Fresno’s City Councilmembers should not get 70% pay hike, no matter how hard they work
Are Fresno City Council members underpaid?
That is the tricky question the council is now debating. Three of its members — Luis Chavez, Mike Karbassi and Tyler Maxwell — have proposed an ordinance to jump the councilmembers’ salaries from $80,000 a year to $135,000 annually. That is a nearly 70% hike in one-fell swoop.
A majority of the council approved the pay raise Thursday (Garry Bredefeld and Esmeralda Soria voted no), but it was just a first reading of the ordinance, and the measure will return in coming weeks for a second ratification.
In the world occupied by Fresno’s regular workforce, such huge pay hikes are unheard of.
Councilmembers saying “we work hard and have demanding jobs, so we need more money” is understandable, but ultimately is not enough in itself. What worker anywhere doesn’t think that?
The council majority should think this through some more and return with a refined proposal that taxpayers can support.
Arguments for pay raise
Chavez, Karbassi, Councilmember Miguel Arias and Council President Nelson Esparza spoke in favor of higher pay and listed these justifications:
▪ While council service may be billed as part-time duty, realistically it is full-time work. Twelve-to-14-hour days are routine, and Arias said he regularly attends a community event every night of the work week and multiple events on weekends, all because his constituents in southwest Fresno and the Tower District expect it.
Opinion
▪ There is no pension offered to councilmembers, so for whatever time they have in office, they are not earning retirement savings through the city.
▪ The job of a councilmember has gotten ever more demanding. Arias held up several thick binders from city staff full of information for items on Thursday’s agenda; it was hefty reading he had to do to prepare properly. Arias also spoke of receiving death threats and having his children videotaped at school by people who oppose him. Such nonsense should not occur to any elected official.
▪ Karbassi said the key for him was to attract “the best and brightest” candidates who could serve on the council. Upping the pay would help do that, he stressed, especially for younger professionals with families.
The proposal ties the councilmembers’ salaries to what Fresno County supervisors earn, which is currently $135,044 a year. In 1994, the supervisors linked their salaries to 60% of the increases given to the Superior Court judges. (The board chair, with greater responsibilities, earns $151,925).
Points against salary hike
Bredefeld has over the years opposed efforts to increase councilmembers’ pay. His chief reason? It is a public-service post, and anyone who campaigns for the office knows that going in.
▪ The lack of a pension is also known up front, he said.
▪ He said that, on the list of comparable cities in the state, Fresno currently ranks fifth for councilmember compensation. With the salary hike, it would jump to second-highest, paying better than San Diego.
▪ The median income in the city is $53,000 — well below the proposed hike, Bredefeld noted. In Arias’ district, the median income is $30,000, Bredefeld showed on a map of Fresno.
“We are going to take your taxpayer dollars and put them in our pocket even though you are struggling,” he said.
He also criticized Arias, Chavez and Esparza for not bringing this up in their recent campaigns for re-election, which they won. The new pay rate would take effect in January.
A different approach
In fairness to the councilmembers, their jobs are demanding. The hours are long, the issues increasingly complex. Rarely are they thanked or praised. They confront a daily torrent of criticism on social media.
They currently earn less than other professionals. The highest-paid teachers in Fresno, for example, make over $100,000 a year. High-ranking staff in City Hall itself are paid more than the councilmembers who are their ultimate bosses.
When asked about the proposed pay hikes for councilmembers, Mayor Jerry Dyer said it was a big jump and maybe should occur over several years, rather than at once. (It should be noted the mayor’s pay would also go up under the proposal).
That is a good point. Most workers rarely see pay hikes of nearly 70% in one shot. The council should consider taking half the increase now, and the other half next year.
The council’s salary should also be tied to achievable goals, as occurs for many workers in the private sector. They could be as simple as these:
▪ Each council district must have a set amount of repaved roads per year.
▪ Each councilmember must hold at least three town hall meetings in his or her district per year to hear from constituents.
▪ And every councilmember must tour every other district at least once a year.
The council majority needs to scale back its money expectations and meet quantifiable goals. That would be more acceptable to average citizens. But 70% more in pay on the turn of the calendar year? We can’t buy that.
