I seem to be in the minority that people in city government should be paid what they are worth. I think the councilors are underpaid.
One of them already agrees. It will be interesting to see how many other councilors agree and who on this board agrees.
Here is the story...
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=121846
City Councilors Push For Pay Raise
KOTV - 3/6/2007 10:56 AM - Updated 3/6/2007 5:18 PM
Some Tulsa city councilors want a pay raise. The councilors know how people generally react when a politician complains about their pay, but they point out that if the pay is too low, a lot of people wouldn't even consider running for the office, and because of that some good people might not want the job. The News on 6's Emory Bryan reports on how much Tulsa councilors are paid, and how their pay compares to other cities.
At any council meeting the lowest paid people are usually the councilors themselves. The nine city councilors make $18,000 a year, and Councilor Jack Henderson thinks that's not enough.
"That's lower than most of the city employees get, but we make bigger decision and spend more money than anybody else working for the city," he said.
A study by the city council staff found that most other cities the size of Tulsa pay their councilors more. The highest was Minneapolis, the lowest was Albuquerque, and the average was more than twice as much as Tulsa. The options for adjusting councilor pay include using the average of other cities, adjusting it for inflation or tying it to raises given to other city employee. The city could do nothing, but several of the councilors believe considering the hours, it's a job that should pay more.
"I put anywhere from 60 to 80 hours a week, not only dealing with the office here, but every facet of my life, every where I go, I'm a city council man," Henderson said.
More than half of Tulsa's councilors work other jobs, and the others are retired. They all know voting for a pay raise would be controversial.
"I've got mixed emotions about it, but Henderson is right because this isn't a part time job, they've been saying that for years, but I knew what I was getting into when I got into this," Councilman Roscoe Turner said.
The councilors will discuss the pay study in two weeks. Any raise they might approve for the council wouldn't apply to them, but to their successors on the new council next year.
What do county commissioners get paid?
I agree. The Councilors are underpaid. They deserve a raise. FYI, an 8% pay raise would bring their salary up to $19,440 a year and they would still be underpaid IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
What do county commissioners get paid?
$97,387.50. They are obscenely overpaid.
I'm for the raise. According to the Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070307_1_A9_Counc11725) counselor pay was last adjusted in 2001. Prior to that, it was last adjusted in 1991.
From 1991 to 2001, their pay was adjusted at the same percentage rate of city employees (it went up 38%). To be fair, I would agree with a raise that is the same percentage other city employees got since 2001.
And to be even more fair - lets compare their pay to the same cities Tulsa officials like to use for the rest of their employees when looking at salaries. And remember, no matter what Jack Henderson says, these are considered part time positions.
Doesn't Jack Henderson and/or Roscoe Turner bring this up every couple of months or so?
OK, I'll cast the initial dissenting opinion.
Q: Did you not know what the position paid when you ran for office?
Q: Did you not know how many hours would be involved in conducting the business of the office when you ran?
If either of your answers are "No" then I submit that you were woefully ill-prepared to accept the position. You raised and spent money to buy (sorry, that's what it is) a position, not knowing that you'd be over-worked and under-paid? GET OUT! I don't want you as my councilor; I find your ability to make good decisions highly suspect.
Perhaps the pay scale should be adjusted. It does seem that given the duties and responsibilities, $18K/yr isn't much compensation. However, I think it should be done in such a way that no councilor can benefit from a raise while in office - only the successor to the councilor. They knew (or should have) what the position paid when they decided to run and knew (or should have) how many hours they'd have to put in. Running for office, winning the election, and then whining about being over-worked and under-paid makes me lose all respect for that person.
Put this into "real life" (to me, politics just ain't real life). I want a job, I spend money for a resume, a suit, haircut, manicure, etc. to impress my prospective employer enough to hire me. If I've done my research, I should know what the position pays and my duties and responsibilities. I get hired and then start to whine about being over-worked and under-paid. My employer, I'm sure, will offer me a solution and it won't be a raise.
Councilors: don't like the pay? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
peb
I didn't originate it, but did think it a good idea to tie Councilor pay to the mean City of Tulsa wage (not MSA). IIRC, that's around $28K, or perhaps $32K. US Census would have the figure.
It would provide some incintive to do things which raises that, like more, better paying jobs.
It's incorrect to call and/or consider this a 'part-time' position any more than it would be to consider County Commissioners part time.
Wherever they go, whatever they do, they are City Councilors. Besides, the actual amount of work and responsibilities are not part time.
This salary, IMO, was intentionally set low to make it impossible for those who could not afford the rate to run for office. If it were higher, it would enable a lot more people to be Councilors instead of those who would not depend upon that income.
I'm all for it, even if it's $40K.
