Office Of Mayor Can Command Respect
Without Ludicrous 450% Salary Increase
In late February the Federal Reserve issued a report that, when adjusted for inflation, average incomes fell from 2001 to 2004. Median family income, the point where half the population made more and half less, rose only 1.6% in that time to just $43,200 in 2004.
Most of us know our family buying power has declined the last few years. That’s reality.
But there is still a land of fantasy and make believe. Get the bag of fairy dust you’ve been saving for a special occasion, sprinkle it on your head and repeat after me. “I believe I can fly. I believe I can fly.” Now open your eyes, get in the elevator and push the button to the fourth floor of City Hall.
There you will find a copy of a bill introduced by Councilman Bob Hoepfner to raise the salary of Mayor to $150,000 per year. That’s approximately a 450% increase from the $27,000 the Mayor now receives.
No one doubts the salary needs raised because starting in 2007 (unless overturned by voters) the position becomes full-time and assumes some greater responsibilities. I’m sponsoring a bill myself to raise the salary to a more reasonable $60,000. Both bills will be debated at the Council’s Work Session this Tuesday.
I wanted to share with you some of the facts I will be presenting to support the lesser amount. First, as late as the 2004 State Manual, we only pay the Governor of the State of Missouri $120,000. I don’t see the compensation package of a Mayor needing to be greater than what we pay the Governor to run the whole State.
Speaking of our State, the median income for Missourians in 2000 was just $37,500. In the City of St. Charles the median income was $47,000. I think we too often get out of touch with what most families have to try to make ends meet. Adjusting that local number for the 1.6% average increase from 2001 to 2004 and you still have one half of our population earning less than $50,000 per year.
That doesn’t leave a lot of room for vacations, a new car or making those improvements to your home you’ve always dreamed about. But God forbid our next Mayor should have to want for anything with a $150,000 annual income. Did I mention we already give whoever is Mayor fully paid health insurance, dental and a retirement plan? The health insurance alone is worth $10,000, the cost per employee, and there is no co-pay to have to worry about.
Proponents of the high salary level include County Councilman and former Mayoral candidate Dan Foust, who was quoted by a Post-Dispatch columnist as saying the salary of Mayor needs to be $1 higher than the highest paid employee at City Hall. In other words, he feels it needs to be around the $150,000 proposed by Councilman Hoepfner. Councilman Foust didn’t respond in the article if he were going to be a candidate for the office again.
I remember when Dan Foust was terribly upset a few years back about firefighters and paramedics getting a raise he felt was too large. It was a central theme of his race for Mayor as I recall. In fact there was a graph in one of his mailings showing the comparative salaries of firefighters, teachers and certain union trades.
The irony now is those very professions he cited don’t make half of what Dan thinks he should be paid if he chooses to run again for Mayor. He was quoted in this same column as saying “…you can’t expect people to work for peanuts and get qualified people.” What a conversion. It’s a miracle!
Both Dan Foust and Bob Hoepfner hold to the theory that you have to pay the Mayor more than the highest paid employee in order for them to be more effective leaders and command the respect of their subordinates. Ask yourself how many jobs you’ve had where on the first day they show you the salary of your boss in order for you to understand that person is your boss?
It is the ability to hire, fire, discipline, direct and control the compensation of an individual that determines you are their boss. It is the ability of the individual to show respect to others, to communicate clearly, to be fair, to establish goals, to inspire others, to show real leadership that “earns” the respect of employees.
The argument has also been made that we need a high salary for Mayor in order to attract a “higher caliber” of candidate. The people who have made this argument to me are well meaning, but I don’t think they realize how insulting this is to the many men and women who have served our community as Mayor heretofore.
Despite the prodding several past Mayors got to critique the current Mayor and Council, I still have tremendous respect for people like our late Mayor Frank Brockgreitens and former Mayors Doug Boschert, Grace Nichols and Mel Wetter.
The “so-called” higher caliber of candidate some people are looking for I’m told is a former CEO or captain of industry. The argument goes that such men (and I hope they mean women as well) would only sully their hands with government if they are paid enough. That reasoning seems to stand in stark contrast to statements I’ve heard that certain persons might allow themselves to be “drafted” for the good of the community, but that they aren’t seeking personal enrichment or political power for themselves. Give me a break. That speech hasn’t gotten any better since Julius Caesar gave it.
The fact is that the qualifications for being Mayor haven’t gotten any tougher. You don’t even need a high school diploma. There are no guarantees that a higher salary means a more qualified person gets elected.
While the office of Mayor may be going full-time in April of 2007, it has already voluntarily been the full-time job of several of our last Mayors. Most have put in more than 40 hours per week for the current salary. That’s because the duties of the office have grown with our population.
Those duties fall into eight categories. First, the Mayor is the ambassador of our City. His or her presence is sought at numerous functions from the proverbial ribbon cuttings to every organizations annual fundraising gala.
Second, the Mayor is the chief proponent for economic development. We may have an Economic Development Director, but every person with a development on the drawing boards believes they need to talk with the Mayor. Third, the Mayor serves on many boards and commissions, including being a voting member on the Planning & Zoning Commission and Tourism Commission. The Mayor must also recruit members to serve and appoint over a hundred board and commission members.
Fourth, the Mayor has to work with the City Council, which means discussing proposed legislation, reading bills, debating issues that come before the Council and vetoing bills. Fifth, the Mayor has a formal legal role to play in reviewing and executing (signing) all contracts on behalf of the City. Sixth, the Mayor has fiscal duties, which include receiving the proposed Annual Budget and Capital Improvement Plan from the City Administrator which the Mayor may change before presenting to the Council. The Mayor also must approve line-item transfers within departments or funds and propose budget amendments to the Council for transfers between departments or funds.
Seventh, the Mayor has to deal with constituents the same as Councilmen. We get calls about bad streets or alleys and so does the Mayor’s Office. Finally, the Mayor can review and discuss policy matters with the City Administrator, but is currently prohibited from interfering in the day-to-day operations of the City.
The City Administrator is a full time job as well. I won’t go into all the duties of this position, but amid the glitz and glamour, it also includes such mundane work as sitting in a disciplinary hearing all day on an appeal by an employee.
My reasoning for setting the salary of Mayor at a more reasonable level is that we are primarily compensating the position for the full-time nature of the work already being performed. It would be impossible for a new Mayor in April of 2007 to do both the full-time duties of a Mayor and the full-time duties of a City Administrator.
The City Administrator will get a name change, but I believe almost all of the real “work” being done by that individual will remain the same. There simply isn’t enough time for the Mayor to assume those duties and do all of the things we expect from a Mayor.
That means we have to keep a highly paid professional on the job to administer the day-to-day operations of a City with over 450 employees. We can require that person to have experience and credentials. We can’t require that of a Mayor.
I see no reason to have two people each paid $150,000 a year, when the real day-to-day duties and qualifications for the jobs of Mayor and City Administrator (Director of Administration) are so widely different.
Finally, the two bills before the City Council also address the compensation for Councilmen. My bill would increase the salary from $6,000 to $7,200. Councilman Hoepfner wants the salary for Councilmen raised to $15,000 per year, with full medical and dental insurance as well.
No one should be running for public office to get rich. Councilman Hoepfner needs to shed the green tights, lose Tinker Bell and come down to earth.
