Activists seek ballot measure to cut L.A. elected officials’ salaries in half

A group of Los Angeles neighborhood activists is organizing a campaign to put a measure on the November 2010 ballot that would slice the salaries of Los Angeles elected officials in half.    

Under the City Charter, council members currently make $178,789 – an amount pegged to the salary of Superior Court judges. The mayor's salary is set 30% higher at $232,426, while the city attorney and the controller make $214,547 and $196,668 respectively. Whenever Superior Court judges get raises, Los Angeles elected officials automatically get the increase.

When officials received a 4% raise in late 2007 -- which was the fourth in 2 1/2 years -- the mayor and at least four council members, including Janice Hahn, Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss, told reporters they would forgo the increase. Two council members, Dennis Zine and Jose Huizar, planned to give the raise to charity. Council members and other elected officials are not permitted to earn outside income.

But discontent with the council's performance was evident today at a daylong neighborhood council action summit held at Los Angeles City College, where the ballot measure was debated during the first of a series of panels concerning issues facing the city.

One of the ballot measure's organizers, Doug Epperhart of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council, noted that council is the highest paid in the country. "Compared to salaries of other city council members, elected officials in the United States it's ridiculous," Epperhart said. "For instance the city attorney, whom I like, makes more than the attorney general of the United States."

"We're not getting what we paid for, so let's pay for what we get," Epperhart said.

Bill Christopher, who argued against the measure as a panelist, questioned whether it was the best use of activists' time and resources. Proponents must gather 240,000 qualifying signatures -- the equivalent of 15% of registered voters in Los Angeles -- over 180 days to meet the threshold for a charter change.

"That is a huge undertaking," said Christopher, who helped found the Citywide Alliance of Neighborhood Councils. He warned there might be "a bit of blow-back from politicians" that could diminish the influence of neighborhood councils.

Audience reaction was mixed at the forum, which drew about 70 people.

Jeff Jacobberger, chair of the Mid City West Community Council, said the average house in his area costs around $1 million. In some council districts, he said, "if you are relatively young with a family, and a relatively new mortgage with an expensive house, that is not enough money to live on, and you are telling young, talented people that they are ineligible to run for City Council."

Speaking in favor of the measure, Nina Royal of the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, said the city should "give [the money] to the neighborhood councils and give the neighborhood councils more power."

In an informal poll, 32 of the community activists involved in the discussion said they supported the idea while 20 said they were opposed.

Epperhart said his group formed a state committee and plans to file official paperwork with the city as early as December.

-- Maeve Reston at City Hall

Comments

[mark]

Zine saying he'd forego an increase is kind of duplicitous since he also gets a huge pension of almost $100,000 a year as a former cop. And Parks gets one of the biggest pensions in the whole city, almost $300,000 - something often noted by this same group. Although they like him now because he's criticizing the city budget problems he helped create as head of the council's budget committee.

I'd say the pay is not the issue if they were doing a good job, and some could be making more outside as lawyers or business executives, while some seem over their heads and aren't too well-educated. Cutting their salaries won't get better people - only wiser voters will.

[CR]

Public "servants" shouldn't be cashing in close to 200k/year while their constituents lose their (city?) jobs, homes, and retirement. While there is an argument to paying someone well in order to recruit the best and the brightest, the highest pay in the country is only getting LA multiple-time bar exam flunkees (as mayor no less) and a bunch of cronies who are elected because of their political party and ethnicity. (In my neighborhood its hispanic democrats who will never be voted out of office). I survive just fine off less than 1/3 of what these people are making, and maybe if they were forced to live a quality of life closer to their constituents, they'd fix our infrastructure, traffic, and crime problems.

[Richard Ivey]

Why limit this proposal to Los Angeles? While waiting for a constitutional convention, let's cut the salaries of all California public officials, including public university salaries. We'll get their attention then.

[Robert D.]

Cutting salaries may seem like a good way to "stick it to City Hall" right now, but have these "activists" considered the unforeseen, unintended consequences of this ballot initiative?

Just look how the patchwork of ballot initiatives has hampered the state government's ability to get anything done. For example, in the 90's, term limits seemed like a good idea to "stick it to the career politicians" in Sacramento. The result was not a better or more efficient state Legislature, but a branch run by party hardliners (on both the left and right) who refuse to make reasonable compromises and cannot pass a budget on time.

