Sec. 17A. Salaries of mayor, city manager and council.
The mayor or city manager and the members of the city council shall receive for their services such salary as the city council shall by ordinance determine, and they shall receive no other compensation from the city, except that a member of a town council in a municipality with a town council form of government may receive a salary for serving as a municipal employee of said municipality in lieu of receiving compensation for serving as a member of said council. No increase or reduction in the salaries of mayor or city councillors shall take effect during the year in which such increase or reduction is voted, and no change in such salaries shall be made between the election of a new council and the qualification of the new council. The provisions of this section shall not be applicable in a city under Plan F.
(Acts of 1985, c. 252, § 2)
In my reading this suggests fiscal year, not calendar year. But I can't be sure. Thoughts?
11 comments:
Did they not vote the raise in during the last fiscal year, the one that ended June 30? I believe they did ... but then, it does not say "fiscal year" ... interesting.
They did vote in the last fiscal year, which I think would be the reasonable assumption. But...
Someone should really review that charter thing.
Yeah, maybe some kind of commission could be set up to look into these types of vague areas ...
Hey, did they even have fiscal years back when the charter was written?
Interesting point, but you'd need an actual municipal law expert for the answer, not just a Google jockey. :-)
The other interesting bit in the charter section of the Massachusetts General Laws:
"Chapter 43: Section 15. Dates of elections under adopted plan; municipal year defined
.
.
"In each city adopting any plan provided for by this chapter, the municipal year shall begin and end at ten o’clock in the morning of the first Monday of January in each year."
There is no mention of fiscal year that I can find, and the text of section 17A is ambiguous.
Well that would seem to address the question, right?
Interesting.
Here's the link to the charter for any other super sleuths. http://library5.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=11344&doc_action=whatsnew
Prior to the vote, the City was told by City Solicitors Kopelman and Paige that the language in the charter refers to 'fiscal' year.
Ed Cameron
In case anyone needed an object lesson in why knowing a little bit about something (or listening to someone who does) can be dangerous, set these 2 things against one another:
Ch. 43, Section 17A (and Ch. 39, Section 6A):
"No increase or reduction in the salaries of mayor or city councillors shall take effect during the year in which such increase or reduction is voted, and no change in such salaries shall be made between the election of a new council and the qualification of the new council."
Ch. 44, Section 33A:
"Notwithstanding any contrary provision of any city charter, no ordinance providing for an increase in the salaries or wages of municipal officers or employees shall be enacted ... unless it is to be operative for more than three months during the calendar year in which it is passed."
Makes your head spin, doesn't it?
Interesting, looks like in both cases they're (or we're) guarding against outgoing "officers" giving themselves raises?
Yes, both seem to be guarding against lame duck awards, although you might understandably question how much research was done in writing the actual legislation. :-)
If you go back to the corresponding provisions at the time the current city charter was adopted, no raises could apply to the current term. Over the years, this somehow got translated into the ambiguous current "year" (municipal/term? calendar? fiscal?). At the same time, another section of the law now *requires* that any raises be effective for at least 6 months in the current "calendar year". Whether it is the actual reason for the interpretation or not, the only way you can compel these 2 provisions to make mutual sense is if you interpret the ambiguous "year" to mean "fiscal year".
I suppose that might also mean that if you were to somehow inhabit the twilight zone of a municipality that had a fiscal year beginning after July 1, nobody could ever get a raise.
Sorry.
That should be "3 months", not 6, and "September 1 or later", not July 1.
You can get a legal opinion to tell you just about anything. I agree that "year" here is not the fiscal year, putting this into a murky legal area. But the council was determined to do this any way it could. It just doesn't look good.
Post a Comment