The Cohen-Smith Era

Politics makes strange bedfellows.  That was my pickup line to get Mrs. Politics to give me her phone number.  But I believe it was also said by a famous person.  (Or maybe not so famous.)  In any case, I'm confident that at least 3% of people recalled this quote upon learning that Doug Smith was appointed as the City Administrator and leader of the Cohen Team.

As with many things, I have thoughts about this matter.  First, the unavoidable hypocrisy from both Smith and Cohen cannot be ignored, and critics are right to point it out.  I mean COME ON!  YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.  I would describe Cohen and Smith as no less than (policy) enemies during the campaign.  If there were 2 knocks against Josh, it was that he was too opportunistic / never finished anything, and that he was too closely tied to Moyer and the other Democrat higher-ups.  If there was another knock against Josh, it was that he didn't support city manager.  The latter was more of a strategic problem than a qualification problem--as Doug Smith chaired both the City Manager effort and Ward 1.  And since Ward 1 is an important voting block, there we were.

Josh made efforts to appease the city manager folk because he knew his policy stood to lose their vote.  I could be confusing candidates, but I doubt it, and I'm almost positive Josh promised to hire a 'credentialed administrator', assuring CM supporters that his CA would be just like their CM, and imploring people not to confuse Moyer's lack of leadership with a breakdown in our structure of government.  Focusing on the one department head that excelled under Moyer rather than the 15 that would have done better with a CM, Josh emphasized that only he could promise to retain the services of Chief Pristoop, as the other mayoral candidates would be subject to the police chief chosen by the CM.

By all appearances, Josh was Doug's last choice to endorse.  McFall was his candidate in the primary, and an endorsement from the ABC City Manager group was withheld until Cordle "suddenly realized" that a "change a language in the bill" was the only thing separating his lifelong view of the role of Mayor with the CM structure that Smith wanted.  I don't know if Doug would have ever supported Chris Fox, but I do think that Chris' support of CM from the get-go impressed Smith, as Doug was quite helpful throughout the campaign.

It seems that Josh was the only one not surprised by this appointment.  In Doug's own words:

Josh did surprise me by asking me to come in as city administrator. We were on opposite sides of the city manager issue, but I said from the time he announced for the primary that I thought he would be a very good mayor. The issue of city manager was always about structure, not about personalities.  And while we might disagree on one issue, that doesn’t mean we can’t work together. More importantly, there is a long list of things where we do agree.

Normally in politics I would suspect cynical motives: money or power.  In Doug's case, I am actually entertaining the possibility that he is most concerned with bettering the city.  WORA Pres. is a pretty pain in the butt job that does not guarantee future elective or appointed office, and Doug spent his own money on the CM issue which is like the ultimate proof of dedication to an issue.  In the end I think Doug just decided that he could better help the city as its administrator than fighting for an issue that the incoming Mayor would surely  fight against.  It will be interesting to see how vociferously the CM people continue the fight, and if/how Dough would support a measure that threatens his job and his boss' power.

Josh could only have 2 possible motives: political strategy or improving the city.   A quote from Josh's farwell letter to his county council constituents might shed some light: Politics is like water -- they both tend to follow the path of least resistance.  Rather than resist Ward 1 and the CM people and lose their vote in the next  election, have them involved in the process. 

I read a book once (actually I read it twice, going against all my bedrock beliefs) that talked about the "tyranny of the OR" and the "genius of the AND".  If you could only pick one motive OR the other, knowing Josh, you'd be forced to assign political strategy and get really mad.  There is no doubt that he created political value with this appointment.  The genius happens if Smith was appointed because of his political value AND his skills in running operations.  In that case, Josh is a good politician AND a good public servant.  

Controversy Over Partisan City Manager Piece On City Web Site

Occasionally you will hear me reference "email chatter". What happens is that various people appear on email distribution lists--some who are concerned about issues, some who like to hear themselves speak, and some who are elected and feel they need to provide inside information. Many issues of the day are debated over email chatter. Typically these emails are only good for clogging in-boxes and making people think that I'm important because my blackberry goes off all the time. But, at their best, these email exchanges actually produce enough annoyance to prompt action by a government official.

The other day, somebody involved in this email ring noticed a piece on the city Web Site by Alderwoman Finlayson defending the strong-mayor philosophy and condemning the city manager philosophy. "Facts" from supporters of the city manager were allegedly misrepresented, and the supporters (who are organized and have financial resources) were pissed. The city Web Site, they argued, should be for facts, and a response to this political trick was needed.