Peb, by law, any raises apply only to successors to the office. Though, that could be the same councilor if they win the next election.
County commissioner is a full-time position, so comparing the pay of the two isn't very relevant.
When the city council form of government was adopted, it was envisioned that a city counselor position would be part-time. Looking in from the outside, it does seem to be a position that requires a sizeable consumption of a person's discretionary time. I could see it being a 30 to 40 hour a week proposition. It's not like being on the council of a town with 1000 people. Assuming a counselor spent 40 hours a week with city business, that means they are earning $9.00 an hour. Pretty low pay for important decision makers with a lot of responsibility.
I don't think a raise is out of the question for the job they are required to perform. What's a fair amount? Hard to say.
Does anyone think we should have full-time city counselors?
It's incorrect to call and/or consider this a 'part-time' position any more than it would be to consider County Commissioners part time.
When Tulsa had a commission form of government, those positions were elected and considered full time, just as the county commissions' positions. When Tulsa voted to change the form of government to a councilor form of government, the positions changed to part time, and have been considered part time ever since.
Those city councilors who choose to make this their only job and make it a full time job by the number of hours they work, do so at their choice. Those councilors who have other full time jobs and work lower hours at their city councilor positions, also do so at their own choosing.
If Tulsa wants to make these job full time, I could go either way with it, but then require them to be at their office full time, not 5 or 10 hours a week.
To say a city councilor is always a city councilor is no different then a firefighter always being a firefighter.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichae
I seem to be in the minority that people in city government should be paid what they are worth.
I agree they should be paid what they are worth, $3.00 per hour should about do it. [:D]
While I think they're underpaid, I'm not sure if doubling their pay is reasonable. They aren't earning a living wage, but I thought it was assumed that councilors had other jobs.
I'm with grizzle on this. I think a raise is warranted, but it's extremely foolish on Jack Henderson's part -- especially when the city budget is tight -- to want to double his pay and expect to receive any public support for it.
His proposal should have been much more modest.
A couple of other random thoughts on the subject.
If the councilor's pay is tied to raises given other city employees, should it be based on the unionized or non-unionized pay raises?
Should the councilors be required to take pay cuts when other city employees are forced to?
Is it a conflict of interest if the councilor's pay is tied to the increases of the city employees? Wouldn't there be a built in incentive to see the pay scale grow?
It seems one of the councilors was rather vocal about pay raises given the Mayor's at-will staff. Where does this same councilor stand now that the Council has its hand out?
I take exception to the statement that a larger salary would entice "good people" to take the job (pardon me while I laugh). OK, I'm back. In my opinion, our current mayor is many times more qualified and effective than her predecessor and she draws an infinitely smaller salary - $0.00 at last report.
Even if by law, a pay raise will only apply to a succesor in office, it does apply if the sitting councilor gets re-elected. What I was trying to say is that it should NEVER apply to a sitting councilor, current or successive terms. It should only apply when a new person fills the office. As I recall, some of our part-timers are making a bit of a career for themselves.
Nope! Show me what ya got, boys! Show me a good study, make a good case for a raise, gimme a good index to tie it to, don't do anything to exempt you from the rest of our employees, and make it effective only to whomever fills your position when you vacate it; you just might get me to buy into it.
peb
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm for the raise. According to the Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070307_1_A9_Counc11725) counselor pay was last adjusted in 2001. Prior to that, it was last adjusted in 1991.
From 1991 to 2001, their pay was adjusted at the same percentage rate of city employees (it went up 38%). To be fair, I would agree with a raise that is the same percentage other city employees got since 2001.
And to be even more fair - lets compare their pay to the same cities Tulsa officials like to use for the rest of their employees when looking at salaries. And remember, no matter what Jack Henderson says, these are considered part time positions.
Not according to the spreadsheet provided to the Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070306_Ne_A11_Cityo66558%22) by the city that states the pay, job title, and job category.
City Council CITY COUNCILOR $18,000.00
Active/Full time
Just the facts, there, Joe Friday. I hope you aren't a detective on the force.
It was not that long ago it went from 12 to 18 Thousand....
im curious to know if mr henderson supports a minimum wage increase.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It's incorrect to call and/or consider this a 'part-time' position any more than it would be to consider County Commissioners part time.When Tulsa had a commission form of government, those positions were elected and considered full time, just as the county commissions' positions. When Tulsa voted to change the form of government to a councilor form of government, the positions changed to part time, and have been considered part time ever since.
There's nothing in the charter that says these are part-time positions. That's just an assumption people make -- based in part on the low pay, I suspect.
Doesn't the current low pay limit the job to the wealthy, retirees, or the self employed? It would be very hard to do this job effectively and hold another full-time job, especially if you don't have
very flexible hours and a
very understanding boss.
