|
|
|
|
For Immediate Release,
Friday, February 5, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Contact:
Dick Dadey, 917-709-2896
Chelsea Schuster, 561-843-0197
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passage of City Elected Official Pay Raise is a Win for Reform but a Loss for Democratic Process
Welcome reforms include ending stipends and putting financial disclosure forms online as salaries are appropriately increased. Council overreached on outside income by banning it; prospectivity not adequately addressed.
|
|
The New York City compensation bills that passed today are a significant step forward for improving the salaries of our City elected officials. Citizens Union supports the increased salaries as appropriately reflecting the value that elected officials bring to their jobs and as a means to encourage New Yorkers of varied backgrounds to run for public office. Meaningful reform was still achieved even if the process was flawed.
However, we are disappointed that constructive suggestions, both substantive and technical, presented by Citizens Union at Wednesday’s hearing and outlined in the Quadrennial Compensation Commission’s report, were not included in the bills. Had these reforms been adopted the measures would have been considerably strengthened. These include:
- A cap on outside income rather than a ban. Citizens Union believes a ban could dis-incentivize New Yorkers with certain professions from running for City Council.
- The City Council should have ensured that pay raises are prospective, going into effect after the 2017 elections when the 2018 City Council convenes. Instead, council members passed a retroactive pay raise, beginning in January 2016.
- Though the enacted legislation pushes back by a year when the Quadrennial Compensation Commission would convene in future years, it still allows future legislators to vote themselves a raise during their remaining 18 months in office which is why we suggested convening the commission in the second-half of the third year of a four-year cycle.
Though the reforms are positive and welcome, and go a long way toward accomplishing improvements to council members’ compensation, the legislation required further consideration. The Council short-circuited the review process by curtailing sufficient public input. That they raised their salaries $10,000 more than what was recommended by the commission, makes this point.
That the bills were not amended after the one public hearing demonstrates that the hearing itself was just for show and clearly not designed to gather meaningful public input. We are disappointed that on an issue in which the council members will personally benefit and the public will pay for, that the City Council did not bring the same set of values to the process that it did when it thoughtfully considered and adopted rules reform back in the spring of 2014.
Overall, however, this was a win for reform – but the fast-track way in which these bills were brought to the table reflect a loss for upholding vital democratic processes that are in place to ensure thoughtful public input and sufficient time for consideration. Good government is concerned about the journey as much as the destination. And the path taken to get to this victory was an unfortunate one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
