In three separate votes Monday, the Newton City Council voted to give themselves, the mayor and the school committee a raise. In all three voters, 22 voted in favor with two (Councilors Auchincloss and Grossman) against,
Pending the mayor’s approval, effective Jan. 1, 2020:
- Councilors will earn a $15,500 annual stipend (up from $9,750)
- School committee members stipend would increase to $7,750.00 (up from $4,875)
- Mayor compensation will go to $155,000.00 (up from $125,000)
The last raise that the city council received was in 1999. It was reported in a committee meeting that the mayor has said she will veto anything over $11,000 for the city councilors salary. But last night City Council President Marc Laredo said that if mayor vetos the raises, the council would vote to override her veto at its Sept. 30 meeting. Overriding a veto requires a 2/3rd majority (18 votes).
Let’s hope Mayor Fuller uses her veto pen and sends back with a message that the Council needs to come up with a plan to cut the Council size.
While I agree the City Council and SC members are underpaid relative to the hours they work, this isn’t a good look considering the contentious bargaining that is ongoing with the unions.
@Andy: I agree that it doesn’t “look good.” But the council has no say in negotiating any of those contracts yet they alone are responsible for determining their compensation.
Also, I’m not sure there’s ever the “right time” to do this, which certainly explains why its been 20 years. Last cycle, it wouldn’t have been right because we were deliberating the charter. Next term, it won’t be right for another reason.
Teachers, police, etc work really hard and deserve contracts. Not enthusiastic about this turn of events.
Councilors – how are you going to ensure that our hard working employees get contracts soon. Today is RED SHIRT day for teachers.
I get why the City Council and School Committee should have better stipends for the work that many of them put into their roles. As for Mayor Fuller, that is a very large raise and it seems inappropriate. It would be a really bad look for her to give herself a raise right now.
I wish I had a gig where I could get a 24% raise! And here I was excited about my 3% raise this fall.
@MMQC: Salaries need to be set based on the job, not on the position. The charter requires that the mayor both live in Newton and not hold a second job. Given those requirements (living in Newton, as we all know is expensive, especially if you can’t do, say, a little bartendering or babysitting on the side) and the responsibility that comes with managing a city, $155,000 is quite low if for a chief executive.
And you’re against it because you don’t like Mayor Fuller, look at it this way: The higher the mayoral salary is the more likely it is that someone with great qualifications might be able to afford to challenge her.
@Greg
You are of course correct about the Council having nothing to do with negotiating the union contracts. I should have pointed that out.
@MMQC – yes I would love a 24% raise too but I would hate a job that hadn’t given me a raise since 1999
So would I, but I’m not sure what you’re referencing?
For a point of reference, those increases are just about the amounts you would get if you adjusted the salaries for inflation. (using CPI-U) It’s been a long, long time since the salaries have been increased.
*I served on the commission.
IMHO serving on the city council is a public service – not a job.
@Amy Sangiolo
I agree with you in principle, though there should be some compensation, yes? I know some councilors put in more hours than others, but $15K for even, say, 20 hours a week isn’t much money around here… even with the benefits.
Much of the reason we have such a tone-deaf, arrogant and self-aggrandizing City Council is precisely because of compensation. These should be uncompensated positions that Newton residents run for because they are motivated to serve their community.
The argument about the time and rigors of the “job” fall apart pretty quickly when you analyze what these part time council members actually do. Countless hours spent trying to overturn cannabis laws passed by their constituents. Declarations of war against shopping bags. It’s abundantly clear we would be much better served by a smaller council. Then [and only then] compensation might make some sense. Compensating them now is nonsense.
Amy:
It is both public service and a job. With those types of time commitments, the payment allows folks who aren’t rich to actually consider participating.
Just curious, did you donate your salary as a city councilor back to the city? Does anyone? And while I’d admire you greatly if you did, you shouldn’t have to feel pressured to do so.
I admire your sentiment, but I also think the city councilor could benefit from a range of economic opinions. And it is tough to get that if you don’t pay a fair wage.
I agree with Mike Striar. In addition, there is complete silence that this adds to our pension liabilities. Yes, Councilors are eligible for life time pensions with health benefits for as little as 10 years of service. Councilor positions should not be a part-time job with life time benefits.
The Blue Ribbon Commission explored the pension issue and discovered that it is dictated by state law. It’s not negotiable. Folks who really want to understand what’s possible and what’s not — as opposed to just making random proclamations — should read the front sections of the report.
