Today is

Monday, December 31, 2007

Gazette: Why Ruin Council With Pay?

Possibly in response to my recent posting about a dubious article the Janesville Gazette ran on their front-page last week about the lack of city council pay, the editors opined again about Janesville’s current council-manager form of city government.
JG Editorial:
The city adopted this method of government during the progressive movement early in the last century. It easily survived a referendum in 2004 after critics led a petition drive to switch to a mayor and aldermanic districts.
The Progressive movement Janesville's current government sprung from should not be confused with today's Progressive's. Not even the same animal.

But, they threw out democracy with just one referendum? We now know that Janesville voters have to be pressed at least three times before anyone knows for sure what they want to do. That one loss was a window of opportunity for future progress towards genuine representative democracy in Janesville to build on, but because of a lack of marketing and organization the movement lost momentum.

The editorial published this past Saturday titled “Unpaid council serves our city quite well” also gave reasons why the newspaper thinks the council members are better off without pay.
JG Editorial:
But we like it this way. It's tough to argue with success.
That's a matter of definition and opinion.
JG Editorial excerpt:
But through the years, Janesville has been blessed with quality council members who desire only to serve and contribute to the community.
No need to spoil them now, huh? The Gazette supporting volunteerism for this expanding civic duty can only be traced to their greatest fear - another tax increase. I've never heard of money being a dis-incentive unless it's an undeserved hand-out, but this cannot be the case with all the praise and thanks the Gazette heaped on the council. But oddly, they also implied that if council members truly care about the community, they should expect no pay. The paper posted this anonymous comment on Sunday.
Sound Off Excerpt:
On Council Pay
: Your headline on page 1A Sunday says "No pay, but that seems ok." Then you read that some council members want money. They know it's no pay when they run for the council. If they want to be paid, I don't think they should run for it.
I would guess (conservatively) that it costs a council member about $750 a year in out-of-pocket expenses (transportation, snacks, etc.) just to attend the council meetings, and that's the glamorous part.
JG Editorial Excerpt:
"What was meant to be a volunteer, very part-time, citizen responsibility starts taking on the trappings of a professional political position," Berry (WTA) said.
Does this transformation happen before or after pay?

Right now it's easy to see the Janeville council duties include library and on-line time spent researching projects and decisions, closed-door meetings, the loss of privacy, the time spent connecting with residents and going on field trips or even losing a friend over a comment or a vote. Might not be full-time, but it's got all the trappings of a profession.

For obvious reasons I don’t see paying council members, state representatives or other elected officials wages and benefits commensurate for their time and efforts as the reason corrupting their duty to perform. To the contrary, no pay or low pay makes gift money, perks and favors traded with outside forces such as friends or lobbyists all the more tempting. Volunteerism is a great and noble cause, sometimes even a high calling for many honest individuals, but it has its limits. Some can feel burned out, cheated and taken advantaged of.

And it’s not a fair question to ask of current Janesville council members or candidates, about whether or not they deserve some compensation. This is a question for every Janesville resident to answer, and my answer is a positively resounding and long overdue “YES!”

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

if u offer pay.. it will only encourage them.

Post a Comment