On 09/08/2021 the Human Resources and Information Technology Committee met and both discussed and voted on Alderperson salaries for 2023. The full Common Council will be voting on this tomorrow (09/15/2021), so I wanted to get this recap finished before then.
All 5 committee members were present. They included Alderpersons Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), Kristin Alfheim (District 11), Maiyoua Thao (District 7), Michael Smith (District 10), and Denise Fenton (District 6). Although not a committee member, Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) was also in attendance.
Alderperson Fenton is the chairperson of the committee, but, since she was attending remotely, committee Vice-Chair Alderperson Hartzheim took over chairing duties.
Attorney Glad reviewed the legislative history which was also laid out in the agenda. On March 10, 2021 the HRIT Committee recommended by a 3-2 vote to approve the proposal to increase the alderperson salary to $10,125. Council referred it back to HRIT. The committee then held it until their meeting in September.
There was some discussion as to how best handle this issue procedurally and whether they should make a motion to approve the $10,125 recommendation to get it on the floor where it could be amended or, instead, vote to deny it and then craft a completely new proposal.
Alderperson Fenton thought that however they handled it, they seemed to agree that that $10,125 figure was not where they wanted to start. “Council punted, I believe, by sending it back to committee and then we [the committee] punted again by holding it.” She was equally in favor of amending it or denying it and starting over.
Alderperson Alfheim offered her idea of how she would amend it, but they still needed to make a motion to get the item on the table for discussion. They eventually decided to make a motion to deny the $10,125 proposal, which was approved unanimously. Alderperson Smith was worried that, procedurally, that would mean the committee wouldn’t have anything to work with, but Attorney Glad told him that his understanding was that they could replace that item they moved to deny with something they moved to approve.
With a clean slate they opened things up for discussion.
Alderperson Alfheim said that, looking at the dollar amounts of Appleton’s current alderperson salary compared to that in other cities, she didn’t think one could fairly say Appleton alderpersons were either under compensated or over compensated. “I do think that the minute we start tagging larger numbers on this job, I think we start losing the spirit of it being a public service. I think that if we start ratcheting up the numbers into that $10,000 category, then we start looking at this as a part time job, and I do not believe that the reason people should serve on this Council are because we need revenue. I think it should be out of a want to do good for our community. That being said, time is relevant and so I think it is important that the numbers that we have right now—I think is valid—but to save future time, argument, and pushing it back to committee for months at a time, I recommend that we just leave the number as is and build in a cost-of-living increase of 1.5%. Or we could discuss a different number if you think it’s appropriate.”
She didn’t formally make that motion, opting instead to offer it as a discussion point. It was a good thing she did because Attorney Glad spoke up and said that salaries for elective representatives have to be established before the papers to run are taken out. “You can’t build in for these positions a cost-of-living increase.”
Alderperson Fenton said she agreed wholeheartedly that these were public service positions and that no one who runs for alderperson expects to make a living at that job. That being said, not everyone in Appleton has the same financial status and she thought that they needed to make some changes to make the positions more accessible to people who, for example, are self-employed, paid hourly, or who still have small children at home. She didn’t think immediately jumping to $10,125 was the answer. When she looked at the amount per constituent to represent compared to what Green Bay alderpersons were paid it turned out that Green Bay alderpersons are actually paid less than Appleton’s alderpersons. She did note however that they were also offered health insurance through the city, though only a few of them take it. She was disappointed that they couldn’t build in a reasonable increase each year as Alderperson Alfheim had suggested.
She went on to say that the last raise they got went into effect in 2019 and they couldn’t punt this anymore. The next raise would be effective 2023. She had been researching Cost of Living Adjustment numbers which Social Security and military pensions are tied to amongst other thing. In 2021 the COLA was around 1.8%. Due to the inflation this year it was thought that next year it would be around 6.8%. She thought a 5% increase for 2023 might be appropriate.
Alderperson Hartzheim said that worked out to roughly $6,532.05.
Alderperson Fenton formally made that motion which was seconded by Alderperson Smith.
