UPDATED: This thread has been moved up as a reminder about tonight’s (Weds March 27 7 p.m.) public comment opportunity. Also: Don’t forget the On-line Questionnaire
The Blue Ribbon Commission for Salaries, appointed by City Council President Marc Laredo to review the compensation of Newton’s elected officials (the mayor and members of the city council and the school committee) and make recommendations for possible future changes to their salaries and benefits, is collecting public comment from members of the community.
The commission hopes that you have a few minutes to complete an online questionnaire about the compensation of Newton’s elected officials. The questionnaire can be found by clicking this link:
In addition, the commission is holding two public comment sessions:
Wednesday March 27, 7:00 p.m., Newton City Hall, room 204
Tuesday, April 9, 7:00 p.m., Newton City Hall, room 205
Comments can also be sent to [email protected]
The City Council last looked at the compensation for its elected officials in 2005. At that time, a Blue Ribbon Commission recommended raising the salaries of all elected officials and providing a mechanism for future increases. The City Council thereafter approved a salary increase for the Mayor but did not make any other compensation changes.
More details about the 2019 Blue Ribbon Commission for Salaries, including a list of commission members can be found HERE.
Would be very interested where the funds will come from? Did any programs get a cut or new/increased “fees” were added?
I do not believe any adjustments in compensation are warranted at this time. When one factors in the level of health related benefits this is a very generous compensation package for part-time work. In addition, the City Council refuses to address the need to reduce the size of the body. With the current structure of 24 Councilors this is very much a premature discussion.
Clearly FIRST reduce the size of City Council and only THEN address the issue of a raise.
I don’t understand how (or perhaps why) Councilors do the work they do for the tiny salary they receive.
On the flip side, I could imagine that many people who do or would serve on the Council have other means of long-term financial support (other employment or retirement savings). Are pensions and long-term health benefits also on the table?
I’m less worried about the fixed costs than the accruing ones.
I think that every one of the City Councilors is motivated by public service, not monetary compensation. I’m comfortable leaving it that way, so I don’t support any increase. I agree that the size of the Council should be addressed before compensation changes are even considered.
Here’s an interesting article on Mayoral salaries that can help put our Mayor’s salary in context:
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2018/10/05/public-paychecks-what-does-a-city-mayor-earn-heres.html
The survey just addresses the issue of straight compensation but for some strange reason doesn’t include any questions about health benefits. This is a serious oversight of this survey. If we’re going to have a Blue Ribbon commission examining compensation for elected officials and asking for public input, then questions about the total package should be included in the survey.
There is a comment section and I hope people will include their thoughts on whether they think city councilors should receive health benefits – no matter what their opinion may be. This feedback is essential for this Commission if it’s going to include community input in its decision making.
@Jane raises a point that in taking the survey you should take the time to add additional comments. I’ve mentioned this before but the following applies to the medical/dental, and a few other personal comments:
1. You cannot look at this as a government job since most candidates are in the private sector and don’t view medical in the same light as a full time government employee would view it. Many City Councilors will not retire and will not receive long range benefits. The number of retired City Councilors is probably very small. (the number should be looked at)
2. Currently the system attracts and retains City Councilors that may not need the money, or need to work for whatever reason, such as wealthy, don’t want to, retired, etc.
3. The goal is to attract new candidates from income demographics that work and may lose money by missing time in their regular jobs. Usually they have medical at their day jobs as I do. Selecting the city medical plan makes sense to me as the cost of the medical is just about equal to the stipend.
4. Cost of a campaign: Check out how much the W6 race will cost a new candidate to run in this year’s election.
5. At age 65 everyone goes on Medicare whether employed or retired. It’s not likely that a City Councilor retires earlier than that so long range costs are minimal.
6. Medical Comp: If you make medical part of the comp calculation, which you should in some way, then those that don’t accept medical/dental should receive a percentage of the city’s cost back as comp like is done in the private sector. My company pays me for not taking medical providing I have another plan in place.
Lastly, the number of City Councilor’s is what it is and the voters spoke on the issue. Until that changes the comp still needs to be based on the job. We pay teachers, police, fire, etc based on a rate that has nothing do with the number of them that we employ.
The Commission needs your input and hopefully these comments will help one way or another.
Thank you
Councilor Cote – Newton voters voted several times to cut the size of the Council even dating back to the early 2000’s.
The reason the Charter Commission proposal was rejected was it did not provide for elected Ward representation.
