Saturday, October 07, 2006

20% pay raise sure to increase whining by 30%

Encinitas council up for a 20 percent raise

By: ADAM KAYE - Staff Writer

ENCINITAS ----
The City Council is scheduled to decide Wednesday whether to give itself a 20 percent raise.

The increase would bump monthly paychecks of the five Encinitas council members from $897.93 to $1,077.

If approved, the raise would be the council's first since 2002. It would take effect in December, after the two winners of the Nov. 7 election are sworn into office.

25 comments:

  1. Fuzzy wuzzy math, not compounded.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even making $898 a month, that's $10,776 a year but that's not where the real money is. They also get $500 a month expense acct., medical & dental totaling $8,898 a yr. and the city (the taxpayers) pay $2,670 a yr. into the CA Public Employees Retirement System for each council member. They also get paid for attending regional meetings which is why there is always a fight about who gets appointed to what - because there is $ in those appointments. Last year the council made the following
    Jimmy Bond $56,597
    Maggie $31,194
    Christy $39,400
    Jerome $35,403
    The knife sharpener $31,748

    Now you know why the plumber wants the job so badly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And all this money and all these benefits and retirement, etc. for a
    PART TIME JOB !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dalager/Guerin support excessive spendingOctober 07, 2006 3:44 PM

    More bad government. The city easily could have encouraged the citizens to vote on Council's pay raises, according to the Government Code, at the coming election. The Government Code, as quoted below, says nothing about compounded interest. Also, what was our population when we first incorporated?

    Council does not have to slyly try to sneak this in through the consent calendar, where it is typically not considered in open hearing, or as a separate agenda item. Importantly, our Council will now be paid what current Government Code specifies for populations of more than 250,000!

    Consider all these questions and concerns when you check out the following relevant Government Code. Also, the last part of this brings up questions about excessive compensation of City Council members for other positions on government boards that they hold. The 5% is 5% per year. In this case, our city was not at 50,000 when first incorporated. But the 5% per year increase we are looking at now should include board compensation, or they should only get $150 extra per month for each board, as I read this. Also, 5% times 4 years, since 2002 equals 20%.
    ***********
    Government Code 36516. (a) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary, the amount of which shall be determined by the following schedule:

    (2) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including four hundred dollars ($400) per month;

    (3) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including five hundred dollars ($500) per month . . .

    (6) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month.
    For the purposes of this section the population shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance.

    (b) At any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensation, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the compensation specified in the election call. Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.

    c) Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended which provides for automatic future increases in salary.

    (d) Unless specifically authorized by another statute, a city council may not enact an ordinance providing for compensation to city council members in excess of that authorized by the procedures described in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.

    For the purposes of this section, compensation includes payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which the city council member serves. If the other statute that authorizes the compensation does not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "retirees, trust-funders and the typical gadflies" This comment by Dan Dalager is insulting to retirees, like his fellow council member, James Bond. What the heck does he mean by "gad flies?" Another stupid statement, by lap dog Dan Dalager, Bossypant Guerin's favorite pet.

    Also, JP, please don't suggest that those who have legitimate concerns are "whining." That sounds like another "Guerinism." She and her cute buttons will be out of here come December. None too soon for most of the people who know about what has been going on here.

    She was against blighting Leucadia, but she is for closed sessions, she doesn't respect the citizens, or the conflict of interest state law she is sworn to uphold. Dalager just goes along with everything she does.

    Yes, time for a change. And the people who "whine" the most are those who try to discredit others by "whining" about our pointing out the law, our concerns that current Council, on purpose, or by neglect, has not honored the law, or shown understanding and respect for the electorate.

    Don't whine about whining!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm just trying to make you folks laugh. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. The council is a part time job. BUT after 5 years (reelection to a second term) these people get a PENSION. Where can you get a part time job and get a pension after 8 years. THis has got to change.

    ReplyDelete
  8. damn I shoulda fuggin run.
    a pension after 8 years.
    blimey

    ReplyDelete
  9. It should be very clear at this point why Dan wants to go on for a second term.

    ReplyDelete
  10. not a pension after 8 years, a pension after a part time 8 year job

    ReplyDelete
  11. If a pension of about $200 per month after 8 years of Council service seems that big a deal to you, you'r pettiness shows issues that cannot be dealt with on this blog!!

    Oh, by the way, the current City Council did not invent the system. Every past Council member except the dead and the one-termers are collecting their pensions too!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought it was pension after five years for Council?

    No this Coucnil didn't invent the system, but they give themselves raises, including increases in pension benefits for Kerry Miller who will be leaving, but will get to collect the pension. And Christy Guerin will get to collect her pension on top of her "retirement disability" for "stress fractures," although she can still run in local races, and in races in Japan, too. Bogus!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Part of the reasons that Council should not get an increase in monthly pay is their cushy pension benefits, which recently went up, thanks to their own votes, their padded expense accounts, and their many paid board positions, such as the SDWD, which is a direct conflict, lately, especially after the sale of the water district site for too little, and charging SDWD way too much for use of the Mossy property.