I don't think $18k a year allows for a very high standard of living -- not one that most well qualified people, who actually have a choice, would choose.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It's incorrect to call and/or consider this a 'part-time' position any more than it would be to consider County Commissioners part time.When Tulsa had a commission form of government, those positions were elected and considered full time, just as the county commissions' positions. When Tulsa voted to change the form of government to a councilor form of government, the positions changed to part time, and have been considered part time ever since.
There's nothing in the charter that says these are part-time positions. That's just an assumption people make -- based in part on the low pay, I suspect.
Doesn't the current low pay limit the job to the wealthy, retirees, or the self employed? It would be very hard to do this job effectively and hold another full-time job, especially if you don't have very flexible hours and a very understanding boss.
I don't think $18k a year allows for a very high standard of living -- not one that most well qualified people, who actually have a choice, would choose.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Ain't it funny how a poster can go from "Citizen" to "Activist" in one posting.
I'll take this opportunity to call out whomever felt compelled.
I suggest that the councilor gets paid...
What a state legislator makes...
or
What the average city employee makes...
or
One third of what the Mayor makes...
Each of these would double their pay.
Not according to the spreadsheet provided to the Tulsa World by the city that states the pay, job title, and job category.
While an excellent point, it's still not correct. Even all nine counselors will tell you their positions are considered part time. What my be driving the spreadsheet, and I'll admit I'm speculating, these 'part time' employees are eligible to receive full time benefits, if they so choose.
Similar to our state legislature. They are considered part time, but I'm confident they are able to collect full time benefits, and there is probably a spreadsheet someplace at the capital that lists them as full time, as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Not according to the spreadsheet provided to the Tulsa World by the city that states the pay, job title, and job category.
While an excellent point, it's still not correct. Even all nine counselors will tell you their positions are considered part time. What my be driving the spreadsheet, and I'll admit I'm speculating, these 'part time' employees are eligible to receive full time benefits, if they so choose.
Similar to our state legislature. They are considered part time, but I'm confident they are able to collect full time benefits, and there is probably a spreadsheet someplace at the capital that lists them as full time, as well.
The last time I read that much spin I was reading the police sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.
The last time I read that much spin I was reading the police sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.
I hate to say publicly I agree with the Tulsa World (or should I say the Tulsa World agrees with me), but in their editorial today, they say the "part time" council is what voters approved in 1989. Any change to full time councilors would require a vote of the people. (I haven't figured out the Tulsa Worlds' new website yet. They make it impossible to link to the most current articles/editorials. Maybe another topic of discussion).
And think about this - Many say they are underpaid at $18,000 and should be considered full time, with many suggesting a 100% pay increase. Are we then going to say at $40,000 they are underpaid as full time employees? When will it stop?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
The last time I read that much spin I was reading the police sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.
I hate to say publicly I agree with the Tulsa World (or should I say the Tulsa World agrees with me), but in their editorial today, they say the "part time" council is what voters approved in 1989. Any change to full time councilors would require a vote of the people. (I haven't figured out the Tulsa Worlds' new website yet. They make it impossible to link to the most current articles/editorials. Maybe another topic of discussion).
And think about this - Many say they are underpaid at $18,000 and should be considered full time, with many suggesting a 100% pay increase. Are we then going to say at $40,000 they are underpaid as full time employees? When will it stop?
Would you (or the World editorial board, for that matter) care to point to the provision in the charter (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/charter/%22) that says that City Councilor is a part-time position?
The World has made no secret of its attempts to dilute the authority of the representative Council (most recently through a proposal for at-large Councilors), but here's what I read:
SECTION 1. CREATION AND FUNCTIONS. All legislative powers of the City of Tulsa, except for the rights of initiative and referendum reserved to the people of the City of Tulsa by Article XVIII, Section 4, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be vested in and exercised by a Council composed of nine (9) Councilors elected by districts as provided in Article VI of this amended Charter. The Council shall exercise such other powers delegated to the Council by this amended Charter or delegated to the legislative body of a municipality by the Constitution or the laws of Oklahoma.
Would you (or the World editorial board, for that matter) care to point to the provision in the charter that says that City Councilor is a part-time position?
Right about the same time someone points out the provision in the charter that says it's a full time position.
The pay was well known before anyone ran for office. There was still no shortage of qualified people running.
Until someone steps up and says "these are the best we get unless we raise their pay" then take a hike.
Article ll Section 3.1 of the amended charter pf 1989.
..................that the council shall hold not less than two(2) regular meeting each month at the City Hall. This would indicated that the council would be only a part time position. Not withstanding that there may be full time employees of the City that do not show up but twice a month.
Under what rock was those posting hidden when the input on amending the charter was being requested at the public meetings around the city?
