Tulsa Councilor pay

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I'm for the raise.  According to the Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070307_1_A9_Counc11725) counselor pay was last adjusted in 2001.  Prior to that, it was last adjusted in 1991.

From 1991 to 2001, their pay was adjusted at the same percentage rate of city employees (it went up 38%).  To be fair, I would agree with a raise that is the same percentage other city employees got since 2001.

And to be even more fair - lets compare their pay to the same cities Tulsa officials like to use for the rest of their employees when looking at salaries.  And remember, no matter what Jack Henderson says, these are considered part time positions.

Not according to the spreadsheet provided to the Tulsa World by the city that states the pay, job  title, and job category.

City Council CITY COUNCILOR $18,000.00
Active/Full time

Just the facts, there, Joe Friday. I hope you aren't a detective on the force.

[Breadburner]

It was not that long ago it went from 12 to 18 Thousand....

[grahambino]

im curious to know if mr henderson supports a minimum wage increase.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

It's incorrect to call and/or consider this a 'part-time' position any more than it would be to consider County Commissioners part time.When Tulsa had a commission form of government, those positions were elected and considered full time, just as the county commissions' positions.  When Tulsa voted to change the form of government to a councilor form of government, the positions changed to part time, and have been considered part time ever since.

There's nothing in the charter that says these are part-time positions.  That's just an assumption people make -- based in part on the low pay, I suspect.

Doesn't the current low pay limit the job to the wealthy, retirees, or the self employed?  It would be very hard to do this job effectively and hold another full-time job, especially if you don't have very flexible hours and a very understanding boss.

I don't think $18k a year allows for a very high standard of living -- not one that most well qualified people, who actually have a choice, would choose.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

It's incorrect to call and/or consider this a 'part-time' position any more than it would be to consider County Commissioners part time.When Tulsa had a commission form of government, those positions were elected and considered full time, just as the county commissions' positions.  When Tulsa voted to change the form of government to a councilor form of government, the positions changed to part time, and have been considered part time ever since.

There's nothing in the charter that says these are part-time positions.  That's just an assumption people make -- based in part on the low pay, I suspect.

Doesn't the current low pay limit the job to the wealthy, retirees, or the self employed?  It would be very hard to do this job effectively and hold another full-time job, especially if you don't have very flexible hours and a very understanding boss.

I don't think $18k a year allows for a very high standard of living -- not one that most well qualified people, who actually have a choice, would choose.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Wrinkle]

Ain't it funny how a poster can go from "Citizen" to "Activist" in one posting.

I'll take this opportunity to call out whomever felt compelled.

[RecycleMichael]

I suggest that the councilor gets paid...

What a state legislator makes...
       or
What the average city employee makes...
       or
One third of what the Mayor makes...

Each of these would double their pay.

[Wilbur]

Not according to the spreadsheet provided to the  Tulsa World by the city that states the pay, job title, and job category.

While an excellent point, it's still not correct.  Even all nine counselors will tell you their positions are considered part time.  What my be driving the spreadsheet, and I'll admit I'm speculating, these 'part time' employees are eligible to receive full time benefits, if they so choose.

Similar to our state legislature.  They are considered part time, but I'm confident they are able to collect full time benefits, and there is probably a spreadsheet someplace at the capital that lists them as full time, as well.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Not according to the spreadsheet provided to the  Tulsa World by the city that states the pay, job title, and job category.

While an excellent point, it's still not correct.  Even all nine counselors will tell you their positions are considered part time.  What my be driving the spreadsheet, and I'll admit I'm speculating, these 'part time' employees are eligible to receive full time benefits, if they so choose.

Similar to our state legislature.  They are considered part time, but I'm confident they are able to collect full time benefits, and there is probably a spreadsheet someplace at the capital that lists them as full time, as well.

The last time I read that much spin I was reading the police sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.

[Wilbur]

The last time I read that much spin I was reading the police sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.

I hate to say publicly I agree with the Tulsa World (or should I say the Tulsa World agrees with me), but in their editorial today, they say the "part time" council is what voters approved in 1989.  Any change to full time councilors would require a vote of the people.  (I haven't figured out the Tulsa Worlds' new website yet.  They make it impossible to link to the most current articles/editorials.  Maybe another topic of discussion).

And think about this - Many say they are underpaid at $18,000 and should be considered full time, with many suggesting a 100% pay increase.  Are we then going to say at $40,000 they are underpaid as full time employees?  When will it stop?

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

The last time I read that much spin I was reading the police sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.

I hate to say publicly I agree with the Tulsa World (or should I say the Tulsa World agrees with me), but in their editorial today, they say the "part time" council is what voters approved in 1989.  Any change to full time councilors would require a vote of the people.  (I haven't figured out the Tulsa Worlds' new website yet.  They make it impossible to link to the most current articles/editorials.  Maybe another topic of discussion).

And think about this - Many say they are underpaid at $18,000 and should be considered full time, with many suggesting a 100% pay increase.  Are we then going to say at $40,000 they are underpaid as full time employees?  When will it stop?

Would you (or the World editorial board, for that matter) care to point to the provision in the charter that says that City Councilor is a part-time position?

The World has made no secret of its attempts to dilute the authority of the representative Council (most recently through a proposal for at-large Councilors), but here's what I read:

SECTION 1. CREATION AND FUNCTIONS. All legislative powers of the City of Tulsa, except for the rights of initiative and referendum reserved to the people of the City of Tulsa by Article XVIII, Section 4, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be vested in and exercised by a Council composed of nine (9) Councilors elected by districts as provided in Article VI of this amended Charter. The Council shall exercise such other powers delegated to the Council by this amended Charter or delegated to the legislative body of a municipality by the Constitution or the laws of Oklahoma.

[Wilbur]

Would you (or the World editorial board, for that matter) care to point to the provision in the charter that says that City Councilor is a part-time position?

Right about the same time someone points out the provision in the charter that says it's a full time position.

[cannon_fodder]

The pay was well known before anyone ran for office.  There was still no shortage of qualified people running.

Until someone steps up and says "these are the best we get unless we raise their pay" then take a hike.

[shadows]

Article ll Section 3.1 of the amended charter pf 1989.

..................that the council shall hold not less than two(2) regular meeting each month at the City Hall.    This would indicated that the council would be only a part time position.   Not withstanding that there may be full time employees of the City that do not show up but twice a month.

Under what rock was those posting hidden when the input on amending the charter was being requested at the public meetings around the city?

The Idea of part time council was a strong mayor with a council made up of citizens throughout the districts who would set in judgment of the action of the strong mayor.

The $12,000 salary was set to discourage professional politicians  making it a full time job to control the city.

[Conan71]

What a surprisingly lucid point, Shadows.  You do have your moments.