Sacramento has another chance to make it right and deny city manager’s raise | Opinion

It’s a rare gift in life when we’re given a second chance. Yet that’s exactly the scenario the Sacramento City Council finds itself in, after City Manager Howard Chan violated Brown Act laws by placing his own raise on a special meeting agenda without proper public notice. Now, they get to try again.

California’s Brown Act requires that special meetings give the public 24 hours notice (instead of the typical 72 hours required for a regular meeting) or offer a public comment period. The law is meant to assure transparency in government, especially around sensitive matters such as salary raises for the city’s highest paid officials.

Opinion

The act states: “A legislative body shall not call a special meeting regarding the salaries, salary schedules or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive.” As city manager, Chan is a local agency executive.

Now, after being informed of the violation, the city has recalled its vote and moved a substitute vote to Jan. 9, with plenty of time for public notice — and, hopefully, time for that public to raise protest.

During the illegal vote for Chan’s raise on Dec. 12, Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Councilwomen Katie Valenzuela and Mai Vang abstained. Steinberg raised concerns about the council giving the requested 10 weeks of leave time to Chan, which can be cashed out at any time for tens of thousands of dollars. The raise is also retroactive to 10 months ago. (At the same meeting, the council also voted to give City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood a $17,000 raise, bumping her salary to $368,000 a year, retroactive to March 2023.)

Chan wound up with a $20,000 raise in base pay, which brought his base salary to $420,000. Even before this raise, Chan was already the highest-paid city manager in the state. If the motion passes again in January, he will make more than California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis combined.

Chan’s compensation package currently includes an extra six weeks of vacation. What has he done to deserve another four weeks of vacation that, once cashed out, will amount to even more than the 5% raise he also wants?

But here’s a fun twist: The city may just need one person to change their mind to reverse Chan’s raise.

That’s because City Council Members Caity Maple, Karina Talamantes, Lisa Kaplan, Sean Loloee, Eric Guerra and Rick Jennings all voted to approve the increases, but come Jan. 9, Loloee very well may have resigned or been removed from office. The District 2 councilman is currently facing 25 charges in federal court for allegedly conspiring to defraud the U.S. Department of Labor and wire fraud, among several other charges.

Chan got his raise with six “yes” votes at the December meeting, but only five is needed for approval. If Loloee is taken out of the mix, and if one “yes” voter changes their mind, Chan loses his raise. So the question is: Who’s the most likely to flip their vote?

Hasty phone calls are undoubtedly being made between city staff this holiday season, but my money’s on the District 3 councilwoman. Talamantes was, after all, among the council members last August who opposed the plan to give Chan $5 million out of the city budget to spend on temporary shelters known as “Safe Grounds” (which he has yet to open).

Steinberg could also do more than politely abstain, knowing he’ll be in the minority. He could choose to call a couple council members and urge them to do the same. That would be the right thing to do, but it sure seems like he’s too afraid of his own city manager to take anything more than a pass.

If the new year is meant to be a time of renewal, second chances and gathering the courage to try again, then I’d like to think this second vote is perfectly timed for the Sacramento City Council.

Let’s make sure they get it right this time. Tell city officials to say “no” to Chan.