By: Bob Dardano

Bob Dardano — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:58:24 +0000

I’ve been saying for years that our council members should be forbidden from holding other paid employment while they serve on the council. No matter the job, there is always the possibility of a conflict of interest, as the council debates and votes on legislation which affects every facet of the city. In smaller cities and communities where public servants are paid a modest or token salary, and where they may spend a relatively few hours a week on council business, it makes sense for them to continue other employment. But not here, not with the rather generous salaries we pay them. And a good big-city council member already puts in more than a 40-hour work week doing council business, meeting with constituents, etc. They don’t need to spend time on outside employment, especially when the possible or perceived conflict of interest doesn’t pass the smell test.

By: Denise Wiktor

Denise Wiktor — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:37 +0000

I disagree with raising the salary. If you look at cities across the county, our councilmembers are paid well for being allowed to hold a second job (no where is the Council position described as part-time, instead the law states that only the Chair may not hold outside employment). Council members in Honolulu make under 50k a year for a much larger city as do Councilmember in other large cities. The Chair, and many members, have managed to scrape by on a salary that is twice the Washington Area Medium Income and three times the District’s Medium income. If we raise the Council, the Mayor will want a raise then all of his subordinates, I agree with the rest of the article otherwise. It would also weed out people who do not want to make public service their first priority.

Comments on: Make Council member a full-time job

By: Bob Dardano

By: Denise Wiktor