The all-volunteer Blue Ribbon Commission met for the first time on Thursday in a cramped room at City Hall to begin an in-depth review of elected officials’ compensation, The TAB’s Julie Cohen reports.
Commission begins studying elected officials’ compensation
by Village 14 | Jan 4, 2019 | Newton | 28 comments
A reduction in the size of the City Council needs to happen before the Compensation Study.
This committee will not be considering board size.
My point Greg is before any Commission reviews salaries the City Council must deal with downsizing it’s own body.
Newton Citizens just got hit with a large tax increase they are not going to tolerate salary increases without reductions.
Peter, you can say they “must” do something but both know it’s not going to happen.
Generally speaking, the current City Council is the most arrogant and out of touch board I can remember for many years, perhaps ever in Newton. I don’t believe they deserve a raise.
I’m in complete agreement with Peter Karg that compensation should not even be reviewed until the size of the Council is reduced. But if this Blue Ribbon panel is going to study the issue of compensation in earnest with an 0pen mind, they should at least consider lowering the City Council compensation [or eliminating it], as opposed to only considering increasing it.
It’s obvious from the Blue Ribbon panel itself that many talented Newtonites are willing to serve, without any expectation of compensation. And it’s equally apparent from the attitude of many City Councilors that compensation has led to a serious case of self aggrandizement.
Greg – We have the largest municipal City Council in the State if not the Country. We don’t need a Council of 24 Members.
No discussion of increasing compensation should happen until the size of the Council is reduced. I think this panel is just wasting their time. Newton citizens should be aware that the greatest benefit of health insurance is offered to both Council and School Committee Members. Please factor this into the equation. If the City Council is reduced by 12 or 8 Members then this may be a discussion.
What I think the BRC II needs to do is to have a thorough study on the benefits package. They should come up with a dollar amount to their benefits add that to the salary and take away their benefits….atleast take a look at that.
Nowhere do pt employees get the benefits they do. The healthcare is lifetime, we shouldn’t be accountable for lifetime healthcare for pt employees. If we give them the dollar amount in their salary, we can have a win/win situation. The councilors win with more money and the city wins by not being liable for the councilors lifetime healthcare.
(Forgive me if this sounds like jibberish, I’m sick, but I felt I had to put my 2 cents in…like usual).
I think Tom’s suggestion is a good one and should be considered.
The health insurance needs to be discussed and part of the decision. Small business owners struggle with this issue. Citizens are worried about their own health care and the elected officials get a life time of worry free health care benefits which is out of touch with many many benefits in the private sector.
Part time stipend and benefits are both part of a compensation package and should be considered together if the councilor accepts the health insurance.
Not offering health insurance at all would restrict Newton to having only councilors who receive health insurance from some other source.
Lifetime health insurance is a drain on the city and it’s residents. Dropping that and raising the stipend somewhat should be a consideration.
Greg, do due diligence and have the BRC request the City HR Department supply the costs of health benefits to Council and School Committee Members. This dollar amount should be factored into the actual compensation costs before considering any salary increases. Again, Newton citizens want the size of the Council reduced before salary recommendations are put forward.
@NewtonMom hit the nail right on the head. As a small business owner and member of the “hammered middle class”, I’m quite familiar with the brutal, punitive high cost of health care premiums and deductables. How long have Newton politicians been entitled to lifetime health care benefits, who thought of it, and why, in this day and age isn’t this ridiculous benefit mothballed pronto?
Health care benefits, if they are offered at all, should start and end with the beginning and end of the time served in office. When you are elected, the benefit begins, when you leave office or are voted out, the benefit ends. End of story. Exactly how many current and former Newton politicians are Newton taxpayers currently on the hook for?
We should know this before any discussion about compensation begins..,
@MartiBowen
I’m fine with Newton pols having to
get their health care from some other
source. I could care not one bit about their needs, nor do they care about mine. A small business owner pays anywhere from $1600-$2500 a month in healthcare premiums ALONE for a family policy.
Factor in deductibles, dental, prescriptions, office visits, etc and you
are looking at a yearly benefit that
is, at a minimum, a cost of $22,000-$25,000 PER COUNCILOR!,
and taxpayers are expected to offer a stipend on top of that??!!!
What is the estimated cost of coverage for a
current councilor for life,
and how much taxpayers have already paid out for past councilors?
All these questions need to be answered…..
Let me also add here that the estimated health care premiums that I offered above are for QUALITY HEALTH CARE PLANS and QUALITY COVERAGE. I can already see the posts pooh-poohing my estimates.