The next 20 emails or so were a combination of "this is only the beginning from this bunch" and "here's what you should do about the problem". Some pointed out that Finlayson was lying. Others said a pro-city-manager piece should be put on the web site. Others excused themselves, opting to pour and consume a Canadian Whisky with ice.

Yesterday's emails started out decrying the lack of democracy. Some pointed out the city web site is not supposed to be a giant press release. Others suggested the matter should go to the attorney general for ruling. I poured another glass of whisky.

I then missed some of the propaganda, because I was bidding for an item on Ebay, which I lost. Minor disappointment. When I returned to neglecting work and following emails, Alderman Arnett had agreed to post an opposition piece on the city web site. Unbelievably, somebody found a web site policy from De Pere, Wisconsin, and Alderman Cordle promised to introduce legislation proposing the city adopt the "De Pere model"! I immediately predicted an increase in worldwide whisky demand.

Greg Stiverson ascertained that the post on the web site was in violation of the following city web site policy:

The city maintains the website as a vehicle to communicate information to
citizens and visitors. The website is not maintained as a public forum for
debate of public policy issues.

So, now the piece has been moved off the city web site and onto the city Let's Talk "blog". Alderman Cordle still plans to draft legislation. Aren't you glad you read this post?

Here is the Let's Talk blog post and Finlayson's dubious presentation.

Scott Bowling Hosts Successful Fundraiser

Scott Bowling, the Republican Aldermanic candidate in the Great Ward 3, hosted a successful fundraiser over the weekend at his home on Fairfax Rd. The fundraiser was billed as a "birthday bash", despite the fact that Scott's real birthday was some 2 weeks earlier! You see, all fundraisers use some level of trickery to attract people. The 2 main gimmicks are either to make the event itself sound really really fun, or to have a really really interesting person headlining the event. I suggested the Sidewalk Tax 1 Year Anniversary as the theme for this fundraiser, but was overruled by the planning committee.

The event was well attended, enjoying the presence of of several elected officials, including civic association presidents, central committee chairmen, and mayoral candidates from all 3 political affiliations. Braving oppressive humidity, Scott's remarks focused on Ward 3 and city-wide issues, with particular emphasis given to the importance of a council-city manager form of government. "The first bill I want to vote for as the new Alderman from Ward 3 is a charter amendment bringing a true City Manager to Annapolis" is something that Mr. Bowling may or may not have said.*

(*It's a blog...accurate quotes aren't important.....fine, don't worry, it's pretty close.)

Mrs. Politics attended the event with me, and in a stunning development, was identified by an event guest! This blog's security hasn't been that compromised since Tony Evans glanced over my shoulder while I was writing a live-blog at a recent city council meeting. Luckily, after verifying that Mrs. Politics was a real person and not some character I created to increase the blog's ratings, the guests had to leave and the threat was averted.

I hope you will join me in supporting Scott Bowling to bring a much needed change in vision to the council.

Appeal For City Manager Signatures

Below is the email being circulated by the organizers of the City Manager Petition, in conjunction with the letter published in yesterday's Capital.


Dear Annapolis Voter:

Thanks to a growing interest in our efforts to bring professional City Management to Annapolis, we are well on our way to reaching our goal of having this initiative appear on the November 2009 ballot.

Before that happens, however, we need to collect the signatures of 20% -- about 5,000 -- of the registered voters in the City of Annapolis. To that end, we have just mailed copies of the “Petition for Charter Amendment” to voters throughout the City, along with a letter explaining the need for a City Manager form of government and a letter of endorsement from most Aldermen,

Those letters and Petitions should be in your mail box soon and it is HERE that we need YOUR help.

Since many people have an e-mail list of friends, family and neighbors who live in the City of Annapolis, we are asking YOU TO, PLEASE, FORWARD this important message to City residents on your e-mail distribution list. Please try to notify your contacts in the next few days, if possible, so your message will be received about the time the Petition will be delivered.

This simple process should help us maximize our efforts to reach – and encourage – as many people as possible to support this important initiative. It is also important for voters to know that signing the Petition NOW, is neither a vote “for” nor “against” City Management. It will simply allow the issue to be placed on the ballot and VOTED ON by the citizens of Annapolis. That is the essence of democracy.

