City Council Pay Raises Stuck on Hold?
The New York Daily News argued against pay raises for the New York City Council.
The Daily News ("No Pay Raises for City Council," April 15th) made that argument in response to the appointment of a commission by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to study whether the elected officials throughout the city deserve pay raises. The commission was formed eight months prior to the next official chance that Bloomberg could have appointed the commission. The Daily News argues that city law sets when raises and commissions might be due. Bloomberg declined to consider pay raises through a commission in January 2003 and his next opportunity arrives in January 2007, not April 2006.
However, that is not the only reason that the Daily News argues against a pay raise for the Council.
The largest argument the Daily News piece outlines against the pay raises is that being a member of the Council is officially a part-time job, making at least $90,000 annually. In addition, 46 of the 51 members are awarded additional stipends from $4,000 to $28,500 annually for all the various posts that a Council member can hold.
The other large, though not quite as large, argument was that any raises can only take effect if the Council votes for them. While Congress and the State Legislature can vote on pay raises that take effect for the following term, that is not the case for the City Council. As the Daily News writes, "that puts lawmakers in a position to hike their own salaries, a self-defeating maneuver forbidden to Congress and the state Legislature by the U.S. and New York constitutions."
The Daily News editorial board left out one important fact that separates the City Council from their counterparts in Albany and in Washington. Unlike members of Congress and the State Legislature, those in the City Council are under term limits. Given the extremely high retention rates in the Congress and State Legislature, their votes for pay raises are essentially pay raises directly for themselves, just deferred until the next term.
Although it is still very likely that the Council will ram through changes for a third term to be added to the limit (more than half of the Council is in their second term) or to even get rid of term limits altogether, they do not have the luxury to continue to put it off to the next term. If the raises took effect in the next Council term, then what would be the incentive for the Council to ever vote for the hike, unless the vote took place when a majority of the Council is in the first term? They might have all the disadvantages and attacks for voting for the raises but would see none of the benefit. However, if they rejected raises, then they would be able to use that as a campaign tool if they run for another office and the situation could be handed to their successors.
Perhaps it is not time for an increase; the last hike occurred seven years ago and the Daily News says that Bloomberg's commission should advise delaying any pay increases until the next term, which begins in 2010. However, would this result in another Daily News editorial saying the same thing on April 15, 2010, especially if Council members get their third term?
Perhaps instead of appointing a commission to study pay raises, a commission could be appointed to find a way for the salaries of the Council (perhaps also including the other elected offices) to be determined by another way. This way, that potential conflict of interest can be avoided.
The Daily News ("No Pay Raises for City Council," April 15th) made that argument in response to the appointment of a commission by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to study whether the elected officials throughout the city deserve pay raises. The commission was formed eight months prior to the next official chance that Bloomberg could have appointed the commission. The Daily News argues that city law sets when raises and commissions might be due. Bloomberg declined to consider pay raises through a commission in January 2003 and his next opportunity arrives in January 2007, not April 2006.
However, that is not the only reason that the Daily News argues against a pay raise for the Council.
The largest argument the Daily News piece outlines against the pay raises is that being a member of the Council is officially a part-time job, making at least $90,000 annually. In addition, 46 of the 51 members are awarded additional stipends from $4,000 to $28,500 annually for all the various posts that a Council member can hold.
The other large, though not quite as large, argument was that any raises can only take effect if the Council votes for them. While Congress and the State Legislature can vote on pay raises that take effect for the following term, that is not the case for the City Council. As the Daily News writes, "that puts lawmakers in a position to hike their own salaries, a self-defeating maneuver forbidden to Congress and the state Legislature by the U.S. and New York constitutions."
The Daily News editorial board left out one important fact that separates the City Council from their counterparts in Albany and in Washington. Unlike members of Congress and the State Legislature, those in the City Council are under term limits. Given the extremely high retention rates in the Congress and State Legislature, their votes for pay raises are essentially pay raises directly for themselves, just deferred until the next term.
Although it is still very likely that the Council will ram through changes for a third term to be added to the limit (more than half of the Council is in their second term) or to even get rid of term limits altogether, they do not have the luxury to continue to put it off to the next term. If the raises took effect in the next Council term, then what would be the incentive for the Council to ever vote for the hike, unless the vote took place when a majority of the Council is in the first term? They might have all the disadvantages and attacks for voting for the raises but would see none of the benefit. However, if they rejected raises, then they would be able to use that as a campaign tool if they run for another office and the situation could be handed to their successors.
Perhaps it is not time for an increase; the last hike occurred seven years ago and the Daily News says that Bloomberg's commission should advise delaying any pay increases until the next term, which begins in 2010. However, would this result in another Daily News editorial saying the same thing on April 15, 2010, especially if Council members get their third term?
Perhaps instead of appointing a commission to study pay raises, a commission could be appointed to find a way for the salaries of the Council (perhaps also including the other elected offices) to be determined by another way. This way, that potential conflict of interest can be avoided.
posted by Will at 12:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home