Quincy committee and council adopt process tying future mayor and council pay to CPI, with delayed start dates

Quincy’s ordinance committee on April 7 approved, and the City Council later issued a positive recommendation, to amend Chapter 72 of the municipal code to create a procedural framework governing future salary adjustments for the mayor and city councilors.

The revised ordinance sets annual adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index for the Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA–NH area. Under the ordinance as amended, the mayor’s annual CPI adjustment will begin on Jan. 1, 2033; the city councilors’ annual CPI adjustment will begin on Jan. 1, 2031. Councilors voted in committee and in the full council by roll call with nine members recorded in favor in each recorded vote.

Why it matters: supporters said the change was intended to separate the political question of setting pay levels from the process by which future changes occur. Opponents and several members urged caution about reintroducing a body to review or approve compensation, and several proposed delaying any automatic adjustments to avoid appearing to act immediately after a pay increase.

What the ordinance does and how it changed in committee The ordinance as introduced proposed a multi-part process that included codified base salaries, a five-year periodic full review of base pay and a review committee of three appointees to weigh in on adjustments. During committee debate, President Kane (who put forward the motion to amend) successfully moved to strike the committee/appointment language (sections c and d) from both the mayor and councilor provisions and to set the dates for when the annual CPI adjustments begin: Jan. 1, 2033, for the mayor and Jan. 1, 2031, for councilors. That motion passed on a roll call recorded in committee.

Councilor discussion focused on three topics: whether a review/approval committee should be retained; how the five‑year review period was chosen; and whether to delay the start of any CPI escalation so that voters and future councils are not perceived to be changing pay immediately after an adopted raise. Several councilors described the five‑year review as an “arbitrary number” intended to provide periodic reassessment rather than annual base resets; others suggested moving reviews closer in time to avoid multi‑year gaps between reviews.

Formal actions and votes - Motion to amend (strike sections c and d from both 72.7 and 72.8 and set section b dates): moved by President Kane; committee roll-call recorded nine yes; outcome: amendment adopted in committee. - Motion to approve ordinance as amended: moved by President Kane; committee voice vote recorded as passed and later the full council recorded a positive recommendation by roll call with nine members recorded in favor; outcome: positive recommendation out of committee to the council and recorded favorable committee action.

What the ordinance does not do The amended language leaves only the annual CPI adjustment mechanism in place (beginning on the new dates noted above) and removes the explicit appointment/review committee language and related hearing/approval procedures that had been in the earlier draft. The ordinance does not itself change the base salaries already adopted (those base salaries were described in committee as already codified by prior action). It also does not set any new immediate salary increases beyond the previously approved pay levels; rather it specifies the timing and indexation for future automatic adjustments.

Next steps and implementation Committee members noted the solicitor’s office reviewed the ordinance. The committee chair and several councilors confirmed the amended language must be refiled and published as the council moves the item through the legislative process. The action recorded on April 7 leaves the CPI-based adjustment language in the municipal code as amended; city staff or the city solicitor will be responsible for ensuring the ordinance text is codified correctly and for scheduling any further readings as required by the city code.

Council context Council members who spoke emphasized intent to make salary-setting less ad hoc in the future. Several speakers asked that the record clarify the distinction between discussion of process and not re-litigating already‑adopted salary levels. The committee chair opened the item by telling attendees that the evening’s conversation addressed process rather than current dollar amounts.