Earlier this week, we once again raised the issue of long council meetings and we were met by defensive skepticism on the part of some on the council.
We fully understand the need to be fair – to not cut off councilmembers and on the other hand, some councilmembers are in fact more succinct than others. That is why we see this primarily as a scheduling issue, though we think the council should at least look at adopting the policies of the school board to minimize staff presentations that could be read by council in advance.
However, there are practical concerns here and one is that the council, in effect, voted themselves a raise at 12:30 in the morning the day before the Reynoso Pepper Spray report was released. Was that a nefarious action by council? Absolutely not. It’s the way things worked out.
But that’s the problem when you allow late night meetings, it opens one up to charges like the one lobbed by Bob Dunning – and it doesn’t take much stretch to understand even if the first part was mere coincidence, the second part is a problem when it happens the same year you are trying to get city employees to buy into “shared sacrifice.”
Mr. Dunning writes: “Figuring they could slip one past an unsuspecting public that was perhaps distracted by the long-awaited release of the Reynoso pepper spray report, the council gave itself a whopping raise from $670 a month to just over $1,000. That’s right around 50 percent, which is a giant leap for mankind in just about anyone’s book.”
He adds, “So, if you add the raise, plus the $500 a month, we’re now up to $1,500 a month, and some of us (see photo above) are already thinking of running for office.”
He then talks about trying to reason out who voted no.
He writes, “The logical assumption in an election year would be that anyone who is on the June ballot would vote no, even if they truly felt such a raise was deserved. But, since there are three councilmembers running for reelection, that theory was quickly abandoned. At least in part.”
“Even if I couldn’t reliably count on who voted no, I could – and did – assume that at least two of the yes votes came from folks who are not on the June ballot,” he says, good call.
He quickly settled on Dan Wolk as a no vote. Another good call as Mr. Wolk has been bending over backwards in efforts not to offend anyone before he is elected.
As Mr. Dunning points out, “While you and I may regard him as the most electable human being to enter Davis city politics since the days of Sandy Motley and Norm Woodbury, he remains the only current councilmember never to win an election other than third-grade homeroom monitor.”
“Yes, he was appointed. We may have forgotten that little fact, but trust me, Dan hasn’t. And he’s not about to go out and give himself a big, fat raise and then turn around and face the voters in June,” he adds.
But Mr. Dunning couldn’t figure out between Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza. This would have been a no-brainer if Mr. Dunning had watched as much council over the last six years as I have. Sue Greenwald has been very forthright for a long time that she believes that the council deserves more compensation for the work it puts it.
“The third yes vote came from Sue Greenwald. Who knew such a thing was possible?” Mr. Dunning writes.
“Council members work 40 to 60 hours a week and we get virtually no pay,” she began.
Mr. Dunning is not impressed. He counters, “Hey Sue, don’t say that $1,500 a month is ‘no pay’ on my side of the tracks, where folks cherish a trip to the Dollar Tree as surely as if it were our very own Neiman Marcus.”
“I think it’s very shortsighted on the part of government because I think we need good people and we need people to stay and not just use it as a stepping stone to a higher office that does get paid.”
However, last week, Sue Greenwald changed her mind, or so she told me. I considered that fact off the record, but she also emailed it to Bob Dunning, which makes it on the record since he published it.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “Unfortunately, Sue has now ruined all the fun by changing course and saying she will now vote no. In an email sent my way just the other day, Sue writes “I have decided to vote against the council pay increase, so it isn’t going to pass.””
She added in her email to Bob Dunning, “We only voted to bring back a resolution for consideration; we have not voted on the increase yet. We vote on the increase next week.”
Just like Davis Diamonds, you have a clear situation where the three councilmembers up for re-election are not willing to do the politically unpopular thing.
Unlike with Davis Diamonds, they end up doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.
Make no mistake, they said the right things at the dais. They talked about labor negotiations, not their own jobs. And that is the right reason that the council should not have passed this – but not now.
However, I suppose it is mere coincidence that the only three that seemed to get the problems that this presents are the three up for reelection, which leads me to at least speculate that they were more concerned about their own jobs than the difficulties this would pose behind closed doors.