Thank you, in advance, for your help and cooperation.

Bill Kardash and Doug Smith
Co-chairmen
Annapolitans for a Better Community
111 Annapolis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
www.ABCcitymanager.org

CA-01-08: City Administrator

Alderman Israel has introduced a charter amendment that would redefine the responsibilities of the city administrator and other key city roles, cementing his position of guru of governmental operations.

CA-01-08 would do a number of things:

-Give the city council supervisory power over the expenditure of public money and delivery of municipal services; however, with the specific exclusion that no alderman may "direct the work of a director or an employee of a department".

-Create permanent, full-time support positions exclusively for the aldermen: budget analyst/financial advisor, research assistant, and administrative assistant. The day-to-day functions of these individuals would be determined by a majority vote of the aldermen.

-Specify the city administrator as the boss of daily city operations.

-Specify the Mayor's primary duties as "formulation of policy and long-range plans, the recommendation of implementing legislation; and the general supervision of the city's finances".

-Have the city administrator, rather than the mayor, appoint department directors. The city administrator's appointments would have to be approved by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.

-Make it harder to fire the city administrator, by requiring the Mayor AND four or more of the aldermen to support removal.

What The 'Players' Think About This

Alderman Israel's head is in the right place--he wants to install more checks on the Mayor's power and give more power and resources to the city council. From his guest column in The Sun:

An election does not guarantee that a mayor will have the managerial skills
needed to effectively supervise the delivery of routine municipal
services.

It has long been recognized that there is a distinction between policy and
administration. This distinction is reflected in the existing charter, which
characterizes the mayor as the chief executive officer and the city
administrator as the chief administrative officer.

The proposed charter amendment that I will introduce tomorrow would give
the city administrator the initiative in hiring and firing decisions. To make
sure that there is accountability to the voters, an appointment would be subject
to approval by the mayor and the consent of the council. Dismissal would be
subject to approval by the mayor.

His column mainly serves to detail the provisions of the bill; however, the implied theme is to guarantee professional management and accountability. The column is short on rhetoric, but does offer an attempt at persuasion:

As the city's residents prepare to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the
granting of the first charter, nothing could be more appropriate than amending
the charter to provide for more effective professional administration and yet
retain accountability of elected officials through the electoral process.

The Mayor, for her part, is not happy. The Sun gave Mayor Moyer her say, and here's how she made use of it:

I am amazed that Alderman Richard Israel, who has spent most of his career as a lawyer in the office of the attorney general, would begin 2008 with an assault on
representative government as he does with Charter Amendment CA-01-08.

Article IV, Section 2A and Article 5, Section 1 of the proposed
amendment muzzle the aldermen and mayor by making any direction to city
employees relative to policy an action of misconduct subject to recall. This is
a gag rule that renders null and void the vote of the public for representative
government. Like Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s, Alderman Israel would transfer
the essential powers of government from the mayor and city council to a non elected
bureaucrat.

I mentioned above that Alderman Israel's column was devoid of rhetoric, and the Mayor was certain not to make that mistake, as you can see. After defending her record of accomplishments as the chief executive and describing the adverse costs of the proposed amendment, she provided some fabulously pertinent soundbites:

This amendment would not be implemented until I am out of office. However,
I believe that the deeper implications of this proposal are grave. This is not a
simple "clarification of roles." Passing this amendment would result in a
fundamental change in governance.

If we really want to shift power to a non elected bureaucrat,
it would be more honest to eliminate the mayor as chief executive and reduce the
salary to $25,000 for time spent cutting ribbons, leading parades and making
speeches. The salaries of the aldermen could also be eliminated and council
meetings held less frequently.

Our current system of checks and balances may be frustrating and slow,
but government is meant to be as it was established in Maryland in 1632 -- open,
constituent-based, respecting the will of the people, arguing, debating and
finally coming to consensus. This is democracy.

What Do I Think About This

Despite what the Mayor would have you believe, this charter amendment is nearly meaningless. If you are going to empower a non elected bureaucrat, you had better guarantee accountability, and this bill falls short.

Let's elaborate. The problems with the current form of government--at least those problems potentially addressed by this CA--are as follows:

1. Too much power for the mayor. The mayor is the chief executive, the chief operating officer, and the chief ambassador.