The Idea of part time council was a strong mayor with a council made up of citizens throughout the districts who would set in judgment of the action of the strong mayor.
The $12,000 salary was set to discourage professional politicians making it a full time job to control the city.
What a surprisingly lucid point, Shadows. You do have your moments.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Article ll Section 3.1 of the amended charter pf 1989.
..................that the council shall hold not less than two(2) regular meeting each at the City Hall.
"
Not less than." In fact, they hold several public meetings per week.
Do you think all Councilors do is show up to meetings on Thursday nights and say yes or no when prompted? They get hundreds of constituent calls and emails per week, not to mention district meetings, public events, site visits, etc., etc.
In my haste I omitted the word "MONTH"
Apologize for my error. The chronicles on the part time councilors dates back years before 1989. In the original summiting there was a total of 11 part time councilors. This was turned down by the voters. For a total of $23,000 it was reworked to where 9 part time councilors could be used.
The commissioners were being paid $25,000 dollars so the installing of part time councilors at $12,000 dollars was to save the working poor money. It was all patterned after Albuquerque's city government except our part time councilors pay was set at about double what theirs were being paid.
Parties unknown brought in a person advanced in political science which could only be compared to Bill Gates's development of Windows. The stage was set for another vote on the previous submitted changes in the charter. The new master in political science had no trouble getting it past by the electors.
A group gathered and challenged in District Court the submitting of the charter on its wording and it being a complete new charter, calling it amendments to an existing charter. They did not prevail.
The charter is very vague and its interpretation is liken to a puff of smoke in a windstorm.
I have copies of the charters submitted and many pages of copied case law on charters. If one wants to know the purpose of the change from commissioners to part time councilors then ask any one who attended the public meetings. Councilors voted for themselves to be fulltime employees so the city would pay their health insurance. Now it will be discriminatory by not calling them full time employees of the city.
There's a built-in conflict of interest between the Council and the Mayors' Office, as there should be. However, the City, as with most city things insurance, has decided to self-insure with respect to Councilors' Professional Liability Insurance, then cover them like Katrina victims when the need arises.
If I were a Councilor, I'd certainly be demanding the City purchase Professional Liability Insurance for each member of the Council as a routine overhead cost.
That will at least prevent anyone from creating a bankruptcy situation for an $18K/yr Councilor trying to defend themselves against frivolous charges, as has happened recently and become a 'tool' of the power structure.
quote:
The $12,000 salary was set to discourage professional politicians making it a full time job to control the city.
Councilors are THE PEOPLES' REPRESENTATION, and the only check and balance to professional politicians who do control the city.
Seems to me, the people should decide what their pay and benefits should be.
Shouldn't be hard to add an item to the next election ballot.
I'm down with that.
The part time councilors, due to the failure of the charter to make clear their purpose as representatives of their districts are trying to convert on their own to full time employees of the city. Being several are drawing pensions and the pool halls of yesterday are nonexistent they want to spend their time holding unnecessary meeting on subjects of little importance.
The agenda of our sister city council meetings (OC) along with their compensation is displayed in the following.
Tabulated Data on City Governments — Infoplease.com
When one considers the greater population and land area of Oklahoma City in comparison with Tulsa, along with the part time pay of their eight councilors, one could believe we are overpaying our councilor members now.
There is so much revenue that a city can collect from its citizens and one cannot increase city prosperity by increasing taxes to pay for unneeded services.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
There is so much revenue that a city can collect from its citizens and one cannot increase city prosperity by increasing taxes to pay for unneeded services.
How is it the libs at the federal level have never tapped into that idea?
The cities are the low man on the totem pole and the nation is the top man who can operate on our great-grand-children potential incomes. Heaven forbid if we could continue our "Field of Dreams" concept and print our own money to say, "Our grand-children" will pick up the money with hard cash or merchandise.
Oklahoma City has twice the land area and one fifth more population but their part time councilors are paid $12,000 yearly.
Of course they don't meet to show an non-existing authority to pass the time of day. Instead they have a city manager with the same authority our mayor is given under the amendments to the existing charter. Their agenda is prepared for or rejection of the intent of the citizens they represent in the wards of the city.
$18,000 dollars plus expenses ???????? The councilors alone can increase our councilors salaries. ????????? These charter changes were to save the city money ?????.
Just as a afterthought as I re-file the charter change archives. It is repeated several times that as part-time councilors, paid accordingly, will eliminate the Ward Politics like KC has endured for many years. Keep the salaries to where professionals will not be interested was the call to arms. From the notes of those public meeting and what is being sold to the citizens surely we are all talking about another city rather than Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Here we go again!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070808_1_A5_spanc21461
Councilor Henderson is proposing a pay raise for Tulsa City Councilors from $18,000 to $52,500.
