Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

A raise for Lodi's City Council is much-deserved

Proposed city Web cam, though, raises questions


Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:26 AM PDT

Comments (40 comment(s))

Everyone knows the old adage that you get what you pay for is not always true. Especially when it comes to politicians. No president, no state legislator, no member of the City Council always votes the way we would on every issue.

So to a certain degree, you can always argue that what we pay for political office holders is misspent.

The last time the Lodi City Council voted itself a raise, a gallon of gas cost less than $1.20, a house cost $150,000 and George Bush was president. That's George H.W. Bush. Since 1990, the consumer price index has risen 68 percent.

Back then, our council members demurely asserted they were worth $500 per month. It's easy to take pot shots at politicians and forget what they do for us.

It's a great deal more than attending four to eight meetings a month. Before the city clerk began feeding documents to the council via the Internet, you'd weigh the biweekly reading load in pounds.

Councilmen and women have to make time to return phone calls and meet with voters; appear in public at ribbon cuttings and charity events. And don't think non-profits comp members of the City Council even if they ask them to speak.

Then there's travel. Maybe members of Congress go to South America and the Middle East on "fact-finding missions," but members of the Lodi council travel out of state rarely, and then to meet with bond agencies and members of Congress in hopes of easing the burden on the local treasury.

Perhaps the time isn't "right" to be asking for a big pay raise. But Councilman Bob Johnson rightly makes the point that, if it's been 18 years, the right time may never come.

Compensating our elected representatives is part of the cost of democracy. An adjustment of 65 percent is a fair reflection of where prices have come in 18 years. Add that to $500 and that comes to $825 per month. That looks modest to us to compensate people who work as hard as they do on our behalf.

You may not always get what you pay for, but you can't get what you won't pay for.

Web cam: Beyond the first glance

At first glance, the city's plan to set up a Web cam at the Downtown cinema seems benign enough.

The camera will enable anyone with Web access to check out the scene at the often-busy plaza in front of the movie house. Officials say would-be tourists might use the site to glimpse our enticing Downtown. Parents might check to see if their kids are out of the theater and awaiting a ride home. Local families might stand in the plaza and wave to a loved one serving in the military.

Many communities have such cameras now, often to provide security monitoring of high-traffic or high-crime areas.

City officials, though, say Lodi's Web cam wouldn't record anything and isn't intended as a security measure.

As mentioned, the wave-hello-to-Aunt-Millie goal sounds fine.

We wonder, though, whether this seemingly innocuous idea might contribute to what some are calling a "surveillance society."

Do more cameras equate less privacy? Could creeps track the comings and goings of youngsters via such a camera? Could Web cams at strategic locations cool or complicate our Constitutional right of assembly?

Judging by comments by readers on Lodinews.com, some Lodians aren't entirely comfortable with a private and continuous view to a public place.

A few of the comments:

"Don't put me or my kids on the Internet."

"I will sue and beyond anyone that puts an image of my children out for a predator to fixate on. What a stupid idea."

"You put minors on the Internet and the poo will hit the fan."

"I'm all for cameras for security reasons, but I am not too fond of the idea of my general shopping and moves about Lodi being displayed on the WWW."

The cost of this is perhaps $2,700. That's not much, granted.

We wonder, though: Is it worth the potential fuss?

— The Lodi News-Sentinel

Reader Feedback

sam wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Well Thank You Cogito. We cannot forget our humor. "

Report Abuse

CaJewels wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Didn't they know what they were geting into when they ran for cc? This is amazing when the majority of us are barely getting by due to the outrageous costs of living in this town. I hope the citizens remember this when these jokers come up for re-election. Most of them took these positions as a way to stroke their egos or further their political careers instead of helping the citizens of this town. Joann, thank you for being the only one on this council with any sense. "

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:14 AM:

