Editorial: Aldermen rationalize their pay raises. Don’t blame us, blame inflation.

The lineup change that the Chicago City Council will undergo next spring won’t be the sort of aldermanic turnover that happens every so often. It’s an outright upheaval.

Seven aldermen have announced they won’t seek reelection. Three others, Sophia King, 4th, Roderick Sawyer, 6th, and Raymond Lopez, 15th, are running for mayor and so cannot run for another term. Two others, Michael Scott, 24th and Michele Smith, 43rd, have already stepped down. And Ald. George Cardenas, 12th, is running uncontested for the Cook County Board of Review, and is set to leave the council after the November general election.

That’s 13 out of 50 seats, and there’s plenty of time before the February election for more to jump ship.

This housecleaning of the aldermanic roster could be a boon for the city, or it could prove disastrous. It all depends on what incoming rookie aldermen value the most — the welfare and future of the city, or their own egos and wallets.

Between now and the February aldermanic election, the current council lineup could set an example to the newcomers by showing what matters most to the city — exercising fiscal responsibility, erasing inequities that hold back the South and West sides, and fast-tracking police reform. And that’s just for starters.

Alas, we’re probably expecting too much. This week, Chicagoans have seen what kind of example existing aldermen are willing to display. Most have yet to opt out of taking a chunky 9.6% pay raise that insults everyday taxpayers and conveys a “me first” approach to governance.

The amount of the pay hike links up with the consumer price index. With inflation skyrocketing, it adds up to salaries as high as $142,772. Compare that to 2006, when aldermen made $98,125. That’s the year aldermen hitched yearly pay raises to the index — a crafty workaround that allowed them to avoid criticism about voting to fatten their wages year after year.

It’s not us, went the thinking — blame it on the index.

Aldermen can opt out of the yearly inflation-driven pay raise, and it’s worth commending those who responsibly said no thanks: Daniel LaSpata, 1st, Brian Hopkins, 2nd, Nicole Lee, 11th, Marty Quinn, 13th, Lopez, 15th, Matthew O’Shea, 19th, Silvana Tabares, 23rd, Felix Cardona Jr., 31st, Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th, Gilbert Villegas, 36th, Anthony Napolitano, 41st, Brendan Reilly, 42nd, Tom Tunney, 44th, Matt Martin, 47th and Maria Hadden, 49th.

The other council members haven’t given any indication they’ll opt out. The message they’re sending to voters? Sure, inflation’s bad, times are tough, and legions of Chicagoans are scraping by — but we’re taken care of, and that’s what counts.

As a line item in the city’s multibillion dollar budget, the raises don’t add up to a massive expenditure. But it’s the seamy subtext that is sure to infuriate voters, especially those whose own paychecks are failing to keep up with inflation. Tying pay raises to inflation rates firewalls City Hall from criticism at a critical moment, just as the municipal campaign picks up steam.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s decision to link property tax increases with spikes in inflation — with a cap set at 5% — works the same way. Last year, that led to an overall property tax increase of $76.5 million. The mayor’s current budget outlook proposes an inflation-guided $42.7 million increase.

Lightfoot chose to limit the increase to 2.5% instead of the 5% maximum, but it still wallops taxpayers at a time when inflation strains virtually everyone’s pocketbooks. Guess whose wages will be beefed up enough to take the property tax hit? The aldermen who snatched up their pay raises, of course.

Even more egregious: the aldermen who are leaving the council in 2023 and have not opted out of the pay hike will still benefit from it — not only from paychecks from January until May, when their term ends, but from fatter pension payments. Among those aldermen is Carrie Austin, 34th, who faces federal bribery charges and has yet to opt out of the pay raise.

Tying aldermanic pay hikes and property increases to inflation is a convenient way to skirt accountability. If the people who run City Hall think they deserve more money for themselves and believe Chicagoans should fork over more in property taxes, then they should have to justify the ask, each and every time. Better yet, they should pursue leaner budgets that pave the way for property tax relief.

That would be the kind of sensible fiscal stewardship from which the new batch of aldermen could learn.

Of course, if City Hall doesn’t mend its ways, the newcomers will need to take away a different lesson. Whatever their predecessors have done, do the opposite.

Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.