Shared Sacrifice: Where's the Leadership?

COMMENTARY BY LIONEL EMDE, RIPTIDE CORRESPONDENT
 
A recent Riptide posting of an Examiner column by Bruce Balshone contains the hilarious assertion that Pacifica City Council members "... are volunteers as the compensation afforded to councilmembers amounts to peanuts every month..."
 
Apparently Balshone didn't read my November 2009 Riptide column, which documented that three of our five City Council members take home $20,000+ per year, at least the second-highest pay rate in San Mateo County for city council members.
 
Maybe $20,000 is peanuts to Balshone and other apologists for this situation, but for many people this amount of money might make a huge difference.

Contrast our situation with that of San Carlos, struggling with a $3.5 million deficit in its current budget for 2010-11. Four out of five San Carlos City Council members have declined some or all of their taxpayer-funded stipend and health benefits. SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES STORY

San Carlos City Council members receive a stipend of $300 plus $700 in health care coverage. In Pacifica, the salary is $700 plus $920 in health care coverage, with the option of taking that benefit in taxable income (cash) if health care coverage is not needed.
 
Where exactly is the leadership—the shared sacrifice—in Pacifica?
   

Comments

[Lionel Emde]

"I thought the health benefit was paid in cash but was nontaxable."

Every six months, City Council members fill out a form as to how much of the benefit they will use to buy health insurance of whatever type. What they don't use from the $920 per month, they are paid as taxable income. The figures obtained from the City of Pacifica indicate that Lancelle, Digre, and Vreeland take the whole amount as taxable income, because they must have insurance already.

"Do we want sickly council members, really?"

Dan: Pacifica City Council members have had health care coverage since the 1980s. That's not the issue for me: If they need it, they should have it.
The issue is this de facto salary spike in the midst of asking city employees for cuts and givebacks, and asking citizens to accept cuts in services.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

I normally do not begrudge anyone their wages, whether it is pay or benefits. But at a time when our elected officials are demanding that their employees take drastic cuts in both pay and benefits, I too have to ask, "Where is the leadership?"

In many cases, here in Pacifica as well as at the state level, it seems to be: "You give up yours. I'm keeping mine."

[Cynthia Montanez]

Here's my take on it: If you have health care with your employer, say the federal government or building trade union, then you don't need the city-offered health care.

If you don't need the health care, then the cash in lieu of payment should be dropped as an option, to help our cash-strapped city. Any little bit helps.

[Lance]

Well, Mr. Underhill, how do you reconcile the fact that even council members who have coverage, or are covered by their partners' plan, get to dip into that well? Should they not donate that money to a fund to provide health care for another person not so fortunate? Or just stick it in their pocket?

[ian butler]

Some feel it would be best to stop paying the $920 cash to councilmembers who already have health insurance. In this time of tight budgets, I am inclined to agree.

[Dan Underhill]

Do we want sickly council members, really? Just because our nation is stupid on the subject of health care doesn't mean that Pacifica needs to follow suit.

[Kathy Jana]

That being said, the health benefit and cash barely pay for the amount of effort and intelligence required to do the job right. Given that we are in a country that does not provide health care to most people, it seems fine to let that stand ~~ until such time as we do have equitable health care for all.

[Kathy Jana]

It's not the cash but the health benefits that are the real compensation.

[Lance Fernork]

I thought the health benefit was paid in cash but was nontaxable. Depending on the council person's tax bracket, that could be the equivalent of $1,533 for a working stiff. That, plus the $700, and you have $2,233 in income. Almost $27,000 a year. If you go back and calculate how many meetings they miss, especially Mr. Vreeland and Mr. DeJarnatt, you have a tidy little gig going on for yourself.