I apologize for my skepticism, but I am a little disappointed with the performance of the three incumbents on certain issues in the last three months. I guess I shouldn’t have expectations that people facing reelection will throw themselves under the bus to do the right thing or do it for the right reasons, but I wish they wouldn’t be so blatant about it. Or unapologetic.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Your article doesn’t fit the “headline”, but that’s OK as my impression was that Bob’s tongue was pretty fully in cheek. Personally, the ‘raise’ is best decided now, as in two years, there will be only two members facing re-election… the incumbents would be clearly voting their own self-interest. I recommend the measure pass on a 5-0 vote, explain the rationale without ‘whining’ (as one councilperson has), and move on.
David, the title of your article is misleading. First, Bob stated that I am voting against the raise. I voted to bring the ordinance back for discussion at Joe’s request. I stated my reasons that it was worthy of discussion and consideration, since we make less than minimum wage.
I have consistently argued for a flatter pay scale. I have consistently argued to take our cuts from our very highly paid workers, i.e., management and public safety. When it comes to issues like cutting the cafeteria cash-out, I have argued that we can raise the pay of the lowest paid workers to compensate. We are council members, but we are also workers, and if we are in the job for the long-haul and not as a stepping stone to lucrative higher office, it seems natural that we would make at least minimum wage. To be willing to discuss that fact shows respect for all workers.
Second, Dunning is listing total compensation, not salary. If we look at total compensation, the council majority voted to raise the total compensation of the city manager from $208,600 to $252,900 when we hired Steve Pinkerton (I don’t have the city’s figures at hand so I used the figures from Rifkin’s column). I don’t think think includes the optional “management leave” buy out of $7,500 for unused management leave (I have never approved of extra “management leave” — managers are paid so highly because they are supposed to work long hours). I was the only vote against this because I felt that raising the total compensation of this management position from $208,600 to $252,900 IS the wrong message.
In short, I don’t think that raising any worker’s salary to minimum wage is “sending the wrong message”. And I also don’t think that it would affect labor negotiations. The council took no raise at all 12 years and it was exactly the twelve years when labor negotiations failed miserably to attain a sustainable future for the city.
I am voting against raising council compensation to minimum wage levels because we brought up the concept for discussion, and the feedback that I have gotten is that there is not consensus in the community that we should do it at this time.
I mean “the title of your article is misleading”.
I’m confused as to how the title is misleading, did he or did he not hammer the council over the pay increase? I mentioned in the article your change of heart on this issue. I agree with your fiscal positions probably 95% of the time. I agree with your reasoning for the increase in compensation, I agree that it’s not the right time.
[b]@David Greenwald:[/b]I don’t think he particularly hammered us. He described the political lay of the land, said he hadn’t predicted who would take which side, and ended by saying: “Still, I don’t mind giving these folks a bit more cash. I don’t think it will encourage anyone to run for council, but if it nudges our hard-working elected officials a little closer to minimum wage, I’m all for it.”
My view of it was shaped by terms like “whopping” the suggestion that this was slipped by in the middle of the night, the implication that the voters won’t approve… He’s largely in the same place I am… I think the pay raise is warranted just not now. Also the subtle implication that Dan and Stephen were doing this because they were up for reelection.
[quote]I have consistently argued for a flatter pay scale. I have consistently argued to take our cuts from our very highly paid workers,[/quote]I get it… “economic justice”… a government-employed janitor, an administrative assistant, and the Chief Building official should be paid the same, no matter degrees held, certifications, and/or experience. Good luck filling the positions requiring high levels of education/experience.
I tend to agree with David on this one. Look at Bob’s second paragraph, [i]”Figuring they could slip one past an unsuspecting public that was perhaps distracted by the long-awaited release of the Reynoso pepper spray report . . “[/i]
I read that to really say, [i]”If you Council members think I was sleeping at the switch, then you don’t know Bob very well.”[/i]
[i]”That is a giant leap for mankind in just about anyone’s book.”[/i] is pertty tell-tale as well.
[quote]My view of it was shaped by terms like “whopping” the suggestion that this was slipped by in the middle of the night–[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]I think that was Dunning being Dunning. The fact that the council has to vote for all council pay-raises including cost of living adjustments, and the fact that the law requires that the votes by taken right before a council election, is messy by definition and great material for a humor columnist.
For some reason, people are far more interest in their city councils than in their board of supervisors, and local humor columnists don’t focus on them. One supervisor told me he took home over $80,000 last year, whereas councilmembers take home about $8,000.