The City Council was formed in 1990 with a salary of $12,000. If that salary were to go to $52,500, that would be an increase of 440% over that 17 years.
All the while, the rest of THEIR city employees have received an increase of about 45% over that same time period.
Councilor Henderson says their pay is near the bottom of some list of cities. At least they aren't AT the bottom, like the rest of THEIR employees.
Want to use a list of cities for salary comparison purposes and come up with an average for a salary target? Great! I'm all in favor. Just as soon as you use the same cities and put the rest of YOUR employees at average.
Thankfully, it looks like Henderson is hanging out on that branch all by himself. It doesn't look like any other councilors will join his quest.
It gets old to hear him continually whine about this.
It's too bad everybody can't retire then take up a part time job and later vote yourself a 300% raise to help your nest egg.
Sheesh.
I do think that 12 grand is too little for the amount of work they do. Only the retired or the wealthy can serve at that rate.
I think they should get paid whatever the average Tulsan gets paid. Exactly the average would be a message that they are average citizens doing public service for their communities.
They currently make $18,000 a year, I believe.
RM - I'm not retired nor wealthy. But I'd take that job. For most, its ANOTHER source of income.
Not to mention, its not supposed to be to make money. Its supposed to be to serve your community.
Thanks for the correction...
A check of the city of Tulsa website under jobs shows the lowest paid is an entry level labor worker paid $8.67 an hour. That is $18,033 a year.
City councilors, who must represent 45,000 people, approve a $500 million dollar budget and decide zoning disputes are paid less.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
They currently make $18,000 a year, I believe.
To put things into perspective, and according to the World's recent published listing of City employees, $40K/yr could still be considered 'part time' pay, if that's the angle some wish to take.
Even the Mayor's newest
paid polictical campaigners 'neighborhood liasions' earn $36K/yr
Anyone who suggests the work involved is a couple of meetings is just flat wrong.
And, I'd still demand professional liability insurance.(see above posting)
Okay, I'll bite.
Average pay in Tulsa was announced today as around $37.5K give or take a little.
Bump it to what the average citizen makes. I do realize that the job is not just showing up at the meetings and that it realistically would require at a minimum 30 hours per week to do the job effectively and stay on top of the issues.
If they want to bump it to $52,500 make it a compulsory full-time job.
I'll vote for it and campaign for it if it is $40 grand or less with professional liability insurance. I will vote no for $52,000 dollars a year and campaign against, it if that is what is on the ballot. They do not need to make half the Mayor's salary. I really hate to be the one to point this out but the Mayor is responsible and accountable to the whole city, a Councilor is responsible and accountable to their district(1/9 of the city), which roughly calculated from the Mayor's salary is about $12,000 dollars a year. I think double their current pay is plenty and very close to what the average Tulsan makes.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Thanks for the correction...
A check of the city of Tulsa website under jobs shows the lowest paid is an entry level labor worker paid $8.67 an hour. That is $18,033 a year.
City councilors, who must represent 45,000 people, approve a $500 million dollar budget and decide zoning disputes are paid less.
It is a public embarrassment.....!!
In my opinion this opens the door very wide for persons such as Randy "the suit" Sullivan.....
No interest in the average joe... But looking to help out his cronies.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Thanks for the correction...
A check of the city of Tulsa website under jobs shows the lowest paid is an entry level labor worker paid $8.67 an hour. That is $18,033 a year.
City councilors, who must represent 45,000 people, approve a $500 million dollar budget and decide zoning disputes are paid less.
It is a public embarrassment.....!!
In my opinion this opens the door very wide for persons such as Randy "the suit" Sullivan.....
No interest in the average joe... But looking to help out his cronies.
[}:)]
Good discussion points by all, here.
I'm amazed actually at how hard-working some of the Tulsa city councilors are and have been on $18K per annum.
Shadows, I have to disagree on the intentionally LOW salary established for the city council positions.
In the face of active litigation over our former City Commission form of Government, the city charter was changed by a vote of the people, becoming effective in 1990.
To remain in control, however, the local power Oligarchy set the salaries intentionally LOW, to PREVENT a motivated, earnest Seeker After the Truth a.k.a Political Activist from seeking the virtually unpaid position.
So, instead you get either retired city employees like Tom Baker or Roscoe Turner, other retired people like Dennis Troyer and Jack Henderson, or you get a Mid-Town elitist like Susan Neal, who is the wife of a local Rain-Maker Attorney.
People who actually need to EARN a simply living cannot afford to seek this elected position.
Reason being: They CANNOT support their families in a decent manner.
The councilors need to earn much more; maybe 50% of the Mayor's Salary.
Then, you would attract some capable, currently professionally active, recruits.
[^]
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
What do county commissioners get paid?