" If the city council would conduct their business and not continue listening to Larry Boring for 5 hours they could shut the hell up and go home at a decent time. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Sam, your 2:14 post still has me lol. I'm sure that one of the social necessities of being presidential is being flatulent at ONLY the correct time. Like during the State of the Union speech. That would keep Speaker Pelosi fully engaged! I've never wanted to be President until now.
"

Report Abuse

Bry wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:15 PM:

" Girard, A raise for the City Council is much needed because the economy is in the tank & people are struggling. Do they deserve a raise? Remember the City Council are our 'public servants'. Do you give your gardener or window washer a raise when you are struggling financially? A raise for Lodi's public servants is not even a question, it is a joke! They need a cut in pay and if they're looking for a second term it should be in prison rather than in office. Today's public servants are feeding their pockets while robbing their masters. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:37 PM:

" I'm still curious as to "why" they want this raise. There are people who do far less than what this City Council has accomplished and yet are paid far more.

If they truly believe that they are underpaid for the job they do, then fine - review the matter. It doesn't make sense, however, to think if that is truly the purpose for this request that they would be satisfied with making only a few hundred dollars more than the mere $500 they 'earn' now. I still think there’s more here than what we’re now being permitted to‘see.’ "

Report Abuse

Doc Hollywood wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Even though the names and faces have changed, the City Council has made a number of bad decisions. Remember, the City spent millions of wasted dollars on a consultant firm regarding hazardous waste and then fired them.

Why pay the Council members more for doing a poor job? How about earning a raise? "

Report Abuse

JustTheFacts wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:19 PM:

" More times than not it's the City Manager that proposes the concept of bringing in consultants. While the need is justified in some circumstances, due to specialized expertise or the size and scope of a project, Blair King is very quick to pull that trigger. Shame on the Council for going along with his proposals. Maybe they should tie his performance review and raises on the number of consultants that he hires. More consultants... less pay for Mr. King. There's got to be some accountability somewhere. "

Report Abuse

Patricia wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:57 AM:

" I’m with the majority (I think) on this one. As long as the council continues to hire consultants to do their thinking, no raise. The fiscal mess in this city leads right back to the council who has not shown me, a taxpayer whose money they freely spend, that they deserve a raise. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:16 AM:

" T & C wrote, 'I do NOT believe a pay raise is in order for any Council member! What have they really accomplished for the majority of lodi residents? I am waiting for anyone's list of accomplishments!'

Well, at the very least they've got us talking and thinking about just what the heck they're trying to pull here. No, it's not a 'positive' accomplishment (for them), but does it count?

Other than that, I’m at a loss. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Hiring expensive consultants all the time when the Council members were vote din because THEY spouted they were the best qualified for the job means too me, that no consultant is needed. Can anyone disagree? "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:48 AM:

" I do NOT believe a pay raise is in order for any Council member! What have they really accomplished for the majority of lodi residents? I am waiting for anyone's list of accomplishments! "

Report Abuse

3 cents wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:30 PM:

" 1. Put out a report card for each of them and give them a raise based on there performance 2. Give the raise on the next election, hence, those coming into office will make more money.
3. Give Mr. King a 20% paycut to pay for the CC next incress. "

Report Abuse

2much wrote on Mar 16, 2008 9:21 PM:

" OTH, I suppose it is difficult for the public to be aware, they can watch the tediously long and boring council meetings on cable if they have it. I know I have a problem when some of them start spouting off for reasons that seem unclear other than to hear themselves speak, “I I I just have a problem with....” ah nuts, you always have an issue unless it’s PD. The problem is people don’t get involved until it’s to late, that’s when the powers that be start cutting services. "

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:23 PM:

" 2much yes the public does nothing. How are they supposed to find out about it? This useless rag that calls itself a newpaper? Find away to get the truth out to the people and I guarantee you things will change. As long as they have to depend on a catbox liner for the truth it won't happen. "

Report Abuse

s & W 500 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:12 PM:

" It is time for everyone to cut back, they deserve it, but WE are in bad shape right now. Wait a smidge, maybe 6 months.