I’m quite comfortable assuming that
if we are offering health care benefits to our city pols, they are receiving very high quality coverage, and there is a cost to that. You get what you pay for, or in this case, what Newton taxpayers are paying for…
Government workers typically get lousy pay, but great benefits. In the current day and age, at least in our state legislature, they get both great pay AND great benefits!
God Bless America
@ Paul Green – Just to clarify a City Council or School Committee Member must have served a minimum of 10 years of service to qualify for life time health benefits. You can add military service to make up any shortfall or prior state or municipal service. After 10 years of service, you are eligible for a life time City pension at age 55. Yes, the BRC needs to factor these benefits into the total equation. Adding health care benefits to the current salaries of Council Members already provides them with a generous compensation package which exceeds $20,000 a year. Let’s focus on cutting the size of the Council before we do a compensation study.
Thanks for the clarification Peter.
10 yrs of service and you get a pension AND lifetime health care benefits?
That’s a sweet deal! 10 years goes by very quickly. School committee members often switch from school committee to councilor when they get term limited out to hit that 10 years. Off the top of my head Marc Laredo and Susan Albright have hit their 10 years by this method. Councilors like the Lipofs, Lisle Baker,
have hit their 10 years a while ago.
How many past and present councilors
have hit that 10 year mark? Exactly how many councilors and school committee are we on the hook for?
Where is that information available and shouldn’t the commission be looking at those numbers to see if their current compensation is financially sustainable long term before we take on more liabilities?
@Paul Green- You hit the nail on the head. The City HR Department can supply this info. Having the BRC look at compensation before cutting the size of the Council is ridiculous. Add the health care costs to the present compensation you get a very generous benefit package.
#health care: Before everyone keeps discussing health care, please note that there are many School Committee and City Council members that do not take the health care. To be upfront I do, because the plan is the same as my previous plan, doctors, etc, but my employer offers a comparative plan for the same cost. So either way I would have coverage at the same price. We do not use the city dental plan as its the same and there was no need to change. My after deduction compensation is $153.00 per month; and I understand that if a a School Committee member elects benefits they pay money to the city for the coverage.
In 1997, the City elected officials had a greater percentage of benefits coverage than they do today, which is another decrease in the benefit levels.
Finally, few if any Councilors will retire by age 55 (I came on at age 57), and check on this, I believe in Mass everyone switches to Medicare at 65. If this is the case then there is no lifetime health care.
Size of the Council: the record shows that the voters overwhelming rejected the Charter revision.
Jim, lets not rewrite history. They did reject the Charter proposal that was in front of them. They were promised by Emily et al, that they would get a smaller Board going through the council so they could keep ward councilors. The actual votes on a smaller council when asked directly had 70% support to cut the size. The voters apparently were duped as we are still waiting and watching for the council to actually propose something to cut the size. So don’t take that vote as people saying they don’t want a smaller board…that’s not what that vote was about and I think you know that.
@Jim Cote
There are many councilors &
school committee members that DO
take the health care benefit, and we should continue to discuss the topic
as it is no small expense. Life time coverage after 10 years of service, really?
As school committee members who elect the health care benefit do, i also pay for health care coverage, but i guarantee what a school committee person pays to the city is a pittance compared to what self insured people like myself pay.
The Charter Commission was tone deaf and tried to write a new Constitution instead of working toward compromise in preserving Ward representation. Voters have previously voted for a smaller Council. The Council needs to vote on Rick Lipof’s docket item to reduce the size of the body. Regarding the health benefit, it’s part of the benefit package and is available to all elected officials. Whether some decline for other reasons is not relative. When Councilor Jim Cote turns 65 if he retires with 10 years of service(you can add military service) he can purchase a Supplemental Medicare Policy from the City. So it’s a life time benefit.
@Peter: I guess the key word here is “purchase.” Hence I would be paying for the supplement?
@ James Cote
Yes Peter said purchase.
Probably for very short money,
and probably a good policy someone
other than a local pol would never
have the opportunity to buy, certainly not at the fire sale price you would get it for.
@James Cote – You would pay the same ratio you currently pay for your health insurance from the City. The only difference is when you turn 65 years you will need a Medicare Supplemental Policy. The point made by several contributors to this topic is that employee health insurance through the City of Newton is a very generous benefit and when reviewing compensation, benefits and future pensions needs to be fully considered.
