Why has the public not heard anything from the city manager or council on the subject of these layoffs? A number of residents got up at the council meeting on March 2 and expressed concerns about the process and asked for answers. Why no response on what cuts the manager or staff are willing to take? Could someone please tell us when the city is planning on addressing these comments and questions? Since we can’t have a give and take discussion during council meetings, will a public forum be offered? I expect more from our leaders. We deserve answers!

Mr. Albert DiMillo has pursued the issue of taxpayers providing free health insurance to city councilors (following up on Dan Mooers question to council candidates about the practice prior to the last election).

Since councilors some years ago wrote themselves a check from the taxpayers’ checkbook (reported to be a council order) with a provision to automatically debit that checkbook each year to pay the premiums for their health coverage, this November of 2009 might be a fitting occasion to let the taxpayers decide whether they are willing to continue on indefinitely providing this benefit in addition to the $3000 per councilor stipend.

Anyone willing to step up and secure the papers from city hall in South Portland can count upon me to help get the 900+/- signatures that I have read would be required to put the issue on the ballot. ANY TAKERS?

Councilors put in a lot of hours, and no doubt when the health insurance was first paid for by the taxpayers it wasn’t a large amount.  But in this budget year, we know there will be cuts.  I hope the Council will do everything possible to avoid job cuts—freeze on employer retirement match, shorter work week, pay freeze, furlough days—all these things are better than more people unemployed, which deepens the local recession.  The Councilors need to step up to the plate, be leaders and take their own cut for the benefit of the city and the residents.  That $70,000 could save a job or 2, and that’s a far better use for the money.  They’d still be eligible to be in the City’s health insurance pool, they’d just pay the premiums themselves.

David:
I have to tell you that I do not believe that providing health insurance to City Councilors has anything to do with the quality of the people who run for office, or that not providing health insurance will result only in “wealthy” people running for the Council.
Neither Cape Elizabeth nor Scarborough provides health insurance to members of their Councils (nor compensation of any type) and I do not think you will find either of those Councils dominated by wealthy individuals.
I do believe, frankly, that providing free health insurance to Councilors does encourage incumbent Councilors to run for re-elect, and, when termed-out, to select election back to the Council.
You have noted, I am sure, that the poll accompanying this discussion shows that 94% of the respondents oppose providing free insurance to South Portland City Councilors. Perhaps this issue, which arose after Jim’s misstatement, will “blow over” and one has to think it will continue to jump from time to time.

To answer your question, Dan, yes, I agree that for transparency, health insurance should be included in the “order” granting compensation. However, since rates continuously rise, it would be impossible to place a dollar figure on this within the “order.” I also concur with another post that Councilors alone should be eligible for full coverage; any additional family members should pay full price.

To respond to Who Cares’ comment “should we pay someone roughly $14,000 dollars worth of life insurance when there are people who are just as qualified to take the position who would donate that $14,000 dollars back to the budget”: your comments are the exact reason why I posted my statement on this issue. If we wish to have only the wealthy serve as our leaders, then we will soon wind up like Washington where privilege equals power. If we wish to have a Council that is made up of a healthy cross section of residents, those who represent us rather than special interests or big business, then we MUST allow them some compensation…not to make them rich, but to ensure that they can afford to put in the time and attention required. Personally, I would rather my taxes go towards paying someone who understands the needs of residents (particularly during an economic depression) vs. not paying anything and only allowing those able to buy a Council seat an opportunity to serve.

