Pay increases will make holding public office more attainable for many in Rochester
The Rochester City Council’s action to tie the compensation of its members and the mayor to a percentage of the area median income was a selfless and aspirational step for the future of this city. The reactions I’ve seen since the decision have failed to grasp the motivation behind this action.
The council members didn’t just vote to increase their pay and the pay of the mayor. They voted to change the nature of those elected positions. They voted to change the balance of those challenging and demanding roles in a way that makes them more accessible to a greater variety of people.
If Rochester truly aspires to have a representative local government, its leaders must reflect the experiences and values of the people they serve. Significant barriers to that representation on the city council have been the compensation afforded to the position and the commitment of time that falls on business hours, nights and weekends.
The challenges of time and compensation are likely a reason why city council representation has been and continues to be made up of people who are: retired; self-employed; employed in atypical or flexible work schedules; or people in senior or long-tenured positions who have flexibility within a typical work schedule. While people from these experiences and perspectives are valuable, they do not represent the full range of perspectives of Rochester’s residents.
To put it bluntly, Rochester City Council membership is not realistic for a huge number of this city’s residents. There is undeniable privilege in the financial security and current and future job prospects required to even consider this role. The commitment of time is in direct conflict with typical working hours, family responsibilities and personal time for most people; and the prospect leaving a job, reducing hours or giving up other responsibilities to pursue city council service is, for most people, simply out of the question.
This is the heart of the council’s action to tie its compensation to area median income. As the city and the job market change, so too will compensation for city representatives. For more people who are interested in city service, the balance will shift — serving as an elected member of city government will be attainable and even attractive.
There is no shortage of interested, passionate people who will leap at this new opportunity. Outside of the city council, there are many people currently serving on volunteer boards and commissions who represent a more diverse set of experiences. While these volunteer boards and commissions often meet over lunch or evening hours to accommodate members’ schedules, perhaps this change in compensation will encourage one or a few of them to pursue an elected seat with a greater commitment of time and responsibility. There will be four council seats up for election in 2020.
As constituents of an elected government, we absolutely do have the responsibility to question and criticize the actions of our elected officials, especially when those actions can result in personal benefit to the decision makers. In this case, the action of the council to increase its members’ salaries had some short-term benefit to members, but it was inspired by a much broader vision for the future.
To those who balked at this decision, ask yourself — was an elected government position attainable for you before this decision? Has your answer changed since this decision? If not for you, I promise it has for some in this city.
Andrew Setterholm is a Rochester resident and former city government reporter.
