Public hearing was a lonely experience

Ludlow Porch was right when he said, “We’re all in this alone.”

That’s exactly how I felt Monday evening when I attended the public hearing at the Central Activity Center concerning the possible compensation increase for the Phenix City Council – very alone. There were very few citizens in attendance – less than 30 - and several of those citizens did not live in Phenix City.

Where were you?

State Representative Lesley Vance and State Senator Ted Little gave their time to allow you to give your input on the matter. You didn’t. You weren’t there.

“You would think that with all the letters and telephone calls I received there would have been a better turnout,” observed Rep. Vance.

Yep, I agree.

All four of our city council members were there – Jimmy Wetzel, Max Wilkes, Michelle Walker and Arthur Sumbry. Mayor Sonny Coulter was not. Each of the city council members gave his or her opinion on the matter. The mayor did not, but then like I said, he was not there.

I would have to say the most vocal of the citizens in attendance were opposed to the proposed increase of the compensation for the city council and mayor. They said so several times. There was somewhat of a spirited debate over the issue.

I put in my two-cents worth – that would be about a quarter’s worth when adjusted for inflation. Some might say I gave more than that, but not really. I really didn’t. I simply spoke my piece.

Want to know what that was?

Well, I oppose an immediate increase of the compensation package to a level equal to that of the Russell County Commission as stated in the bill that will undoubtedly be introduced during the current session of the state legislature by Rep. Vance, at the city council’s and mayor’s request. I do not, however, oppose an increase to the compensation the local governing body receives. Heck, it has not changed since 2000 when the compensation was increased to $800 per month for council members and to $1,000 per month for the mayor. I support no change to the city charter without a vote of the people on the matter in question.

Increasing that amount to $1,833.33 per month for council members – based on an annual salary of $22,000 – and to $2,916.87 per month for the mayor – based on an annual salary of $35,000 – seems a little too much too quickly. I proposed an increase of 43.1 percent for each of the council members and for the mayor which is based on the increase of the Consumer Price Index since the last increase in compensation for the governing body members in 2000. And, I think that amount should be tied to the annual increase in the CPI until it reaches a predetermined cap – say, the salary received by the Russell County Commission.

Using the figures I suggested, the council members would receive $1,144.80 per month. The mayor would receive $1,431 per month. That’s higher than the salaries received by some full-time city workers. This suggested increase would take effect when the next council and mayor take office in 2012. I do not support granting a “patch” with an expense account until then, especially one that does not require the council members and mayor to account for the money they would receive from an expense account.

I am glad I received some support, though limited, for the idea. I did not expect any swell of support for my suggestion. There weren’t enough people in attendance to cause a swell.

Some said the increase in compensation was a matter of “fairness.” Only one council member admitted he wanted a raise. The others said they wanted to do what was “fair,” “right” and “in the interest” of future councils. State law requires any increase in compensation for the council and mayor must be approved by the municipal governing body at least six months prior to the date of the next election – for us, it is six months prior to September 2012. The action the current council is proposing meets that requirement with plenty of time to spare.

I think the council members attending the public hearing made their feelings clear. Each said an increase in compensation would be welcomed, but it is not the reason he or she chose to seek office. Each said he or she was aware of the compensation he or she would receive when he or she decided to seek office and that his or her desire to serve would not change whether an increase was forthcoming or not. For that, we can all be thankful.

If money is the reason to seek office, then it is best to find another source of revenue for your pockets and not masquerade as servants of the people. The people, even the ones that did not attend Monday’s hearing, do not like that very much.