Is anyone else turned off by Council President Laredo’s totally arrogant “if you veto we’ll immediately override” response to Mayor Fuller’s potential veto? I didn’t realize Laredo needed the money so badly. Here’s to hoping that the next Council elects a President more in tune with both the citizenry and the mayor.
I’m not suggesting that the City Councilors receive no stipend at all. I think a raise at this time when the City is facing tough financial times is a bad idea. Kudos to the two would be Congressional candidates for voting against.
I get the argument that it’s been 20 years since there’s been an increase in the stipend. But I also agree that being a City Councilor is not a ‘job’ in the traditional sense. I’ve sat through the meetings and was on the BRC, but I’m still not moved by the arguments I’ve heard. While I do think the Mayor is underpaid given the pay of the people around her, the argument that ‘only independently wealthy people will be able to be Mayor’ is false on the face of it. David Cohen, Setti Warren–they weren’t independently wealthy, and Scott Lennon, who came so close, also isn’t.
The P & S Committee decided not to include health care benefits in their discussions. Vicki Danberg gave a personal plea to keep health insurance and mentioned how much it would cost her family if she weren’t on the city plan. In truth, those who do take health insurance have seen a substantial raise over 20 years, and those who don’t have definitely seen a loss in the value of their compensation.
Gerry Chervinsky is correct there was an arrogant attitude displayed that the pay increases were an entitlement. Public service is a calling. For close to 100 years, no compensation was even offered for what were called Alderman. Any elected Councilor feeling that holding elected office is interfering with their livelihood, should simply not run for re-election. Mayor Fuller should show “Political Courage” and use her veto pen.
I am sorry, but health insurance should be an option for the mayor (CEO of the city) and employees, but I don’t think the city councilors and school committee members should receive health insurance and pension for the rest of their lives. This contributes to the bottom line that we as a city CAN NOT afford.
I believe (and I can be wrong here) that these elected positions are NOT full time jobs, and should not come with the perks of a full time job.
While I feel for Councilor Danberg, I work a full time job as does my spouse, and we have the health insurance offered through one of our full time jobs. Neither of us have a pension (for full time jobs). It is up to us to save through our 401(k)s. I believe the Councilors should be paid a small salary, but no perks.
During the summer I had a part time job (while working my full time job), that didn’t offer benefits to me either. I didn’t expect it come with the gig.
The mayor (whoever is serving) deserves a salary and benefits. A part time elected position of school committee member or city councilor should receive a salary and that is it.
I don’t believe City Councilors and Members of the School Committee are (or should be) city employees so compensation they receive should be a stipend and not a “salary”. The Mayor is an employee and should receive a salary.
As far as the latter, while I agree that the mayor should receive a competitive salary, since our current mayor is a multi-millionaire who lives in a home worth $10m , I think it would be a significant gesture if she donated her salary. That would be her choice.
As far as City Councilors, my understanding is that most are either self employed or retired or not holding full time employment. We could say that is an issue as it is potentially a barrier to be able to serve, but that is a different discussion.
I became in tune to this during the last mayoral election when we had two City Councilors competing, one who was a multi-millionaire and the other (Scott Lennon) who was not only a City Councilor but City Council President and working a full time job.
As far as I have been able to discern, we currently have two councilors who have full time external employment, Emily Norton and Jake A. Does anyone know if any other Councilors are working full time jobs for external employers?
It is probably worth having the discussion if we would be better having full time employed City Councilors but that is a very different model and prohibitive when we have 24 but that too is a different discussion.
From the Blue Ribbon Commission:
“When adding the cost of health benefits to a Councilor’s salary of $9,750/year, total
compensation for a City Councilor can be as high as $30,398.”
I don’t see how anyone could justify $30K for the level of part-time work required for City Councilor.
@claire: The other Councilors can speak for themselves, though I believe almost all of the Council maintains a full time job. I’m a Senior Financial Advisor for Concord Wealth Management, a Penn Mutual Company, and work extra evenings, and most Saturdays to make up for lost time.
Jim, thanks for that update. Just for clarification, are you a 40 hour a week employee of Concord Wealth Management or an Independent Contractor? At the end of the day, regardless. you need put in the time and effort to get results. I’m just trying to understand which. if any CCs have a requirement to work a traditional M-F 8-5 type of schedule
“I don’t see how anyone could justify $30K for the level of part-time work required for City Councilor.”
