At the Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday January 21^st, a small group of Richmond City employees decided that the efforts they’ve put in warranted a whopping pay increase of 80%.  So they took action to enhance their remuneration and unanimously voted themselves this pay hike.

This small employee group are the seven elected City Councilmembers (including the Mayor).

Most government employee groups gather information from other employee groups of similar size to see how their compensation package fits in.  This City Council gathered this information and shared it in the agenda packet.

The Council trotted out this data to help justify their newfound wages.

When using such tables, it’s a common practice to exclude the high and the low figures as outliers.  In this case, the wages paid to Berkeley Councilmembers must also be excluded since they are full time employees—as opposed to all of the other cities (including Richmond) which are considered part time employees.

DAY 1: GET SWORN IN

DAY 7: GIVE YOURSELF AN 80% WAGE INCREASE

Of the eight remaining cities, the average salary is $1,427.50 per month—as compared to the $1,402 paid to Richmond Councilmembers.  This average is $25.50 higher than what Richmond Councilmembers were paid prior to their vote.

One of those cities included in the comparables list—Santa Rosa—has a population (178,127) 53% higher than Richmond (116,448)—yet Santa Rosa pays their Councilmembers a paltry $800 per month.

This 80% wage hike amounts to an increase of $1,122 per month.

When Council agendas are assembled, there is a list of innocuous items (such as approving minutes and approving committee appointments) placed on the Consent Calendar.  These items are considered so simple and innocent that they don’t warrant discussion.

If someone wants to pull an item off of the Consent Calendar so it can be discussed, the puller must contact the sponsor of the agenda item prior to 2 PM on the day of the Council meeting to ‘ask questions’.  If the puller has no questions and just wants to express concerns (or support), the City has the authority to reject the request to pull the item and silence public comment.

The agenda item that included this resolution was on the Consent Calendar for the January 7^th Council meeting for a first reading before returning on the Consent Calendar on the 21^st for a second reading and vote.  Both times this pay increase was hidden on the Consent Calendar.  When an effort was made to pull the item at the first meeting, stiff resistance was given to prevent it from being pulled.

When it was pulled, the seven member Council unanimously explained how hard working they all were and how they deserved more money for their efforts.

Speakers pointed out that usually when a wage increase is being negotiated, the party seeking the raise has to defend their work to show why they deserve more.  The Council explained that because they work so hard, they deserved more money.

One speaker told of when Mayor Martinez appeared before the West County Forum a few months earlier, a questioner pointed out that with almost every elected official it seems to be nearly impossible for their constituents to reach out to speak with those elected to represent them.  Emails, texts, phone calls, letters—they all seem to be ignored.  Mayor Martinez was asked if he had any suggestions on how constituents might be better able to communicate with those elected to represent them.  He responded saying that if we paid him more he might answer his emails.  While this response may have been made in jest, the silence in the room suggested that those in attendance thought there was some truth behind the response.

With the Council speaking so vociferously about why they deserve to be the highest paid part time Councilmembers in the state, it seemed to be a forgone conclusion how they would vote when the resolution returned for a second reading.  The vote was unanimous.

One meeting attendee pointed out that it wasn’t the Council that sought the raise—it was City staff.  This begs the question why City staff would seek to implement such a hefty pay increase.  Several of the unions that represent City workers and staff spent more than a half million dollars on Richmond elections this past November.  Concerns were raised that any efforts by Staff to support this resolution might include an unstated quid pro quo for when they sought their own pay raises.

Concerns were also raised about efforts—once again sponsored by City Staff—to add an additional month of paid summer vacation and to decrease the number of monthly meetings by a third.  So, the Council voted in an 80% pay increase and want to cut the number of meetings they conduct by 40%?

Who needs a union to represent you when you have the authority to set your own pay, work schedule and the amount of work you do?

As one commenter told the Council, “this doesn’t pass the smell test.  Does anyone have a can of air freshener?”