Top

news

Stories

 

Should L.A. City Council Agree to Slash Its $178,789 Salaries?

15 richly paid politicians are happy to cut their pay — by 2.5 percent

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s call for shared sacrifice was finally embraced last week by the Los Angeles City Council that, until now, has inhaled pay raises like Charles Barkley at a free buffet.

Suddenly the Los Angeles City Council appears headed for a voluntary pay cut, size and shape to be determined later this month.

And irate taxpayers say it’s about time the council take not just one of those symbolic 2, 5 or 10 percent cuts — but a real, painful cut of 25 to 50 percent to bring them in line with city council members in other cities, including New York and San Francisco.

“The City Council’s $180,000 salary is way out of proportion,” says Alice Callahan, an Episcopalian priest who devotes many hours a week to community service on Skid Row. “People are suffering in the streets, and the City Council needs to send a message that it is willing to share in the pain everyone is feeling. And there’s a lot of pain.”

Councilman Dennis Zine started the voluntary sacrifice trend in February, not long after he got several calls from L.A. Weekly as it investigated how, exactly, Los Angeles had ended up with the highest-paid city council in the nation, possibly in the world. Zine immediately took a 10 percent pay cut of approximately $18,000. None of the other council members joined him, although several had previously declined a $7,100 raise — a raise that Zine took — and many of them diverted that money to pay for office expenses.

That $7,100 raise, which arrived as the country sank into recession, was the latest in a series of automatic “hands-free” raises (see March 3 Weekly story, “How L.A. City Council Got Those Huge $178,798 Salaries”).

But now, as the recession has deepened into The Great Depression 2.0, Zine said enough is enough with the automatic raises, which have been granted so frequently that the City Council members now earn more than members of the United States Congress and federal judges.

“The mayor had started talking about large layoffs unless spending was cut, and I wanted to set an example,” Zine said last week. He added that he had subsequently spoken to several council members about following his example, but they cited children and other family or financial concerns. And Zine, a retired policeman with a full pension, which puts his own annual income well above $200,000 a year, said he understood their reticence.

“I’m not disappointed that they didn’t follow my lead,” Zine insisted last Tuesday. “I wasn’t trying to tell them what to do. They each make their own decision.”

But when the city government employee unions reported last week that the mayor was talking about 400 job cuts, the spirit of shared sacrifice on the City Council suddenly spread faster than an Octomom rumor.

How fast?

At 2:30 last Monday afternoon Councilman Tom LaBonge repeatedly refused to answer two basic questions put to him by the Weekly: Should the entire council take a voluntary pay cut, and if so, what percent of his salary is he willing to give up?

“Everything is on the table, everything has to be looked at,” he said over and over. “That’s all I’ll say.”

At 4:30 p.m., after hearing further discussion by the mayor of possible layoffs, across-the-board pay cuts and other potential consequences of the mounting financial crisis at City Hall, LaBonge called back with a new mantra.

“I’m pro-city employee,” he said. “If our new budget is going to impact police, firefighters and everyone else that works for the city, then it should impact me too.”

Asked if that meant he was now supporting a voluntary pay cut for the council, he said: “They pay us real well, and I work real hard. But we’re all in this together, so if that’s what it takes, then yes, I am. . It should impact me too.”

But LaBonge declined to get into specific percentages until the mayor unveils his new budget, which is scheduled for April 20.

Last Tuesday afternoon, a similar facing-the-new-reality scenario played out with council members Janice Hahn and Jack Weiss, who is leaving his Westside City Council seat this year and is in a contentious race to become city attorney against a well-funded challenger, Carmen Trutanich, who is backed by District Attorney Steve Cooley.

After demanding to know last Monday what “the angle of the story” was going to be, Janice Hahn went silent when told “the angle” was exactly the same as the question: Should the Council take a pay cut in the spirit of shared sacrifice? Hahn finally e-mailed a “No comment” last Tuesday afternoon.

