The compensation ordinance that will apply to our next city clerk has NOT received final approval. So there is no, or at least not yet, a “hefty raise” for the clerk as claimed by the newspaper today. It was only first reading. They only reveal this fact in the final sentence of the article.
The issue is scheduled to come back before the City Council for final consideration Oct. 24.
Until then, all compensation numbers are placeholders, and a lot could conceivably happen between now and then.
The mayor’s compensation is $22,500 and is not expected to change. The clerk’s compensation is $5,000. The proposed rise in compensation for the clerk is only up to $8,000.
What SHOULD happen is that council members, at the very least, take a look at how the office of the mayor and the office of the city clerk are the same. The mayor’s position is an elected, citywide, officially part-time position with statutory powers. The city clerk is an elected, citywide, officially part-time position with statutory powers. They have to get the same number of signatures to get on the ballot. They go to the same meetings and they sign the same documents.
So why is the mayor being compensated more? It’s pretty simple: nobody has an interest in preventing a mayoral election, but now that non-elected city administrators have gained control over use of the city seal and the deputy clerk, they don’t want to give the powers back up to an independently-elected clerk.
The best way to do that is to make sure a clerk doesn’t get elected.
Now both council and the Chronicle have become complicit in interfering with an election. Brilliant. The array is complete.
If you really want to go deep, hit the “city clerk” or “city clerk restoration” tags for more.