Comments so far on this story:

1. La Playa Heritage wrote on April 15, 2008 3:36 PM:
"link The above link is the video for the Monday, April 14, 2008 City Council meeting. Item 2001 - 2008 Salary Setting Commission's Recommendation for Mayor and City Council Members. City Council comments start at 2 Hours and 37 Minutes with Ben Hueso saying that the City is like a private Fortune 600 corporation. Not a Fortune 500 but a Fortune 600. Ben Hueso looked on the internet and found that CEOs of Fortune 600 companies get paid 6 to 12 Million Dollars for running a company with revenue the same as the City of San Diego. Start time 2 Hours and 16 Minutes. End Time 3 Hours and 17 Minutes. If there is not enough money to keep regular library hours for children in Districts 4 and 8, there is_not enough money for pay raises. We know the Mayor_and City Council's priorities."

2. Easy Does It wrote on April 15, 2008 4:22 PM:
"Scott, what do you mean when you say the Sups at Ye Olde County make "easier" decisions than the Council? Yes, it's probably "easier" for those compassionless cheapskates to make the decisions they make (such as cutting healthcare to retirees, denying medical marijuana to sick people and refusing to fund fire servies) because well, simply put: no heart, no problem! But, that doesn't mean the decisions themselves are "easier" than council decisions. Please explain your rationale."

3. Hmm wrote on April 15, 2008 4:33 PM:
"Comparing council salaries to other salaries is intellectually dishonest. The impact of raising salaries for the councilman on the overall budget is tiny. The effect of a tiny raise for something like the police force is very large. To say that there is no money for raises for employees, but money for raises for 8 council people is perfectly consistent. If you believe that pay for council people affects the quality of the city council (which I don't necessarily) and thus city governance, imagine the massive bang for the buck you get from a few hundred thousand dollars more. What's the marginal impact from one extra hour of pool time, or 10 more police officers?"

4. One hour of pool time - One li wrote on April 15, 2008 6:19 PM:
"The "marginal impact of one extra hour of pool time" could well be the difference between a drowning death or injury. Pools are not just for fun. Check out the Center for Disease Control at - link The incidence of drowning for non-whites is up to three times the rate of whites and the quality of facilities and level of staffing for northren city pools is far higher. A good question is - How much is an hour of pool time? Is it the same for the pool in Carmel Valley - link as it is for the pool in Sherman Heights? link"

5. Christopher Hall wrote on April 15, 2008 10:12 PM:
"Ha! Ben Hueso compares himself and his cadre of council members to CEO's of Fortune 600 companies? Not in his lifetime! There is no way on earth Hueso or any other council members (except Donna Frye) are worth a penny over what they are paid now. Hueso couldn't get a VP job to save his life in a Fortune 100,000 company. // Now if we want to turn this whole issue inside out, we could offer new seats on the council at $250,000 salary, and with that, I bet you the voting public would think twice about who they elect for those political positions. In fact, I bet you that no amount of special interest money would ever buoy the candidates' campaigns enough to get them elected if the voting public considered how grave and consequential their choice actually was."

6. Christopher Hall wrote on April 15, 2008 10:23 PM:
"So let's raise the council members' salaries to $250,000 per year -- I bet you that not one of the current candidates would get more than one vote each -- and it would be their own cast ballot! Ha!"

7. Just Wondering wrote on April 16, 2008 6:24 AM:
"Scott can someone there at the VOSD clarify some details of this raise BEFORE the second reading at council. 1.)When Councilmember pension benefits were calculated in the past were the "car allowance payments" included at part of there highest one-year wages? 2.)The council is folding in the "allowance" into their wages so it will be calculated as pension payment for the rest of their lives, is this legal or a gift of public funds? What about regular city employees who receive mileage reimbursement, is this added to their highest one year wage? 3.) Will this new pay package allwo councilpersons to document their mileage and then get IRS rates for reimbursement in addition to 9600 bucks? If so, isn't this a double payment?"

8. Norman wrote on April 16, 2008 6:44 AM:
"Insanity! It's like an employee working for a company that can't pay their expenses doing their own performance review and granting a raise that can't be supported by the profits. Not to mention undeserving...do you know how many days there are no city council meetings and they get to rub elbows with special interests??? That said fine, let them have their raise but only if they are willing to receive NO indemnification from the city for their votes and actions. They must be required to purchase their own E&O insurance and start acting like an executive meaning their actions make them PERSONALLY liable. Make the big bucks then you have to accept the risks!"

9. Buffy wrote on April 16, 2008 7:13 AM:
"I don't understand what all this crying is about. It's not a 24% increase! They did away with the car allowance of almost $10,000 so this outcry is about an $8,000 raise! As "they" say....Do the math!"

10. Dawg wrote on April 16, 2008 7:50 AM:
"So the PD guys have been fighting with the city to get a raise that makes them close to equal with the other large cities. In fact several studies have been done (including one paid for by the city) showing the SDPD is way behind other cities.Sanders has even admitted the PD is way behind. But the PD guys are doing their jobs very well and keeping crime in check. Now the city council cites the same reason to need a raise. Yet no studies have been done only a basic salary check and they are crying foul. What have they done to deserve a raise? And to want to recoup the entire gap in one shot. This is uncalled for. As for the fortune 600 companies... the city is not for profit that is why you make as much as you do."

11. InTouch wrote on April 16, 2008 8:06 AM:
"Wow. They got power. And the 6th largest City is reduced to only having 4 auditors for millions of transactions; the City can't raise funds for a reasonable rate, yet they can give everyone raises. Will this trickle down to their staff? Best would be if they could afford to hire something other than 20-something party hacks to work in Council offices."