To David Jacobs:
I’m sorry that you had to give up precious hours of your life to serve on the City Council, but I know a lot of Mainers who have no choice but to spend an additional 20 to 30 hours a week working. Not because they get to decide how the town spends the money we give them, but because minimum wage doesn’t pay the rent and take care of their family so they need to work two jobs. So now that we as Americans are entering an economic depression should we pay someone roughly $14,000 dollars worth of life insurance when there are people who are just as qualified to take the position who would donate that $14,000 dollars back to the budget. What amazing decisions did you make that were worth $14,000 dollars over the next person’s vote? Most of the public meetings I’ve seen had the council members voting half the time on whether to accept a donation! Why would you ever not accept a donation? Of course, its a good thing they care so much about whether people should have dogs on Willard beach. I love walking my dog so much on Willard Beach that I vote based on only that issue alone and not on the issue of how my tax dollars are being spent! Are you serious people? I think we all should take more personal responsibility in our government and maybe view public service as a privilege and not a chore.

Dan and sopo_westend,  You both have good points the only thing I would differ on is the $3000 a year.  It should not be any more than that.  This is a true public service position and if we start to offer too much we will end up like big city’s and have career politicization.  Not good for anyone.
The last thing that should happen is for any board to vote themselves a raise.

Agreed, and it should go to the voters to decide.  Lest they forget, the councilors work for us, not the other way around.  If they want a certain level of compensation and benefits, they need to make a case for it and let us decide if it’s what we want to spend OUR money on.

Times like this I really miss the town meeting style of government.

David:
As you may know, why I appeared at the Candidates’ Forum before the last election and asked Jim Hughes if it was really true, as he had stated on this blog, that he paid fully for any health insurance he received from the City of SP, I pointed out that it was a matter of transparency. I suggested that the Charter should be amended to reflect the reality of today. Of course $3,000 is not enough compensation for a member of the council today. But the Council should not hide, under a 1971 “Order”, another $80,000 of compensation for fully paid health insurance. If providing health insurance as part of the Council’s compensation package, the Council should propose an amendment to the City Charter and put a line item in the budget.
Do you agree?
Dan Mooers

Before talk of wasting taxpayer money gets out of hand, I’d like to offer my prospective after having served on the City Council.
The US Congress is mostly made up of millionaires or the very wealthy simply because the amount of time and effort required makes it difficult for the average citizen to afford taking on this role.
Every year in Maine, we hear of good public servants in our State Senate or House who choose not to run for re-election for this very reason. The small stipend provided is not enough to support them, yet the time and effort required makes it very difficult to hold a job that makes up the difference.
At the local level, certainly the public service demands are less than on the National and State levels, however, any Councilor will tell you that their role requires much more attention than in times passed. We now live in a world of instant gratification where cell phones are on hand at all times and emails fly fast and furious.
To be a public servant today, one is always “on duty.”  Because of this, I found it very difficult during my tenure on the Council to balance the job that I was elected to perform and the fact that I had to earn a living. Additionally, any free time I had meant choosing between attending a meeting/workshop/conference/neighborhood event/etc. or spending time with friends or family. In fact, I am often reminded by my loved ones of the year that I missed my own surprise birthday party because a city meeting was rescheduled for the same night.
Most often, it was the needs of the public that I choose (and the positive constituent feedback I have received tells me that it was appreciated). However, I must admit whether I could afford to serve another term was one of the considerations for me when deciding not to run again. This is an issue that has been raised by other Councilors as well and will continue to be a concern for many.
Does one serve for the money? Of course not. Does one serve just to get health insurance? Well, we have heard talk of this, but certainly there are far easier jobs to obtain in order to have insurance. Does the Council deserve more than the $3,000 annual salary that was designated over 20 years ago without any “cost of living” allowance? My experience tells me that “yes” is the only rational answer…they earn every penny.
Which is why, even though I continue to keep a watchful eye on where our money goes, I will continue to support including health insurance with the small annual stipend that Councilors earn. If we do not designate an amount that tells our public servants that we appreciate the hard work they do, then we run the risk of only getting candidates who are wealthy and don’t understand the needs of the average citizen. The end result will be what we have in Washington now—the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
If residents don’t feel they are getting their money’s worth from a particular Councilor, then let’s elect someone better. We shouldn’t be talking about taking anything away from those who are earning every penny.

Sincerely,
David Jacobs