Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elected Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates how to set elected‑official pay, questions Crowe proposal and seeks principles
Summary
Councilors discussed whether to hire Crowe for a $13,000 comparison study of elected‑official salaries, with several members criticizing the scope and urging a principles‑based approach or an in‑house analysis; mayor suggested defining principles first and then seeking an objective outside recommendation.
The Committee of the Whole spent the latter portion of the evening debating a proposed study of elected‑official salaries and how to set compensation for council members, the mayor and the clerk. The initial vendor proposal from Crowe (cost quoted to council: $13,000) would compile publicly available salary ranges from up to 15 comparator cities but — in its original scope — would not adjust for workload, committee duties, or local cost of living.
Council member Isabelle (speaker 6) explained she asked Crowe to add several workload factors — whether councils propose legislation, committee structure and meeting frequency, interview responsibilities for boards and commissions — to better reflect local duties. Several councilors (including Matt, Dave, Sydney and others) said the Crowe scope as presented would not produce actionable guidance and suggested alternatives: conduct an in‑house study using ordinances and clerk‑compiled comparators; develop a principles‑based rubric (for example, setting council pay as a percentage of the mayor’s salary); or commission a more detailed consultant analysis that includes interviews and time‑use data.
Mayor Carrie Thompson urged the council to "figure out what your principle is for setting these elected salaries" and recommended an objective HR professional be engaged to produce a recommendation that separates principles from personalities. Deputy Mayor Gretchen Knapp and others noted outside validators can help avoid internal bias.
Council members also debated timing and political optics. Some members said any change should take effect after the current term; others argued cost‑of‑living adjustments compound inequities over time and suggested structural approaches (a partial flat raise plus percentage changes, or pegging council pay to a fraction of the mayor’s salary) to avoid widening gaps.
The committee did not finalize the approach that evening but several members volunteered interest in forming an ad hoc committee to draft principles and scope. Staff said the existing Crowe contract could be amended if council chooses a quicker external route, and that the council has limited meeting slots before the end of the year to act on salary ordinances.
