supervisors must vote for their own raises and to fund assistants for themselves just as councilmembers vote for our raises and assistants (which we have not done).
Again, the amount of money involved as trivial, accept to potential councilmembers like Julie Partansky, for whom it might have made the difference between going for another term or not, but the principle is important to me.
Whooops! Too tired after 5 hours of tabling at the Farmers’ Market. Here is the correction:
Again, the amount of money involved in the raise is trivial, except to potential councilmembers like Julie Partansky for whom it might have made the difference between going for another term or not, but the principle is important to me.
Reminds me if the tone deaf Regents who continue to increase executive pay while increasing student tuition. I am discouraged by their timing.
Note how rational assessment has been replaced by emotives and trial in the court of public opinion?
Do we really care about a reasonable $400 per month increase for city council members when public employee union members are awarded multi-million-dollar pensions at age 50?
The people prone to use the $400 increase as a point of political leverage are going to be the same with self-serving interests to protect the bloated union pay and benefits at all costs. The rest of us can do the math.
“Sue Greenwald was on the money when she noted that the lack of compensation is keeping some really high quality lower/moderate income people from serving on the Council.”
I agree 100%.
Currently, council members must have an independent source of wealth or a spouse with a well-paying job in order to be able to live with a family in Davis and serve on the council. Doesn’t being a council member now involve on average 30-40 or more hours of time per week?
As financial times may get more difficult, we run the risk of exposing council members to the temptation of cozying up to business, financial, and real-estate interests, in order that they can have a better chance of financial security when they retire from the council.
Seems to me it would be prudent to triple their salary now, so the temptation to cozy up to big money interests is reduced (no I am not being facetious or sarcastic). A tripling of salary would be a very small fraction of the city budget, would be penny-foolish but pound-wise.