Local politics question: I'm sincerely seeking all perspectives ...  

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Fishmomma!

Oh geeze, I'm sorry Fishmomma. I forgot to add that I sincerely hope that your business will ride out these recession jitters, and inflationary increases.

The Best to you and yours!

Hello Guardian,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! And, you ask a really important question about whether it's a binding vote.

Turns out, there is a little known stipulation to the city charter that requires 60% of voter backing of an amendment, for its enactment. Since 60% of the registered voters did not vote in the election, the question has been referred to the city attorney.

We will have to see what the city attorney's opinion is. Which could very well be appealed. So, we don't know the outcome yet.

I real nail biter. Do you typically get more than 60% turnout? That seems very high to get something passed. In this case it may work to your advantage.

Heavens no! Like many municipal elections, we're lucky to get even a 40% voter turnout.

So do all of these voted go to the city attorney, or did I misunderstand that it required 60% of the votes not 60% turnout?

Another good question!

The charter stipulation reads as follow:

"The City Charter requires that 60 percent of voters back an amendment for its enactment." Now, does that mean 60% of registered voters? Or a minimum 60% of the votes cast? Your guess is as good as mine.

In either case, only one of the three choices exceeded 50% of the votes cast. It was the option to reduce the pay to $85.00 per meeting, which tallied in at 54%. Which is still shy of the 60%, if it is ruled that the charter stipulation actually requires 60% of the votes cast.

Hello Red,

Where I cannot disagree with your cynical view of government, I also have to recognize that there are those high quality citizens who do make a sincere effort to serve the public. Sadly, I do not believe that they are a majority.

Although, when the voters reduce the compensation that those quality folks are able to earn, I believe that not only does it discourage quality, civic minded people from seeking the positions. It also 'stacks' the deck with low quality candidates. Meaning that when those quality folks step up to the plate, they end up having to fight corruption at every turn. I see it as a 'lose-lose' scenario.

I certainly agree that the sincere honest citizens attempting to serve need all the support they can get. If a few extra bucks would make a difference, I'm for it.

I happen to believe that the USA is so prosperous because it has been more honest than most other countries. True, we have always had corruption. It's just been even worse elsewhere.

The current problems with the economy have a lot to do at the core with corruption and incompetance in government at all levels. This has to be blamed on the voters, you and me!

As Will Rogers once said, "Every country in the world has exactly the government it deserves."

Hello Red,

I'd have to say that Will had a point! This is especially true when the citizens of individual nations have a constitutional right to elect their leaders; as some form of a Democracy or Democratic Republic.

So, if I may directly ask, how would you have voted on this issue?

My vote would have depended on two things.

1) Was the money there to pay them?

2) Were they doing a good job?

Given the information available to me, I'm guessing I would have gone for the minimum pay. But, if they were doing a great job and there's plenty of money to pay them, give'm a raise.

Thanks for the follow up, Red.

Yeah, it always helps if the money is actually there, eh? Good point!

Thank you for the response about jihad and engineers. It was excellant.

Hello Destiny,

I agree that this is a toughy!

And yes, it stands to reason that the future commitment of the council will be hampered. If nothing else, by low morale. Where I might agree that sending the message that these particular council members might not be deserving of $19k per year, I am concerned that this punitive measure directed at the current council will have a long lasting negative impact.

I absolutely agree with you that the better option is to replace any or all underproducing, corrupt, or inept councillors.

Yet, only 11% of the citizens who voted were inclined to keep the pay rate at $19k. The rest seemed to place a very low value on the councillors job. Hence, the reason why I'm open to hearing all perspectives on this. I'd like to understand how others believe that the council positions will still attract high quality candidates. I may be missing something here, so I'd like to understand all views.

Perhaps a better solution is to create a 'pay scale', where the salaries can be either up or downgraded, based on the public's evaluation of their performance.

My best answer to this is that you get what you pay for.

A payscale would have it's own set of problems and could only lead to infighting and jealousies amongst the council members... and there is the added question of who would determine what amount each individual council member got paid?

Or if the payscale affected the council as a whole, then we are right back to your original question that began this whole thing.

As to high quality candidates being attracted at those low pay rates... not a chance. The job would be hard enough,especially given the conditions and problems that you have described, and for the amount of compensation to be that low, it wouldn't really be worth the effort for any high quality individuals to even attempt.

