Hefty Raises Proposed For Mayor And Aldermen

I haven't been following the newspapers or other blogs so I don't know if it has been already reported, but then again I don't care if you've already read about this because I feel like writing about it.

O-07-09, on first reader tonight proposes to increase the salary of the Mayor from $70,000 to $120,000, and the salary of the Aldermen from $12,600 to $18,500.

The 71.4% increase in the Mayor's salary and the 46.8% increase to the Aldermen would be large by any measure. However, the pay for Aldermen would still be woefully inadequate for the job they are asked to do. The Mayor's salary is up for debate. For a Mayor under the current power scheme, it's probably closer to appropriate than inappropriate. For a Mayor under a council-manager form of government, it's too much.

My guess is that the supporters of a strong mayor will try and pass this bill to assign more prestige to the office and try and keep things the way they are. My other guess is that the public will be furious to award the Mayor's office more money after the disappointments of the current office holder.

The Mayor Is Angry!

Mayor Moyer has written a letter to the editor, either by hand-writing a letter and mailing it across the Atlantic or by faxing it to her Annapolis office and having the public information officer send it (which is how she writes her blog.)

The Mayor is, apparently, fired up about 2 things: The Capital's coverage of her proposed salary increases and Dick Israel's contradiction of her on this issue.

Basically, Mr. Israel headed a commission to study aldermen and mayor salaries before he became an alderman. The mayor frequently refers to the findings of this commission in defense of her submitting the bill.

So says she:

Regarding The Capital's so-called salary increases for the City Council:

The mayor is actually correct here: the proposed bill would actually lower the mayor's salary by $5000 and the aldermen salaries by $600 for FY 2007. The problems are:

1. the aldermen would get a $1500 expense account "solely for training", that (i'm pretty sure) they don't have now. this in and of itself is not a terribly huge deal, but it is against city code as well as unconstitutional in the state of maryland to raise compensation of current officials--i.e. for FY 2007...........

Every four years a commission reviews compensation issues for the aldermen and the mayor.

...and 2. her proposed bill would eliminate this commission and automatically tie pay increases to rates of inflation.

Richard Israel chaired a commission in 2004 for the the 2005 council. The commission recommended:

-Increasing the compensation of the mayor and aldermen.
-Providing education money for aldermen to attend conferences.

Additionally, the commission considered providing fringe benefits similar to those received by city employees.

I can all but guarantee that the commission did not recommend the current council making these changes for themselves. I have requested a copy of the commission report from Mr. Israel, so I can make that guarantee.

The 2004 City Council accepted these recommendations and the raises and education money was provided for in 2005-2006.

Excellent. Kudos to them for following the city code.

Attorneys, including Mr. Israel, advised that providing fringe benefits could only be implemented with a change in the City Charter's language. As the mayor charged with carrying out policies recommended by the council, I asked some months ago that appropriate language be drafted to provide for fringe benefits, which does include cost-of-living increases. That is the responsibility of the mayor.

I HATE this...she says this kind of stuff all the time: 'I am just following up on something that started earlier', 'This is what the mayor does', 'This is out of my control', 'This is what has always happened--this is nothing new'. Take your pick. Nothing that goes wrong or is controversial is ever her fault.

And, since when is it written in stone that the mayor must implement the recommendations of any given panel? Here is what I imagine to be the mayor's list of the top 5 things that are written in stone, and therefore must be followed and cannot be changed.

1. The 10 Commandments (I don't know the mayor's religious beliefs, but since the 'written in stone' reference came from this, I decided to give respect where respect is due.)
2. Dick Israel City Compensation Report
3. Cliff Notes: How to Throw a 'Michigan' Party
4. The Communist Manifesto (a little extreme, I know, but I am a little cranky as a result of the humidity)
5. Union Contract with Police
...
...
...
...
123. Annapolis City Code

The bill was introduced in December 2006 and referred to the Rules and City Government Committee, chaired by Mr. Israel, where it languished.

Ooohhh....testy! "Languished"? That was a bit unnecessary. Most committees take time to research their bills, and you and I both know that Mr. Israel is purposely deliberate because he wants to gather ALL the facts. I bet that it was in committee a reasonable amount of time.

This council has determined not to pursue these changes.

Because they do not want to challenge the Constitution of the State of Maryland.

Unbelievable. We can't observe body language or tone of voice, but it seems to me that the mayor is upset about this, in utter disregard (or ignorance) of the Maryland Constitution.

The issue will be left to the next commission, which will be appointed in 2008, to consider.

And what do you think about this? Because your bill would have ended this process. Oops..you forgot that part, didn't you?

Therefore, this is no longer an issue.

Nor was it an issue before you introduced the new bill and made it an issue. Also, that's the beauty of having one of the top 150 political blogs in Ward 5--you can talk about anything you want at any time!

More importantly, if we--the taxpaying citizens--want to talk about this, then it is an issue!! Loyal readers, can you start to see where a lot of us political junkies are coming from? The mayor is too good, too well informed, and too busy to listen to our petty and mundane complaints. "Therefore, this is no longer an issue"....who are you to decide? What arrogance.

