Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter subcommittee urges replacing Sunnyvale council pay formula with indexed approach; asks public for tradeoff input
Summary
Subcommittee 2 recommended using an index‑based approach (for example, tying council and mayor compensation to an outside earnings index with smoothing) to better reflect local wages and broaden the candidate pool; staff and committee members said outreach should include concrete dollar figures for public feedback.
Subcommittee 2 presented its analysis and initial recommendations on Section 6.05 (council and mayor compensation) at the June 30 Charter Review Committee meeting, recommending an index‑based method and further public outreach on concrete dollar levels.
Member Davis, presenting the subcommittee’s work, said the committee found council duties are substantially more time‑consuming than the current stipend reflects and proposed indexing compensation to local wages rather than keeping a static dollar figure or a low annual cap. The subcommittee noted the mayor’s role entails significantly more time and intergovernmental duties than a council member’s and that designating the mayor as “full time” could face political resistance; the group tentatively suggested classifying the mayor’s job at a higher percentage of full time (the subcommittee discussed 75%) and council members at a lower percentage (for example, 50%).
The subcommittee reviewed U.S. Census American Community Survey data on Sunnyvale earnings and noted the ACS one‑year numbers can fluctuate; presenters said any index would likely need smoothing (for example, a multi‑year rolling average) to avoid sudden swings. Member Davis said the subcommittee’s rough reference point for full‑time earnings of typical Sunnyvale full‑time workers was on the order of the city’s median full‑time worker earnings (a number discussed in the packet cited roughly $151,000 for the ACS table the group examined), and that the committee’s task is to choose an approach that is transparent and defensible to voters.
Committee members urged including concrete dollar figures when the committee presents outreach materials. Member Pine suggested that survey and polling questions should show the public a specific proposed dollar amount (or phased increases) rather than only an index formula; staff and members agreed that ballot or outreach items should include both the indexing method and example dollar levels so residents can evaluate tradeoffs.
Public commenters offered contrasting perspectives. Steve S. told the committee he views council service as voluntary community service and cautioned that a large increase could be politically risky; other commenters noted the workload and time commitment and supported increasing compensation to broaden the candidate pool.
Ending: The subcommittee recommended continued work to identify a defensible index and smoothing method, to model example dollar levels and to test those figures in public outreach and polling. Staff and subcommittee members agreed to include specific dollar scenarios in any survey or polling question so voters can see concrete tradeoffs, and to consider phased approaches if the committee proposes a substantial increase.
