Serving in any elected office, but particularly at the local level, is a labor of love. No one is going to get rich sitting through all those meetings, listening to hours of testimony, sifting through mounds of paperwork and being stopped on the most routine errand to be quizzed about the latest council action or inaction. Local elected officials give up a good chunk of their private lives to become community property during their term of office.
And they don’t do it for the money — council members currently receive a paltry $50 per month as an expense allowance. Our suspicion is that breaks down to at most $2.50 an hour for their work; in all probability, council members give far more than 20 hours a month for the sake of the community. Routine meetings easily could eat up that much time over 30 days. The 50 bucks hardly covers the tab for a council member to take his or her spouse to dinner once a month.
Here’s the quandary: If there were a financial gain to be had by serving in public office, people could run for the wrong reason and who knows what kind of public policy would result. On the other hand, without any financial reimbursement, it makes it difficult for all but a select few to be able to afford to serve in office.
If a council member is so bold to suggest that a slight raise in compensation is in order, it’s easy to brand that person as greedy — even though there’s no large line forming to take advantage of the “perks” that being in office allegedly affords.
What about council members eligibility in the state’s Public Employees Retirement System? In that system, council members who serve five years could be eligible for $125 per month as retirees. Out of the 31,000 active PERS employees statewide, only 243 are elected officials. In other words, they make up just a slight fraction of the state’s multibillion-dollar unfunded liability.
There’s no doubt the statewide retirement system is putting a drain on the ability of the state, municipalities and school districts to fund important services. Something clearly needs to be done. Homer council members could lead by example by choosing not to be a part of the problem and end PERS eligibility for council members.
However, they should not end all compensation for serving on the council.
It’s noble that the goal of the proposal that fueled this week’s discussion — Ordinance 05-58 (S) — is to save taxpayers’ money. But community members should want to recognize and honor those who give so much of their time to making Homer a better place to live with some token of appreciation. Fifty dollars per month — even $100 — is a small price to pay for the work council members put in. Maybe even too small.
We encourage you to add your comments. To prevent spam, comments with links are manually approved during the normal business day. Please be respectful of others with your comments, bear in mind anyone in the community may be reading your comments.