Asked if that meant she wouldn’t give a yes-or-no answer, Hahn, again declining to come to the phone, issued a second statement via e-mail: “Of course I’m willing to make a sacrifice, if that’s what’s needed.”

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • Epotrance 02/26/2011 8:47:00 PM

    Well its 2011 now and has the pay been cut? Of course not! LaBonge is still making $180,000 (plus a car and immunity from parking tickets, etc. =$250,000) and sending his kids to private schools (does he even care about public schools?) There is only one thing that can change this and that's if the voters get together and kick him out. Running against him is a guy named O'Grady who commits to cutting his salary in half, maybe that's where we should start!

  • Maggie Jones 05/15/2009 5:23:00 AM

    You think you know? Find the truth and more.

  • DRE DAWG 04/24/2009 2:22:00 AM

    I vote for a 40% pay cut...no less!!!! None of this 2.5% or 10% BS...that's a slap in the face to tax payers. My pay raise this year was 3% which gave me an extra $50 bucks a month. I'm in danger of losing my house and I have to severely cut back on my expenses this year...no restaurants, no movies, no additional groceries, no unnecessary driving (i take the metro to work a couple times a week). Of course I want the best and the brightest on City Council...but we don't have them! So why are we paying them so much?! Because we have a terrific school system? Nope, we don't! Because we have a fantastic transporation system? Nope, that's not it either! Because they balance the budget? I don't think so! Oh, it's because we don't pay enough attention or hold these know-nothings accountable!!! L.A., a lot more of us have to band together to, at the very least, guarentee the basics get done and are done well: balanced budget, transportation, infrastructure, security, education. This is not an extraordinary request. Remember, WE have the power! Not them! We vote them in and we can certainly vote them out!

  • Where's Jack 04/23/2009 8:21:00 PM

    Jack Weiss is independently wealthy. His children are at very high end Westside schools that cost $25,000 a year, each. His house in Bel Air is no dump. As for where Jack is when he is MIA, well, there are lots of rumors.

  • Phred 04/22/2009 7:26:00 AM

    That's what I like about his medium - that after some spirited debate, we can come to some agreement. Janet seems to have conceded my original point, that Jack Weiss has missed lots and lots of Council sessions. I will concede her main point, which seems to be that Ron Kaye, Mayor Sam, McIntyre, Jon & Ken, Kevin James and David Berger don't like Weiss, and possibly the Mayor. I think that pretty much summarizes the discussion.

  • janet 04/21/2009 11:47:00 PM

    "Phred" seems to spend a might bit of time trying to analyze all Weiss postings himself, hmmmm... Wish I were getting paid to do this let alone what Ace allegedl gets but I'm sure he has bigger fish to fry. I should hope so to earn his salary. If certain comments and themes recur it's because they're true: meanwhile Nuch continues to hide behind "attorney-client privelege" and his lies and nasty rhetoric about Weiss. To deflect the fact that when it comes to his last two decades he's done by and large the opposite of what he claims. Like he told the audience in Sherman Oaks, when you're not proud of your own record (which he won't even divulge) attack your opponent to try to distract. Fact remains that his style of campaigning has been nasty and obfuscating (gee, is that in the "usual vocabulary?" I'll have to look it up) from the start, his staunchest supporters and alter-ego mouthpieces like David Berger are scary in terms of their views and the sheer vitriol they spew, and people are realizing that the phony "Cannery Row" talking "self-made millionare" is unsavory, indeed, and saying so even on these anti-Antonio blogs. Anyone who disputes that this paper, RonKaye, Mayor Sam, all of whom cross-reference and admire each other and use each other as "sources" -- along with right-wing screamers like McIntyre/Jon & Ken/ Kevin James -- aren't biased to the vehemently anti-city hall/Antonio/Weiss by their very nature are either so self-deluded or SO engaged in trying to delude others that it just emphasizes how inherently biased they are. But of course you people are doing what you do and spewing your hatred because you're "Tru Citizens" while anyone on our side is, of course, paid. That recurring spin is part of your gameplan, too.