2. City administrator position is useless. The city administrator, who should be a strong chief operating officer, serves at the pleasure of the mayor, makes less money than the department heads he is supposed to supervise, and has no authority to hire or fire. Even if he did, the Mayor can fire him at a whim, so if he wants to keep his job, he will do what she wants. The result is that his duties are controlled by the Mayor.

3. Poor treatment of city council. For goodness sake, they don't have offices, staff, desks, or even letterhead, they work all day long, and they get paid $12,600 per year. Awful.

Let's start with the good things. Providing a shared research staff for the aldermen is absolutely a good thing. As everyone knows, famously in the case of Alderman Arnett, the alderman have an impossible time keeping up with their duties and responding to citizen concerns. To the extent that this staff helps them, it is a good thing.

Unfortunately, that's where the good ends. The shortfalls with this bill are:

-The city administrator is still appointed by the Mayor. The city council cannot hire him, and they cannot fire him without approval from the mayor. The bill gives the council the "power and duty to conduct oversight of the expenditure of public money and the delivery of municipal services", but provides no vehicle for that oversight and even provides a specific restraint on what they can do. To me, the council gains no more power and can no more effectively guarantee accountability or effective government.

-Alderman Israel supports this bill because it weakens the Mayor; Mayor Moyer opposes this bill because it weakens the Mayor; but in actuality, the bill does not create a weak mayor. The Mayor is still the direct supervisor of the city administrator, but it prohibits her from directing the work of the directors. The Mayor's power is reduced (good) but is not given to anyone else (bad)--it's like saying "you are no longer responsible for daily operations, but you are the supervisor of the person who is responsible. And, if he screws up, we are going to hold you accountable, even though you can't affect the things we are holding you accountable for". Talk about a mixed message--even I'm confused.

-The bill provides no more incentive to be a good alderman. A support staff is not enough. Provisions should be made for office space and salary increases.

If you are going to have a strong Mayor, you cannot prohibit her from directing the departments. If you are going to have a weak Mayor, she cannot be involved at all in operations, and the city council must hire and fire the city manager (or administrator). In between solves nothing, and this bill is in between.

Alderman Arnett Meets With Public, Hints Of New Police Chief

As you may know, the honorable Ward 8 Alderman took time out of his duties Thursday night to meet with 40 people or so who cared to come to the Eastport Fire Station to discuss the issues du jour.

Despite the fact that I do not live in a ward that is numbered 1 or 8, I was allowed to express my opinions on the aforementioned issues.

I have to say that I was reasonably pleased with what Mr. Arnett had to say, which is saying nothing in response to the accusations of constituents that he had been unreachable to say anything. He is laid back, pleasant, intelligent, and a retired economist*.

(Being an economist is an automatic +9267 on the 10,000-point awesome scale. However, being a Democrat is an automatic -3190. So to analogize, ceteris paribus, he's a Honda Accord--not an Aston Martin, but not a Prius.)

Alderman Arnett spent much of his time (or at least much of the time that I was there), talking about crime. He expressed frustration that even as a member of the Public Safety Committee, he is limited in his power to affect change in the police department. He informs that said committee is taking a more proactive approach than ever before, soliciting independent audits of techniques and technologies employed by our law enforcement unit.

Alderman Arnett suggested that the results of the audit will serve as a blueprint for the new police chief, but refrained from calling for Chief Johnson's resignation, stating only the most obvious caveat: that a new chief will come "eventually".

He also spent some time talking about the idea of a city manager, which would effectively (depending on the language of any proposed charter amendment) transfer authority from the mayor to the city council. Mr. Arnett pointed out that the mayor currently has 3 roles:

1. Vote on the City Council, over-seer of the legislative agenda.
2. CEO of $77 million city 'corporation'.
3. Ribbon-cutting, baby-kissing, Annapolis ambassador to the world.

This is a lot to do, and is a lot of power concentrated in one place. So much so that the city council can't do their job, even when they agree that a problem needs to be fixed (i.e. police recruiting).

A city manager form of government addresses this problem. A city manager is (ideally) hired by the city council, and serves at their whim. He (or she!) can hire and fire city personnel, and is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the city (the corporation).

The city manager is accountable to the citizens via the aldermen--not the mayor. Citizens put pressure on their aldermen to fix a problem. The city council can then legislate--which they can do now--but they can also put pressure on the city manager by saying "If you don't shape up XXX department, we will egg your house at night", etc.

