| Author |
Message |
    
Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 522
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:08 am: | 
|
There was an article in today's Star Ledger about efforts in Montclair to increase pay for local elected officials. A concern was expressed, however, that the pay is essentially supplemental, and the fact is that no one can afford to live on the salaries local officials get (which are usually well under $10,000). As a result, it was felt that less affluent candidates would be discouraged since they would not be able to afford to do the work required.
This strikes me as a good thing (and something our founding fathers would have agreed with). If you need the money so badly, you should not be in local office. You should serve because you are committed, not because it is a career choice. Places like Newark and Orange are corrupt because office-holders are dependent upon the income from their position (plus that they can extort from contractors). Plus, if someone is not smart enough to make a good living, why would you want them running your town? Wouldn't you only want people who have already proven they can be a success in other fields?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5786
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
I tend to agree, and apparently, so do lots of people in South Orange and Maplewood. The advantage of a high salary, however, is that it MIGHT reduce temptation to take bribes from contractors, etc.
But do low (or non existent) salaries ensure that you get the best pick of candidates in places like Newark and Orange? |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Newark and Orange have full time Mayors that make a good salary. Add in the kickbacks and they are wealthy, which is the point I guess. |
Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 523
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
In poor cities, the most venal people rise to the top, using local government as their personal cash cow. The founding fathers were on to something when they stated that only property holders of above a certain income should hold office. One should have some demonstrable life successes besides mastering the finer points of demagoguery before ascending to political office. Of course, people elect these people, which again proves that universal suffrage is not a wise idea if you want to preserve competent, honest government. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 517
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
a government run only by the rich is not a democracy. it is an aristocracy |
Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 524
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
I was talking about local office. If you are running for office as a way of making money, you shouldn't be doing it. You should be doing it because you have already proven your abilities by being successful at a prior career. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7870
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
I often joke that I always vote for the richest person running for governor here in NJ under the theroy that they are less likely to be taking graft. 
Going back a few years running for the Maplewood TC became a very expensive proposition. I believe between primaries (contested) and the general election it was common to spend over $50,000 for a campaign. Something to think about |
Bill P
Citizen
Username: Mrincredible
Post Number: 104
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Hm, gotta agree with the Libertarian here.
I can't imagine anyone is advocating making salaries for elected officials high enough for them to live on. However, I'm really disturbed by some of the posts in this thread.
Tell where it's written that competence and success are measured solely in terms of cash? There are plenty of people who are good, intelligent hard-working people who are not in fields which have high remuneration.
I'm not sold on the idea that we have to pay these folks more, but I'm really sorry people seem to feel monetary success is the qualifier for public office.
And insinuating that someone has to make a good living to be smart is downright insulting. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:52 am: |
|
It is not my understanding that the members of the governing bodies of Maplewood and South Orange are extremely wealthy. I think they are all solidly middle-class, reflecting the community. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5140
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
In Maplewood and South Orange our elected officials are not professional town managers. We have paid township administrators and support staff to perform that function. Our elected officials serve more as town elders, watching over the welfare of the citizenry and enacting such legislation as needed to keep things running as smoothly as possible. While it is indeed possible to turn serving on the Board of Trustees or Township Committee into a full time job, I doubt that was ever the intent.
When I decide who to vote for in a local election, I don't look at a candidate's annual income or overall financial status but I do look at each candidate's ability to devote the time, energy and emotional commitment needed to get the job done. If a candidate has massive personal commitments or is already holding down two jobs, they are less likely to be able to perform well in the job than someone of equal ability who has more time on their hands and more resources at their disposal. |
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 796
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
I understand all of what Joan is saying, and to a certain degree I agree with it.
But it does leave our elected positions open mainly to certain kinds of people, doesn't it? That is, the positions aren't really available to people have jobs that take a lot of their time (who probably don't want the job anyway, if they're that career oriented), working moms with kids under a certain age, etc. It also makes the jobs more attractive to somebody with semi-independent means, than they would be to people who have to work full-time for a living.
