A big question circling the council's decision to raise the mayor's salary is: Why now? Some commenters on the Daily News site suggested Moak deserved a raise, and it's possible he would have run for another term if one was in the offing.
Here's one possible answer: The Charter Review.
Before I continue, let me state emphatically that I'm not a reporter. I don't call councilors to get their private thinking on matters. I may swap the occasional email with a few from time-to-time but haven't done so on this topic. So this is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.
That said, here goes.
It was clear to me back in Jan. that Mayor Holaday's administration (or James Shanley's if he had won) would have a huge influence on the success or failure of whatever proposal the Charter Review Commission comes up with next year.
The commission's recommendation will go before voters in Nov. (on the same ballot as the next mayoral contest.) It's too early to say what that recommendation would look like, but it could call for the creation of a city manager's position to run the city's day-to-day business.
And it's not difficult to see how public opinion of the mayor at the time - Holaday in this case - would impact the vote. A poor performance by her opens up the door to a vote on changing to a City Manager form of Government; a good job will lead many to conclude that such a move isn't necessary as able managers can be found in an elected official.
Now, the new salary offers another factor for voters to consider. If a city manager position is included in the new change, opponents to the measure can tell voters, "Well, we raised the salary. That should attract a better class of candidate in the future, we don't need a manager. Let's give the new salary a chance to work."
Meanwhile, supporters of the city manager position can use the new salary to blunt criticism that the city can't afford to higher a city manager, who likely would draw twice the current $60,000 salary. City manager boosters can make the argument that for a slightly bigger boost in pay we can get a qualified and trained executive to run the town rather than a city clerk, educator or small business owner.
Seems to me both camps had an interest in seeing the salary go up in 2011 rather than wait until 2012, when the next mayoral term would begin.
Here's one possible answer: The Charter Review.
Before I continue, let me state emphatically that I'm not a reporter. I don't call councilors to get their private thinking on matters. I may swap the occasional email with a few from time-to-time but haven't done so on this topic. So this is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.
That said, here goes.
It was clear to me back in Jan. that Mayor Holaday's administration (or James Shanley's if he had won) would have a huge influence on the success or failure of whatever proposal the Charter Review Commission comes up with next year.
The commission's recommendation will go before voters in Nov. (on the same ballot as the next mayoral contest.) It's too early to say what that recommendation would look like, but it could call for the creation of a city manager's position to run the city's day-to-day business.
And it's not difficult to see how public opinion of the mayor at the time - Holaday in this case - would impact the vote. A poor performance by her opens up the door to a vote on changing to a City Manager form of Government; a good job will lead many to conclude that such a move isn't necessary as able managers can be found in an elected official.
Now, the new salary offers another factor for voters to consider. If a city manager position is included in the new change, opponents to the measure can tell voters, "Well, we raised the salary. That should attract a better class of candidate in the future, we don't need a manager. Let's give the new salary a chance to work."
Meanwhile, supporters of the city manager position can use the new salary to blunt criticism that the city can't afford to higher a city manager, who likely would draw twice the current $60,000 salary. City manager boosters can make the argument that for a slightly bigger boost in pay we can get a qualified and trained executive to run the town rather than a city clerk, educator or small business owner.
Seems to me both camps had an interest in seeing the salary go up in 2011 rather than wait until 2012, when the next mayoral term would begin.
No comments:
Post a Comment