I think this is a good idea, and so does Mr. Arnett. He claims to be well along in a bill co-written with Alderman Isreal, the recognized guru of governmental procedures, that will introduce some type of city manager provisions into the charter.

The question is: exactly what do they propose to do? From the small bit that I heard, it sounds like the provisions might be focused on changing the job description of the city administrator. The currently city administrator is appointed by the mayor, and basically does whatever the mayor doesn't want to do...for a salary of $120,000. What this has amounted to thus far is merely the supervision of our sister city program, or so I've heard.

The current city administrator position is not a division of power--just a waste of money. All the power is through the mayor, and the city council can't really do anything about it.

I am happily surprised that this idea is preempting the 2010 charter review, and if the proposed city manger has hiring/firing power and is accountable to the council (i.e. not the mayor), it is a step in the right direction.

Should Our Department Heads Live In The City?

Part of the consideration CA-03-07, a charter amendment dealing with the designation of acting directors, had to do with whether or not department heads should be required to live in the city.

Currently, there is no such requirement save for the city administrator, and even that will likely we lifted in the near future.

Should we worry about this? Probably not--we have plenty of other things to worry about. In theory, our elected officials scrutinize the performance of the department heads and can take the appropriate measures to ensure they are doing their jobs--in fact, the charter amendment that just passed improved the city council's power to do this. If we don't like the way our elected officials are auditing, we can vote them out.

I realize that we, the people, lose a degree of control because there is a middle man between ourselves and the department heads from whom we require adequate performance. But you and I don't know what goes on day-to-day, and we shouldn't have to.

Now if you were to say that we need to change our charter to give the council more power and the mayor less power, perhaps by having the council hire a city manager, you would be on to something. But that is a post for another day, and since the charter review isn't until 2010, I have plenty of time to figure out just what it is I want to say.

Capital Editorial: City Officials' Pay

In a recent post, AP declined to comment on the timing of the proposed mayor and aldermen pay raise, opting instead to talk about the level of compensation. I have just brewed myself a double-strength cup of Colombian coffee from Caffe Pronto--no sugar, no cream-- and am now ready to continue my analysis of this topic.

First, some background information on the issue. Here is how the current system works:
-a committee of citizens is formed no later than 1 year before a general election to study compensation
-the committee submits recommendations no later than 9 months before the next general election
-a public hearing is held, then the city council can decrease, but never increase, the recommended compensation
-changes approved by the council must be approved no later than 3 months before the election, and go into effect for the NEXT city council

The mayor's proposal would:
-change the pay for the CURRENT city council
-tie pay increases to cost of living (inflation) increases
-this would, by necessity, change the charter of the city

The Capital ran an editorial in opposition of the proposal to raise the pay of the mayor and alderman. AP will now reprint this editorial, and offer insightful commentary on selected issues. As always, the bold font represents the text as it originally appeared, and the insightful commentary appears in normal font.

Businesses are struggling to maintain payrolls. People are losing jobs, or at least being denied raises. Even state government is leaving vacant positions unfilled.

True, perhaps, but remember: city government is distinct from state government, and it most certainly has a different role and structure than the private market. We should be careful when comparing government to the private market, because government exists to provide the services that cannot exist in the private market (public goods).

So when Mayor Ellen Moyer suggests a pay increase for herself and the city's part-time aldermen, we have to wonder if she and the City Council have lost their collective mind.

This blog spends the majority of its time wondering that.

If our elected officials want taxpayers to believe that times are bad and revenues are stretched thin, is it a good time to be pushing for a 3 percent raise?

I would say that the state politicians would like us to believe that the times are bad--see AP's posts on the 'doomsday budget'--but the mayor usually doesn't care about the prevailing conditions. She tends to do what she wants, when she wants, regardless of circumstance.

It's a rotten time.

Agreed, but for different reasons. It's a rotten time because it affects the current council.

The City Charter allows the council to adjust its members' salaries every four years in decisions that apply only to the new council seated after the next election--a protection, demanded in rulings by the attorney general, against elected officials sweetening their own compensation.

Now you're talking!

The council followed the charter in 2005 when it voted for raises for the next council, taking salaries to $70,000 for the mayor and $12,600 for each alderman. So why, then , is the council considering more raises--another $2,100 for the mayor and $380 for aldermen?