The Charter Commission members were tone deaf in not willing to compromise on this and as a result the entire proposal was voted down. Regarding health care costs, whether or not you choose to take the City health benefits they are indeed a generous benefit when added to the compensation. I believe if serving on the Council is adversely impacting the financial ability of Councilors in their private occupations they should consider not running for re-election. Yes, after 10 years of service you can receive life time health benefits from the City even when you are on Medicare. The Council size needs to be reduced before any discussion of compensation.
Jim – To be clear, I wasn’t expressing my personal opinion on the topic. But I’ve heard many residents comment on the health benefits issue – for and against – so a survey soliciting input about compensation should include it.
You raise a number of valid points and I’m in agreement with most. However, I’d take issue with two:
-How much a candidate spends on a campaign is not a fixed expense. Some spend way more than others. If you look at the OCPF website, it’s clear that even candidates who have an opponent spend a significantly different amount on their campaigns. That’s their choice.
-We pay teachers based on hours worked designated in a contract, but not for the extra hours put in on the job. I’m not sure that’s how you want city council compensation to be calculated. I certainly don’t, because you put in way more time than is officially required (2 whole council meetings/month and meetings of the 2 committees you serve on). You deserve to be compensated appropriately for the many other responsibilities councilors perform.
As for medical comp – hey, I’m all for it! Of course that would mean all city employees would receive the same benefit… so, not such a good idea after all.
Peter – Please stop calling the Charter Commission “tone deaf”. We took four votes on the size and composition of the council over 16 months – it was a contentious issue that divided the Commission right up to the final meeting. The fact is no one was watching so the community isn’t aware of how much time was spent on the issue.
Go to any city council meeting – the councilors discuss/disagree on an issue, then they take a vote. Some of them win, some of them lose. The end result doesn’t make the city council “tone deaf” if you disagree with it.
I’d also appreciate it if you’d let people know that you never attended one charter commission meeting.
Sorry for hijacking a thread on an important issue.
I hope people will return to the commenting on the issue at hand – compensation for elected officials.
Jane, I made my comments known to many. Obviously, I and many others strongly believe the Charter Commission proposal would have gained voter approval had the Ward representation been maintained. Better to have a small piece of the pie than nothing at all. Politics after all is the art of compromise. Sorry you have a problem dealing with the truth.
The cost of a campaign is not fixed, but, if you want to run citywide, mailings cost in the thousands of dollars. Lawn signs, multi-colored, 2 sided, about $1,000 for 100. Contested, citywide races are costly. In 2017 Susan Albright spent about $10,000 on her race. https://www.ocpf.us/Filers/Index
The cost of running Citywide is one of the main reasons I opposed eliminating Ward Councilors. Contested wards have been won on shoe leather.
I’m going to say the same thing about this questionnaire that I said about the Newtonville Area Council survey: It is useless information if the goal is to get a quantitative analysis.
It is not scientific. It is not sampled. It is not weighted. There is no verification. I could fill it out for everyone on my block and there would be no way to know.
Getting resident input is good. Qualitative analysis is great, if that’s the purpose of feedback. But if the goal is to analyze resident feelings on an issue, you can’t just put out an internet poll. I know it’s cheaper, but it’s also hopelessly skewed.
One hundred one color, 18″ X 24″ lawn signs cost about $450. The extra colors, the larger sizes – those are choices. The mailers are choices and are of questionable value. It appears that most candidates send them out out of concern that their opponents will send one.
The best way to get elected to the city council or school committee is to be involved in the community at the school and/or city level. The strongest candidates are those who have served on various boards or worked on initiatives that have improved life in the city. The entire school committee is elected at-large, and get there through years of civic engagement and contributions before running for office.
Councilor Cote included the cost of running a campaign as one of his reasons why city council compensation should be increased. I completely agree that compensation for City Councilor should be increased, but don’t believe that campaign expenses are a justification for doing so.
I don’t think the stipend is meant to fund running for office. Candidates campaigns are funded by their supporters.
Without question. It would be against the law to use public funds to fund a campaign. It’s in the best interest of the councilors to stay as far away as possible from that line of reasoning.
@Peter Karg, you constantly repeat your claim that “the charter commission was tone deaf”. It’s a pat explanation of what happened…just not at all true. We took feedback seriously, and our feedback leaned slightly toward voters who liked our proposal. Believe it or not, there are many Newton residents who don’t want ward councilors (b/c 7 of them don’t answer to you), and they *definitely* don’t want to increase the ratio of ward councilors to 50% of the council.