@James Cote
It sounds like the current level of entitlements
is not working for you and the rest of Newton’s councilors. The time to decide whether you can “swing it” is not after you have been elected but before you commit the time and resources to run. Everyone knows exactly what they are compensated before they run, so it’s a bit sleazy to
be crying for better compensation mid stream. Even with a reduced level of
compensation, there would be candidates for all of those seats every election cycle because people are running for the influence, power, and opportunity to serve, not for the benefits, at least that is the idea. Sounds like there a bunch of councilors that shouldn’t be running again. The turn over would do the city good. Time to get a better “side gig”
@Paul: Personally, I served 20 years in the Marines so I could care less of the benefits for myself. I ran and serve as a City Councilor to serve the community and provide the community with a resource based on experience, and without any personal agenda’s whatsoever. I’m fortunate not to owe my arrival on the scene to any political party, or social agendas, allowing me to see things from many angles.
Military and community service are what my family does, and we’ve been doing it for generations. My concerns on compensation are that potential great community servants simply cannot swing spending personal money to win an election, then lose time at work in such a high cost community. What you are left with are wealthy individuals and retirees that mean well, and are effective, but are not reflective of the population.
Ask senior Councilors and they may offer that the job has changed since 1997, as a School Committee member, and a City Councilor are on 24/7 call, and can be expected to attend meetings that pop up on a moments notice. Twenty years ago things operated at a slower, less demanding pace, and your main point of contact was the phone on the wall, or a letter in the mail.
To your benefit, and as a check/balance, I go where the residents cannot: I’ve observed and trained with the police and fire departments, read books in the schools, ridden with the trash trucks, spent a day on a street repair crew, attend the Veterans Services meetings, to name some of the places I’ve on your behalf.
The purpose of the Commission is to determine a fair way to compensate people for their time that always creates an attraction for new candidates.
@ Jim Cote – Until maybe 25 or 30 years ago City Alderman now Councilors served without any compensation whatsoever. I realize it’s a commitment with serious time demands however, the position now offers a salary with health benefits plus the opportunity to earn a life time pension. The City Council has had many opportunities to downsize as voters have requested but refuse to do so. I believe the present compensation package for 24 Councilors plus 8 School Committee Members is adequate. As Paul Green pointed out, when the job interferes too much with the day job and impacts your income perhaps not running for re-election may be a good option for some.
On this I agree with Jim Cote. Annual salaries should be more. Public Service shouldn’t be an activity restricted to the old and/wealthy. And I’ve seen how hard they work.
For folks who wanted competitive elections, I know of at least 2 folks in Newton who would run, but can’t afford to do so. You can’t fix the time commitment, but at least you can make the compensation worth the time.
As a community we are shortsighted about this. Our mayor has been an underpaid position for decades. Any job that has a competitive hiring component the Newton salaries are as large or larger than comparable cities. Police Chief, School Super, etc. Anything political gets ground down to small numbers, and then we question why no one runs for office. This isn’t the whole solution, but it is a big part.
My original proposal was to shrink the council per Charter Reform, and pay each much more, as a quasi-full time job. But absent that, at least pay them a respectable amount. And linking it to a pension after 10 years also encourages folks to stick around when they’ve lost the pip and verve for the job.
And this shouldn’t be about this group of city councilors. This is a long term fix. Don’t focus on the individuals, focus on the institution. Who runs, who can afford to run, who can afford to do the job, who do you want to represent you? If those answers boil down to “someone who is wealthy enough to do it” for you, don’t complain when we get carbon copies of the same representatives as time goes on.
It’s a very tough job, and deserves additional pay.
@Jim Cote
Thank you and your family for your service to this country. Councilors should be compensated, no doubt.
A life time of health care coverage
for 10 years of service to a local city council is not, in this day and age realistic, nor is it sustainable in the scheme of the city’s finances. The 24 city councilors are not the only group that the city and its taxpayers are responsible
for.
While the duties and demands of every job are fluid, and the council’s have changed, the cost of health care has sky rocketed. Politicians know this and they still don’t care as long as they are covered. A lifetime of coverage on the backs of constituents is just ridiculous and selfish for council members to expect going forward. In the private sector you would never get these benefits unless you were a high level executive.
Every single councilor could be replaced and life would go on. Jobs are hard. Life is hard. Why are politicians more equal than a regular citizen?
There’s no doubt the council will
get their bump in pay and will keep
their lifetime health coverage so dont worry. Count on it. There is no stomach to deal with this and people will fight like hell to maintain the status quo. I’m probably in the minority and definitely an outlier but i’ll say what needs to be said.