They are considering more raises because they are grossly underpaid for what they do. Click here to learn why.

Ms. Moyer says she is simply following up on the council's approval of a report--authorized by Dick Israel before he was elected alderman--that recommended making mayoral and aldermanic salaries more comparable to those in neighboring jurisdictions. Her proposal actually changes the charter, which wisely prohibits elected officials from immediately adjusting their own salaries.

This theme appears over and over in the Moyer administration: "Don't blame me, the process was already underway.", or "There is nothing I can do about this, it is a regional/national phenomenon." Note to the mayor: you can change whatever you want, or at least vote to change it.

Citizens should be outraged. The mayor and aldermen may change the charter to give themselves an out-of-step cost-of-living raise recommended by someone who is now on the council. There is a reason the charter protects the public from aldermen who give themselves raises. The charter shouldn't be changed.

Agreed, this is BS. But they need to get paid more! Keep reading to find out why.

We have another problem. Although the current salaries are very conservative, some city officials just don't deserve a raise--particularly those who spend more energy on solving problems outside the city than inside it.

Very conservative salaries = grossly underpaid.

The memorable debate on banning toy guns has been succeeded by one on banning plastic bags. The council has gone after alleged racism at Annapolis High School, the Annapolis Symphony Orchestra and finally the Naval academy--none of them institutions over which it has any authority. It apologized for slavery--is an apology for the Iraq war next?

Hallelujah!

A serious municipcal subject, traffic congestion, was handled by paying $150,000 for a study that told the city nothing--and so nothing has been done. Market House struggled to re-open and a new police building has been falling apart. We won't even talk about crime,

good, because I am getting tired of typing...

which no one in City Hall seems to think is a big issue.

City Hall is a small place--they can't think of everything. Just kidding....Hallelujah!

For this they deserve a raise?

No, they don't, not for this. But in general, they do. Please keep reading...the big analysis is to come!

How about a performance evaluation instead?

So, let's give the mayor and aldermen a performance evaluation. E-mail us your comments--good and bad--at capletts@capitalgazette.com. We'll make sure they know how you feel.

Attention capletts@capitalgazette.com, that would be a long email....how about you just click on this site to see how I feel.

Ok, let's do some analyzing.

In economics, labor theory says that a person is paid exactly the value of what they produce. Many times this is hard to calculate, but let's look at a simple example. Let's say Billy can cook $20 worth of cheeseburgers per hour. Now, let's say that Billy takes a job at McDonald's, where he earns $15 per hour. Burger King realizes that they can pay him $16 per hour and hire him, while still making a $4 per hour profit on Billy. Then McDonald's says: heck, we can hire Billy back, pay him $17 per hour, and still make a $3 per hour profit. The process continues until Billy makes $20 per hour, which is his worth.

THE POINT IS, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. IF YOU PAY $10 PER HOUR, YOU GET A WORKER WHO IS WORTH THAT. IF YOU PAY $20 PER HOUR, YOU GET A WORKER THAT IS TWICE AS GOOD.

(This is a very simplified analysis. Actual wage theory takes into account utility--not just pay--and also takes into account the cost (rent, utilities, overhead) of the worker, not just his value. Email me if you are a glutton for punishment and want a complete explanation of this idea.)

An alderman makes $12,600 per year. Any adult that can show up for work with pants and shoes on is worth more than $12,600 per year. Any person who has the ability to actually win an election is worth way more than that.

So, automatically, an alderman is making less than his/her value. Just as Billy went to work for Burger King, the aldermen are looking for a way to be paid their worth.

There are several ways to do this. A person might be willing to make less than their worth in the short term, if they believe this will increase what their worth actually is in the long term. Take Wayne Taylor, for example. He was the Ward 4 Alderman, and as an adult was worth more than $12,600 per year. But, his aldermanic seat helped him earn appointment as the Director of The Department of Aging for Anne Arundel County, making (I'm guessing) $125,000 per year. Think of how easy his job must be....all he has to do is make sure time passes!!!! Here is the checklist for the director of the department of aging:

1. make sure sun rises in the east
2. make sure all clocks have good batteries
3. oversee calendar industry
4. earn $125,o00 per year

Can we blame the aldermen for wanting to do the same thing? You mentioned the bills about toy guns, plastic bags, slavery, etc. Well, the aldermen do these things to get their names known so they can run for mayor, county council, or delegate and at least earn close to what they are worth! As aldermen, they have to buy their own stationery for goodness sake. Although I have no evidence to support the following claim, Alderman in the City of Annapolis has to have the fewest professional resources of any elected position.

