|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Fresh off approving higher compensation for themselves, Palo Alto City Council members charted on March 25 a path toward another salary hike.
By a 4-3 vote, the city council agreed to create a citizen committee that will be charged with evaluating whether the city should raise compensation for council members and, if so, by how much. The group will consist of seven members, four of whom would be former council members. It will not be able to independently pass raises, but would make recommendations for a potential voter-passed raise beyond the city’s current limit.
In creating the new group, the council veered away from a recommendation from its Policy and Services Committee, which called for a 15-member group that broadly represents the community. Council members also rejected an earlier proposal from Vice Mayor Ed Lauing that all seven members of the committee be appointed by the mayor. It was Lauing and Mayor Greer Stone who last year authored a memo urging higher compensation for council members.
Instead, current council members will each get to appoint one person to the new committee.
Not every member, however, is eager to use this privilege. In a possible preview of a future election debate, Palo Alto council members sparred over the nature of public service and split over whether it’s appropriate to approve salary increases in such quick succession.
Just two weeks ago, the council voted to raise its salaries from $1,000 to $1,600 per month, the maximum allowed under state law for a city of its size (the action will become finalized on April 1 after a “second reading”). As a charter city, however, Palo Alto doesn’t have to follow this limit. While current local law pegs council salaries to the state limit, council can change that through a vote of the people.
The four council members who supported the new committee, Mayor Greer Stone, Vice Mayor Ed Lauing and council members Julie Lythcott-Haims and Vicki Veenker, had no problem with asking the committee — and ultimately, the populace — to weigh in on future salary increases. Much like at past discussions, they argued that raising council salaries is important to attract candidates who otherwise would not be able to afford to serve.
Lythcott-Haims estimated that a council member who spends 25 hours per week on city business get a salary that is equivalent to about $10 per hour. For those who spend 40 hours, the pay is $6.25 per hour, she said.
“The city has over 1,000 employees and seven make less than minimum wage,” Lythcott-Haims said. “Therefore, the council is a position a person can’t remotely contemplate going for if they have to earn a living to pay the bills.”
The three council members who opposed the motion — Pat Burt, Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka – pushed back against her characterization. Kou called serving on the council a “public service” and said it had never entered her mind that she would be drawing a salary. Burt said that’s consistent with how most people have traditionally viewed council service.
“We had a longtime outlook that these are volunteer positions and that we’re public servants not politicians,” Burt said.
Burt argued that raising council compensation should not be a council priority. In fact, just before the salary debate the council concluded adopting a list of 76 projects that it wants to work on in 2024 to support its priorities. Salary hikes, notably, was not on the list.
The timing, Burt suggested, is also less than ideal. In addition to raising monthly salaries from $1,000 to $1,600, the council is also preparing to approve in the coming months a stipend program that provides $2,000 to each member for technology and communication equipment.
If the issue ends up on this year’s ballot — which may be a long-shot proposition given the looming August deadline and Palo Alto’s passion for process — it would have to compete with two other possible measures: one that would make a strip of land at El Camino Park eligible for a new transit road and another that would allow Palo Alto residents to directly elect their mayor.
“I don’t think this will have great support from the public, and I don’t want it to undermine more important ballot measures going forward,” Burt said. “Even if we have these guard rails to try to make it not appear self-serving, I’m concerned the voters will perceive it that way.”
Tanaka, who has consistently opposed raising council salaries, also rejected the idea that council service should be treated like a job. The proposition to raise council salaries feels particularly off just after the council approved 60% raises for its members. The planned ballot measure, he said, would potentially raise salaries to a higher level than has ever been contemplated in the past.
“It starts creating a professional political class and I don’t know if it’s served better that way or served better by people who have less financial interest in being on council,” Tanaka said.
Those who supported the measure, however, wanted to keep open the possibility of getting the issue on this year’s ballot. Lauing suggested that having the mayor appoint all members of the committee would expedite things and give the council a chance to make the August deadline. Lythcott-Haims agreed, though she ultimately modified the proposal to allow each council member to appoint someone to the new committee.
“In terms of timing of getting something on the ballot, an expeditious process serves us,” Lythcott-Haims said.
No no no.
Vote NO should this eventually hit our ballot.
JLH for one is looking to replace her lost speaking income that the FPPC imposed on her (having not done her homework before she ran). She who after less than a year on council, ran for Congress. She hardly deserves more of our tax money given she has no commitment to City office.
Gee. and here I thought they were forming a commission to explore how to cut the utility rates and other costs to us, the taxpayers, who’d hoped they might provide some fiscal oversight to staff and all of its consultants!
Silly me.
Another raise! The city council must have solved the Palo Alto unfunded pension issue. That’s right, they have not. Let’s vote ourselves a raise for our accomplishments.