$97,387.50. They are obscenely overpaid.
Totally Agree.The County Commissioners are in fact the most part-time government jobs in the state.
They work at most about 8 hours per month.
Twice that during
Vision 2025,
4-to-Fix the County, Jail Tax, or the
Kaiser River Tax, to get another COUNTY Sales Tax hike passed.
Otherwise, total sloth.
Besides, they have Terry Simonsez and Paul Wilkening to do the heavy thinking for them. Both skilled attorneys.
Smaligo-Perry-Miller = Meet the The Corleone Family: Michael, Sonny and Don Corleone.
It's just business, Sonny, It's not personal...........POW! POW!
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Thanks for the correction...
A check of the city of Tulsa website under jobs shows the lowest paid is an entry level labor worker paid $8.67 an hour. That is $18,033 a year.
City councilors, who must represent 45,000 people, approve a $500 million dollar budget and decide zoning disputes are paid less.
It is a public embarrassment.....!!
In my opinion this opens the door very wide for persons such as Randy "the suit" Sullivan.....
No interest in the average joe... But looking to help out his cronies.
[}:)]
Good discussion points by all, here.
I'm amazed actually at how hard-working some of the Tulsa city councilors are and have been on $18K per annum.
Shadows, I have to disagree on the intentionally LOW salary established for the city council positions.
In the face of active litigation over our former City Commission form of Government, the city charter was changed by a vote of the people, becoming effective in 1990.
To remain in control, however, the local power Oligarchy set the salaries intentionally LOW, to PREVENT a motivated, earnest Seeker After the Truth a.k.a Political Activist from seeking the virtually unpaid position.
So, instead you get either retired city employees like Tom Baker or Roscoe Turner, other retired people like Dennis Troyer and Jack Henderson, or you get a Mid-Town elitist like Susan Neal, who is the wife of a local Rain-Maker Attorney.
People who actually need to EARN a simply living cannot afford to seek this elected position.
Reason being: They CANNOT support their families in a decent manner.
The councilors need to earn much more; maybe 50% of the Mayor's Salary.
Then, you would attract some capable, currently professionally active, recruits.
[^]
Gotta disagree with you on one point:
$52,500 won't bring out the true brain trust. People who have the guts or sense to buck a lot of the crap which is crammed down the throats of the present and past councils would consider that slave wage for all the BS and stress that comes with the job.
Look what we get for $100K or so in the DA's office. He should be the most competent attorney in town or at least the pay should be enough to draw quality opposition in the election. People who can make it in elected public service with more than part-time wage largely either don't need the money, or lack the skills or ambition to make it in the civilian world and the pay is attractive to them.
At least at the present council salary, it has brought out some passionate, earnest, though sometimes mis-guided, and easily kowtowed citizens.
I believe that many councilors start out as well-intentioned idealists wanting to make changes. Then they realize who really controls city government in Tulsa along with an un-accountable un-elected beaurocracy that actually runs the operations of the city and county, and that unless you are willing to give in to arm-bending your council district will go largely ignored.
I say pay 'em what the average citizen makes. Any pay raise should be for the next class of councilors, not the sitting class. I think it's crass for a politician to vote for a raise while they are in office. They knew what the job paid when they were sworn in.
Those of the society that were involved in amending the charter, under the threat that you change or big brother will do it for you, have now left the stage. The attendance at some of the public meeting could have been counted on ones fingers. A new generation for change occupies the stage. In the wings is another generation awaiting their turn? They also will find fault in the dreams of those who are on the stage at present and cry tear it away.
Having attended the meetings for the changes that were anticipated, when the citizens went to the polls, was like the changing of the guard against professional politicians. The purpose of the wording was presented as the councilors or district representatives would call district meeting and get from the voters of their districts their opinions and meet some where at lease twice a month to discuss the strong mayor's acts and concept of city government. This happened during the first term and meeting were held in districts by their councilor, and the council did meet outside of the city hall but it has now slowly changed where the council assumes, possibly because of its city retires, (that are double dipping) has joined the city government, with an authority that was not granted in the strong mayor charter amendment change.
Albuquerque NM was the pilot city who's representatives were brought to Tulsa to help make the changes and duties in the nine representative districts in the final meeting. In the meanwhile the city and the council both have taken on an identity of their own as two conflicting governing bodies, separate from the intent of what the voters were told. Check what the councilors pay is at the city(Albuquerque) we used as a pattern in amending our state charter.
The 18K councilor pay, if they would follow the intent of the charter, they being an "after work representative", would furnish district representation that was implied. It is a strong mayor city government with a weak council that is not at present operative. The voters should be the ones to amend the charter to change it to a strong council system of government that would lay their duties out. In the meanwhile the silent government in control of the city will not relinquish their control through the strong mayor system. So the next generation waits in the wings for their turn on the stage to start their changes.