And the mayor.....the mayor makes about half of what her department heads make...and they are her subordinates! If you are the mayor, either the non-monetary aspects of the job are valuable enough to attract you to the job, or you are trying to increase your worth for the future.

As for raises based on performance, let's take a step back. Remember, the goal of compensation is to pay the worker what he/she is worth. The theory of a merit-based raise assumes that the level of compensation was previously correct, then examines performance as a way to see if the value of the worker has increased. If it has, then a raise is given to keep the worker's pay in line with his/her worth.

SO, FOR THE CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, PERFORMANCE-BASED RAISES ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE ALREADY DON'T PAY THEM WHAT THEY ARE WORTH.

Good grief, I need some more coffee.

Anyway, there is something we can do about this:

-wait until the time dictated by the current charter to determine pay for the next council
-get serious about paying more money
-since the new aldermen are paid what they are worth, they will (hopefully) worry about city business and not the stupid bills you talked about
-think about having a city manager form of government

Do Our Elected Officials Make Too Much Money?

At Monday's city council meeting, a public hearing will be held for (amongst other things) a change in the way cost of living raises are given to our elected officials.

If you want to read about how the mayor and aldermen will receive a bigger raise than the police officers under the current proposals, click here. The truth is, the two events probably have little to do with each other. A study on elected official compensation has been in the works for some time now, and I doubt they could have predicted the details of the negotiations with the police union. Frankly, AP has no interest in discussing this particular aspect of this issue at this time.

What I am interested in talking about is the level of compensation for the elected officials. Although I started this post yesterday, I had somewhat of an impromptu conversation about this issue with the gentleman behind http://www.annapoliscapitalpunishment.blogspot.com/ this morning and we tend to agree on most of it.

Former Governor Ehrlich often preaches the value of having candidates for office that have succeeded in their private lives. The problem is, most of these people would have to take a pay cut if they were to be elected. The mayor, a full-time city employee, makes $70,000 per year. Each alderman makes $12,600, which will not pay your mortgage if you own any house in the city. People make work decisions based on utility, which means the total value to them of the job's salary as well as non-monetary factors such as hours, convenience, and having plenty of attractive co-workers in the office.

For the system of government that we have, $70,000 is probably not enough. The non-monetary aspects are great: prestige, fulfillment of public service, possibility of a sweet cabinet-level position in the O'Malley administration, etc. But, any city mayor could probably make twice their salary in the private market.

(Of note, currently the mayor appoints a city administrator, who makes slightly less than twice the mayor's salary and does, well, slightly nothing. If he did slightly anything he may consider fixing the air conditioning problem in the market house or replacing some other department heads. {Note to city administrator: you can do it! Just pretend like the other department heads are named Patmore}).

And the aldermen, heck---being an alderman is/should be a full-time job. It takes time to respond to constituent needs and adequately research bills. But with the paltry salary they receive, they either have to be independently wealthy, live off the land, or have another full-time job. Can we really blame aldermen for wanting to run for mayor or county council? Their hourly wage probably works out to be worth 3 Auntie Annie's pretzels at Market House.

Here is the list, to the best of my knowledge, of what other full-time jobs the aldermen have:

Dick Isreal: attorney, longtime assistant attorney general

Mike Christman: former navy pilot, current retail company COO

Classie Hoyle: educator, educational activist, baltimore slumlord, oops, landlord

Sheila Finlayson: educational lobbyist, school board critic/crusader

Dave Cordle: investigator, state's attorney's office

Julie Stankivic: health policy analyst (in baltimore, btw)

Sam Shropshire: founder, Maritime Republic of Eastport (yay!), involved in various non-profit organizations (note: I am not quite sure how or if Alderman Sam earns other income)

Ross Arnett: #1 greatest job ever (economist), retired federal government executive

How do we solve this problem? I'm going to stop short of saying this is the solution, but consider this idea:

-get rid of city administrator

-pay the city council more money and increase their responsibility/ability to serve

-have city council hire a city manager at its discretion (not by appointment by the mayor)

-have mayor be figurehead, preside over city council

-have city manager run logistics of city operations

-enjoy better city

Well? Whadda' ya think?