Elected officials aren’t paid fairly
As I viewed the City Council meeting the other evening, I noticed two things: Nobody on the dais cared about the public input, and all five council members seemed to have their own agenda for tweaking the campaign finance rules passed last year.
That was a year of much public debate on campaign financing (“Council tweaks reform rules,” Aug. 26).
It was the “process,” which the president of the League of Women Voters Glendale/Burbank disapproved of this time around. After all, what’s the rush? We just approved new campaign finance rules just 12 months ago.
Councilman Ara Najarian took thousands from the city’s employee unions and yet he referred to campaign donations as having the potential to become “dirty money,” especially after an election.
But donations are dirty before or after an election. People, be it an individual, developer, corporation or city union, give large sums of money and expect “something” in return.
I believe the real issue is not how much money our council members should be able to raise after an election, but the true cost of being a council member. I understand that being a council member is supposed to be a part-time job, but the public wants our elected officials to work full time.
And the public does not truly compensate these council members for their hard and dedicated work. Sure there have been some slackers, but I do believe that, by and large, these people are sincere.
We pay our council members, our executive branch of government, a measly $36,000 to $40,000 a year. But, we pay our city manager, Jim Starbird, well over $200,000 and yet he reports to the City Council.
Most of our city managers and middle managers make in excess of $100,000? So, why not pay our council members as much as we pay our city managers?
