December 6, 2006
The midterm salary increases for elected officials cleared
its last obstacle yesterday when Mayor Bloomberg signed the bill passed 41
to 5 on November 16. Unwilling to wait until Christmas for their expensive
present, the Council made the raises retroactive to November 1, the day they
received the report of the Quadrennial Mayor's Commission recommending the
increases.
The
Commission
also suggested the end of "lulus", the bonuses that committee chairs (the
majority of the Councilmembers) receive in addition to their salaries.
These sums are about $10,000 a year, and are included in pension computations.
When I was a Councilmember (1974-83), these funds were finely calibrated
by the then majority leader, Thomas J. Cuite. He ran the Council from
1969 to 1985, and was Peter Vallone's predecessor. Then the lulu list
showed exactly where you stood in the hierarchy. Under Vallone, the
title changed to Speaker, putting him on titular par with such giants as
Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neill in Washington, and Stanley Steingut and Shelly
Silver in the New York State Assembly.
The mayoral hearing was totally anticlimactic, whatever energy witnesses
devoted to the subject having been expended at the City Council hearing.
Although Federal and State law prohibit legislators from increasing their
salaries during their term of office, the City has no such barrier.
Mayor Bloomberg, not having appointed a commission on salary increases during
his first quadrennium, made up for that oversight this year. If the
lawmakers had to wait until their term ends, they could not collect until
2010, by which time most of them will have been term limited out of office,
unless they are successful in changing the city charter in their own self-interest.
The Council also declined to rule on outside employment by its members, some
of whom earn more than their Council salaries by practicing law or presiding
over anti-poverty organizations which are largely dependent on public funds.
It is a long-standing issue of whether legislators should be full-time, or
citizens plying their normal trade when the legislature is not in session.
In the old Board of Alderman, predecessor municipal legislature, the primary
occupation of the members was said to be saloonkeeper. That was a position
requiring social skills and providing the opportunity to meet large numbers
of people, on mostly happy occasions.
In our judgment, outside employment should be restricted, but not barred.
Members can now receive unlimited unearned income, so why penalize those
who have to earn a living. As far as the expenditure of time is concerned,
that is an issue between the member and the voters. Constituent service
comes under Rule 20:"That's why God made staff." There will be loafers
and parasites who will not work even if they have nothing to us. There
will be busy been proficient at what today we call 'multi-tasking'.
There is,
however,
a problem with certain types of employment. Obviously a Councilmember should
not hold another city job. Neither should one work in a publicly-supported
agency. Particular cases should be determined by the Conflict of Interest
Board. The State Assembly's shameful example of the Speaker working
for a law firm which has obvious legislative interests should not be tolerated
in city government, even though it is currently legal. And outside income
should be disclosed in narrower categories than the rules now require.
The other increases voted by the Commission vary in wisdom. The Mayor properly
goes to $225K, (he only takes $1) The Council salary, not counting lulus,
goes from 90 to 112.5, precisely half of what the mayor will earn.
(As you know, he only accepts $1). We wait to see a Councilmember offer to
work for fifty cents.
The District Attorneys go from 150 to 190, a 26.7% raise. That is necessary
because of the compression effect, no agency staffer is supposed to earn
more than principal, and compensation in law firms is far higher than salaries
in the public sector. Judges' salaries are also tied in a way to district
attorney's, and they too should be reasonably increased.
The Comptroller goes from 160 to 185, or 15.6%, fair and modest considering
the complexity of his official duties.
The Public Advocate got a raise from 150 to 165, the modest 10 per cent increase
after seven years of flatlining indicating the modest regard in which this
office is held. In fact, at the last Charter revision, the office was
at the edge of extinction, and only saved by the intercession of Andrew Stein,
the incumbent at the time. Mr. Stein has now found private employment
with Ron Perelman, and is said to be doing quite well. We make fun
of the position's light workload, but it could be useful as a testing ground
for mayoral candidates, and as a public ombudsman. We elect a mayor,
it's a big city, why not elect someone to keep an eye on him or her?
On the other hand, why spend two million dollars on an office which has been
often historically undistinguished. Mark Green was the ablest person
to hold the position (the only job to which he was ever elected) but even
he found difficulty in generating public enthusiasm for his recommendations.
Part of the problem here is that if one is too critical of the mayor, one
is characterized as ambitious, self-serving and obstructionist. If one is
co-operative, one is labeled a dummy, stooge or patsy. Uneasy may lie the
head that wears the crown, but uneasier yet should lie the head that desires
the crown the king is wearing.
More controversial are the raises for the five borough presidents (proposed
to go from 135 to 160, an 18.5% hike). Their salaries have waxed as their
duties have waned. The position is considered quite desirable even
at the current salary, nine candidates having sought it in 2005 in the borough
of Manhattan. The benefits package includes a car and drivers, which
the Councilmembers have not yet acquired at public expense.
Borough Presidents are in a position to be enormously helpful to their boroughs.
They represent historic districts which cannot be gerrymandered, as Council
seats are routinely. They have staff and visibility, and there is great
value in having one official elected by a constituency that in two cases,
exceeds two million people. Some of them are better and some are worse,
that is the nature of politics. But those reformers who would abolish
these offices are ignorant of the city's history, and the need for different
levels of elected officials. (Disclosure: I worked for Manhattan Borough
Presidents Edward R. Dudley and Constance Baker Motley from 1962 to 1965.
Both of them later became judges, and I went on my first tour in the Parks
Department.)
What is annoying is the cherry-picking by the Council, taking the parts they
like (the money) and ignoring the parts they don't (the reforms). But
until these commissions learn the strategy of making one part contingent
on the other, their pious hopes are likely to remain just that.
#335 12.07.06 1162wds