June 16, 2005
City Council Pay Raise Flashback
Because We Weren't There For This Year's Discussion
This past Tuesday's Oregonian included an item on a cost-of-living pay increase for elected officials and other non-represented employees.
That article reported that Commissioner Adams was going to decline his pay raise "until the city's financial situation improves" while Commissioner Leonard "said he understands where Adams is coming from but disagrees" in essence because a cost-of-living increase is standard and nothing extraordinary.
It also referenced last year's pay increase, and then-Commissioner Francesconi's voting against it for much the same reason as Adams (although he also was running for Mayor at the time).
We don't have anything in particular to say about this year's increase, and in fact we weren't wathcing City Council when they voted on it, so saying much of anything doesn't make much sense. But we noticed on an item we posted earlier today that our coverage from last year was listed under "On This Day" so we thought we'd let people take a trip backwards in time and read about the same debate from a year ago.
Comments (7)
Tenskwatawa on 17 Jun 2005
b!X, Insert a 'T', correct the headline spelling of "Ciy Council" and delete this comment.
PDX voter on 17 Jun 2005
Commissioner Leonard "said he understands where Adams is coming from but disagrees" in essence because a cost-of-living increase is standard and nothing extraordinary.
Uh huh. Try telling that to Oregon's state employees. We've had a COLA freeze for the last two years. I'm all for cost of living adjustments and think it's fine for commisisoners to receive them just as anybody else should. But saying they are "standard" for public sector employees is just wrong.
The One True b!X on 17 Jun 2005
Well, what the article actually said was this:
Which I translated into the "in essence ... standard" phraseology.
Chris Lowe on 18 Jun 2005
I think PDX voter is going at this backward. If we say that if state worker COLAs have been frozen, someone else in a different government entity getting a COLA is somehow unfair, we make the freeze the standard.
Leonard is stating a true principle of fairness, one that applies to state workers too. The freeze is unfair, and the recognition by the Portland City Council that keeping up with the CPI is only fair shows that.
If Leonard were voting against COLAs for municipal workers, but for them for the Council, that would be a different matter.
PDX voter on 18 Jun 2005
I think Chris Lowe should re-read what I wrote. I'm all for cost of living adjustments. I think everybody should earn a fair wage (and have healthcare too), whether they clean toilets or decide how to spend my tax dollars.
My concern was that the commissioner should recognize that in today's environment, for many people, COLAs are not standard. Thanks to B!x, that issue has been clarified.
Amanda on 18 Jun 2005
Chris Lowe, are you saying you support annual cost-of-living raises for all CEOs, regardless of their organization's fiscal status and/or how many staff they laid off in the annual budget? You'd support annual COLA raises for Peter Kohler, making $500k+ at OHSU, when they're raising med school tuition and firing support staff?
Annual COLAs are fair for workers, even if they aren't in a union. Raises for the Council, when they already make about $90k, are irresponsible. $12,400 (the amount of the raise for the five members of the Council) would pay for swimming lessons for 393 children. It would almost cover the amount the Fulton Community Center is being asked to raise annually, because the Council couldn't figure out how to provide full funding for community centers in the budget. I don't see funding Council raises over cuts in Parks programs as "a true principle of fairness". Kudos to Sam for taking the same stand as Jim did last year.
Chris Lowe on 18 Jun 2005
Amanda, I didn't say COLAs were the only principle of fairness. I think private sector CEO compensation is out of control and is a form of class warfare by the managerial class against both workers and share-holders, as well as a form of corrupt self-dealing against share-holder interest. Peter Kohler's compensation seems excessive, especially since he was moonlighting with the Texas-Pacific front group in the PGE sale and I expect he may have other income connected to OHSU-based research or private practice. The privatization of OHSU and the corporatization of higher education, esp. in medical and biotech sciences and other research related to new technologies both stink.
However, there is a big difference between $500,000 per year plus various outside sources and $90,000 per year, and an even bigger one between $90,000 /yr and private sector CEO's where the excessive executive pay would pay the wages or salaries of dozens or in some cases hundreds of workers.
Prima facie, I don't think city commissioners are overpaid. I'd be willing to listen to arguments otherwise, but from various comparisons of which I'm aware, both private and public sector, the figure does not seem out of line. It might even be counted as good value for money. It also seems likely that the commissioners have a fair number of employees who get paid more than they do.
Like other relatively high income people, they are under-taxed. Maybe it would be good politics to give a COLA a pass. But $12,000 is essentially a symbolic savings in the scheme of the city's budget problems. The city could save more than that by deciding not to buy a single vehicle.
Frankly if there are problems with Council spending on itself I'd be inclined to look for them in areas like hiring outside consultants at exorbitant fees, and perhaps Council-sponsored events for itself or for p.r. purposes, and perhaps non-salary perks. I don't know if there are problems in those areas, only that I've seen problems in those areas in organizations I've had association with in higher ed. and in the private sector.
PDX voter has a point and I apologize for misstating his position -- but I also think Randy Leonard is correct in what he says in part because it implies that COLAs should be standard for workers, as a matter of fairness.
In all of this, I am making an assumption that may not be true, which is that other city workers get COLAs too. If that is not true, then commissioners shouldn't either.