Tribune Commentary Against Payraise

April 20, 1995

Chicago Tribune

Aldermanic Payraises Are Ill-Time

By Ald. Helen Shiller

The issue of pay raises for aldermen, the mayor, the city clerk and the city treasurer isn't whether these officials deserve a salary increase. It is, and always has been, the inappropriate method in which the Chicago City Council approaches a pay-raise proposal for itself and top-level city officials.

Under state law, the council cannot vote itself a pay raise while in office. However, the law does permit council members to vote on a pay raise for the next term. While most of us will remain on the council for the next term, I believe it's not fair to vote on a salary increase before the new council is sworn in.

Last week, Chicago's aldermen approved a 36 percent pay hike for themselves and a 48 percent raise for Mayor Daley. The increases, scheduled to begin May 1, will elevate aldermanic pay to $75,000 annually from $55,000. Daley's annual pay will rise to $170,000 from $115,000. The council also gave city Treasurer Miriam Santos and Clerk-elect James Laski 24 percent raises, increasing their salaries to $105,000 from $85,000.

I voted against the pay increases for five reasons:

- First, this City Council had numerous opportunities to act on a pay increase prior to the start of the next council. For example, we could have voted on salary hikes before the February primary election and the April general election. Unfortunately, the council chose not to do so.

- Second, some aldermen and citizens believe the council should have established a commission to review various pay-hike options, including a cost-of-living increase. I supported this recommendation.

- Third, the pay hikes have tacked an additional million-dollar

expense onto the city's annual budget. Ironically, the council approved pay increases for itself just as it enters into contract negotiations with other city employees. What kind of message does this send? Why aren't we willing to accept the annual cost-of-living increase that we ask other city employees to take? Instead, while we ask city employees to accept less, we approved enormous pay increases for ourselves.

And, why did we refuse to implement a reasonable timetable that would have allowed voters to be part of the debate?

- Fourth, the median income for Chicagoans is about one-third of what aldermen are scheduled to receive. This disparity is too great. As the cost of living in Chicago continues to soar, a majority of residents are losing ground in their struggle to maintain a decent standard of living. The council's action last week seems to ignore this problem.

- And lastly, I fear that the manner in which these pay increases was handled only adds to the growing disillusionment of the electorate about public officials. We have just experienced one of the lowest voter turnout in municipal elections in modern city history. Clearly, many people are losing faith in elected officials and consequently the public sector. I find this a dangerous trend. Adding fuel to this process will ultimately serve neither elected officials nor the general public.

Copyright © 1995 Chicago Tribune Company