FR readers statewide would do well to read this piece in the Orange County Register that shines a spotlight on the outrageous and expensive health benefits that are lavished on the City Councilmembers in Laguna Hills. I wish that I could say that this city is an exception, but it is my belief that part-time elected officials on City Councils, School Boards and Special Districts all over the state are getting pretty posh benefits like this.
This may sound like a backwards notion, but it seems to me that if an elected office is a full-time job, such as a state legislator, a county-wide official, or some councilmembers of large cities — well, those positions should come with benefits. But if you are a part-time elected official, that means that you either do something else for a living, are independently wealthy, or are retired — you should not be receiving healthcare or retirement benefits — period.
If people feel that the compensation through stipends for local elected officials are not sufficient enough, then perhaps a local government agency might consider raising them. But the lack of transparency that exists in providing these expensive benefits on the down-low is outrageous, and the practice itself is wrong.
I’m a local control guy, so in general I believe that the best approach to solve this issue would be for every local government agency to ban the practice of providing benefits to their part-time elected officials. That having been said, if someone up in Sacramento introduced some legislation that prohibited all of the political subdivisions within California from engaging in this kind of practice, I would be hard pressed to come out against it.
In the meantime, last I checked, no one holds a gun to the head of people and forces them to take these benefits. Reminding me of yet another reason why I always tell people interested in an eventual run for partisan office that getting elected to local office is as much a hindrance as it is helpful. Now that we are in a recession, and people everywhere are feeling the pinch, it would probably not help a candidate for Congress, Senate or Assembly, who is a local elected official right now, to be taking these kinds of benefits.
I have a suggestion for any part-time elected officials — DON’T DO IT. Don’t take health insurance. Don’t take vision or dental insurance. Don’t take contributions to your retirement account and decline having the city create a retirement account for you. And if you are reading this, and are "stuck" because you already take some or all of these benefits… Cancel them tomorrow.
A part-time elected official is not a full-time employee. That’s just the way it is.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
A legitimate issue for discussion which most people are unaware of. I will add that in many cities (including my hometown of Burbank) a City Council member who is reelected gets a very small pension.
The pension itself means nothing, but it allows the councilmember to buy into City benefits including health and dental insurance which are quite expensive on the open market.
On a different subject, if Jim Sills reads this and can send me his email address, I can send him sources for two out of the three quotes I used last week in a post which he questioned. I hope to have the last by next week, although it’s hard to do research with so much going on.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
FYI — California legislators haven’t collected pension benefits for years. And their health plans are the same as other legislative employees.
The problem with your suggestion is that only those who can afford to be in public service will choose to do so. That, in turn, will create an elite group of wealthy that will rule over the rest of us. I think we junked that system in 1776.
I agree that benefits should go to those who attend a meeting a week or a month, however.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I agree with Steve philosophically and if we were talking about the legislature which I think is underpaid, I would agree completely. However John’s post was about local elected officials in City Manager forms of government where the council is part time and I think he makes a valid point for discussion.
The reason I say that is the salary and benefits listed in the newspaper story are actually far below those of most part time council people in California and the average resident doesn’t realize it, because the financial gain comes in the perks generally, not in the salary.
So for most people, their councilmembers are truly making a huge financial sacrifice and get the respect that type of sacrifice creates in other people, while in reality, for many of them, it is better than they would be doing otherwise and the jobs are very significant. I think when you have the image nothing is gained, a lot of people don’t look as closely at the behavior of their elected officials. JMO!