Supervisors also have to vote for their own pay raises right before elections, but no one notices. Go tell.
[quote]He’s largely in the same place I am… I think the pay raise is warranted just not now — [b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]I reread his article and he didn’t say that or infer it.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I reread his article and he didn’t say that or infer it.”[/i]
Sue, there is an old saying . . . the most important points of an article come at the very beginning and the very end. Here is what Bob says at the very end.
[i]”So there you have it.
Still, [b]I don’t mind giving these folks a bit more cash.[/b] I don’t think it will encourage anyone to run for council, but if it nudges our hard-working elected officials a little closer to minimum wage, I’m all for it.
At somewhere around 50 hours a week on the job, $1,500 a month will just about get them there.”[/i]
Sure they should get more we all should but shouldn’t they decide before the filing deadline? Maybe we could get better candidates if we offered better benefits before the filing deadline.
“We fully understand the need to be fair – to not cut off councilmembers and on the other hand, some councilmembers are in fact more succinct than others. “
Come on David name names. One of the best arguments against Sue is her inability to keep from droning on in filibuster fashion without thinking through where she is going in advance. Just watch the body language of the other members of the council as they roll their eyes when she slows everything down with all her um um ums while trying to formulate a thought. Then she gets all indignant when people like Ruth try to put an end to her incessant ramblings. She is sort of like Sarah Palin in this regard blaming the messenger for her own shortcomings.
Okay I named names.
So unfair of you, Mr Toad, to deride someone from repeatedly repeating themselves, and using verbal pauses (um, etc) to try to prevent someone else from getting a word in… before you um, start, um, typing your rebuttal to this, I repeat, I say, I repeat, that you shouldn’t consider rebutting anyone based on your perceived, um, notion that anyone should not be entitled to repeatedly repeat themselves while staff members are reaping their exorbitant salaries by sitting around waiting for their item (repeat, their item). I say again, Toad, that you shouldn’t deride someone from repeatedly repeating themselves. ‘Nuff said…
So from their actions, it appears as though Krovoza, Swanson, and Greenwald show enough concern and consideration with regards to the City Manger’s compensation as well as their own compensation to see fit to increase both of them while at the same time they are trying to cut employee compensation. This despite the fact that I’ve heard told that (per the MOUs)the total compensation surveys (conducted by the same firm that is handling the negotiations) have been completed and across almost every position for almost every bargaining group Davis is behind the mean. The firm even completed a second survey based upon a recommended revised comparison group and the city was still behind. The survey went further to separate salary and benefits. Davis ranked amongst the bottom of the organizations in terms of salary. The only thing keeping them from being at the bottom in terms of total comp. is the benefits which ironically is council wants to gouge. It’s just too bad council isn’t as concerned with regular city employees being fairly compensated as they are themselves and the city manager being fairly compensated.
[b]@Sequoia:[/b] [b]Dead WRONG.[/b] On a number of fronts. I was the [b]ONLY[/b] councilmember to vote against the city manager pay increase. I did not vote to increase the councilmember pay, nor will I. Hence, I am the [b]ONLY[/b] council member who will have voted against both the city manager pay increase and the councilmember pay increase.
I did make the case that councilmembers deserve a living wage. This is consistent with my long history of suggesting that we raise the pay of our lowest workers to compensate for the benefit cuts that we need to make. But it would take bargaining group cooperation to do that.
Below is copied from an earlier post:
“Sue Greenwald was on the money when she noted that the lack of compensation is keeping some really high quality lower/moderate income people from serving on the Council.”
I agree 100%.
Currently, council members must have an independent source of wealth or a spouse with a well-paying job in order to be able to live with a family in Davis and serve on the council. Doesn’t being a council member now involve on average 30-40 or more hours of time per week?
As financial times may get more difficult, we run the risk of exposing council members to the temptation of cozying up to business, financial, and real-estate interests, in order that they can have a better chance of financial security when they retire from the council.
Seems to me it would be prudent to triple their salary now, so the temptation to cozy up to big money interests is reduced (no I am not being facetious or sarcastic). A tripling of salary would be a very small fraction of the city budget, would be penny-foolish but pound-wise.
Although the timing for a raise is not good; perhaps we should consider the increased danger of council members falling under increasing influence or temptation to ingratiate themselves with big-money interests (perhaps notably real-estate), as the council members must somehow keep their own households above water.