HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2014 B6 Appointed Officials Eval - City AttorneyCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Mayor Jan Howell-Marx
Prepared By: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: APPOINTED OFFICIALS’ EVALUATIONS PROCESS AND
COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a resolution adjusting the salary of the City Attorney.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute amended contract of employment with the City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1999 Council began following a structured process to annually evaluate the job performance
of its two appointed officials, the City Manager and City Attorney. The process is facilitated by
a consultant who collects input on the appointed officials’ performance in the areas of Council–
City Manager or Council-City Attorney relationship, legal advocacy (City Attorney only),
leadership, community relations, financial management (City Manager only), and progress to
major goals. The consultant summarizes input for Council from the appointed officials’ direct
reports. The consultant then interviews each Council member and drafts the performance
evaluation documents prior to meeting with Council as a whole to finalize. Council also reviews
and approves goals for each appointed official during this annual process. Appointed Officials’
goals are linked to Major City Goals established by Council as part of the City’s comprehensive
financial planning process. The Appointed Officials’ goals are in turn integrated throughout the
organization through Department Heads and management employees’ performance evaluation
and goal setting process. The vertical integration and accountability built into this process helps
to ensure Council objectives are implemented. The overall performance evaluation and goal
setting process takes approximately six weeks to complete and provides appointed officials with
constructive feedback that guides individual and organizational performance.
Compensation Considerations
Appointed officials are differently situated from other management employees in that they are
hired by, and serve at the will of, the City Council. Moreover, the City Manager and City
Attorney are the only City employees for whom compensation is individually negotiated and
agreed upon in Employment Contracts between the City and each appointed official, and
therefore, they do not progress through established salary ranges as do other employees. They
are not eligible for “step” or formulaic pay-for-performance increases. Instead, annually, upon
completion of the performance evaluation process, the City Council considers the compensation
of the appointed officials. In April 2014, in addition to performance criteria and achievement of
goals, after considering comparison city and local agency data, Council determined that an
increase in compensation from $168,000 to $175,006 annually was appropriate for the City
Attorney. No other changes to the City Attorney’s compensation, or that of the City Manager,
were requested or recommended at this time.
B6 - 1
Appointed Officials’ Evaluations and Compensation Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed compensation adjustment for the City Attorney can be accommodated with the
City Attorney 2013-14 budget. If approved, adjustments to the 2014 -15 budget will be made
accordingly.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution – City Attorney Salary Adjustment
2. Amended City Attorney Employment Contract – with markup
3. Amended City Attorney Employment Contract - Final
B6 - 2
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADJUSTING COMPENSATION
FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2010 the City Council approved a contract of
employment appointing Christine Dietrick to the position of City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a performance evaluation on April 9,
2014, in accordance with the Appointed Officials’ Performance Process as modified in
December of 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Effective April 10, 2014, the City Attorney’s salary shall be
increased from $6,462 biweekly to $6,731 biweekly or $175,006 annually.
SECTION 2. All other compensation and benefits afforded the City Attorney
under Management Compensation Resolution No. 10488 (2014 Series) and the City
Attorney Employment Agreement as amended, not superseded by the above, shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the City
Attorney annually.
On motion of Council Member, seconded by Council Member, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attachment 1
B6 - 3
Page 2 of 2
Resolution No. (2014 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of May, 2014.
____________________________________
MAYOR JAN MARX
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
ANTHONY MEJIA, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________
ANDREA VISVESHWARA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
B6 - 4
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 1
AMENDED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK
CITY ATTORNEY
THIS CONTRACT is amended this 76th day of May, 20134 by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, State of California (hereinafter
referred to as "CITY"), and J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK, a contract employee
(hereinafter referred to as " CHRISTINE DIETRICK”);
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Charter Section 703 701 provides that the SAN LUIS
OBISPO CITY COUNCIL (hereinafter referred to as “COUNCIL”) is responsible
for the appointment and removal of the CITY ATTORNEY, and
WHEREAS, the COUNCIL, on behalf of the CITY acknowledges and
accepts the responsibility for supervision of the CITY ATTORNEY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNCIL is desirous of appointing a CITY ATTORNEY
and wishes to set the terms and conditions of said employment; and
WHEREAS, CHRISTINE DIETRICK desires to accept the position of CITY
ATTORNEY consistent with certain terms and conditions of said employment, as
set forth in this CONTRACT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
Section 1. Effective Date.