It is only my intent to point out the rights of the some 25K or more voting citizens who do not use or have access to these forms.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
This happened during the first term and meeting were held in districts by their councilor, and the council did meet outside of the city hall but it has now slowly changed where the council assumes, possibly because of its city retires, (that are double dipping) has joined the city government, with an authority that was not granted in the strong mayor charter amendment change.
So, this is a slam against Councilor Roscoe Turner and vice-mayor Tom Baker?
They put in their years, retired, and then found a second job in government where there knowledge is an asset.
Lots of people get a job after retirement. Your crazy ramblings about this not being granted in the charter is further proof that you have no clue.
Albuquerque councilor pay doesn't compute with Tulsa. The job is completely different with four year terms with half elected every two years. They each have complete staffs, including an admistrative assistant with real power to solve problems in the district.
^One MAJOR difference between Albuquerque and Tulsa is that their City Council doesn't make zoning decisions. The Planning Commission in Albuquerque is the final word (then court). That Tulsa's City Council has to make final zoning decisions entitles them $20,000-$40,000 more a year, IMO. That's the most difficult part of the job.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
This happened during the first term and meeting were held in districts by their councilor, and the council did meet outside of the city hall but it has now slowly changed where the council assumes, possibly because of its city retires, (that are double dipping) has joined the city government, with an authority that was not granted in the strong mayor charter amendment change.
So, this is a slam against Councilor Roscoe Turner and vice-mayor Tom Baker?
They put in their years, retired, and then found a second job in government where there knowledge is an asset.
Lots of people get a job after retirement. Your crazy ramblings about this not being granted in the charter is further proof that you have no clue.
Albuquerque councilor pay doesn't compute with Tulsa. The job is completely different with four year terms with half elected every two years. They each have complete staffs, including an admistrative assistant with real power to solve problems in the district.
Tell us one thing that is wrong with 'double-dipping'. If you dislike double-dippers, are you saying anyone who retires or leaves a job is never allowed to get another job? Are you saying that, somehow, because of their 2nd employment, they are somehow costing the taxpayer more?
I'll agree with Michael here. These people put in their time, retired, then found gainful employment. What is wrong with that?
If one is in public employment, that is able to maintain another job and retires in order to double dip, becomes a burden on the taxpayers, using it for a second resource of income, paid from the taxpayer, places them in a salary higher that they earned while a public employee. If one is paid as a public servant and retires to take another job, then the public looses the experience they have paid for. The public should reconsider the age of retirement and not make it a goal to achieve or place a reasonable limit on the age of the employee before the pension applies.
The double dipping has begin to alarm the legislators as many governmental persons are retiring on two government pension which are more that the salaries they received while working.
I am sure that in a city of some 380,000 persons there are quite a few who would jump at the chance to serve the public that had not been preprogrammed in the ways of the city bureaucracies. They could represent the majority of the people.
I believe you just dislike government workers on this one.
A police officer puts in his twenty years, then goes to work for the FBI, a school district or a different community and that is "double-dipping"?
A public works supervisor retires from the city, but is offered a management job with the county...is that double-dipping"?
Any public employee at any level decides to run for public office...and you call them double-dippers"?
Most of my family worked or works in public service for most of their life. They range from soldiers, to policemen, to secretaries, to teachers. Making stupid statements about how you believe they should retire or where they should work insults them all.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^One MAJOR difference between Albuquerque and Tulsa is that their City Council doesn't make zoning decisions. The Planning Commission in Albuquerque is the final word (then court). That Tulsa's City Council has to make final zoning decisions entitles them $20,000-$40,000 more a year, IMO. That's the most difficult part of the job.
The decisions on zoning, in the real world are made by a former city attorney who instructs the city council what their decision is on the zoning matters.
Haven't you watch the zoning applications brought before the council?
You pay the same amount to a person, whether that person had a previous government job or not. Taxpayers aren't out anything. You either pay an amount to two people or the same amount to one person. What is the difference? Neal Bortz thinks you're crazy.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I believe you just dislike government workers on this one.
A police officer puts in his twenty years, then goes to work for the FBI, a school district or a different community and that is "double-dipping"?
A public works supervisor retires from the city, but is offered a management job with the county...is that double-dipping"?
Any public employee at any level decides to run for public office...and you call them double-dippers"?
Most of my family worked or works in public service for most of their life. They range from soldiers, to policemen, to secretaries, to teachers. Making stupid statements about how you believe they should retire or where they should work insults them all.