Council: Stop spending, nuke consultants, and go after Flymm and his milkers. "

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on Mar 16, 2008 6:26 PM:

" 16925 Your comment is probably a legitimate one. However, the citizens of this town follow the donkies in city hall. You know, the ones that aren't paid enough but managed to get us into one financial debacle after another? The majority voted for these north end of a south bound horse and it's too bad they aren't the only ones having ro pay for it. He blames she, she blames him and together they blame someone else. It's the old shell game. "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 6:10 PM:

" What I find most surprising is that there are 22 blogs on this editoral, 88 on the article regarding cc raises, but only 7 on the story about the utility bond!
A 47 million bond could be called in on Lodi and we seem to only care about pennies! I understand it is the principle, but come on.
"

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:21 PM:

" This a sacred cow but you left out The millin dollar plus every year for HHS. "

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:18 PM:

" I say give them a raise to $2,000 and let them hire the consultants and experts they are so fond of. Can one of them even find the way to the loo without asking a consultant. I have to qualify, Ms Mounce is not in favor of the raise, When the rest of them can do the job they were elected to, Then come back and talk about a raise.

This city is one financial disaster after another and no on is ever responsible.

It's his fault, no it's not, it's your fault. "

Report Abuse

2much wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:39 PM:

" To JustTheFacts, at least someone is paying attention, thanks. This is the stuff that goes on and on and the public just doesn’t pay attention. Make the council be accountable for all their decisions. They dole out money to the downtown businesses that don’t want to stay open on weekends, a visitor center that know one knows is there, forgive debts for projects, a little here a little there and the next thing you know we’re broke again. "

Report Abuse

Fruitful47 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 3:54 PM:

" IDEA! Give the City Council $2,000 a month and make them pay for all their travel. That would save thousands. "

Report Abuse

JustTheFacts wrote on Mar 15, 2008 3:40 PM:

" To judge whether the current Council is worthy of a raise at this time, we must look at their most recent actions. They give retroactive salary adjustments to Police and Fire, adding millions to the current and future General Fund budget... then forgive over a $100,000 debt owed for the Veteren's Plaza (or was it $400,000?)... all while facing a bleak local financial picture that is surely to get much worse before it gets better. We may not be Vallejo... but they seem to be spending us in that direction. Is that something that should be rewarded? "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 2:26 PM:

" Sam wrote, 'I think her quote is misunderstood.'

You're probably right. The problem is that even in light of this somewhat minor controversy, the Obama campaign has offered nothing to further explain just what she meant. Absent an explanation (which, in my opinion, is certainly warranted), we're left to 'guess' as to what her intent was.

As Obama is quickly learning now, no politician can get away with this type of avoidance for very long.

The Obama veil is slowly being lowered. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Mar 15, 2008 2:14 PM:

" G said "Unlike Mrs. Obama, I have always been proud to be an American - during the dark years as well as the good. "

I think her quote is misunderstood. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt. I could never be First Lady or President. I would fart at the wrong time. She has my respect for jumping into the "election" game to support her husband. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Mar 15, 2008 2:11 PM:

" G, you have arrived !!! "

Report Abuse

2much wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:47 PM:

" I don’t know why people want to be on the City Council, but their interest should be public service. If people want to run for council, the pay shouldn’t be why they are doing it. If they deserve a raise, on what merit should they base it? Is it for doing a good job? I think with finances in the toilet, a decaying infrastructure, and an open check book for public safety just because someone else more, all at the direction of the council should be an indication of performance. I don’t think the current financial condition of the City is the fault of any of the current sitting council members, except one. But, except for the fact they hired a new city Manager, they haven’t done much better than the last council. No, a raise doesn’t serve any purpose. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Observer wrote, 'I also don't believe any elected official should have to spend their own money on City business.'