A. The appointment of CHRISTINE DIETRICK is effective January 1,
2010.
B. Nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere
with the right of the COUNCIL to terminate the services of CHRISTINE
DIETRICK at any time, subject only to San Luis Obispo CITY Charter Section
709 and the provisions set forth in Section 12 of this Contract.
C. Nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere
with the right of CHRISTINE DIETRICK to resign at any time from her position
with the CITY, subject only to the provision set forth in Section 13 of this
Contract.
B6 - 5
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 2
Section 2. Duties and Salary.
A. CITY agrees to employ CHRISTINE DIETRICK as full-time CITY
ATTORNEY of the City to perform the functions and duties specified in the
Charter and Municipal Code and to perform such other legally permissible and
proper duties and functions as the COUNCIL may from time to time assign.
B. COUNCIL agrees to pay CHRISTINE DIETRICK, for her services
rendered pursuant hereto, an annual base salary of $168,000 175,006 payable in
installments at the same time as the other management employees of the CITY
are paid. In addition, COUNCIL agrees to increase said base salary by the cost-
of-living adjustment approved by the COUNCIL for all CITY management
employees under the Management Compensation Resolution (Resolution No.
10036 (2008 Series) and any successors.
C. Notwithstanding Section 2(B), CHRISTINE DIETRICK agrees that
she will not receive any across the board salary increases (e.g. “cost of living”
increases) from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013 pursuant to the
Reduction in Management Compensation Resolution, Resolution No. 3015 (2011
Series).
Section 3. Benefits.
In addition to the salary set forth in Section 2 of this CONTRACT,
CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall be entitled to a car allowance of $250 per month, a
City contribution of 3.5% of salary to a 401(a) supplemental retirement plan and
the same benefits as those offered by the CITY to the CITY ATTORNEY, in
accordance with the Reduction in Management Compensation Resolution,
Resolution No. 10315 (2011 Series) and all other benefits afforded Management
Employees not in conflict with this Employment Contract pursuant to the
Management Compensation Resolution, Resolution No. 10488 (2014 Series).
Section 4. Performance Evaluation.
A. By April 30, 2010, COUNCIL and CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall
establish mutually agreeable written goals, performance objectives, and priorities
for the performance period ending March 30, 2011. Further, Council shall
conduct an “interim” evaluation by October 29, 2010. An annual formal Council
evaluation will be conducted in March of 2011 in accordance with the City’s
Appointed Official Evaluation Process. Consistent with the schedule outlined
above, based on the Appointed Officials Evaluation Process, and subject to
performance as assessed by the COUNCIL, the CITY ATTORNEY compensation
shall be reviewed by COUNCIL in April 2011 consistent with the Management
Pay-for-Performance System in place at that time.
B6 - 6
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 3
B. Each calendar year thereafter, COUNCIL shall review and evaluate
the performance and compensation of CHRISTINE DIETRICK in accordance
with the adopted Appointed Officials Evaluation Process, best management
practices, and informed by comparison agency data.
Section 5. Outside Activities, Conduct and Behavior.
A. CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall not engage in teaching, consulting or
other non-CITY connected business without the prior approval of COUNCIL.
B. CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall comply with all local and state
requirements regarding conflicts-of-interest.
Section 6. Dues and Subscriptions.
COUNCIL agrees to budget for and to pay for professional dues and
subscriptions of CHRISTINE DIETRICK necessary for her continuation and full
participation in national, regional, state, and local associations, and organizations
necessary and desirable for her continued professional participation, growth, and
advancement, and for the good of the CITY.
Section 7. Professional Development.
A. COUNCIL hereby agrees to budget for and to pay for travel and
subsistence expenses of CHRISTINE DIETRICK for professional and official
travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the professional
development of CHRISTINE DIETRICK and to adequately pursue necessary
official functions for the CITY, including but not limited to the League of California
Cities Annual Conference, League of California Cities City Attorneys Department
Conference, and such other national, regional, state, and local governmental
organizations, groups and/or committees.
