City Council President Marc Laredo is looking for individuals interested in serving on a Blue Ribbon Commission examine the compensation of Newton’s elected officials.
By way of background, our Mayor receives a salary of $125,000 a year for her full-time service (the Mayor is barred by our city charter from having other employment while serving as Mayor) our City Council members each receive a salary (also referred to as a stipend) of $9,750 a year; and elected officials also are eligible to receive health insurance from the city (although many obtain health insurance from other employment or their spouses and so do not use this benefit), and the Mayor and the City Council members are eligible to participate in the city’s retirement system.
This should not even be on the discussion table until the size of the Newton City Council is reduced.
Impeccable timing. Just a couple of weeks before critical midterms. Is it stupidity?, Ignorance?,
Greed? Why go through the farce of a “Blue Ribbon Committee” when the city council could follow the lead of the state legislature and just ram a pay raise through?
Marc Laredo is a lawyer, and i’m only mentioning that because you would think that someone that well-educated who has been active in local, state and national Democrat politics would not be so utterly tone-deaf. What is it with Democrat politicians and money? Marc has been around long enough to know that the job is what it is, and the pay is what it is. To all our city councilors- if the job is taking up too much of your time, or negatively impacting your income, then quit or don’t run again. I’m tired of hearing these pols say “its about public service, not money(or benefits), but it always ends up being about the money, not matter how much, doesn’t it? I’m not playing this game again. No blue ribbon commissions, no raises. Period.
Much of the city council needs to turn over anyway. The health benefits stay with these pols when they leave anyway, don’t they?Please just go away if you are not happy. You will not be missed!
24 City Councilors and not a single one of them stood up to defend the voters ballot box decision to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” They have no respect for the people who put them in office– no respect for the democratic system–and no respect for me as a voter. Why the Hell would I ever support a pay raise for that ship of fools?
@Mike Striar – in hopes that a pay raise would allow better people to run for City Council, since they’d be more able to afford to.
Not saying I’m for or against it, just answering your question.
@Meredith-
I doubt “more money”is going to suddenly
unearth “better people to run”.
It’s just a tired specious trope, and always has been. Can anyone look at much of our state legislature and with a straight face say that any of the substantial pay raises(not including perks) has resulted in any higher quality candidates? I think not.
Almost all of our local officials spend time on issues outside of their purview,
and on political campaigns that have nothing to do with our city.
I’m not willing to pay these local pols for the time they spend on their extra curricular
political activities. Our entire city council is made up of Democrats and clearly, Newton is not. Might you be able to tell me why Democrat pols are so fixated on money when they claim to be interested in public service?
@ALL: Sounds like some potential Commission Members on this string. The issue is bigger than paying people for their time and expertise, it also goes to effective management. Who would think highly of a company that had no process in place to review compensation and had actually failed to visit compensation in 15 years? Bear with me and read below:
One prior to reading the compensation history is that for new Councilors such as myself, one may elect to take medical benefits, but must pay the “new employee” share of the coverage. In fact new members of the School Committee actually have to pay into the City for medical coverage as their stipend doesn’t cover the cost. For a City Councilor that elects medical benefits, they receive a net pay check of $155.00 per month.
The job has changed over the past 15 years with the advent of social media, emails, and cell phones making us more of an on call 24/7 employee that now interacts with hundreds/and sometimes thousands of residents/commercial entities in any given week. This is the history that I provided to my colleagues to explain the rationale for a Blue Ribbon Commission:
David Olson Research and Comments (circa 2015)
On Aug 11, 2016, at 1:44 PM, James Cote wrote:
Hi All,
I have been in discussions about the various levels of compensation within the City Council, Mayor and School committee. I will be docketing this item as listed in David Olson’s recommendation below. I am OK with the controversy of doing this but I believe once you read David’s feedback (Below) that you may concur that we have a responsibility to review compensation.
A fair compensation package will help encourage the participation of potential new candidates.
Please let me know if you would like to co-dock.
Thank you.
Jim
Jim,
The most recent review of compensation for the Mayor, School Committee, and Board of Aldermen was undertaken in 2004. Then Board President Lisle Baker appointed a Special Blue Ribbon Commission to review the current compensation and make recommendations. (Prior to the 2004 review, compensation was reviewed in 1997.)