Your editorial, however, with anonymous statements fanning the issue, defied the standards you set for yourself regarding letters to the editor. This kind of journalism fosters division on the community and does not serve the public good.
ELLEN MOYER, Mayor, Annapolis

I suppose that the Mayor has the same right as anybody else to write a letter to the editor. But, I tend to think that her whining and grandstanding in this letter do not serve the public good either. I would much prefer if elected officials wrote only informational letters, for example if the newspaper omitted an important fact, etc.

The editorial that the Mayor is talking about (unless there was another editorial that I missed), along with some excellent commentary, can be found on this site by clicking here. If you are only concerned with what the editorial says, read only the bold font. If you are concerned with wit, humor, and overall excellence, read the normal type as well.

I personally could not identify any "anonymous statements fanning the issue"--I actually don't know what that means so I just looked for one of those smiley faces you can write using a cell phone text message, along with any type of fan. Both searches yielded no results.

The point of an editorial is that the editorial board gives their opinion. You know who it is; it's the editorial board at The Capital. Although they appear to have gotten the figures wrong as to the amount of the compensation changes (or maybe they were quoting an earlier version of the bill), the editorial doesn't appear to be the "kind of journalism (that) fosters division on the community and does not serve the public good."

It is my hope that this blog will serve the public good, so keep reading!

Public Hearing, July 23

AP arrived at the public hearing around 6:45 with full intentions of staying for the whole thing. Alas, midway through the plastic bag testimony--around 9:45--I determined that staying any longer would be a detriment to my lifestyle. Nonetheless, I will now recount selected events of the evening.

+Overwhelming testimony was given in support of a proposed development on Annapolis Neck Rd. (R 37-07) Basically, some long-time property owners want to sell their properties to a developer, who in turn will erect affordable workforce housing. Admittedly I do not know the background on this issue, partly because it has been ongoing for 6 years. Seems like they have a pretty darn good argument, provided they can adequately show that allowing their area en exemption will not open the floodgates for everyone else to try and get special exceptions.

+The election code review committee presented their findings. I will devote an entire later post to this issue.

+A bill to allow the proposed triathlon was voted on...I will post on this as well.

+John Hammond, the Anne Arundel County Budget Officer and my roommate's father, challenged the council not to give themselves raises because they don't deserve it. Upon hearing this, alderwoman Hoyle shrewdly quipped "Mr. Hammond, didn't I just read in the paper that you are the highest paid employee in the county?" Quite rude and irrelevant, if you ask me, and if you are reading this blog, you did ask me! (Of note, aldermen should be paid more, but not these aldermen.)

+And for the main event, everybody and their mother wanted to testify on the bill to plan plastic bags. The bill, as it stands, would only ban plastic bags. It would not require the use of reusable bags. I did not hear anybody speak that was entirely for the bill (if somebody stayed longer than I did and heard such a support, email me). The closest anybody got to supporting the bill was saying something like "I applaud your idea and this is a step to help, but there are more effective things we can be doing." I will now present you with some quotes of actual testimony given:

Sierra Club of A.A. County: "This is not a solution; the best solution is reusable bags."

Alice Ferguson Foundation: "Plastic bags are not the most important problem...we should focus on education."

Progressive Bag Alliance: "Paper bags are worse for the environment. Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. We need to increase focus on recycling."

Maryland Retailers Association: "This legislation goes too far and doesn't achieve what he (Alderman Shropshire) wants. Plastic bags don't litter--people litter! Citizen education is more important, and we need to enforce the litter laws that we already have."

(Note to readers: AP was so refreshingly impressed by the comments made by the Maryland Retailers Association, that he immediately mailed a donation check for $20 to the organization. Focusing on the PEOPLE that cause problems and enforcing laws that we already have can solve so many problems.)

Restaurant Association of Maryland: "Behavior is the culprit here."

Sveinn Storm: "In 3 decades of working downtown, I have never seen a citation issued for littering. But there are plenty of paid city employees who clean up the trash."

Giant Food (The awesome grocer that AP uses): "We started using plastic bags 30 years ago due to environmental pressure to stop cutting down trees!"..."Why don't we ban cars because they speed?"

Safeway: "A ban is Un-American--it takes away our right to choose."..."This bill is illogical; it lacks full thought and common sense."..."No other jurisdiction has banned plastic bags."

Alderman Sam Shropshire: "Our emphasis is on reusable."

Note: No it's not. Not the way the bill is written.

Both liberals and conservatives are pro-environment. The difference is: liberals want to punish the entire industry from which the problem stems. Conservatives would rather encourage progress, deal with the problem INDIVIDUALS, and work for a solution that allows plastic bags (or anything else) to be used. The car analogy above was a good one. Any product, if used by an evil person, can be problematic. You don't punish freedom, or capitalism--you deal with the evil in that person.

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?