Don’t Increase Council Pay

Nobody runs for the Madison City Council for the pay and perks. So, why should we want to change that?

In a move that is breathtaking in its cluelessness, Council Vice President Yannette Figueroa Cole is proposing an increase from $15,000 to $24,000 a year, or a whopping 60%. It would be even more for the president and vice president.

This in a city that’s staring down a potential $75 million deficit in a few years. This in a city that, in a referendum only a couple years ago, soundly rejected a higher paid, full-time council.

So, why on earth would the Council want to raise its pay by 60% now? “Access to government and positions of power should not be limited to those who are retired or are able to finance themselves,” Figueroa Cole said in a story in the Wisconsin State Journal.

But this Council is the most diverse, at least in terms of race and gender, in the city’s history.

Apparently, Figueroa Cole is now aiming at vocational diversity. I suppose she’s right that the Council doesn’t reflect the economic diversity of the city. But does any legislative body anywhere reflect that? The Wisconsin Legislature usually has an overrepresentation of lawyers (as just about every legislature ever invented has had), real estate agents, accountants and small business owners. It’s basically a collection of people with the flexibility to hold down this part-time job which, in itself, isn’t enough to support a family.

But there’s no evidence that paying a higher wage will change anything. In fact, it would probably make things worse. Look at Congress where the salary is a comfortable $174,000. And you know what you get for that? More lawyers and business owners. A third of House members and half of the Senators have law degrees. Another 30% of House members and 26% of the Senate have been employed as business owners.

And, in any event, $24,000 is no more a family-supporting wage than $15,000 is. People would still need a second job or a gainfully employed partner to make ends meet.

While fair compensation for an important and sometimes demanding job should be a goal, we should not want to make the Council into a plum assignment. Right now pretty much everybody who steps up to run does so for the right reasons. They’re passionate about serving their community.

And, for the most part, our community has enough folks who want to serve so that we have a fair number of competitive races every cycle. Last April, 14 of the Council’s 20 seats had races. By contrast, right now the Cook Political Report rates only 45 of 435 House seats as being a toss up or only leaning one way or the other. In other words, the modestly compensated Madison City Council had races for 70% of its seats while right now Congress, with its comfortable salary, has little more than 10% of its seats truly up for grabs.

I have great respect for the people who step up to serve on the Madison City Council, even if I don’t agree with them all the time. There is no other reason to do it besides a commitment to their neighbors and a concern for their community. There’s simply no compelling reason to change that. This 60% wage increase proposal is an expensive solution in search of a problem.

A version of this piece originally appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal.

School board needs challengers. Dane County Board needs candidates. Incumbent Madison School Board members Savion Castro and Maia Pearson have announced that they’re running for reelection in April. I have deep concerns about the direction of this Board. So, I hope candidates will step forward to challenge them with a fresh and practical vision. You need only 100 signatures to get on the ballot and nomination papers can be circulated now through January 3rd.

As for the Dane County Board, all 37 seats are up this spring, but only a handful have contested races so far. I served on the Board myself for five years and it was a deeply rewarding experience. You get to participate in important issues like the county jail debate, social services, the zoo, the airport, land use, water and natural resource issues and more. And, in this case, you only need 50 signatures to get on the ballot. Same deadline of January 3rd.