B. COUNCIL also agrees to budget for and to pay for travel and
subsistence expenses of CHRISTINE DIETRICK for short courses, institutes,
and seminars that are necessary for her professional development and for the
good of the CITY.
C. Other professional development may be agreed upon from time to
time between the COUNCIL and CHRISTINE DIETRICK.
Section 8. General Expenses.
COUNCIL recognizes that certain expenses of a non-personal and job-
affiliated nature are incurred by the CITY ATTORNEY, and hereby agrees to
authorize the Finance Director to reimburse or to pay said general and
reasonable expenses, consistent with CITY policies, upon receipt of duly
B6 - 7
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4 4
executed expense or petty cash vouchers, receipts, statements or personal
affidavits.
Section 9. Indemnification.
In addition to that required under state and local law, CITY shall defend,
save harmless, and indemnify CHRISTINE DIETRICK against any claims,
demands, causes of actions, losses, damages, expenses (including but not
limited to attorney’s fees as may be authorized against public entities or officers
consistent with state law) or liability of any kind whether stated in or arising from
tort, professional liability or any other legal action or equitable theory, whether
groundless or otherwise arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the
performance of CHRISTINE DIETRICK’S duties as CITY ATTORNEY to the
fullest extent permitted by law. CITY may compromise and settle any such claim
or suit, and shall pay the amount of any settlement or judgment rendered
thereon.
Section 10. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment.
The COUNCIL, in consultation with CHRISTINE DIETRICK, shall fix any
such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to
time, relating to the performance of CHRISTINE DIETRICK, provided such terms
and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this
CONTRACT, the CITY Charter or any other law.
Section 11. No Reduction of Pay and/or Benefits.
COUNCIL shall not at any time during the term of this CONTRACT,
reduce the salary, compensation or other financial benefits of CHRISTINE
DIETRICK, except to the degree of such a reduction across-the-board for all
employees of the CITY or CHRISTINE DIETRICK provides written consent to the
reduction. Notwithstanding the above, CHRISTINE DIETRICK expressly agrees
to the reduction of compensation, salary, and financial benefits as set forth in the
Reduction in Management Compensation Resolution (Resolution No. 10315
(2011 Series))
Section 12. Termination and Severance Pay.
A. In the event CHRISTINE DIETRICK’S employment is terminated by the
COUNCIL, or she resigns at the request of a majority of the COUNCIL during
such time that she is otherwise willing and able to perform the duties of CITY
ATTORNEY, the COUNCIL agrees to pay her a lump sum cash payment equal
to nine (9) months compensation (salary and all appointed officials fringe
benefits). Additionally, CITY shall extend to CHRISTINE DIETRICK the right to
continue and purchase at her expense health insurance pursuant to the terms
and condition of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
B6 - 8
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 5 5
(COBRA) or any successor legal requirement. CHRISTINE DIETRICK is the
CITY ATTORNEY for the purposes of the benefits under the California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority of which the CITY is a member. Any associated
severance benefit as a result of termination shall be in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority’s Memorandum
of Liability Coverage in effect at the time of termination.
B. In the event that CHRISTINE DIETRICK is terminated for “good cause”
the COUNCIL shall have no obligation to pay the lump sum severance payment
mentioned above. For the purpose of this CONTRACT, “good cause” shall mean
any of the following:
(1) Malfeasance, dishonesty for personal gain, willful violation of law,
corrupt misconduct, or conviction of any felony.
(2) Conviction of a misdemeanor arising directly out of CHRISTINE
DIETRICK’s duties pursuant to this Agreement.
(3) Willful abandonment of duties outlined in this Agreement.
“Good cause” shall not mean a mere loss of support or confidence by a
majority of the COUNCIL.
C. Any termination of employment shall be done consistent with limitations
established in the City Charter Section 709. Additionally, the CITY shall provide a
minimum of 30 days prior written notice to CHRISTINE DIETRICK of the intent to
terminate this Agreement.