I wonder if this means that the voices of some citizens are not heard as clearly as they could be. I'm not saying they're not, I'm just wondering. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5142
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Cathy:
If the town can maintain the New England Town Meeting feel to the TC meetings (both general and special single topic meetings), accessibility of TC members and opportunities to become informed and participate at virtually every level of town government, then I am ok with limiting the actual seats on the TC to those who have the time and energy to serve as TC members.
If we were to consider making TC positions higher paying and more full-time, wouldn't that also restrict some people from serving, those with full-time jobs and careers that they would not want to give up just for the opportunity for serving in an elective office that might not extend beyond a single three year term?
There is the added reality in today's world that we are already facing extremely high taxes and some serious budget cutting considerations in both our towns this year. Do we really want to add the cost of full-time TC or BOT positions? |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 816
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Cathy
"the voices of some citizens are not heard as clearly as they could be"
Holy Inarticulation, I never thought of that!
Hey, some citizens are motivated and some aren't.
Some have thick skins, some don't.
Some are results oriented and some are just whiners/complainers.
Some are leaders, and some aren't.
Cathy, in brief, in this country, those people you are referring to , have the opportunity to participate in many different ways.
If they don't, I don't care that their voices aren't clearly heard. |
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 799
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Reflective, I think your response is a bit strong for something that I said I'm only mulling over. I don't find your answer compelling or convincing.
I find Joan's response much more thoughtful. I am particularly attuned to the tax aspect of it - making our TC posiitions fully-paid would add a lot of overhead to our township budget, which nobody wants. (I was thinking less practically than philosophically, but the practical stuff does matter of course. :-)
I also agree that if the TC members take their role as representatives of the community seriously (and I think they do) then it can (and does) work.
It does seem though that as a society, we are moving more & more back to a system where the wealthy are more likely to be in positions of power, and I wonder what impact that will have on us, long-term. Maybe none or limited, but I think it's something to think about anyway. |
eb1154
Citizen
Username: Eb1154
Post Number: 368
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
I read the article and the previous article on this matter and I don't believe these people are looking to make a "salary" from their positions. They simple want to help cover the costs of some of their expenses. They get invited to every event in town, and a lot of these events charge them to attend. So, someone who has a family and a moderate income may not be able to afford to attend all of these events without it hurting his family. Does that make them less of an elected official? I don't think so. They need to attend these events to stay in touch with the whole community and going to these events are a way of doing it.
Those of you who think that because someone has money they are less likely to be corrupt are fooling yourselves. It is the people with money who have contacts with the companies bidding for governmental work. It is always their friends who have the inside track and are getting the jobs, not the friends of some poor elected official.
Also, the one with money sometimes forgets that there are people struggling to get by, and the decisions made by him could destroy them. They may not make these decisions intentionally, but a lot of times they base the decision on their own life. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5151
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
EB:
The expenses associated with being a township official very likely led to the current salary being offered to local elected officials, which is really more of a stipend.
If a local official, regardless of their income status, is afraid to make certain decisions in the public interest because s/he is afraid of reprecussions from the public, then s/he likely should not be in that position in the first place. It takes courage as well as integrity to be a good servant of the people.
Not everyone, myself included, is cut out for elected local office.
|
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 800
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Joan, I think you misread something EB said - "Also, the one with money sometimes forgets that there are people struggling to get by, and the decisions made by him could destroy them".
I think "them" refers to people struggling to get by. This was my thinking on this as well - if you're not struggling yourself, you tend to forget what it's like to be struggling and therefore make decisions that unintentionally harm those who are.
I'm not at all decided on this issue, but I do see this side to it. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5157
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Cathy:
I read EB's post differently. Only EB can tell us what he really meant by the phrase you cite.