Cutting salaries by 50% will result in City Hall being populated by two groups of people: (1) those who can afford to live in L.A. regardless of the salary level, i.e. the super-rich; and (2) those for whom an $85,000 job represents a substantial raise (think: fast food managers without so much as a college education). One group can care less about the problems of ordinary Angelenos, while the other is not equipped to deal with the complexities of city government.

To those so called "activists", let me pose this question: Do you really think than an L.A. run by Paris Hilton-types or your local Jack in the Box manager is really going to result in a better place to live?

Rather than simply cutting salaries, why don't you think of alternatives like tying some percentage (20%) of salaries to performance or meeting certain goals, e.g. passing a budget on time, balancing the budget, lower crime rates, etc.? That, to me, would seem to be more constructive than blind adherence to a "stick it to City Hall" mentality.

[HOMERUN]

The point being these type of measures need to be passed by taxpayers...
the public funded salaries, full benefits, and the pensions cannot be sustainable...they are un-sustainable...
since the officials are not doing anything to reform or to adjust the costs ...
let the taxpayers make these decisions to public funded costs.

[Angry Public Citizen]

The city claims to face dire fianancial crisis and severe tax revenues due to the economic recession, asking union civilian employees mandatory furloughs, layoffs, and renig pay raises. Yet the city can afford to pay elected bureaucrats exorbitant and obscene salaries that would make a lowly paid city custodian or clerk vomit. Let's not compare the city elected bureaucrats with the CEOs and executives of AIG, Enron, GM, Chrysler, BofA, Chase, Citibank, and Countrywide because they are suppose to make Los Angeles work, at the expense of taxpayers' money, in an economy of 12.9% unemployment. It's only fair and common sense to balance the city budget with a cut on high salaries.

[Westside Rider]

Our Mayor and city council members have done a pretty abysmal job over the past few years. They fail to do any long-term financial planning for the city and spend most of their time either run scared of the public employees unions or getting sucked into trivial issues like Billy the Elephant at the L.A. Zoo.

That being said, this isn't the best idea to "take back city hall". I hope the activists will spend more time focusing on getting more of us voters educated on how the poor decision making at city hall is hitting us all in the wallets.

[Quarrelsome San Pedran]

Knock yourselves out, boneheads. Rather than getting your own job, you're gathering signatures. No wonder San Pedro, where some of you come from, is still a pit despite having the richest Port in the Nation.

[Armyvet]

While circulating a Los Angeles Charter change petition, why not also circulate a Proposition change to significantly reduce legislative salaries...to maybe $30,000 per year. And another Propositon to significantly reduce legislators' travel expenses. In my opinion taxes are high enough, and the people need to have representatives that know how to reduce expenses, not live large as they have been doing for decades.

[Tornadoes28]

This is so dumb. What a dumb idea and a waste of time. If you think you are not getting what you are paying for, the vote for someone else. What a stupid ballot measure.

[Jeff]

Long..long overdue. I hope everyone signs this. It's time the people take City Hall back from these fools.

[gregory]

"if you are relatively young with a family, and a relatively new mortgage with an expensive house, that is not enough money to live on..."

So....sell the expensive house and dedicate yourself to public service for a couple of years. Council seats should not be fiefdoms.

[Public Citizen]

The city is crying fiscal crisis and decrease tax revenues yet it can miraculously afford to pay obscene sums of salaries and bonuses to its elected bureaucrats at a time when the city is demanding union civilian workers to take a mandatory furlough, layoffs and no pay raises. These bureaucrats expect lowly paid custodians and clerks to survive on small paychecks while they don't have to make any sacrifices like the rest of union employees. The city bureaucrats should be ashamed of themselves. Taxpayers are sick and tired of paying for your high salaries while unemploymeht is at all time high. They look like the CEOs of AIG, Enron, BofA, Chase, GM, Chrysler and Leahman Brothers. The people of Los Angeles need another Boston tea party.