Section 13. Resignation.
In the event CHRISTINE DIETRICK voluntarily resigns her position with
the CITY, she shall give the COUNCIL at least two (2) months advance written
notice.
Section 14. General Provisions.
A. The text herein shall constitute the entire CONTRACT between the
parties.
B. This CONTRACT shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the heirs at law and executors of the parties.
C. It is the intent of the COUNCIL that this CONTRACT and the
appointment of CHRISTINE DIETRICK as CITY ATTORNEY are in accordance
with the requirements and provisions of the Charter. Wherever possible, the
provisions of this CONTRACT shall be construed in a manner consistent with the
Charter. If any provision of this CONTRACT conflicts with the Charter, the
Charter shall control.
B6 - 9
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 6 6
D. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this
CONTRACT is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of
this CONTRACT, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be
affected, and shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and EMPLOYEE have executed this
Contract on the day and year first set forth above.
_____________________________ _______________
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK DATE
_____________________________ ________________
JAN MARX, MAYOR DATE
ATTEST:
____________________________ ________________
ANTHONY MEJIA DATE
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
ANDREA VISVESHWARA
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
B6 - 10
Human Resources
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
805.781.7250
sdodty'org
DATE: May 16, 2014
TO: City Council
FROM: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Council Correspondence for May 20, 2014 meeting
COUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.: IV) _—
MAY 16 2014
CITY
Attachment 1 to the Council Agenda Report for item: Appointed Officials Evaluations and
Compensation, contains a typographical error on page 2. It should read: The foregoing Resolution
was adopted this 20th day of May, 2014.
Human Resources
990 Palm Street, San Wls Obispo, CA 93401-3249
805189 7250
DATE: May 20, 2014
TO: City Council
FROM: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director
MA's 20 2014
S1 -a
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date � -0 1 Item #--t:( ,
SUBJECT: Council Correspondence for May 20, 2014 meeting — Item B6
In response to a council member's request, please see the attached market compensation data that
was considered in proposing an adjustment to the City Attorney's compensation.
2014 CITY ATTORNEY MARKET COMPENSATION DATA
NAME
SALARY
PERS
EPMC
EFFECTIVE
SALARY
DEFERRED
COMP
HEALTH
INSURANCE
oily
(Fam
Cvers e
CAR/CELL
PHONE(
OTHER
TOTAL
COMPENSATION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OEISPO
Christine Olotrick
$ 168,000
2.7%065
0%
f 108,000
f 5 8II0
$ 15 060
S a 000
S 191,940
COP,; PARISO% CI'T'Y CiAT A
city of Clovis
Contract
conifoa
$
City of Davis
Contract
Contract
$
City of Monterey
Christine Devi
$ 177,286
2 7 55
0%
$ 177,288
$ -
$ 19,392
$ 10,606
$ 207,286
City of Napa
Michael Barren
$ 169,164
27055
0%
$ 169,164
$ 12,000
$ 20,033
$ 7,420
$ 208,617
City, of Paso Robles
Contract
Contract
$ -
City, of Pelaluma
Eric Danly,
$ 185,500
2% @ 62
0%
$ 185,500
$
$ 19,791
$ -
$ 205,291
City of Santa Barbara
Sarah Knecht
$ 223,704
2.7 @ 55
0%
$ 223,704
$ -
$ 20,616
$ 7,260
$ 251,580
City of Santa Cruz
Conlracl
Contract
$ -
City of Santa Mans
Gil Trujillo
$ 190,141
2.79055
8 %
$ 205,352
$ 4,263
$ 6,216
$ 8,100
$ 223,931
City of Santa Monica
Marsha Jones Moulrie
$ 303,120
2.7 @ 55
1 3%
$ 307,061
$ -
$ 25,760
$ -
$ 332,820
City of Ventura
I.Ariel Calonne
$ 203,757
2% @ 55
25%
$ 208,851
$ 12,000
$ 9,659
$ 4,200
$ 234,710
MEDIAN OF EFFECTIVE SALARY -
MMPARISON CITIES
f 205,352