I think EB is concerned that some people with little independent means can become dependent upon others in the community to make their living. Lets say for instance that a local shopkeeper, whose customers are mostly from the town in which he lives and holds local office, were to make a decision while on the local government board which was highly unpopular. That person might be concerned that his/her customers would react by taking their business elsewhere, thereby putting him or her out of business. Persons with greater financial means would be less dependent on having to please everyone in order to survive.
These concerns aren't just financial. In a town such as ours with so few degrees of separation, there are many ways in which people can make life difficult for someone who makes public decisions which are unpopular with some or all of the constituency.
|
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 802
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
OK, well then I agree with what I thought EB said. I also agree with what you say, which is a disagreement with what you thought s/he said. Both are valid points, I think. You need to be able to stand up for what is right, whether you will be harmed or not.
But I also worry that if office holders are almost uniformly well-to-do that they may not totally understand what less well-off folks go through. |
eb1154
Citizen
Username: Eb1154
Post Number: 369
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Cathy read my post the way I meant it. Sorry Joan. Next time I will clarify it a little better. I was in a rush this morning, but I had to comment.
Joan I think about your "shopkeeper" comment all the time when I see everyone bashing Bill Calabrese in South Orange. I wonder if him being Village President and all the people being mad about the redevelopment plans hurts his pharmacy. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 819
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Cathy
after your post, I had a slightly different thought.
Running and being well to do, doesn't really compute in our local election. Candidates do have to have the time and commitment, they do have to "earn their bones" in one of the two political parties to be nominated. If they are nominated, the party will raise the funds or try to help them raise funds. Ok, one party, the minority party, doesn't have much in the way of funds.
But if the person wants to run, they can w/o many $, by walking, by being participatory in the months leading up to the election. Oh yes, it means understanding the election process.
A number of dems and yes, even republicans, who have run and been elected aren't what we would consider well-to-do. Except for David H, it seems.
This also applies to people running for the board of education.
Being elected is hard work, it doesn't require wealth, just commitment. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
You all have made some good points.
I think our local elected officials should be representative of our community. In the past they have included owners of local businesses, commuters and even moms with small kids. If they are willing to put in the time, kudos to them.
It has not been historically true that candidates had to "earn their bones" in one of the two local parties to be nominated. Very often both parties had to go out and recruit people to run and very often the candidates chosen were relative newcomers. Of the present members of the Maplewood TC who are all Democrats I think at least three of them had not been very active in the Democratic Party for a very long time. I believe it was two years ago that Ed May came on MOL and asked who the Republicans were going to run that year and as a result he became the candidate! |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
And Joan, you would probably make an excellent TC member! |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 449
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:16 pm: |
|
eb, on the shopkeeper point, by now I'm guessing that his positions/record probably are costing Calabrese some business. (I was never a customer, so didn't have business to move).
Note however, that the old gossip suggests that he may have used his position to help keep a new grocery story with pharmacy off of Third Street. I'm not enough of an old timer to know if that is true or not (it may well not be), but it suggests one of the problems of leaving government to those who have major business interests in the outcome.
I don't think that we need to give our town councils living wages...we don't ask them to make it a full time job. But I don't think that volunteer work with reimbursement of direct expenses is enough either. If I was on the BOT, I'm sure that it would cost me at least $1000 a year in increased donations to every local charity (what fundraiser could I skip???), in extra babysitting, and in takeout meals when time pressure hit. (eb made this point above)
Honestly, I think that we should pay just less than the amount that triggers state pension eligibility. (I also don't want anyone serving for years to build their pension eligibility, then getting a high paid patronage job for the last year in order to get a big state pension...Jersey has seen it before).
We've got to find a way to keep this sort of public service plausible for as broad a range of concerned citizens as possible, while limiting the ways that personal gain can distort the system. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5162
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
EB:
Thanks so much for the clarification. Bill is exactly who I was thinking of when I made my post.
Anon:
Thanks. Unfortunately, TC members need to be able to stay awake at TC meetings and I can seldom keep my eyes open much past 9 PM, thus the disqualification.  |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page