The Blue Ribbon Commission was chaired by then President Emeritus Vern Vance and the following individuals were members: Alderman Paul Coletti – Chair of Finance, Alderman Marcia Johnson – Chair of Programs & Services; local residents Matt Hills who served as Vice Chair, George Foord, Paula Kay, Amelia Koch, Lorraine Kohr; and City staff City Clerk Edward English, Comptroller David Wilkinson, and City Solicitor Dan Funk
President Baker charged the commission to review the Mayoral, Aldermanic, and School Committee salaries in light of current responsibilities and to make recommendations for any increases, including how such adjustments should best occur in the future.
The Commission began its work in November of 2004 and completed their report in February of 2005.
The Comparative Data from other Massachusetts cities and surrounding towns was gathered by Committee Clerk Shawna Sullivan who called and spoke to each community between December 2004 and January 2005.
Ald. Baker docketed the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations with the Board of Aldermen in March of 2005. The Board rejected the increases for the Aldermen and School Committee and approved an increase in the Mayor’s salary to $125,000 to go into effect on January 1, 2006.
Mayor Cohen kept his salary at $97,500 until the FY09 Budget when he put it in the budget at $125,000 beginning on July 1, 2008. This new number did not make it to the final approved budget.
Mayor Setti Warren started his tenure at $97,500 and put his salary in the budget at $125,000 as part of the FY13 Budget discussions. The budget was approved and the increase took effect July 1, 2012.
The last changes to the stipend for the Board of Aldermen and the School Committee were in 1997.
The only section of the current city charter that relates to compensation for the Mayor, School Committee and City Council is the following:
ARTICLE 3.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Sec. 3-1. Mayor; Election; Term; Compensation.
There shall be a mayor elected by and from the voters. The mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city. The mayor shall devote full time to the office and shall not hold any other elective public office, nor actively engage in any other business, occupation or profession during the term of office as mayor. The mayor shall hold office for the term of 4 years from the first secular day of January following the election and until the mayor’s successor is qualified.
The mayor shall receive such salary as the city council shall by ordinance from time to time determine but no change in such salary shall take effect during the current term of the mayor in office at the time of the adoption of the ordinance making such change.
The second paragraph above is the only reference in the Charter for elected officials compensation review.
The compensation of Non-Union employees in Newton’s Municipal Offices was reviewed and adjusted in 1986 when the City hired the Hay Management Group to review city jobs and pay scales. The Hay Associates Pay and Classification System has been in place since it was approved by Mayor Mann in 1987. The system graded each job based on its job description and provides salary steps within that grade that an employee should move through to higher compensation over time. The system has been modified over the course of its use. Steps have been suspended some years, and the number of steps has been adjusted to provide more steps per grade with smaller increases between steps. Job descriptions, when requested, can be reviewed to determine if the current salary meets the current requirements of the job. Just last year I requested a review of the Committee Clerks job description as the 1986 job description no longer reflected the quantity and type of work that was being expected of the Committee Clerks in relation to other job types in the Hay system.. The Human Resources Department reviewed and regraded these positions from a Grade 05 to a Grade 07 to better reflect the work that they were doing.
The City Clerk is the only non-union municipal employee that is not part of this system. The Clerk’s salary is set by the City Council and the Council’s rules require that it be reviewed at the start of each term (every two years).
In considering the wording of a new docket item, the City’s current Financial Management Guidelines include the following text in regards to compensation:
Official and officer compensation: The City expects to maintain compensation policies (including salaries, benefits and deferred compensation) designed to attract and retain well qualified officials and officers. Management level employees will be expected to maintain the highest level of professional competency during their employment with the City. To this end, the City will provide resources for ongoing professional training and staff development.
• Elected officials – In accordance with the requirements of the City Charter, compensation for the Mayor, members of the Board of Aldermen, and School Committee is established by ordinance. Elected official compensation will generally be subject to review by a Blue Ribbon Compensation Committee, every five to ten years.
• Management and non-union employees – The salaries of all Newton Public School management and non-union employees are determined by a vote of the School Committee. All municipal management and non-union employee salaries, except for the City Clerk/Clerk of the Board of Aldermen, are governed by a pay plan approved by the Mayor and subject to funding by the Board of Aldermen. The salary of the City Clerk/Clerk of the Board of Aldermen is established by ordinance, as required by law. When H grade adjustments are made, the salary of the City Clerk/Clerk of the Board of Aldermen will be reviewed. The salaries of all municipal employees are published in the annual budget.