From what I see the councilors doing, part-time work hardly describes it. Countless meetings that go late into the night, reaching out to constituents, dealing with angry voters (and nice ones). Then campaigning and raising money. Nope 30K wouldn’t be enough for me to do it. I’m thankful that people want to serve.
@claire: I would love to be a 40 hour a week employee of some place. It seems that since I made the decision to join the Marines, I have never seen a “short” 40 hour work week.
As a salary/commission person, I need to work a full week to receive compensation, as I also receive company benefits to include retirement and vacations, DI, etc. I have to fulfill time and production benchmarks, neither of which I can do if I’m not at the office, or a clients’.
Oh I hear you Jim. I have worked in sale on full commission so I totally get it!! The lucky ones are those who aren’t on commission or obligated to an employer and are able to serve because finances aren’t a concern!
Julie Cohen has posted a story about the salaries with quotes from Councilor Laredo as well the two councilors (Auchincloss and Grossman) who voted against it.
I agree with all of you who have mentioned that our City Councilors and School Committee members are public servants and not city employees and they should receive a stipend for their time and attention. I find a 30% raise ridiculous and if they feel they cannot serve without making (with benefits) the equivalent of a great deal more-someone mentioned $30,000, then maybe they shouldn’t. There are many residents of Newton who would love to have the benefits from their full time job that our elected officials receive. So, if we need a 30% increase many it should be over several years, you know, like employees receive when they negotiate contract, and maybe the negotiations with the teachers and other city unions should reflect similar raises-or at least 3% a year-which is not what they are being offered. I agree that the Mayor’s compensation should be raised significantly since it is a full-time job and it would be beneficial to have a salary that would attract strong candidates. Someone mentioned Marc Laredo’s arrogance-yes, we have quite a few of those amongst our elected officials.
After watching the September 16 City Council meeting, and contemplating how much time was spent discussing and voting on one resident’s special permit for a garage, I think a bigger issue lies in some of the work done by the City Council. Yes, some of them work many hours, but are these hours all spent on tasks that we want our City Councillors spending their time (and our money) on? I think that is what we should be looking at if we want more people running for office.
I agree with Richard Frank. The time commitment for most of them on this stuff is tremendous.
I certainly get the fiscal argument, but I think a fair wage and benefits allows younger and less wealthy folks to run for public office. Otherwise, the only folks who can do this are the retired, the independently wealthy, or someone with a working spouse or partner.
Time is a luxury that many of us are not able to afford. If you have the time to devote this much to public service without compensation, you are a very lucky person.
I could never run for office in Newton without some sort of compensation. Most of my friends are the same. Some candidates for office or in office feel the same way.
I don’t view these amounts as being greedy or profit taking. I view them as fair and overdue.
And I’d say the same thing about a cost of living increase for any city employee.
So how much would you need to run Fig? I think you’d be an awesome city councilor!
HA! I’d make a horrible politician. And enough folks already yell at me…and my spouse would be rather unhappy with that decision. I have no idea how any of them do it with young kids.
But I certainly appreciate the kind words.
I think this is the post that might cause Pat or Rick or Jim to lose their minds though. 😉
I agree with Greg: .you are (already) a politician. Just unofficially.
@Pat Irwin writes:
And pigs fly!
Pat:
Can I draw a salary with that unofficial position? If so, that would be great. I could use a vacation.
I also would accept payment in cookies.
the council should have waited for the vote on their raises after the administration explains the funding sources. what is the city sacrificing so the councilors can get their pay raise??
@Greg and @Andy, while the Council may not have a role in negotiating the city contracts, the School Committee as a whole (not just the negotiating subcommittee) is the contractual party negotiating with the teachers. It’s my hope that they do not take a raise until a contract has been settled. I say this not just because of the optics, but because it’s the right thing to do… in my opinion.
The P&S meeting at which the Councilors on that Committee — and several others who made guest appearances to get themselves raises (and left as soon as P&S voted to recommend them) — was very interesting and instructive.
The P&S Committee Councilors flew many, many trial balloons and took numerous straw votes on every number they could come up with to ignore the Blue Ribbon Commission’s lower recommendation (starting at $19,000 and backing down from there) trying to find a figure that they thought would get enough votes to override the Mayor’s promised veto.
That’s the “science” of the figure the P&S recommended and the Council voted themselves.