Alderperson Meltzer then spoke. “I’ve been part of this discussion a number of times, and I think it’s a very important discussion for us to have. I think that there are some very basic assumptions that have become flawed over time, and one of them is the idea that keeping this compensation low preserves the spirit of public service. I think that, in the past, to prevent greed or corruption from inspiring people to run for office that certainly has been the case, but in the past decade or so I think that—or even going perhaps a bit earlier than that—I think, more and more, keeping aldermanic salary low has served as a gatekeeping function which makes running for office, makes sitting in these seats very inaccessible for most of the people who represent most of the people in our city, so, um—people with small children, people with various different commitments, people from various different economic classes. We need—I think that we need to have a full representation of the people living in our city, and the compensation just does not make that possible or feasible. I think that I personally have been incredibly privileged to be able to hang on to this position and am pretty sure that the fact that I don’t own a car and don’t have children and things like that are the only reason why I’m able to squeak by and afford to pay my rent and stuff like this and still have time for this position. So, I think that, while it’s not realistic—while it’s not feasible to look at large increases like the previously proposed $10,000, I also think there’s a very interesting study that was done about aldermanic salaries in Madison and how to be more equitable, and basically, we need to be thinking more about what’s the amount of work being done and what are the expectations? If we have different modes of engaging with Council—if you can serve on Council and only put in 7-14 hours a month, then that’s not, um, that’s not really so much at odds with a lower level of compensation. But if you’re putting in more than 10 hours a week—if you’re putting in more than 80 hours a month and if your constituents are expecting that kind of aldermanic service. If you really—you are more than just a rubber stamp or you’re more than just another brain to apply to the finance book but you’re a community leader, you’re someone that people talk to about all sorts of problems that never even come into this chamber, all of the time spent outside of this room doing the aldermanic work. If we want to attract people to run for office and represent our city, if we want the people to live here to really be able to represent themselves, we have to make that possible and accessible. I think that a 5% increase is a very tiny step in the right direction and certainly not a big enough step, but perhaps the biggest step we are able to take right now. So, I support this motion, or this proposal, and I also really encourage us all to think very hard about what we can do institutionally and systemically to make representing Appleton easier for people who live in Appleton to aspire to. Thank you.”
Alderperson Alfheim really wished they could to the built in COLA increase, but given that they couldn’t, she thought that if they agreed that 1.5% increase per year would have been the appropriate number then she thought they should roll a 1.5% increase per year forward from 2019 to 2023. [I took that to mean 1.5% x the 4 years between 2019 and 2023 = 6% increase starting April 2023.] She thought it was probable that after it rose in 2023, it would not be voted on again for several years.
Alderperson Hartzheim said she wouldn’t assume it wouldn’t be voted on again for another 5 years.
There was some back and forth about how often pay raises needed to be voted on. Alderperson Hartzheim, backed up by HR Director Jay Ratchman thought that, once the increase went into effect for 2023 that they would be able to have a discussion annually to change the salary for the following year.
[I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that discussions and votes need to happen two years prior to any change in order to make them effective for the entire Common Council. Elected representatives are statutorily forbidden to vote on their own salaries, so they need to vote on the salaries of future elected representatives prior the date when papers can be taken out to run for a particular office. Appleton’s Common Council terms are on two-year cycles, so the only way to make sure a current council would be voting on the salary for an entirely new council would be to vote for changes to take place two years in the future. Basically, they do need to have this discussion again next year (2022) if they want to make changes for 2024.]
Alderperson Meltzer also tried to make the same point I made above.
Within all this discussion they ended up starting to talk about increasing the salary to $7,150 but they also were still talking about simply a 5% increase.
Alderperson Fenton personally didn’t think that was enough for the reasons she and Alderperson Meltzer articulated. When she was a young single mother, she wouldn’t have been able to do the job of an alderperson. “5% is not going to let a single mom or even a mom who doesn’t always have childcare in the evenings take this on. But it’s a start.” She said they had heard from some of their former colleagues who actually said they should work for nothing “but I do think that shuts a door that I am not willing to shut. So, I think 5% based on the math is a good start, and once we vote on this, I would like to propose something else, but I will wait until we get around to that.”
Alderperson Alfheim liked the idea of setting it at a higher rate. They needed to look at past vs present vs future. The reality of what an alderperson deals with now and what they will be dealing with in the future has never come up before in terms of the never-ending social media. She thought the position was probably very different in the past. They would answer phone calls and letters, but now they are in a non-stop position of social media, voicemails, and texts, and it never really ends. She thought it was valid to discuss whether they should just have a cost-of-living adjustment or if they should make a larger adjustment based on how much work they are doing. She didn’t thing that they needed to get up to the level of some of the other cities that had higher salaries than Appleton, but she did think Appleton wants to have engaged alderpersons who show up to events, are at meetings, and communicate with their constituents. She thought the expectations regarding communication were higher than they have ever been and they would only continue to get higher. She though a figure in the $7,000s was valid. She didn’t think could go much higher than that, but it was the best they could do and it was a start.
Alderperson Smith said he’s been concerned for all his years on Council about the lack of people who run. There have been many times when only one person has been running for a seat without competition. He said one could almost look at where those alderpersons lived in the city to know the reason why, and it was clearly because of the low salary an alderperson receives. People had better things to do than make a commitment to the city. There are people at lower economic levels who have public service in mind, but they can’t afford to do it, but they have the desire to be public servants. He had always thought they needed to do better salary wise for this position because it also costs money simply to run and campaign for the position, not just serve once elected.
He said he had known several alderpersons over the years who came to meetings and then went home and were not engaged. Then there have also been alderpersons who are very engaged. He was happy they were actively looking at doing something with the salary rather than patting themselves on the back about how they were doing this because it was good public service. He thought alderpersons should get something better but not $10,000 a year.