$ 223,931
:- DIFFERENCE STWN SLO & WINAN
COMPARISON CITIES
S -37.362
f 31,991
.. DIFF STWN SLO & MEDIAN COMPAfOSON CITIES
-1 a1A
-14 °n
II OCAL AGE NCY DATA _
Air Pollution Control District Counsel
Contract
Contract
Gal Poly Attorney
Carlos Cordova
$ 162,156
2% @ 55
0%1
$ 162,156
$ -
$ 18,708
$
$ 180,864
City of Arroyo Grande
Contracl
Contract
_
City of Atascadero
Contract
Contract
City of Grover Beach
Martin Koczanowicz
Contract
City of Lompoc
Contract
Contract
+City, of Morro Bay
Interim - Joseph Pannone
Contract
City of Pismo Beach
Contract
Contract
Cuesta Attorney
Contract
Contract
Porl San Luis Harbor Authority
Contract
Contract
SLO County Assistant Counsel
Tim McNulty
$ 159,245
2% @ 55
9.3%
$ 174,039
$ -
$ 11,700
$ 5,400
$ 191,139
SLO County Counsel
Rile Neal
$ 181,875
2 Nol PIERS /° @ RS
9.3%
$ 196,771
$ -
$ 11,700
$ 5,400
$ 215,871
(MEDIAN OF EFFECTIVE SALARY - LOCAL AGENCIES
_
$ 174,039
$ 191,139
•- DIFFERENCE UTW OLD & MEDIAN LOCAL AGENCIES
NI
S 00.39
f 601
DIFF STWN SLO & MEDIAN LOCAL Afir KH<ACS
•3%'
C%
MEDIAN OF EFFDCDiVE SALARY - All 0.1 F $ 192,136 $ 21'2277
RIFFERENCE InWN SIG B MEO" • 1k DATA F 14.846 S 1±••0.7041
RIFF STWN SDO & MEDIAN- /J I r.1AIA •840 -101.
COUNCIL MEETING: Z��ZpI �r
ITEM NO.:
May 15, 2014
City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Re: Salary and Raises for City Attorney Christine Dietrick
Dear City Council Members:
MAY 19 2014
f c`
I am writing because I am a tax payer and own my home in San Luis Obispo,
having lived here since 1992.
I feel I have some expertise in this area since I have worked in the legal field
since 1980. I have worked with and for numerous attorneys and county governments
during that time. I am totally familiar with what attorneys make, charge their clients,
etc. I was married to an attorney.
Christine Dietrick may be a good attorney but that alone does not warrant a
salary of $175,000. I do not know the logic of paying her such an exorbitant salary (in
addition to excellent benefits for which the dollar amount value is unknown). This
community can't really afford that. Additionally, the question is whether the salary is
reasonable? How does it compare to other government attorney positions here ?
Superior Court Judges base salary $178,000
Most Sr. Deputy District Atty base: 137,384
Court Attorney 57,000
Also, how does the salary compare to other City Attorneys in comparable cities
(in population size and household income average) ? Is there some method historically
followed for this position, to warrant this (these) increases ? Are there performance
reviews that the tax payers may view ? Because of the high salary of this particular
position, I believe these questions should be answered. Your representation of us is
appreciated.
Thank you.
Susanne Link
1634 Crestview
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:26 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Agenda Correspondence B -6
Attachments: council city attorney pay increase.doc
Agenda Correspondence for 05/20/14 Item B6
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
city or .'13i hits o>(�].Spo
99u Palm Street
Sari l uis Obispo, CA 93401
tcf 1 805,78.1,7 az
MAY 19 2014
st.o CITY CI-.ERK
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date�Item#
From: Richard Schmidt [mailto:slobuildCa)yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:03 AM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Agenda Correspondence B -6
Dear Council Members,
Please see attached correspondence on this matter.
Richard Schmidt
Re: Item B6, City Attorney Pay
Dear Council Members:
I strongly object to increasing the pay of the city attorney.
There are two thrusts to my objection: one, on the principle of the matter, and a second on clear
lack of merit.
Merit: This city attorney has not distinguished herself in any way that benefits the residents of this
city.