  • Phred 04/21/2009 10:19:00 AM

    Ace Smith indahouse. The pattern is so consistent that it's predictable: 1.- Any posting that says something negative about Jack Weiss gets a reply within a couple of hours, Sundays and weekends included. The mark of a true professional - we amateurs have a life. 2.- Invalidation: dismiss the messenger of the contrary point of view. Jill's paper is "conservative", Phred is "gratuitously bitter and vengeful, rude and uncompromising", Weiss's oponents are a "small minority" of "older people". 3.- Obfuscation: change the subject from Weiss to his opponent, whether it is germane to the discussion or not. The professionals call it "staying on message". 4.- Verborrhea: the inability to stop talking. Works on TV and radio, where you don't want your interlocutor to get a word in edgewise, but results in long, boring, repetitive postings that nobody has to read. 5.- Spin: Jack Weiss did not miss Council Sessions. He was using time "as his priorities dictate". 6.- Propaganda: Jack is perfect. There's nothing he could have done better. Never made a mistake in his life. That's the mark of propaganda, which is not the same as argumentation. 7.- Consistent vocabulary and sentence construction. Accompanied by changing pseudonyms to try to mask the fact that one person is writing all the postings.

  • janet 04/20/2009 3:58:00 AM

    Jill, your comment that Weiss is in an "uphill battle" reveals more about your own biases than any facts -- the fact that a small group of people who couldn't get him recalled (and had nowhere near the votes they claimed -- they're too happy to sue the city over everything, so their claim that they wanted to save money on a count is so bogus. Privately they admit they were too embarrassed to reveal real numbers) and now are bent on a "revenge agenda" behind carpet-bagger Trutanich just means that a small group of people who scream loudly make a disproportionate amount of noise. They also voted in disproportionate numbers due to Measure B, defeat of which was championed by conservative bloggers and a.m. radio. It does look like City Hall way underestimated the extent to which they'd skew the vote. As someone who's been active on my HOA and attends my and other NC meetings often, I know for a fact that the same small cast of characters wields disproprotionate influence just by virtue of "showing up." The rest of us, younger with demanding jobs and young kids, just can't do it and the vast majority of my neighbors aren't even involved in local politics and frankly, never heard of Trutanich. The perception of Weiss and this race as given in this now- conservative paper (you can't deny it when you're in sync with and symbiotic with the likes of Ron Kaye and even that quack blog Mayor Sam!) is totally biased and false. There is NO local political blog which generates a true exchange of ideas without the foul-mouthed "let's bash Jack Weiss and Antonio and -- as an excuse to generate hits" approach these blogs take. They're the blog equivalents of Jon & ken, but worse, since those radio screamers have to be more concerned about libel and slander. My sincere sense is that as people ARE waking up to who Trutanich is, the extent of his lies and spins and all- negative campaigning against Weiss first time around (like he says, when you're ashamed of your own record and want to hide it, bash the other guy and try to put him "on trial"especially if he's been "out there" in public office and HAS a long record full of specifics) they are disgusted. I think Weiss's team erred in not attacking back earlier, assuming people and the media would see through Trutanich's lies and spin -- but with mainstream media so decimated, and with the best and most experienced City Hall reporters fired, replaced by newbies who are too easy to fool, this created a perfect op for a demagogue like Trutanich who preys on general suspicion of government and public servants to slip in unvetted. Well, he's starting to get it now.

  • Jill Stewart 04/20/2009 1:01:00 AM

    Response from Weekly News Editor Jill Stewart: Hey everyone, thanks for all the comments pro and con. To clear up why Jack Weiss is missing from the artwork: This art was commissioned for our blockbuster feature "Los Angeles on $300,000 a year: Why next week's City Council coronation will cost you far more than money." Here's the url, please read it and weep! http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year/ The story ran just before the March 3 election, and Weiss was not pictured because he was the only council member stepping down for good (to run in his now-uphill battle against Trutanich). Wendy Greuel was running for City Controller, but not giving up her council seat to do it, so she is included in the illustration. Everyone else was either running again, or they are widely expected to run next year (the council has staggered elections, half now, half later.) We who cover City Hall do find it amusing that for a different reason, our illustration by Fred Noland shows ultra-high absentee council member Weiss as MIA.

