The proposed stipend increase for Council members is too
generous
It’s disappointing that in the face of the city’s economic crisis Gilroy City Council members allowed Councilman Perry Woodward’s reasonable plan to drop their health benefits die without a second or any discussion. Yet, the public sentiment appears to have driven the Council to consider alternatives to Woodward’s motion. That’s a step in the right direction.
On July 6, Council members will consider a plan advocated by Councilman Craig Gartman to drop city reimbursement for health benefits while increasing council members’ stipends and allowing council members to participate in the city plan at group rates on their own dimes.
It all works out to a 12-percent reduction in overall City Council compensation costs for the city.
It’s a good start, but it’s not enough.
Gartman’s plan needs three important changes.
First, the stipend increase that Gartman proposes is way too generous. Woodward is right on track saying, “The overall cost needs to come down by at least 15 percent in order for us to demonstrate the leadership we need to demonstrate.”
Next, Council members need to drop their retirement benefits. It’s completely unreasonable for our part-time elected officials to earn a pension – however meager – for their service.
Finally, Council members should end health benefits for future Council members.
In taking a leadership role, Council members should adopt the same kind of two-tier system that should be a cornerstone for future solvency with regard to all municipal employees. Without a new base line that checks the rampant escalation of benefits, municipalities and the state have no hope to regain stability in the future.
Public employee benefits – particularly pensions – are out of control and unsustainable. Californians simply cannot afford to pay, for example, the budget-busting, 3-at-50 retirement benefits to public safety employees forever. Unions are going to have to accept two-tier benefit and compensation plans, where new hires do not receive the same level of benefits as existing employees. It’s either that, continuing layoffs or the reality of bankruptcy like the city of Vallejo has endured. If the latter case occurs, all the city’s union contracts will be voided.
On July 6, the Council should dispense with running penny-pinching efforts – like declining city cell phones or failing to ask for reimbursement for legitimate travel expenses – up the political flagpole. After all, furloughs, layoffs, pay cuts and benefit reductions aren’t optional for public employees. In addition, they do not address the systemic problem in the way that a two-tier system does.
Gilroy’s City Council has another chance to lead by example. Councilman’s Gartman’s proposal is a starting place to consider and make deeper cuts and to implement a systemic change in Gilroy’s culture by adopting a two-tier system for City Council compensation and benefits.
