Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Governance Compensation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves small pay increase for council; controller and mayor raises fail

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted on three salary ordinances: council pay increase passed 4–3, proposed controller salary increase failed 5–2 after a lengthy appearance by Controller Yasso, and a proposed mayoral raise failed 4–3; a separate ordinance updating the Sister City Commission passed unanimously.

The Bethlehem City Council considered a package of salary ordinances and related items in a session that included lengthy debate, a public petition and an extended statement by the elected controller.

Council voted 4–3 to amend the city ordinance that sets council and council president salaries (Bill 16-20-25). The votes were: Aye — Councilwoman Kwiatek, Councilwoman Laird, Councilwoman Wilhelm, President Colon; Nay — Councilwoman Grama Smith, Councilwoman Leon, Councilman Callahan. The ordinance sponsor list on the record showed Councilwoman Laird and Councilwoman Grama Smith as sponsors.

A separate ordinance to raise the controller’s salary (Bill 17-20-25) failed on a 5–2 vote. The roll call recorded Nays from Councilwoman Cramsey Smith, Councilwoman Laird, Councilwoman Leon, Councilman Callahan and President Colon. Councilwoman Kwiatek and Councilwoman Wilhelm voted Aye. Controller Yasso appeared and urged council to vote against the increase, saying he had submitted nomination petitions for re‑election and that accepting the raise would create a conflict for him. He said: "It is my moral and ethical obligation ... to do everything in my power to make sure that the vote tonight is nay," and announced that, if re‑elected, he would self‑impose a final term and not seek further re‑election.

A proposed increase to the mayor’s salary (Bill 18-20-25) likewise failed, 4–3. The roll call was Aye — Councilwoman Kwiatek, Councilwoman Leon, Councilwoman Wilhelm; Nay — Councilwoman Grama Smith, Councilwoman Laird, Councilman Callahan and President Colon. The mayor’s office had informed council in advance that the mayor intended to exercise executive veto authority on any increase to the mayor’s salary.

Council also passed an ordinance updating the Sister City Commission (Bill 19-20-25) unanimously. The administration said the ordinance replaces aging 1970s language with an "umbrella" approach to formalize existing sister city relationships and provide guidance for fundraising and nonprofit formation if volunteer groups wish to pursue that route.

What this means: the council increase (Bill 16) will take effect as provided in the ordinance unless the mayor acts; the controller and mayor increases failed and thus did not take effect. Controller Yasso argued the controller’s vote posed a conflict because he has filed for re‑election and would personally benefit if the ordinance passed; he asked colleagues to vote "nay" to avoid any appearance of personal gain. Councilmembers supporting increases said the salary bands for long‑unchanged positions (16 years for council, 12 years for mayor) create compression and reduce accessibility of the offices to people who cannot afford unpaid public service.

Votes at a glance: - Bill 16-20-25 (amends Ordinance 2017-01; council & council president salaries): Passed 4–3; sponsors: Laird, Grama Smith. - Bill 17-20-25 (amends Ordinance 2017-03; controller salary): Failed 5–2; sponsors: Laird, Grama Smith. - Bill 18-20-25 (amends Ordinance 2017-02; mayor salary): Failed 4–3; sponsors: Laird, Pramsley Smith. - Bill 19-20-25 (revises Article 141, Sister City Commission): Passed 7–0; sponsors: Leon, Grama Smith.

Council members may revisit salary questions in the next year; staff and the solicitor noted salary changes must comply with statutory timing requirements for nominating petitions and the mayor’s veto authority may affect implementation timelines.