  • steve 04/19/2009 2:13:00 AM

    Why are you quoting Dan Wright, of all the random people you could have used? He's known to hate the Mayor and is one of those anti-incumbent-anything-to-do with City Hall, tar and feather'em all 'em guys, if that's what you mean by "activist." The other woman you quote is also out to lunch when it comes to the real world: all blessings on her and charity workers everywhere if they've chosen to sacrifice to work on skid row, but we also need people who can act in our best interests in the face of highly educated, highly sophisticated power brokers, people who can interact as equals without being pitied by them. Not exactly any attempt to paint a balanced view but more like the rightwing a.m. screamers who further incite the faction of the public who believes anyone in public service is evil by definition. What a sad message to send to our young people as they contemplate careers. Sure some become ensnared in the trappings and we've seen some well-publicized cases recently, but this kind of broad bias does a disservice to us all and ensures that only the worst and those who can't get better-paying jobs will take up public service. We also want the best and the brightest.

  • wheres antonio 04/18/2009 8:21:00 AM

    our good mayor buged out on the latino water coalition/'s march for water....what doesnt he shower. these folks are fighting for us to have water to continue our lifestyle. the mayor should have been there. shame on him.

  • janet 04/18/2009 2:17:00 AM

    Phred, your one-note bitterness is really wearying -- and ignorant. Committee meetings are cancelled when there isn't a quorum because members are busy elsewhere, any members not just Weiss -- they have lots of business besides attending meetings and sitting in Council meetings which can drag on and on including with the same public commenters using their maximum time every day. As a homeowner group activist (as time allows) I've sat through a few council meetings and can't blame him. As long as there's a quorum so the meeting goes on, NONE of them sit through every meeting and by no means is Weiss unusual. Except he's known not to like wasting time and uses it as his priorities dictate. Weiss has plenty of respected people who've worked with him over the years and records backing up his solid work on numerous vital issues. As a moderate Democrat I've reviewed the criticisms which Trutanich uses to deflect scrutiny from his own (another matter I won't get into here, sticking to the topic), and they're just desperate ploys unworthy of further discussion. This red herring issue you Trutanich people keep harping on is just the kind of bitter negativity that's a turnoff to the rest of us. Listen to Will Wright and the majority of the city and move on with positive, constructive criticism and suggestions -- people are turned off by your endless, irrelevant petty mean-spiritedness, and the endless attacks on anyone in public service, many of whom like he says could be making a ton more money with their Ivy advanced and law school degrees. I for one value Weiss's presence on the Council and will miss him -- neither Koretz nor Vahedi have anything near his intellectual rigor and willingness to do what he feels is right for the city as a whole without kow-towing to any one homeowner group or Neighborhood Council, even in the face of people like you.

  • Will Wright 04/18/2009 1:49:00 AM

    If higher salaries attract better leadership, then I want to have the highest paid councilmembers fiscally possible. Who do we want to manager our City? Manny Ramirez and his $25 million per year? Or a Councilmember working 18 hours a day for less than what most junior Talent Agents make? Granted, every expense is on the backs of us as citizens. Yet, for substantial vision and leadership, I'm willing to pay more. Especially, if a consequence of that higher expense is better decision-making. We need to find a way to celebrate what we love about Los Angeles and work towards making that better. Enough finger pointing; let's move forward. -WrW

  • Phred 04/18/2009 1:40:00 AM

    Janet: The issue is pay cuts for the Council. Jack Weiss volunteered to not work 1 hour per week. In fact he has missed over 1,500 votes at City Council, and over 40 meetings of the Public Safety Committee he chairs were canceled. Jack's offer of not working one hour per week is laughable - he already doesn't work 1/3 of the time and still draws a salary for it. No wonder he's absent in the picture - he's hardly on the job anyway.

