|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Dublin City Council deadlocked June 2 on a proposed ordinance that would have increased monthly pay for council members and reduced the mayor’s compensation.
The ordinance would have changed sections of the Dublin Municipal Code which sets the pay for the mayor and council members. The proposal sought to increase council members’ monthly salary from $1,600 to $1,730.56 while decreasing the mayor’s monthly pay down from $2,400 to $2,130.56.
The mayor currently receives the council member salary plus an additional $800 per month, the ordinance would have brought the additional salary down to $400.
The motion to introduce the ordinance failed 2-2, with Council member Michael McCorriston and Vice Mayor Jean Josey voting in favor while Mayor Sherry Hu and Council member John Morada dissented. Council member Kashef Qaadri was absent.
The proposal was met with differing views across the board during the June 2 meeting.
Janani Krishna, Dublin resident and business owner, stated how she supports the increase in salary for council members, in consideration of the time and preparation required for their position. But she also questioned why the mayor’s additional stipend would be reduced, saying the mayor often serves as a face of the city and holds important obligations.
Morada criticized the ordinance, saying the issue was not only about the fiscal impact but what the decision would represent to the community.
“Allowing something is not necessarily the same as requiring it,” Morada said, referring to state law that permits salary increase at certain intervals. “The question for us tonight is not what we can do, it’s what we should do.”
Morada said every dollar allocated toward salaries was a dollar that could otherwise support public safety, infrastructure or city services, which sends a message on whether the role is about compensation or commitment.
He also suggested the city could consider reserving some of the funds toward the implementation of Senate Bill 42 if the legislation passes. The bill could provide financial assistance for people who want to run for office but may not have the means to do so, expanding democratic participation.
Josey later responded to Morada’s comments about Senate Bill 42, clarifying that the bill concerns campaign finance, not compensation after someone is elected.
Hu opposed the proposal’s decrease of the mayor salary, arguing that if council members justified an increase based on inflation, time and personal expenses, the same reasoning should be applied to the mayor. Hu mentioned the mayor has additional responsibilities, including attending more community events, responding to more resident requests and representing the city more frequently.
Hu recommended keeping the current compensation structure in place, saying it would show a commitment to public service and set an example for the community.
Josey pushed back in support of the ordinance, saying the pay increase could help make elected office more accessible to people with different financial circumstances. She mentioned how residents typically do not run for office for the paycheck, but they also should not lose money because they have to take time off from hourly jobs to fulfill council duties.
“I will argue all day, every day that we should raise the compensation of council to the maximum allowed by law every time we are allowed to do so, because we want to ensure a diversity of voices on this council,” Josey said.
McCorriston said he agreed with some of Morada’s concerns but also saw a need to account for cost-of-living increases. He said the council was “going in circles” during their discussion and should focus on larger issues such as public safety, ultimately voting to introduce the ordinance.
After the ordinance failed to advance with a split vote, the council considered two follow-up motions. One motion would have brought the item back to the June 16 council meeting when Qaadri could be present. Another motion, proposed by Hu, would have delayed the item until after this fall’s general election. Both motions failed 2-2.
With no majority agreement, the council moved on without advancing the ordinance. It is currently unclear when or whether the council will revisit the proposal.