• Quite the contrary, she has overseen fiascoes like the marijuana ordinance thrust in your face
earlier this month, which unnecessarily caused you so much pain and public humiliation and
embarrassment.
• She has also failed utterly to keep the council in line ethically and legally, so that, for example,
you scheduled a "study session" on the matter of "vacation rentals" during which you proceeded
under the pressure of the mob to perform an unadvertised de facto rewrite of the municipal code in
violation of the Brown Act and in violation of your own Council Procedures' description of what can
and cannot be done at a study session (which are ironically on tonight's agenda and thereby right
in your face to see how seriously you violated your own procedures) — and she didn't raise a peep
to try to get you to toe the line by telling you if you wanted to do those things you couldn't do it at
that meeting, but must schedule it properly as an advertised public hearing on a future agenda.
• Further, she has presided over turning the city into a police state under which decent citizens like
myself are systematically harassed and threatened and badgered over legally non - existent "public
nuisances" (in my case a bird of paradise the neighborhood wellness officer alleged violated an
ordinance against overgrown vegetation, said ordinance clearly stating that "overgrown" applies
only to grass and weeds more than a foot tall) while she cannot come up with any way to use
public nuisance provisions of the law to control actual public nuisances like marijuana that sends
up such an odorous stink that it shuts down a nursery school.
• While my little bird of paradise is dealt with as a "public nuisance," she presides over an
"enforcement regime" that refuses to touch rich landlords renting illegal second units and
converted garages, even to the extent that resident complaints stretching over periods of years go
unattended to, are systematically kissed off, and dismissed even after their veracity has been
established. Her notion of justice is no- justice. Or maybe it's "justice" for the rich, jail for the rest of
us.
And this is barely scratching the surface of what appears to citizens to be an undistinguished anti -
resident record that surely does not justify any sort of "merit" increase.
Principle. As I noted in my April 13 letter regarding executive pay, there simply is no justification
for raising your executive staff's already munificent pay any higher. This is an affront to the people
of this city. The city attorney already gets paid more than three times the median household
income in SILO. And one can only assume that's only a portion of her family's income. She doesn't
need more. (And then there are the perks, like the "car allowance." Why someone paid that much
can't foot her own car costs is something us peons just don't get.)
The very idea of automatic executive pay increases in this day is repugnant, and totally out of
touch with the reality in which the rest of us live. It stinks of Wall Street thinking. Of course,
understand that attorneys aren't normal people — that they have a highly imaginative notion of their
own monetary self -worth, and with two on the council, it's no wonder the pay increases just keep
coming.
Her current pay and the expectation of regular pay increases is totally beyond the experience of
most of your constituents. This isn't a job- importance issue. I think I can argue that with regard to
constructive social impact, my job demands more of me and carries greater overall importance. To
hold it I have training far beyond anything required of an attorney — 12 years of post- secondary
education in my case, and my "union card" is professional registration far more rigorous than that
required for an attorney. The impacts of my profession have actual life and death consequences,
as well as consequences for the future of the earth. Can any of the same be said of our city
attorney's job importance? Yet she is already paid more than three times what I'm paid after 28
years doing my job. And she's up for pay raise after pay raise year after year — my job by
comparison has had no pay raise in 6 years (other than a much - appreciated little 3- figure "pin
money" augmentation last year), and there are people, like my wife, highly qualified who had great
jobs and got laid off during the recession who have been unable to find work commensurate with
their talents and skills and remain unemployed, probably for life. The expectation of an increase on
the part of the attorney seems like the height of ingratitude for the security and high pay she
already has, and insults the people of this city.
The council seems to think it's just a little token, a mere $7,000 salary increase. But in all my long
working life, I've never had anything remotely close to a $7,000 increase, and neither have MOST
of your constituents. It's time you acted within the reality of our place and times, and got off your
profligate spending wagon.
Now that John Fowler has exposed the fundamental mendacity underlying the city's claims about
what Measure Y funds have been used for, it is clear that the council would be irresponsible to
boost executive pay further.
This sort of city profligacy will be remembered when Measure Y comes up for a vote.
NO EXECUTIVE RAISES THIS YEAR!
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt