Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review Commission Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to pay Charter Review commissioners draws split reaction from public and panel
Summary
Commissioner Mike Morales proposed Amendment 11 to allow salaries for Charter Review Commission members. Public comment and commissioners were divided: some argued pay would broaden access, others called it unnecessary and preferred clearer reimbursement language. No vote was taken.
Commissioner Mike Morales presented Amendment 11 to the Charter Review Commission seeking to change Article 8, Section 8.13 so Charter Review Commission members would “serve with salary” rather than “serve without salary,” and to add a time-limited pay structure tied to an annualized multiple of the minimum wage for months in which the commission meets in preparation for a ballot.
The proposal drew immediate public comment and sustained discussion among commissioners. In public comment, John Westerfeld urged the commission to keep the post unpaid. “I believe this needs to remain an unpaid position,” Westerfeld said, telling the commission he had campaigned without expecting remuneration.
Supporters of pay argued compensation would broaden the applicant pool and reduce the economic barriers to running for and serving in elected roles. Commissioner Collins said payment need not strip an activity of its public service character: “Payment does not make something not service, right?” she asked, arguing pay could make the role accessible to people who cannot afford to forgo other wages.
Opponents warned of optics and precedent. Commissioner Munster called the idea “a can of worms,” and other commissioners said the county already allows reimbursement for reasonable expenses and suggested clarifying that language rather than adding salaries. Commissioner Henning read the charter language aloud and urged commissioners to submit expense claims: “According to the Charter, we must be able to get remunerated for any reasonable expenses,” Henning said.
Commissioners debated mechanics and budget implications. Morales’ draft tied pay to a multiplier of the state minimum wage and sought to limit pay to months when the commission meets in preparation for a ballot. One commissioner ran the numbers for an illustrative set of assumptions and said the proposal would cost roughly $11,032 under a quarter-time, seven-month interpretation of the stated multiplier.
Process and next steps: Morales said he had asked the existing salary commission for a hypothetical but was told the commission would not provide one. Several commissioners suggested clarifying reimbursement language and exploring a per-diem or stipend alternative; others said any change would ultimately be decided by voters if placed on the charter. The commission did not take a vote on Amendment 11 at this meeting.
Why it matters: The change would alter who can afford to run for and serve in a high-profile, elected charter-review role and could prompt broader debates about paid service vs. volunteerism in local government. The panel continues to weigh the trade-offs among accessibility, public optics and budget constraints.