If their calling is politics, then there are much better opportunities in the state and federal levels, and no one that is any good would even bother with mere city politics for such low reward.

So it seems that this city is doomed to second rate politicians and con artists out to play the system for all it is worth.

In fact, it sounds a lot like Congress, except of course they get to set their own pay and seemingly answer to no one.

Just my thoughts...

If it were to be the taxpayers... they have already shown that they don't have enough interest to be of any real use in that case... and if it were to be some sort of oversight comittee, then there is no hope anyway, because who then would watch the watchers?

Rats... no edit button... that last paragraph should have been up about two paragraphs higher then where it landed... oh well...

Hello Destiny,

"... you get what you pay for." Hmmm, that seems to really speak to the heart of the matter.

Excellent points about a 'pay-scale' leading to possible in-fighting. OK, I concede that that probably wasn't a good idea. I'm just trying to think 'outside of the box'.

You're right about state & federal opportunities offering a much greater reward for similar amounts of work, particularly in regard to State Legislators. In our state, theirs is a part-time commitment, as well.

Well, I certainly hope that we are not "doomed to second rate politicians and con artists out to play the system for all it is worth." Though, I fear you are correct. That is -- IF the city attorney finds that the vote to lower the councillors pay will legally stand.

Great points!

Hello Emma44,

I'm afraid that I'm not really up to speed on African 'local' politics. Though, rest assured -- the problems that you mentioned are found in every corner of the planet.

Though, in the USA that $19k would not be perceived as a fat salary by many. Especially considering that if we want high quality elected representatives, those same 'high quality' people could probably find other work that would compensate them better than the government paycheck. Specifically, they would probably find the best return on their investment of time and commitment by running their own business.

Granted, there are some 'high quality' people who would seek local government positions for the sake of 'making a positive difference'. And yes, those folks deserve our highest respect. Yet, they will not be a majority of people, as most people need to put food on the table, and a roof over their head. So, they will put their best effort into projects, jobs, and businesses that reasonably reward their efforts, in my honest opinion.

Though, it's not my opinion that I'm seeking. I'd like to know how others think on this issue.

So, if I may more directly ask: how would you have voted, given the three options outlined in the original question?

Hello Whyaskq,

I think it is very reasonable of you to demand an accounting of the job duties before committing yourself to a vote. I would expect the same from all voters. How can we cast a reasonable vote about the value of a particular job or position, if we do not know the duties of that job. Great point!

Hey there Gardengrrl,

Happy to give you the opportunity to vent. When we stare straight down into the belly of the beast of corruption, it's sure to shatter the sensibilities of even the most even-tempered among us.

So, is your council rep. actually helping the situation, or not?

Thanks for making the point of how much is involved in performing the duties of a local councilman, or woman. I also agree with you wholeheartedly that the public must be educated about all that is involved in conducting the business of the city or county. It's no 'coffee clutch'. In fact, one of the council members has made a public statement similar to yours.

I also agree with the sentiment of sending the message that increasing the pay is not acceptable, but that drastically cutting it is not an option either.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! And, good luck with your housing goals. I hope that your council is aiding you and the rest of the community.

Nah, the local dude was worthless. As soon as our Tenant Council started to resist his calls to play window dressing, he stopped returning our calls. The tenants, by and large, found their own way out of the situation. The State of DE found $100K to dedicate to "financial literacy training", but we got that for free elsewhere and convinced them to release it to direct services for the most vulnerable. Even so, they wasted one dollar in three on administration. GRRRRRR!

Want to hear the best part of the story? Selfsame worthless "public servant" is running for reelection without opposition. Doesn't make you want to just PUKE?
(No, I can't run against him. My 20 year history of mental illness makes me unelectable. As if that would cause me to do any worse than him!)

Hello Gardengrrl,

That's got to be terribly frustrating! I'm sorry that you and your fellow citizens are going through such a nightmare.

Did you attempt 'sick' the press on him?

Hello Filmbuff,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Yes, I agree that the $85.00 per meeting stipend could bring about all manner of questionable activities.

Hello Arkaf,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

I believe that you have summed it up well by saying:

"If the people in the city want quality, they wont be able to find it for free, or for very low pay."

I also suspect that you're right that future council members will not be willing to go the extra mile.

Good points!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Hatley. You clearly and concisely got to the heart of the matter. I also appreciate how you've shared your own perceptions relating to the amount of the salary. Good point!