Alderperson Thao was also glad they were looking at increasing the salary. She understood that some people could afford to serve whether or not they received a salary and some people could not. She, personally as a Hmong American who was a council member, she had been asked to do a lot of things in the community outside of the council chambers, outside the city, and even outside of the state, such as graduations and weddings. It takes a lot of time but she was proud of the things that she did because she was elected to be here for her constituents and my district, and outside of her district people also looked to her as a role model. She could afford to not take a salary but she also thought that it would be good to have a variety of candidates and some people may not be able to run because of the salary.
Alderperson Fenton decided to make a motion to amend her original 5% increase proposal to set the salary of a regular alderperson at $7,000, the Common Council President’s salary at $8,000, and the Vice-President’s at $7,500.
Alderperson Alfheim seconded.
Alderperson Smith said he would not support that. He suggested that in lieu of a salary increase, perhaps the alderpersons could be given “franking” privileges which would essentially be mailing assistance so they would be provided with letter head, mailing supplies, and postage. This would give them the opportunity to stay in contact with and reach out to their constituents via mail. He would rather have taxpayer dollars benefit the taxpayers as well as the public servants who are representing them. He was okay with the $7,000 but not the extra salary for the President and Vice-President.
Alderperson Hartzheim also couldn’t support the amendment. She wasn’t even sure she could support $7,000 because that put them in an elite position compared to neighboring cities. “I understand and appreciate, totally agree with a modest increase between 5 and 7%, but any further than that feels uncomfortable to me and I think that that could be—that we could break this up in multiple years without breaking the bank in one shot. That’s just my position.”
Alderperson Meltzer didn’t like the proposal for the salaries for the President and Vice-President. Those are chosen by council members after they are elected, not by the public, and it was really just convention and etiquette that dictates what the President and Vice President do; there is not guarantee that the President will do more work than someone who is not in that position. In the past there has been situations where council members have stopped coming to meeting entirely but still got paid for a while before they resigned.
Alderperson Meltzer also “wanted to make another comment about comparing us to our neighbors. We can look also at what do our neighbors spend on their streets? What do they spend on their library? What do they spend on their snow removal? And that’s an investment in their community, so we don’t look at another community and say ‘Oh, they don’t even have a recycling program, let’s get rid of ours.’ No, we look at Appleton and we say we want to have the best, the greenest, the thing that serves our constituents the most; we want our people to be happier. We don’t want to just pare it down so that we only have the minimum that other communities around us have. I think we want to be a leader of investment and a role model of how to responsibly invest in our community for the sake of our constituents. So, I think that’s a good perspective to keep as well. And another thing as far as we’re considering—Alderperson Smith brought up franking privileges. I think that another thing to consider is healthcare. That would be another thing. I know that’s something that some of our neighbors do offer, and I think it’s something that certainly would be a great investment in the people who work so hard to keep our constituents represented.”
[If the desire is to make serving on the Common Council more accessible to lower income residents, I would think that offering health insurance might actually be a deterrent. Definitely, the ramifications of doing something like that should be thoroughly researched before it was implemented. Typically, if someone is offered what is deemed “affordable” health care through their employment, they no longer qualify to receive health insurance subsidies to purchase Affordable Care Act coverage. There are people whose income levels would qualify them to receive ACA coverage for a very nominal amount of money but who are stuck paying hundreds of dollars a month because their employer offers coverage the government deems “affordable”. The last thing many people would want to do would be to have to give up their $0, $10, or $50 premium health insurance plans for something more expensive just so that they could run for Common Council.]
Attorney Glad said that, looking at it from a legal standpoint, compensation needs to be set before the first date when nomination papers can be filed, but the appointment to Vice Chair and Vice President for a person who was elected to the position of alderperson, changes after that date. He hadn’t been able to research this prior to the meeting and he didn’t know how other municipalities set that up, but it appeared to him to violate the law.
They discussed procedurally what the best way was to deal with this—withdraw the amendment or vote it down. They decided to vote it down which Alderperson Smith thought would be cleaner. They voted unanimously against the amendment.
Alderperson Smith wanted to talk about franking privileges some more. He knew it would come with some cost just like their parking passes, but he didn’t know what that cost would be.
Alderpersons Hartzheim, Meltzer, and Fenton was that physical mail had become a nominal thing and the need for franking privileges was outdated. Perhaps mailing expenses could be worked into the Council budget which would allow them to review that cost every year for the next year during the normal budget process instead of having it tied to the alderperson salary which would not take effect until 2 years out.
Alderperson Hartzheim made a motion to amend the item increase the Alderperson salaries to $6,750, an approximately 8.5% increase, effective April 2023.
Alderperson Smith thought that was a reasonable compromise that kept the salary below that $7,000 tier but still bumped it up a reasonable amount. He thought they could reasonably share that with their constituents and most of them would be able to digest it and find it to make sense.
The approved the motion to amend unanimously and then approved the amended item unanimously.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=871592&GUID=DC4A4FA8-61B2-41ED-B874-977150866412
Be the first to reply