The biggest factors in the charter defeat…
*The “October Surprise”, in which the city council promised voters that if they voted No, the council would allow a citywide vote on the 8-8 via home rule petition. They hid from voters the fact that they didn’t have the power to create a home rule petition without the support of the mayor (which they didn’t have). Andy Levin also hid this fact from voters in the Tab’s reporting and editorial.
*The false claims by the No campaign, including that minority candidates would not be able to get elected w/o ward seats (the Newton data shows the exact opposite is true), and that only the “rich and powerful” would be able to serve on the city council without ward seats.
@Lucia Dolan makes the point perfectly. The ward 6 challenger in 2017 spent $19,000. The Ward 2 incumbent has raised $17,000 this election cycle. And a ward candidate must knock 3,500 doors, which is far more time-consuming than anything an at-large candidate must do.
I canvassed hundreds of voters, and from this broad sample, I learned clearly why people were opposed. I converted 90% of those I spoke with to a Yes once I explained all the facts. Unfortunately, it takes 2 minutes or a campaign flier to fearmonger with misinformation, but it takes 15 minutes to explain all the facts—and it can’t really be done by a flier. The Yes campaign just couldn’t catch up.
@Rhanna Kidwell – Where do we go from here? I don’t see the current Council advocating for a reduction of the body.
Probably need to wait another 100 years before someone mobilizes a new effort?
@ Peter Karg,
This is a huge issue for this election. There are probably 9 current councilors who support a home rule petition to downsize the council *to a size and composition determined by a thoughtful process*. There are probably 4 candidates vying for seats who also support that.
I, like you, will not vote for anyone who doesn’t support downsizing the council (in my case, via thoughtful process, as I would rather have 24 than 8-8). And I will actively support anyone who is in favor of downsizing via a thoughtful process. Do you know anyone who wants to run?
This can be done with very little money – “And a Ward candidate must knock 3,500 doors, which is far more time-consuming than anything an at-large candidate must do.” But Citywide mailings and lawn signs are expensive.
I’d rather a candidate was knocking on doors and talking to voters than fundraising.
Lucia – In this day and age, you’re limiting the pool of candidates, and possibly excluding excellent candidates, by saying that knocking on hundreds of doors in a ward is the preferred way to win an election. For example, shoe leather campaigning excludes people with a disability or mobility issue.
@ Rhanna Kidwell
I totally agree. I will not support candidates unless committed to downsizing the Council. I am talking with a few potential candidates. How do you suggest we force the issue?
I did a citywide mailing for $2000. And my citywide lawn signs cost $400.
Most successful citywide candidates run after having been active in Newton organizations. Their leadership at the local level demonstrates their commitment to the city and their effectiveness at getting things done.
Knocking the doors of a Ward demonstrates your commitment to getting yourself elected. I much prefer a candidate with a track record and a resulting network of supporters.
Money is unfortunately a part of politics, and the public filings indicate that in Newton, ward races are not cheaper.
Jane – I never said it was the preferred way to win, just an alternative way. I like the 2 level system, ward and citywide representation.
And I still believe it is cheaper and easier to run a ward race, especially for newcomers. That doesn’t mean people can’t spend a lot in a ward race. These are not diametrically opposed concepts. I also think $2,400 is not an insignificant amount of money to some people.
Rhanna,
You said, “Money is unfortunately a part of politics, and the public filings indicate that in Newton, ward races are not cheaper.”
Did the Charter Commission put together a study that shows this? I would love to read it.
Unfortunately, this was very predictable. I’m truly sad by this outcome. I tried to tell people that this would happen…but, whatever. I really wanted to see a smaller Board.
@Tom Sheff
I agree with you Tom. I voted for the Charter Commission proposal but I knew it would go down to defeat because local Ward Council representation was not maintained. I’m always willing to compromise for the greater good. Now we got nothing and I don’t see any movement by the City Council to float an alternate plan.
Again, any talk of changing the compensation should be delayed until the City Council proposes a reduction of the size of the body. Any conversation before a reduction of Councilors is premature.
Can we please drop the charade?
There is going to be an increase in compensation for all of these people after the work of the blue ribbon commission is done and the token input from the public is ignored. Count on it. It is just a matter of timing of when the announcement will be. It will obviously have to be before the next municipal election. My guess is it will occur late summer while there is no one around to make a stink. Every other politician in the state has gotten a least one raise in the last two years will be their main argument.
Does anyone seriously think that a commission larded with still on the dole former aldermen like John Stewart will recommend anything but an increase?
This is a done deal. Just tell us what the increase will be, but don’t do it via a Friday afternoon news dump. Count on the chamber of commerce, which does not support raising the minimum raise, to fall right in line with the rest of the commission in supporting increased compensation for all of the above. Let me be the fight to say congratulations. Well done!
@Paul Green: For the record, the Newton-Needham Chamber has never opposed a minimum wage increase during my six year tenure here. Also former Aldermen John Stewart said at the public meeting last night that he has never been on the city pension plan.
@ Paul Green – I agree with you. A Blue Ribbon Commission was formed to deflect the heat off the Council. Most Newton Citizens are not aware of the health insurance benefits offered on top of the compensation worth probably another $10,000 a year nor are they aware that after 10 years of service you are eligible for a pension with life time health insurance.
Right you are Peter.
All I ask is that the commission not pee on my leg and tell me that it’s raining. Most people are either;
Too busy with their lives
Poorly informed
or my favorite,
happy to have some politically invested person or neighbor tell them how to vote, or better yet, craft a letter for them to send to the editor of the TAB.
I would suspect a lot of people simply don’t give a darn, so the pols or their enablers fill that information vacuum for them.
No one is reading the TAB anymore because I drive or walk past houses where weeks of sodden or sun faded editions are patiently waiting to be read. Sad!
@Greg Reibman-
So the Chamber of Commerce does
support raising the minimum wage, yes?
You are on the pay raise, I mean compensation commission, am I correct that you will support an increase in compensation for all of these politicians?
John Stewart may not be on the city pension plan, but i’ll bet dollars to donuts that he’s still on, or was on the city lifetime health care plan.
He was on the BOA for at least 10 years. If he isn’t on the city health plan then he surely is, or was, participating
in a pension plan or health plan, probably both, as a former employee of the Kennedy library and museum, which is taxpayer funded. Unless I am completely and totally wrong, and I bet I’m not, I am correct that former Alderman John Stewart is on the dole, by that i mean that some portion of his health care or pension are being subsidized by the taxpayers, or citizens of Newton. In the case of the Kennedy library, all of the taxpayers of the state of Massachusetts would be subsidizing his benefits.
I’m happy to be disabused of this notion, so have at it….
Geepers Paul. Why the hostility? Did the guy egg your house on Halloween or something? Cut you off at crossing Comm Ave.? Stewart said he was never on the health care plan and never took a city pension. I have no reason to think he’s lying.
But even for those former electeds who do take the pension or benefits, they are/were doing something that is allowed under city rules. Dislike the policy or not, but suggesting that those who take it are doing something illicit is over the top.
I think an enterprising journalist with
a touch of curiosity would find some interesting reading at the Human Resources office at city hall.
Maybe a list of, or history of city pols that are, or were receiving taxpayer subsidized benefits would help shed a light on what Newton taxpayers are on the hook for, before we dig a deeper hole…,
@Greg-
I think people reading this will have the same reservation that I have. Do we want former elected officials who are beneficiaries of taxpayer money to be deciding whether other elected officials(in John Stewart’s case some former colleagues) should get an increase in pay or benefits? It is an obvious crystal clear conflict of interest.
@ Greg -The health benefits are offered to elected Newton officials and life time benefits after 10 years of service.
Some elected officials receive health insurance through their private employer. We need to look at the fact that it is an offered benefit which greatly adds to the level of compensation whether it’s a family plan or an individual plan. Why is compensation even on the table for discussion when we haven’t addressed reducing the size of the Council?
Peter and Paul (maybe Mary wants to chime in too?): If you attended (or listened to) any of the BRC meetings you would know that each and every issue you’re each raising is part of the discussion. Have a great day.
Thanks Greg. It is my hope that any recommendations of the BRC be tabled until the City Council addresses a size reduction. Then and only then, can there be a legitimate discussion of a fair compensation level.
@Greg
I’ll listen to the BRC online if I can’t attend a meeting
Thanks for reminding me that is an option.
You have a great day too
Paul Green, what’s with the wildly personal attack against a former alderman, who if you knew anything about this City you would know has volunteered countless hours of his time to make Newton and his neighborhood stronger, totally out of a sheer commitment to public service.
John Stewart is a man of integrity who has contributed much of value to this community. He, like many others, make an effort to support our community by volunteering for boards, commissions and committees, non-profits and other activities. These are real activities, of real benefit to our community.
By the way, John was a big supporter of the effort to reduce the size of the city council, believing a smaller council would be more efficient and effective (and also, by the way, less costly).