The annual $9,750 stipend paid to Newton’s City Councilors has not changed since 1997. And, as Jonathan Dame reports in today’s TAB, it’s considerably lower than the $18,105 average salary paid to councilors in 19 comparable Massachusetts cities.
On the other hand, Newton pays more in total on council salaries than many communities because we have such a large number of seats on the councill
Should they get a raise?
“The bottom line is I feel the pay is so low it makes people not consider running for the office because it takes so much to run,” said Ward 3 Councilor at-large Jim Cote. “And the time commitment is so huge, you actually lose quality people who can’t afford to run.”
No!
No — and I’ll share why:
I just moved to Newton this year after living in Newburyport — and I was a 3-term city councilor there. We got paid $5000 gross every year. Assume a third went to taxes. It was more of a figurehead stipend to help pay for phone bills, copies, etc. And the thing is, nobody ran for office because of the money. Nor should that be the case here.
Unlike Boston and Cambridge, Newton councilors have their own separate full-time jobs. At a time when departments are understaffed and municipal resources are tight, why should a councilor earn more? I fail to understand that logic. If I was on the council, I would vote no.
To paraphrase James T. Kirk to Dr. McCoy in Star Trek II, “Don’t mince words, Mike, what are you trying to say?”
🙂
I’m trying to say “no,” they should not get a raise. If public service and a modest stipend is not rewarding enough, don’t run. Hope that clarifies my position.
Don’t they qualify for health benefits after ten years of service????? Maybe we should look at the whole benefits package and not just the pay.
Also, are they entitled to pensions?
Yes, they should get a raise.
My comment on this is that I recommend reading the entire article and thinking this through. Jonatham Dame examines cities with comparable numbers of residents, since small towns are a different dynamic and are not part of the conversation. The Council (formerly Board of Alderman) has operated without a compensation system for many years, and it’s only responsible managment to have a non-political way of setting compensation. My goal is to ensure compensation is reviewed at a set point in time, which doesn’t mean a raise is automatic.
The issue isn’t just the City Council, but the Mayor, the School Committee, and senior staff, meaning that there are many people left up in the air year after year.
The reality is that public political campaign funds do not exist and are not available to municipal candidates, and the cost of running for election is in the $7,500 to $30,000 range, ‘”every” 2 years. From personal experience most of the beginning campaigns are self funded, and you may have to run in 2-3 elections (not my experience) to win a seat. Now, long serving Councilors seldom campaign and expend few dollars making this an uneven playing field. Community service is one thing, and one can do this on many unpaid boards in which you can be appointed at no cost to the appointee. As a note many of these seats go unfilled providing opportunity to all of you seeking to set the example by serving your community in your spare time.
Should you want a diverse City government of residents that can afford to represent the city then you have to address the realities of compensation.
I served my country in the Marines, possesed 3 college degrees drawing an intial base pay of $283 per month, so please don’t try and make light of my contributions to my community, or that I’m in it for the money. A raise is not for me since by the time this would take effect, I will most likely have already stepped aside for the next one up.
Huh, James? Because campaigning has a $ cost, elected folks should get taxpayer money? That’s ludicrous.
@ Councilor Cote– Excellent post! I appreciate your comment and value your perspective. I disagree that we should have a “non-political way of setting compensation” for political office. What you’re suggesting is a way to insulate elected office holders from a decision that may be politically unpopular. My suggestion would be to approach the matter of increased compensation in a transparent way with the public. I see little political fallout from a well deserved raise at the local level in Newton. But the burden is [and should be] on the City Council to make that case to the public.
Think it through Ari. I am concerned about representation, and it would be a shame to have government run by one class such as is mostly the case in the US Senate. Matching Federal campaign funds, which has nothing to do with this, were implemented to allow for a diverse pool of candidates. Again, I am concerned with the lack of a process not the need for a pay raise.
Ludicrous is not a good word for discussion purposes.
@Mike Striar: Thanks for the comments, and please allow me to clarify. I am in no way advocating for a system that provides automatic raises, or for no public input. On the contrary, I recommend that every 5 or 10 years, the Council would be mandated to take up compensation, and take the case to the public to make a decision.
Thanks for the clarification, Councilor Cote. So how is that a “non-political way of setting compensation”?
Compensation is payment for doing a job. I agree that the article’s focus on comparable cities and city council function is the correct one. At this point we have 24 City Councilors working more hours on city wide business than I would expect from councilors receiving a modest stipend with most working day jobs.
Depending on the charter revisions, there could be fewer Councilors putting in more or fewer hours on city wide business, making it difficult to determine the stipend for the future.
As for public service being its own reward – that’s ludicrous!
Excellent suggestion Mr. Cote! Letting the Council propose (and presumably make the case) and having the voters choose whether to enact a proposed change in compensation is precisely how it should be done. If a raise were rejected and the quality of representation suffered then at some point, presumably a raise would be provided. An excellent method for achieving equilibrium between the quality of representation and the quantity of expenditure.
@Mike Striar: Great follow-up question. By the nature of our government it sure is hard to distinguish between politics and process. In our city we have unions representing a large percentage of City employees and they work on specific contracts, and in the non-governmental world we operate on annual reviews, pay bands, longevity raises, etc (of course office politics are another dynamic).
In this one segment of employees though we leave ourselves open to chance and lost opportunity in ways such as retaining great administrative employees, Mayoral retention and new candidates, and potential innovative School Committee, and City Council candidates that never materialize. Nothing is perfect but a system sets the table.
Thanks again, Councilor Cote. Your explanation of the proposal has caused me to change my mind. Although I don’t support a raise for Council members at this time, I do support your proposal for periodic salary review. I don’t believe we’ve ever engaged in a V-14 conversation before. So let me take this opportunity to thank you for both your service to our country, as well as your service to our city. Newton is fortunate to have you as an elected official.
Give ’em all a raise for having to put up with a guy like me!
@Harry: What about a raise for all of us who have to put up with you on Village 14? 😉
Thank you @Mike Striar for the kind words and to everyone for allowing me the space to explain my position. Also, @Harry anyone who comments is greatly appreciated!
I don’t agree with the argument that councilors should be paid because they have to spend money to get elected. I do, however, believe they should be compensated for all the work they do and time they devote to serving the city.