12. C. Mayo wrote on April 16, 2008 8:24 AM:
"There are only three council members who care about the city — let's support them, but not those who voted themselves the substantial raise during these difficult financial times. (And, on the same day we all have to pay our income tax.) Who will review the council to see if they have earned their keep? The Voters!"

13. Tom S. wrote on April 16, 2008 8:44 AM:
"Scott, what did you think a few years back when Congress raised the President's salary 100% in one year (from 200k to 400k?)"

14. sobayguy wrote on April 16, 2008 9:18 AM:
"Never mind that our streets are full of potholes, who cares if burned out street lights take more than one month to replace, so what if our parks need more care, big deal if our libraries stand to see positions eliminated and therefore the services they provide cut back, oh well if hours of operation in public swimming pools will be reduced ... How could you have voted in favor of such a large payraise? Do you in all honesty and in view of the financial situation the City is in believe this is right? As far as I am concerned the fact that according to Scott Peters the money for the payraises come out of the Council budget and therefore will not affect City programs (SD U/T 4/16) is hogwash (to say the least), where does Mr Peters think money for the Council budget come from? If there is"

15. Chattanooga-Choo-Choo wrote on April 16, 2008 11:21 AM:
"Ben Hueso comparing councilmembers to executives of Fortune 600 companies is intriguing, especially since the executives have a great deal of accountability to the Board of Directors or the Board to the shareholders. In Hueso's example, he and his colleagues have little or no accountability to the citizen shareholders of the City. Plus, if he's paying for his trips to the Coastal Commission and or the league of California Cities (which we don't believe), he can rectify that by asking his cohort, Jim Madaffer, for advice. Madaffer gets paid by the League and SANDAG and any other organization for which he makes appearances, while missing Council meetings. Just look at his Form 700s. He a wizard at capturing outside funding. In the interim Ben, stop whining. It's shameful."

16. Fed Up and Stunned wrote on April 16, 2008 11:27 AM:
"Is there such a thing as suicidal chutzpah? How else to describe City Council members Scott Peters, Tony Atkins, Ben Hueso, Tony Young and Jim Madaffer who yesterday recommended huge raises for themselves? I attended a City Council meeting two weeks ago and heard that legislative body set aside the re commendation of an "independent" salary-setting commission to raise Council paychecks. Silly me, I thought that meant Council would not entertain the notion of salary increases at this difficult fiscal and political moment in San Diego. But lo and behold, they came back and did the deed themselves yesterday, income tax day! Their rationales for doing so were all over the map -- the only one not used was that reading animal entrails dictated this outrageous and self-serving decision. In the June election, voters need to begin improving our atrocious city government."

17. Edgar wrote on April 16, 2008 11:45 AM:
"InTouch, SD is the eighth largest city in the US. It hasn't been the sixth for some time now. First, it slipped to seventh and just last year to eighth."

18. josil wrote on April 16, 2008 1:57 PM:
"For those mathematically inclined, I suggest a correlation of councilmember pay and city indebtedness. I'd guess the correlation would be both negative and statistically significant. Any takers?"

19. Just Wondering wrote on April 16, 2008 2:27 PM:
"Edgar, there is no doubt the city has slipped. From 6th to 8th by population count, thank for keeping the record straight. But in terms of name recognition, going from San Diego to "Enron by the Sea" sort of has a ring to it. Now our council members, the legislative executives actually responsible for this want a raise. To bad there terms end so soon, I'm beginning to believe San Diegans would be ready recalls if these four were not termed out! If the people of San Diego ever elect these individuals to another office, they only get more of the same incompetence."

20. Fed Up Redux wrote on April 16, 2008 5:48 PM:
"Actually, why DO you say in your headline that you think City Council should get a raise, Scott? If you're saying cost-of-living raise, okay. But these stupid, smug and out-of-touch people just called for an incredible personal pay raise of 24%! The city's in financial dire straits. Council repeatedly fails to represent the interests of the community. Where does Ben Hueso, from one of the city's neediest districts, get the notion that he is to be compensated like Big Business management -- where outrageously disproportionate high salaries are paid to CEO's. Who is feeding Council such grandiose ideas? Sadly, our Council consists of petty pols, looking to their next gigs.The citizenry has lost respect for them and their work and cannot wait to replace them. For starters, adios Scott Peters, Jim Madaffer and Tony Atkins for this disgraceful vote."

21. Jennifer wrote on April 17, 2008 7:48 AM:
"How will they vote? Though it has been recently shot down in the public and now the Mayor may veto it, the issue of increasing the pay 24% for Council and Mayor will undoubtedly come up again. Perhaps those who are running for seats (Council and Mayor) may be asked the question: " How will you vote on pay increases in the future?" What will be your criteria be to justify your own pay raise? Their answers would be most enlightening."

22. Jeff wrote on April 18, 2008 2:10 PM:
"Can someone please explain to me why this pay raise is such a big deal? Anyone that knows the City Council members sees them at events at all hours. They are some of the only individuals that people feel perfectly comfortable harassing. Let’s keep the elected official salaries as low as possible so we can attract millionaires who think a City is a business and have no frame of reference for most working folks or people with such a poor skill set they can’t get better white collar jobs. (Note sarcasm) Another great benefit of keeping their salaries low will be their susceptibility to being influenced by inappropriate pressures. Get a clue San Diego. You pay less tax than most major cities and you still want full service."

23. Clown wrote on May 5, 2008 1:43 PM:
"The Council should vote for a big increase for the next council. We should then reduce the number of "Council Representatives" AKA free campaign workers from ten to two. They need a scheduler and a highly paid analyst or attorney. Give them a small budget for Interns to learn about government. Good policy would be to create an incentive to get some talent in that office. Bump up the pay for candidates running in 2010."