    After being given "credit" for the $1,165,000, including SDWD's having paved Pacific View, and the sale price of $1 million for their land, owned outright, City Council/SDWD Board of Directors, voted to charge SDWD ratepayers $3.5 million for "use rights" of the Mossy public works yard. Bad deal for the ratepayers! This also does not take into account the lost rental income SDWD had from the rest of Public Works, before. The true cost of the library is going to be well over $30 million, when you take this litte "tradeoff" into account.

    Also, bad deal for the citizens who overpaid by at least a million dollars for Mossy because we were not allowed to ask questions and help with the closed door negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Get a life, why don't you get one? Instead of answering any questions or explaining, you always resort to calling people losers or degrading them in some other biased, irrelevant attempt at disdain and ridicule. Yeah, why rock your big ol' gravy boat?

    And who are you to call anyone petty? Dan Dalager always says, "the Devil is in the details."

    Hello, Beelzebub.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Council, including "get a life" poster, are laughing all the way to the bank.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  16. In my opinion, the pay and benefits are not really the issue here. The inability to run the city on the up and up, within budget, without obvious bias towards the connected is the problem.
    But, since there seems to be only one viable candidate to go against the current majority, nothing is going to change after this election even if Dalager is voted out.
    So, since nobody else stood up to run against the powers that be, the powers that be, will still be.
    At least we can make fun of them on this blog as thet run down to the bank to make their deposits in the style of former Rep. Cunningham.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We think we would be better off if Council had term limits, and we voted for a separate Mayor, citywide, who must win the election by a majority of the votes cast, be eligible for primaries, and who could have a separate term of 8 years, total, if re-elected, out of Council, for example. So the individual, if elected as Council Member at large and, then, as Mayor, could serve a total of four four year terms, two as Council Member, and two as mayor. Of course, the mayor would not have to be a member of Council to be elected. This would give the people someone in their corner, more, than a City Manager who just goes along with whatever the rotating mayor and council order by fiat.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We have a vision of a Council and Mayor with new voices, who are open and transparent in their dealings, not showing prejudice towards the elite "connected" or the monied few. We have a vision of fiscal conservatives, liberal when it comes to compassion, concerns about individual liberties.

    We have lots of hope and faith in the good nature and good hearts of us, the common citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To "Get a life" I worked for Squibb Pharmaceuticals for 15 years before I changed professions. I now get a $300.00 a month pension. And that was a full time job. Hard for me to think that $200.00 a month pension isn't quite a bit for 8 years of part time service.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The pensions are causing a lot of tensions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. well, now we know who "get a life" is. It's not the $200 (approx.) a month pension, it's the fact that it is not deserved. The part time council people get great benefits and gifts, etc. during their tenure. Why rip taxpayers off even further. $200 for the rest of your life is something all of us would like. And there are a ton of council people already getting that which makes the total cost to taxpayers ridiculous. If "get a life" thinks the $200 (put in place years ago) is no big thing, then for heaven's sake, make a motion to the council to abolish it - which would be the right thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is Jim Bond currently collecting his $200 a month or must he wait until he's out of office?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anyone who works 15 years for a company and only gets $300 per month on a defined benefit pension must've been fired prior to fully vesting or had some other issues that required seperation from the company!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. At the city council meeting last night James Bond was very condescending in his comments about the pay raise. He insultingly told the audience that he was in favor of the "whopping" raise. He repeated the word several times, perhaps thinking he was being clever by justifiying the increase because he considered it so small. I consider a raise a reward for merit and good performance. Nothing the council has done recently deserves a raise. Bond looked very red-faced last night and seemed a bit unfocused. Will his health hold up for another two years?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mr Bond may have been reading off my prepared speech where I referred to the "whopping" $179.07 pay raise in a light manner. The entire content of my speech was as follows:

    Mayor, Council members -

    Gilbert Foerster
    P.O. Box 333
    Cardiff, Ca.

    I am disappointed in this amending ordinance. . . but state law restricts the amount of increase to
    5 % per year from the last increase so the increased compensation is restricted to $179.07/month.

    This would bring the compensation up to a whopping $1077./Month or $12,924./Yearly.

    As our city has grown the responsibilities of our council members have grown also. We, as a
    community entrust our council members with decisions that will effect our community forever.

    Although we are rapidly approaching a fully built community we are not there yet and during the next ten to fifteen years, as we in-fill the remaining land, the councils and the planning
    commissions are going to be put to the test.

    Each project, each decision, requires an increasing amount of time to study and research. The
    easy decisions were made long ago. The amount of paperwork generated on each potential project will require careful scrutiny and the amount of time required outside of council chambers for council members to become informed and to communicate with the community will increase. $1077./Month does not seem excessive for those overseeing the end development of our community.

    Also, with the electronic age of emails, blogsites, and the ever present media, the chance for
    vilification on any given project or change looms greater. This does not include the occasional
    vilification of council members here in these chambers during council meetings. On occasion
    my own harsh words for council members have filled the air. As our community has grown, so
    have the groups that may take one side or another in any council decision. On occasion,
    vilification has spilled onto our streets and on signs on our freeways and may continue to occur.
    $1077./Month does not seem excessive for those willing to sit on our council.

    Please do not be detoured from increasing the council compensation, it is the right thing to do and I would hope that the vote to approve Ordinance 2006-07 would be unanimous.

    Thank You

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.