Regarding a smaller City Council, and the bigger problem

As the City’s Charter Review Commission revamps the structure of City government, it will soon be considering whether or not to adjust the size of the Pensacola City Council.  There are those that have suggested that ten Council members is simply too many for a city of Pensacola’s size.

Progressive Pensacola opposes reducing the number of seats on Council.  More seats equals more representation.  When members of Council have fewer constituents, it allows them to better represent and serve those constituents and their neighbourhoods.

However, whether or not they choose to shrink the City Council, we encourage the Commission to address a more fundamental problem:  the “part-time” status and pay of Council members.  As we have said before, this is a fundamental flaw in Pensacola’s council system, one that benefits incumbents and cripples progress.

The Bigger Problem

Currently, sitting on Council is viewed as a “part-time” job, and those on Council are accordingly paid a meager, “part-time” salary of $13,998.  The job, though, is not a part-time gig, and shouldn’t be.  Council members have to digest pages and pages of information on the various issues before the Council, handle communications and requests from constituents, and attend various meetings and functions, all of which requires more time and attention than I would expect anyone to give to a “part-time” job.  This isn’t a bar we’re running; it’s our City government, and it should be the top priority of the folks that run it — not some part-time concern.

Because of the low salary, only those who can afford to work a full-time job on a part-time salary are able to serve on Council.  The working class is forced out.  You can see this in the makeup of the current Council: all are retired, self-employed, or independently wealthy, with the exception of two, who make it work because their government employment excuses them for Council meetings, etc.  The average age of the current Council is 61.  This system has a laundry list of negative side effects: it limits diversity in perspective, causes the working class to be underrepresented, and benefits incumbents, which contributes to an inability to move forward, such as we have seen over the last 10-15 years.

The Fix

The solution, here, in my opinion, is simple. Let’s abandon the myth that being a Council member is a part-time job, and raise the annual salary for Council members to something a person can live on. Nothing exorbitant — something comparable to other area boards like ECUA or school board — around $35,000/year. If we so increased the salaries of the nine Council members (excluding the Mayor, who would conceivably earn more money with more responsibility under the strong mayor system), it would cost the City about $190K/year, which I think is a very small price to pay to open the system up to a wider base of participation. Participation in local government shouldn’t be relegated to those who can afford it.