Help wanted: chief executive to run large 374-year-old organization. Oversee 6,700 employees and a $530 million budget. Responsibilities include public safety, economic development and public education. Fundraising ability essential; a thick skin a plus. Benefits package includes health insurance, pension and a prime downtown parking spot. Salary: $95,000.
For some, becoming mayor of Springfield is a lifelong dream; as recent campaigns have shown, candidates are even willing to spend more to run for the office than they would earn in a year on the job. For others, there's not enough money in the world to induce them to take on the endless headaches and political sniping that come with the post.
But is there a middle ground, a pool of potential candidates who'd be willing to take the job if the salary were a little—or a lot—higher? Would they run if the salary were $120,000, $150,000, $200,000?
City Councilor Tim Rooke hopes so—so much that he's taken hold of a particularly explosive political hand grenade. At last week's Council meeting, Rooke introduced the idea of raising the mayor's salary. The Council voted to send it to committee for further study.
The idea of raising the mayor's salary is the second step in a two-part process proposed by the Chamber of Commerce's governance committee (of which Rooke is a member) to make the mayor's job more appealing to a stronger field of candidates. Step one was to extend the mayoral term from two years to four, which proponents argued would relieve the mayor of the continual campaigning for a two-year term and allow him or her to focus on long-term planning. Voters overwhelmingly agreed, with 70 percent approving the extension on last November's ballot.
The salary increase, however, looks to be another story.
*
At its most basic, resistance to a mayoral raise springs from the division between the haves and have-nots in the city. The median household income in Springfield in 2008 was $36,652—almost $29,000 below the statewide median. Twenty-seven percent of the city's residents live below the poverty line. In December, the unemployment rate in the Springfield metropolitan area was 9.7 percent.
The notion of a mayoral raise was roundly criticized in the readers' comment section following a Springfield Republican article about the proposal posted on MassLive.com. Some accused Rooke of trying to boost the salary in advance of his own run for the seat (he says he's got no interest in the job). Critics of incumbent mayor Domenic Sarno objected that he doesn't deserve a raise (in fact, he wouldn't necessarily get one; the proposed raise would go into effect after the 2011 election). A number of readers expressed a more generalized antipathy to politicians in general, contending that none of them are worth the money they're already earning.
What inspired Rooke to take on this battle? Quite simply, he said, he hopes that if the mayor's salary is more competitive with what's being paid in the private sector, the city's "best and brightest" will consider the job. While $95,000 might look good to the vast majority of residents, for top executives, lawyers and others who've been successful in the business world, it would be a step down in salary, he noted.
Rooke—who's been a fierce critic of Sarno—contends that a higher salary could pay for itself if it attracts a strong leader who can run a tight budget, inspire economic development and help keep residents in the city by keeping taxes down and improving the schools. He points to the tenure of the Finance Control Board as an example of the benefits of having professional managers, not professional politicians, run the city. In fact, Rooke likes the idea of replacing the mayor with a city manager, although he sees little public support for that change.
*
Indeed, it looks as if Rooke will have a hard enough time getting a mayoral raise through, based on the comments of some of his colleagues.
Council President Jose Tosado—who's rumored to be considering a 2011 run for mayor—told the Advocate a pay raise makes sense given the size and scope of the job. "However, now is not the time," he said. "With the medium salary range of residents dropping to mid-30s, high unemployment, a high rate of foreclosures and increases in taxes and fees, I believe it would be irresponsible to raise the mayor's salary.
"Further, the city just hired a business professional to be in charge of its finances at a six-figure salary," he added. "[T]hat was a good move, but to increase the mayor's salary on top of that would send the wrong message and be an insult to our citizens."
"Is now the best time to talk about a salary increase, when unemployment is so high and unemployment benefits are running out?" Rooke said. "Absolutely not. I didn't bring it up to be insensitive."
But, he added, the city's ongoing struggles make it all the more important to put its future in the best hands possible.
"There's never a good time to discuss a salary increase, particularly for a public servant," Rooke said. "This is part of the problem with Springfield politics—everybody wants to be liked, and nobody wants to lead."