[City employee]

The Mayor and city council is claiming huge financial crisis in the city yet they found money at a tune of $379 million dollars to build the new LAPD admin. building (aka Taj Villa-raigosa) and can afford to pay their salaries among the top five percent of the country while the rest of civilian union employees live paycheck to paycheck. Let's vote them out of the office.

[andrew nelson]

I'm on board for that initiative. Sign me up.

[pleasedoit]

The council is over-paid. I'm not sure about 50%, but none need to make over a $100,000. Each district, whether westside or eastside, has areas where families can live.

Or, would you prefer to have folks who've had no career but elected office running your city? Look at the lies of Huizar, Garcetti, Gruel and Reyes who have spent most of their lives feeding at the public trough.

[GP]

Where do I sign?

[Morgn]

Yes! And while we're doing that, let's take a look at the 'no-bid' contract that Jack Weiss's former Deputy Chief of Staff, Lisa Hansen, has just been awarded to be a lobbyist for the Airport. The $144k a year contract is just below the level necessary for Council approval and a disgusting waste of public money.

[songman]

"Morgan" previous is a sad misanthrope, making a comment just to be nasty to someone who is extremely highly qualified for a job, just because she IS very qualified and put in years of solid service for the city.

This exemplifies the kind of thing that city staff, not just elected officials, have to put up with as part of their "earning their salary." Like an earlier commenter says, you could get someone whose last job is the night mgr. at Jack in the Box for less money, but would that be better? I can point to some current cases where we DO have unqualified outsiders with no appropriate experience getting in by virtue of sheer "change-agent" claims, and they are disasters.

While there are always a few publicized cases that confirm people's skepticism about elected officials, many could have made a lot MORE money outside - and were making more before they became whipping posts for issues beyond their personal control or tenure, Nahai comes to mind. He's a man of integrity who was subjected to more than he should have been. Why is public service the only one where a LACK of experience and qualifications should be considered a GOOD thing?

[Alex de Cordoba]

Does the LA Times plan on reporting about the other items discussed at the NC Summit or is their only interest in sensational headlines. I guess another media outlet will fill the gap...

[Nina Royal]

The Council thinks nothing of spending money for issues that don't concern our city, also waives fees and spends money on all types of "non profit" celebrations and even buys books and helps build a library in Mexico. In the meantime our city continues to bleed red as Doug Epperhart so aptly put it in one of his columns.

Tomorrow, the joint Budget & Finance and Safety Committees are holding a meeting at 1 pm to furlough Cops and Firemen. How did this happen? Who ok'd all the exorbitant back room deals and gave our city away? Why can L.A.no longere guaranteed our people safety?

Richard, You must be joking. I don't see anywhere, that a candidate in L.A. must have any kind of college degree . Nor do see see anywhere, that it is a qualification to run for any elected office. Many of our public officials have served for a $1 a year so please stop the scare tactics. Until the election rules are changed only those person who have the ability to raise thousands can be guaranteed a place in the horseshoe, so therefore, they can afford to work for half off. Krekorian and Essel, candidates for District two were aable beat out seven grass roots candidates who couldn't complete against their four color brochures and TV commercials. I doubt very much that "half off" would stop them from running because they would still have the power.

[Julian B Duron]

My previously posted comment in in another Local newspaper:
I knew then this ballor measure will start to gather steam.

I must admit in the present financial environment this measures time has come. It is about time Angelinos woke up and smelled what is cooking. “Our tax dollars “Half? I doubt it, but a comparable pay scale set based on other cities comparable population.
But it is not just what is paid out in salary of our elected officials it is also the supporting staff (exempt employees) and the budgets set aside for staffing Mayor’s office, Council District staff, City Attorney Office and the Controllers. Look at what is budgeted for this, then total salary compensation for elected officials and staff.
With all this high priced elected officials and staff you think a budget could be balance by July 1st every year.
City of L.A. employee (blue collar) 100% not a 15% of the time elected official.
Comment by Julian B Duron from South Gate on Aug 25th, 2009, 08:04 am

[Tasha Harnock]

The City should have reduced the Neighborhood Council budgets to $10,000 per year. To maintain a budget of $50,000 per year for a bunch of whackos--that is the problem.

[Stacey]

What? Don't like ballot measures? Heck - the majority of you took away my right to marry last November. The least I can do is return the favor somehow.