The guidelines already call for a review of elected officials salaries every five to ten years by a Blue Ribbon Commission. This could be called by the President of the Council at any time.dd
I totally agree with Jim Cote.
The city’s rules say that the compensation should be reviewed by a Blue Ribbon Panel every 5-10 years. It’s been 14 years since there’s been a review and 20 since either the School Committee or City Council’s compensation have seen increases.
Regardless of whether you’re happy with any given decision or policy of the current mayor/council/committee it’s irresponsible to just ignore the city’s very reasonable guidelines about compensation review any longer.
@Paul Green –
Lack of adequate compensation can deter good people from running, especially for a “part-time” job that, when done right, is not so part-time. Not everyone in Newton can afford to take on a huge job for very little pay.
I’m not discussing the mayor’s job, but CC keeps people away from their families and interferes with their ability to hold a demanding full-time job.
@Meredith-
There is simply no evidence that the pay of the CC’s is keeping good people from running. There is no shortage of candidates for these positions, I’m not aware that there ever has been, and there wont ever be in the future. You can take that to the bank. What evidence do you have that good people aren’t running because of the pay?
There is no ground swell of protest or dissatisfaction from a large part of our city’s electorate, so obviously people are satisfied with the work the CC’s are doing. We are creating problems where there aren’t any.
No one is forcing anyone to serve in elected office. The choice is strictly the candidates. If low pay means more people will serve for shorter terms then we will all benefit. As I said before, there are quite a few long termers on the council, so clearly the low pay is not an issue. The people that want to serve will serve irregardless of the pay.
@Paul: At one time the city was governed by Alderman, a term that dates way back and was used to convey that these were the “all knowing” folks of their day and that they knew what was best for the city. In changing the name to City Council not only did we correct a name issue, but we also now correctly convey that we work for the residents, and the Council needs to be a body of people from all walks of life.
In years past it was probably not likely that a single parent would run and serve on the Council, that an hourly working person would serve, that entry and mid-level employees could serve the community. The reasons for this would be time and financial means to do so. You may be out of work for the day, but if you have kids, someone has to watch them and that has a cost associated with it.
You may be correct that there will be people who would like to serve for the current stipend, of course, we are in a wealthy community and there are professionals available that are able to stay at home during the day, wealthy retirees that view this as community service, and others that have the luxury of income to cover the costs. Keeping the status quo is discriminatory, and the results is a selective candidate pool that does not represent all of Newton.
A first time candidate has to run for office and may spend from $5K to $10K on their first campaign. Being new the candidate is probably getting money from friends, family, and personal loans. Winning the seat is awesome, then guess what, you have to run again in year and a half, once again generating funds to do so. Councilors that have been on for years often run unopposed and do not sacrifice money and work/family time in campaigning.
All the while you are campaigning and losing time at work and home that is costing you money, and though serving the community is priceless, many cannot afford this luxury.
This is one step in leveling the playing field for everyone.
“The people that want to serve will serve irregardless of the pay.” That cannot be true. It’s a lot of thankless work and if I wanted to be a councilor I just couldn’t afford it and I’m sure I’m not alone. I work an unpredictable schedule and would need additional childcare coverage and the cost of childcare coverage would far exceed the stipend. I’m certain that I’m not alone with my financial situation here in Newton and I’m certain that good people simply can’t afford to run for City Council.
Again, there should be NO discussion on compensation or Blue Ribbon Commissions until the size of the City Council is reduced. Where is the 8-8 proposal? It is time to cut the Council size.
MMQC I agree with you that many people can’t afford to serve on City Council. But if I understand proposal it is to increase the stipend. But it will still be just a stipend. Many of our Councilors are either self employed or don’t have to put in a 40 hour work week in a traditional environment. This allows them the flexibility to do the job.
But there is no scenario that I see that would make it financially feasible to serve on City Council and not work a traditional full time job if that person income is critical to the household
The the size and composition of the council, councilor responsibilities, and compensation are interrelated issues and should be discussed within the context of how one aspect affects the other two. It can easily happen in separate committees if they are functioning at approximately the same time. This is a well-timed committee, as the charter review continues its work in another committee.
I agree with both of Jim Cote’s posts. It would be great if these positions were salaried so anyone in any circumstances could run but until then unfortunately the stipend will only permit those with means to serve.
It’s past time for a Blue Ribbon Commission to review councilor’s compensation, along with the services councilors are responsible for carrying out and the council’s size.