You're absolutely correct. That's why they are reimbursed for actual expenses they incur as a result of their activities as members of the City Council.

Legitimate questions, though, are just how is the 'reimbursement' policy implemented? Exactly what is determined to be 'city business?'

I am confident that these questions have been resolved long before issuing a check for reimbursement. I'm just curious as to what that policy is. "

Report Abuse

Observer wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Do I believe council members deserve a raise - YES. Should it be retroactive back to 1992 - NO. Do I believe the raise should be implemented now - NO. The City is in the middle of a fiscal crises. The Council needs to lead by example. How can you request budget cuts to other departments and not your own. That's political suicide. I also don't believe any elected official should have to spend their own money on City business. You shouldn't have to be wealthy to be an elected official. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:12 PM:

" JustTheFacts wrote, 'Guess what folks... they do get health benefits and more for being on the City Council. Look at Resolution 2000-211. They have medical, dental, life insurance, retirement just to name a few.'

That being said, their 'salary' is the last hurdle to cross before making these 'part-time' jobs 'full-time.'

There is danger in making the change. From the beginning, public service was never intended to become full-time. To counter the effects of this, 'term-limits' have been imposed for other elected offices.

The City Council has consistently 'changed faces.' We need this to continue this process in order to avoid corruption. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Sam, I hope you know that I am not that self-consumed. But I do like 'G'. And if you understood what 'Girard' stands for, you would see further where I 'come from.' "

Report Abuse

JustTheFacts wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Guess what folks... they do get health benefits and more for being on the City Council. Look at Resolution 2000-211. They have medical, dental, life insurance, retirement just to name a few. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Oooops! I meant to post that on 'Writer says nobody will vote for GOP president' blog. Read and discard, if you wish. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:58 AM:

" There are many who believe our process for selecting the leader of our country takes too long and is too intrusive and involved. Regarding previous elections, to a degree, I would have supported that contention.

This election, however, has made me a believer in our Democratic processes. No one is ever fully 'vetted' before becoming the President. But what we are witnessing now is proof positive that the system does work as well as possible.

Unlike Mrs. Obama, I have always been proud to be an American - during the dark years as well as the good. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Sam wrote, 'G, well said.'

I have to say that I am amazed. After being 'Girard74' and then becoming G74, I am now recognized simply as 'G'.

Madonna, Oprah, Rosie, etc., eat your hearts out!!!

I have arrived!!! "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:34 AM:

" "However, we should all get prepared to support everything that accompanies that status, e.g., health benefits; sick pay; vacation pay; workers' compensation; retirement benefits - and certainly a salary much higher than $500. "

G, well said. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:32 AM:

" WY, your camera blog comments are making them rethink. Way to go. Blog on. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:18 AM:

" If they want their positions to become bona-fide 'full-time' jobs, just say that.

However, we should all get prepared to support everything that accompanies that status, e.g., health benefits; sick pay; vacation pay; workers' compensation; retirement benefits - and certainly a salary much higher than $500.

If the consensus is to convert these jobs into full-time, we must agree to go all the way. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:16 AM:

" The author wrote, 'An adjustment of 65 percent is a fair reflection of where prices have come in 18 years. Add that to $500 and that comes to $825 per month.'

As we discussed this issue here yesterday, I was (and still am) concerned about 'motive' for this increase.

I believe that $825 is an insult if we are to begin to believe that they should be 'compensated' for what they do. The $500 was never meant to be a 'salary.' So, be up front about it. If they want their positions to become bona-fide 'full-time' jobs, just say that. cont... "

Report Abuse

Fruitful47 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 8:24 AM:

" The pay raise is due the City Council. But where are they getting the money? Sales tax down 10%, property tax flat. It must be from the water, sewer and electric funds. Not only the transfers they identify but the cost of service charge they do not tell you about. And just maybe from the settlement with the Sentinel on water contamination. That is why the endorsement. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Women in Business

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084