The way I look at double dipping it is a road to political control of government functions and not the intent when the colonist got together and hired a person to light the street light. This has started a long road to the "Born to Rule" political control, It opens the door to socialism which is on the road of communism. The intent was a rule by a republic form of government. Personalities used in discussions of government functions should be eliminated such as the continued suggestion that I hate government employees. I am only addressing a system that deprives the general public of being able to hire and pay for representative employees that have not been preprogrammed.
Wow...retirement jobs in government lead to communism.
"Born to Rule"?
"Workers Preprogrammed"?
I think you have a start of a good movie script there. Go back out in the heat and then come back and write more for us.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I believe you just dislike government workers on this one.
A police officer puts in his twenty years, then goes to work for the FBI, a school district or a different community and that is "double-dipping"?
A public works supervisor retires from the city, but is offered a management job with the county...is that double-dipping"?
Any public employee at any level decides to run for public office...and you call them double-dippers"?
Most of my family worked or works in public service for most of their life. They range from soldiers, to policemen, to secretaries, to teachers. Making stupid statements about how you believe they should retire or where they should work insults them all.
The way I look at double dipping it is a road to political control of government functions and not the intent when the colonist got together and hired a person to light the street light. This has started a long road to the "Born to Rule" political control, It opens the door to socialism which is on the road of communism. The intent was a rule by a republic form of government. Personalities used in discussions of government functions should be eliminated such as the continued suggestion that I hate government employees. I am only addressing a system that deprives the general public of being able to hire and pay for representative employees that have not been preprogrammed.
Actually, Shadows makes a point worthy of some discussion here.
The institutionalization of a system of government which continually narrows the publics' ability to have input into the process does something unintended, at least by the founders.
The code of the Social Security distribution is founded on the idea that the age is the rule to when the recipient is eligible to retire and draw his pension. If he seeks the second employment then, after a limit, that income is taxed. The same rules should apply equally to all government employees.
Or increase the deduction for SS and lower the requirements to having been employed for 80 quarters. Lets all live in the same world.
Recycle quoted:
A police officer puts in his twenty years, then goes to work for the FBI, a school district or a different community and that is "double-dipping"?
===============================================
Who paid for the police training so he can go to work for the FBI? Or did he just walk into their office and say I don't have any training but I need to go to work for you.
I assume it is your believe your family members were born to rule and that their ideas on functions of government could not have been replaced by other representatives elected or hired by the people. The electing or hiring for life does not fill the criteria of a democratic republic form of government but this path has been used over the centuries which lead to monarch control.
Don't say I am attracting your family. I am only pointing out a system that will have to be changed before it is out of control.
Was not one of the persons you throw in discussion rejected by the voters in his district?
They're at it again. Another method for city councilors to give themselves a HUGE pay raise is in the works, this time through the charter change process:
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/18/CC20071018_176-209.pdf
I'm all in favor, right after they give the rest of their employees the same 300% pay increase, which will never happen. In fact, the city is already laying the ground work with 'no money for raises' comments being spread around as negotiations are getting started.
Why to lead by example, city council!
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
They're at it again. Another method for city councilors to give themselves a HUGE pay raise is in the works, this time through the charter change process:
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/18/CC20071018_176-209.pdf
I'm all in favor, right after they give the rest of their employees the same 300% pay increase, which will never happen. In fact, the city is already laying the ground work with 'no money for raises' comments being spread around as negotiations are getting started.
Why to lead by example, city council!
I scanned over it and didn't see the pay raise part, I was intrigued by making city elections non-partisan.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
They're at it again. Another method for city councilors to give themselves a HUGE pay raise is in the works, this time through the charter change process:
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/18/CC20071018_176-209.pdf
I'm all in favor, right after they give the rest of their employees the same 300% pay increase, which will never happen. In fact, the city is already laying the ground work with 'no money for raises' comments being spread around as negotiations are getting started.
Why to lead by example, city council!
I scanned over it and didn't see the pay raise part, I was intrigued by making city elections non-partisan.
It changes Article 2 Section 2 (towards the end of the document) to read "... the salary to be received by each member of the council and the Chairman shall be equal to one-half the salary of the Mayor."
It establishes all city councilor's pay at 50% of the mayor's pay. Maybe it should read at 50% of what the mayor accepts!
As it was discussed at the meeting of the charter being amended the councilors would be appointed by districts by the mayor. Instead it was changed allowing them to set their own salaries, after the first term, under the amendments were in place.
The non-party affiliation /appointing councilors/ in-house councilors/ at-will-councilors are in the background in another amendment to the charter about to be crammed down the throats of the unsuspecting citizens, is being buttered again for easy passage.
Set the councilor's salaries the same as the mayors and then we can appoint qualified persons in the "at will" column of the 16 mayor appointees.
"Qualified persons?"
I see a lot of crap in there I don't really like, salary isn't the only thing in there.