So there's talk of a pay raise.

[WNYresident]

So ain't that ironic. A idea of a pay raise less than a few weeks after elections. Sooner they get it voted in the longer they get to collect it till the next election.

Currently with the economic status of WNY would a payraise seem like a slap in the face?

So who here thinks they should or shouldn't get a raise?

[Curmudgeon]

Mixed emotions here. My heart says no because everything is so screwed up. But there's a lot of really smart people who don't even consider running for office. Perhaps if we paid them a LOT more, smart people would want the job and push out the current dummies. And have elections every 2 years instead of 4 so we could have more opportunity to fire them if they suck. At the current pay rates for politicians, I wouldn't run. The job sucks and I can do as well or better elsewhere.

And besides, I don't think I would last 3 months. With my point of view, I'm sure I'd be whacked and found in a dumpster somewhere with Citymice gnawing on my body! :D

[dtwarren]

I think a fair compromise is to change the law so any pay increase for elected officials will take effect after the current term of office.

[Curmudgeon]

I forgot to put that in. Absolutely. And - do it a couple of years before the next election so that people who consider running can plan ahead and get their lives in order. Also, change the damned NYS laws that prevent people from getting on the ballot!

[citymouse]

First off, You maybe right about the dumpster. If you had your way all of us public service union guys would be reduced to finding our meals in a dumpster after our food stamps ran out. But even with the low wages you envision for us I don't think I would ever be hungry enough to find you too tasty.
As far as public officials and thier pay are concerned; I think they ought to lower thier pay. It seems the more they make the more arrogant they get. They call it public service for a reason. Your there to serve the public. If you are there to make money than you are in the wrong place.
The whole idea in a representative type of goverment that we have is for regular people to serve to make it better and keep it fair. A citizen-leader.elected by the people to advance thier views and agenda. Serve for a while then get back to his own normal life. We now have a bunch of career politicians who, once they are elected, think they are in some type of privaliged class, kind of like in Britian. They use thier office to dispence favors in the form of jobs for thier supporters and friends and lucrative public contracts for thier financial contributers.
If you pay them more you will never get rid of them. Why do you think they are all against term limits?

[WNYresident]

So one goal we should list is term limits... and to cut thier pay. I dont see why a mayor or who ever should make what they do. Most politcians couldn't survive in the real world.

[citymouse]

Term limit is a term you should not use around a politician. They break out in a cold sweat and then turn on you and threaten to wash yoiur mouth out with soap.
How can you get passed them when the guy's most against them are the same ones that have to approve them.

[Curmudgeon]

Let me ask this: What if we drop their pay to -say- $23,000 a year? Who would want that job? You'd get people who couldn't hold a McDonalds assistant managers job determining how hundreds of millions of $ of your tax dollars are spent. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
I'd rather pay some guy $120,000 with an MBA and a track record of effective private sector business management. Even then, that might not be enough. Perhaps we should offer a *small* base salary and lots of incentives like...
* a balanced budget bonus.
* a positive property value growth bonus.
* a reduced unemployment bonus.
...so that they make a lot of money if they can reach our goals.
Set what we want to see in our local government as goals that earn bonuses.
The sports teams do it with their coaches and players - why can't we?
And, give these guys the freedom to MANAGE. Don't shackle em with piles of special interest regulations. Let them do their job. And if they suck, don't pay them and fire them. Simple.

[citymouse]

I would rather see a city manager who has no political agenda. Maybe if the control board wasn't a sham they could bring one in. Then the mayor could just cut ribbons and we could cut his salary. The structure we have now does not work. I don't think the money is the important thing to these guys. The power and prestige they think goes with the title is what turns them on. No bonus you could give them could equal the perks from private companies that they get, and they get them.
I do know for a fact that when the citys labor relation guys negotiate a deal even if it is a win win for both sides. They have often suddenly come back and taken every thing off the table for no reason. Not because of any financial reason. But because the mayor and his closest henchmen and women don't want anybody negotiating any thing with out there approval at each step. Even if the city would make out on the deal. Shortsightdness thatoften hurt the tax payer just because they have to show who is in control. Thats way he's on about his fifth labor relations guy in ten years. The burn out quickley because thier hands are tied.

[WNYresident]

Term limit is a term you should not use around a politician.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS Term LIMITS


I say it again if you'd like.

[WNYresident]

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Let me ask this: What if we drop their pay to -say- $23,000 a year? Who would want that job? You'd get people who couldn't hold a McDonalds assistant managers job determining how hundreds of millions of $ of your tax dollars are spent. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
I'd rather pay some guy $120,000 with an MBA and a track record of effective private sector business management. Even then, that might not be enough. Perhaps we should offer a *small* base salary and lots of incentives like...
* a balanced budget bonus.
* a positive property value growth bonus.
* a reduced unemployment bonus.
...so that they make a lot of money if they can reach our goals.
Set what we want to see in our local government as goals that earn bonuses.
The sports teams do it with their coaches and players - why can't we?
And, give these guys the freedom to MANAGE. Don't shackle em with piles of special interest regulations. Let them do their job. And if they suck, don't pay them and fire them. Simple.


I could agree with this.. You add accountability into the mix.

[Curmudgeon]

...and that's WNYs biggest problem - elaborate systems designed to shield people from accountability. That includes byzantine regulations to get someone on the ballot, overreaching tort laws, and crippling collective bargianing laws. All of these are designed to evade accountability. And we all pay.

[WNYresident]

Without accountability our local elected officials include state elected officials will never strive for the best of WNY.

The moment I heard pay raise a light bulb went off. They just don't get it.

[citymouse]

How can you guys say there is no accountability? Two months ago when the city lost seven million dollars in HUD money because the mayor used it to create political jobs instead of what is what it was intended for, even though he was repeatdley warned by the federal representative (and former mayoral advisor Steve Banko) The mayor came out in the news and said "this is inexcusable, someone will answer for this"


He just hasn't said who yet.

[WNYresident]

I bet he never will.