June 16, 2004
City Council Approves Pay Raises For Elected Officials
Francesconi Objects, But Other Cost Considerations Prompt His Approval
At the risk of planting an unfortunate image in the minds of our readers (let alone the minds of any members of City Council who might read this), we managed to not get out of bed in time today to head to City Hall for this morning's Council session, and so we lounged around in our pajamas at headquarters watching online. We wouldn't suggest trying that in Council Chambers.
While we were watching mainly for the discussion on the relocation of Fire Station #1 (about which we will have much more later on), there was a sudden and interesting exchange after Commissioner Jim Francesconi pulled item 693 off the consent agenda.
This item's listing on today's agenda read as follows: "Approve cost of living adjustments to pay rates for nonrepresented classifications and Elected Officials, specify the effect upon employees in the classifications involved effective July 1, 2004 and provide for payment."
Francesconi pulled the ordinance in question off the consent agenda in order to object to the inclusion of elected officials, referencing concerns that in a struggling economy (and City budget), the City Council would be sending a poor message by raising its own salaries.
In fact, he made a motion to remove the elected officials portion from the ordinance, leaving intact the remaining portion regarding "nonrepresented classifications," but no one on the Council seconded that motion. On a roll call vote of the ordinance as originally written, Francesconi voted against it -- and as an "emergency" ordinance it failed, since such ordinances require a unanimous vote.
There was then a motion to remove the emergency clause, allowing the ordinance to be passed by a simple majority, but it then was argued to the Council (we'd have to go back and check by who, but it could have been from a representative of Human Resources) that if the ordinance was delayed in this fashion, the administrative costs of enacting its provisions would increase.
That argument then led Francesconi to make a motion to reconsider the ordinance, restoring the emergency clause, and indicated that he would then go along with the rest of Council and vote in favor of it.
"I think at a time our citizens are struggling ... now is not the time to be giving ourselves raises," he said. "Having said that, the last thing I want to do is increase costs."
At this, Commissioner Randy Leonard stated that he appreciated Francesconi's sentiments, but didn't believe the level of Council salaries was yet at the point where those sentiments needed to be addressed.
He argued instead that to encourage more people to consider running for seats on the Council, the salaries needed to be at a level high enough for such people to be able to leave behind their current activities. "There's a whole swath of working-class people out there," Leonard said, "that can't run for Council."
Upon reconsideration of the original language of the ordinance, with the emergency clause intact, all four members of City Council present this morning (Mayor Vera Katz was absent for health reasons) voted to adopt it. Under the ordinance, effective July 1, the salary rates of elected officials in Portland will be as follows: $50.47/hour for Mayor; $42.51 for Commissioner; and $42.51 for City Auditor. The documentation we have doesn't translate this into annual salary figures.
Comments (13)
PDX Reporter on 16 Jun 2004
Well I am glad they saved us money. How honorable...
By the way, if you work it out to 40 hours a week at 52 weeks a year it is as follows...
Mayor: 104,977.60
Commissioner and Auditor: 88,420.80
Jack Bog on 16 Jun 2004
What a clumsy, phony campaign maneuver that was. Thanks for catching it.
Amanda on 16 Jun 2004
Hooray for Jim! He was the only Commissioner bringing the pay increase agenda item to the public's attention, and the only one to vote against it. He then changed his vote to avoid extra costs in processing the ordinance. A very thoughtful, honorable course of action, regardless of whether you support him for Mayor or not.
Kudos to you too, b!X, for posting this item.
PDX Reporter on 16 Jun 2004
Amanda, I have to respectfully disagree with you and go with JackBog on this one.
If Jim wasn't in a hot race for the Mayoral seat, there would have been no challenge. But he isn't an idiot. He knows the mainstram media will pick this up and there will probably be some level of public displeasure with the raises.
So when the stories go out, he is the only one to not vote for it, he looks like the hero.
Jim is a polished politician.
Amanda on 16 Jun 2004
I was present in Council chambers this morning. My baloney detector didn't go off (except when Commissioner Leonard said not raising Council salaries would deter people from running for office. Yeah, right).
It didn't seem like meaningless political grandstanding to me. It would have been easy for Jim to let it pass without comment, and he must surely have considered whether the electorate might share Jack's reaction.
It seemed to me like a genuine speech... and I don't always feel that way about Jim's speeches. Granted, he could have lobbied for a change in the ordinance before the hearing. But still, I'm glad one person spoke up against the Council pay raise, for whatever reason. Three men voted aye with no such qualms.
Chris Smith on 17 Jun 2004
FYI - an emergency ordinance does not require unanimity, it requires four votes, rather than the usual three. With the mayor's absence, this is why Francesconi's vote was necessary.
Dave Lister on 17 Jun 2004
They did the same thing two years ago. At the time, I objected to the increases and said so in an e mail to Saltzman's office. His aide responded to my e mail, telling me that they were in a tough spot; the non represented employees needed a cost of living increase and regular cost of living increases were there automatically for the union (represented) employees. It also so happened that the mayor and council positions are non represented.
My response to him was that any of the council members, if they wanted to exhibit leadership, could agree that their employees were deserving of the raise, but could they themselves forgo it. It would be only a symbolic gesture, but a valuable one when the unemployment is so high and businesses are struggling.
I did that exact thing when I took over a struggling business in 1980. The employees needed a raise, and they got one. My deal with the Board of Directors was that I would get one only when we turned things around.
PDX Reporter on 17 Jun 2004
It sounds like a cheesy guesture, but what if the Commissioners and the Mayor gave their money back? If their raises are a result of the system, there isn't anything to stop them from donating the money?
But obviously Jim might have objected but nobody else did.
The One True b!X on 17 Jun 2004
Here's what the City Charter says:
"The unanimous vote of all members of the Council present, and of not less than four (4) members shall be required to pass an emergency ordinance."
Unanimous.
JJ on 17 Jun 2004
>Mayor: 104,977.60
Commissioner and >Auditor: 88,420.80
Whoa!
I gotta run for office!
*NOW* I see how christmas presents can run into the thousands of dollar apiece.
Seriously: I am sure that running a city is not easy work,a nd they *do* get cr*p from all sides, but 88k?
"salaries needed to be at a level high enough for such people to be able to leave behind their current activities. "There's a whole swath of working-class people out there," Leonard said, "that can't run for Council.""
uhhh...for 88k, I could (no wait--I can't--I got a whole closet full o' skeletons).
I am sorry to sound insensitive to the plight of those poor fiscally challenged councilmembers, but shouldn't the rate of pay for the council be tied to some realistic measure of the average wealth of the citizens???
Perhaps it is, and I am just out of touch. Perhaps more and more citizens are making more and more money.
just a thought.
JJ
ron on 17 Jun 2004
Did the cost estimate include the increased total future cost of pension-related city expenses? The city has borrowed and spent, off-budget, nearly 400 million dollars recently for extra pension stuff. A simple pay raise has extraordinary leverage impact on the recipient’s wealth. That cost is not usually highlighted in the public discussion but remains front and center in their minds.
Dave Lister on 17 Jun 2004
Leonard's got a good point, though. We need more of those 90K a year working class folk running for office.
Jaimee Mackinnon on 17 Jun 2004
I suppose if J.F. would not have raised it as an issue people would be on here making a fuss about that. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.