  • janet 04/18/2009 1:14:00 AM

    Phred can never pass up a cheap shot to take a swipe at Jack Weiss, even when he's clearly one of the few who responded to the article and did so on the record -- and the calligraphy article notes he's one of the 3 who have spent the least of that million bucks. Phred doesn't discuss the issue but as someone who pipes up for Trutanich and anti-Weiss on every thread appropriate or not, he's obsessed with being gratuitously mean and bitter. (In fact, he and former candidate David Berger pop up the same places and sound the same -- coincidence?) This sums up what a gratuitously bitter and vengeful, rude and uncompromising bunch these people are -- and have always been, which is how they got on the wrong side of Weiss in the first place. I've attended one of the debates and the vibes of these mostly older people are so negative, if they were colors, they'd vary from dark murky blue-gray-green to black smudged marker. This is the bunch that Trutanuch has sucked up to and vice versa. Nice.

  • Phred 04/18/2009 12:22:00 AM

    I find the cartoon that illustrates your article very telling. You show 14 out of the 15 Council members. Jack Weiss, as usual, is not present even for the cartoon!!!

  • Nick Antonicello 04/17/2009 10:34:00 PM

    Considering the fact the city of Los Angeles is facing a $500 million dollar deficit, leading from the front of the line by taking a 10% across-the-board cut in salaries is a minimal sacrifice when considering just how bloated and overpaid the council is here in Los Angeles. Maybe if the city did not dole out nearly $400 million in overtime last year where some 1,500 employees earned an additional $50,000 in OT payments, no one would need to be given a pink slip. The city is so poorly managed and the infusion of any federal dollars will only mask the problem further in future budgets. These people need to start thinking about job creation and redevelopment of existing venues like the Venice Beach boardwalk to spur private sector investment and get the local economy moving in the right direction.

  • previouscommentor 04/17/2009 7:55:00 PM

    Previous poster: Your comment that "other councilmembers with kids of a school age college-bound or just starting families couldn't afford to take a similar cut . ." is really beyond the pale. Why can't other councilmembers who have kids live with a 10% pay cut. Can't councilmembers and their families live on an annual salary of more than $150,000? And, this figure doesn't include what their spouses earn.

  • marcie 04/17/2009 6:07:00 AM

    So newbie writer Teetor (who?) falls for another Dennis Zine grandstanding ploy, leading off with his generosity in offering to take a 10% salary cut. But Teetor doesn't mention that Zine's getting at least $80,000/ year in pension for having served as an LAPD cop -- an amount also paid for by we the taxpayers even as he's racking up an additional pension. Which at his age will lead to a nice retirement. Zine knew very well that other councilmembers with kids of a school age college-bound or just starting families couldn't afford to take a similar cut, and openly gloated about it. Now, if Dennis Zine offered to give back his police pension, which could put another cop on the street and is an amount he doesn't need, that would be worth reporting. But no, just endless grandstanding with useless offers and "motions" like his trying to one-up Chief Bratton on SO40 and "Zine's paparazzi law," equally poorly thought-out beyond its sound-bite appeal to the right-wing a.m. talk show screamers who are his unique niche among the council. As for the general issue of giving back their salaries, it's absurd apples and oranges to compare L A's council to NYC's 56-or so members (who collectively earn much more and have much less responsibility with a "strong mayor" system) and Teetor should have known that. Some members like Zine himself are earning more salary on Council than they could ever have in private life, but others who are lawyers and have grad degrees and corporate experience could be earning much more and are sacrificing salary for public service. Frankly, given the public abuse they have to take, I wouldn't do it let alone spend tons of money running for the office. Most of them are really committed. If we cut them all down significantly like some activists want (hardly a majority of the public as Teetor implies), maybe we'd keep the Zines, LaBonge's and Perries (who are even worth more now with their experience, for example as lobbyists, probably) but we'd lose the best and brightest. Probably exactly what the Zines, Teeters and right-wing a.m. screamers (themselves earning far more by pandering to this uneducated Joe Sixpack demographic) want.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy