The Chronicle is not exactly famous for publishing quickly. So from Wednesday afternoon to Thursday evening is well inside the typical time frame for writing about a topic — which will range to as long as a week after an event takes place. But I think it’s probably a fair point to make that we could have at least adapted our Civic News Ticker Section — used to report votes of public bodies whose meetings we’re attending — to have reported the outcome of the hearing. What’s reported in [22] is accurate: The court ruled for the city in finding that there was not sufficient evidence to procede, which meant we were unable to conduct discovery and conduct depositions. The court ruled for The Chronicle in rejecting the city’s contention that we failed even to state a claim.

As far as The Chronicle’s reporting on the hearing, I expect that my priority will be to work with our counsel to sort through what the possibilities are for appeal, rather than writing about the hearing. There’s also the regular reporting from this week [city council, AATA board, dogs running at large, etc.] that needs attention. So we might be slower, even than usual, in writing about this.

Quick note on commenting: For readers who wonder why comment [22] would be written on this thread, the original lawsuit article’s comment thread is closed — they automatically shut down after some number of weeks. So in looking around for someplace to comment, A. Green’s selection of this article isn’t the worst possible choice — it’s sort of legalistic and wonky material. That said, I’d prefer to see this thread remain focused on the compensation article.

Not many lawsuits are dismissed so quickly; perhaps that illustrates the merits (or lack thereof) of your lawsuit. I look forward to reading about the City defeating you in Court.

Not all decisions are made by all the voters (only certain ones). The elected officials are elected to *represent* the views of the electorate, or so I was taught in civics. That’s why our elections are so frequent — if elected officials fail to represent the people well, they can and should be replaced.

As for whether elected officials should be paid, I’m not one to talk. I ran for office the first time completely ignorant of the salary but well aware of the time commitment. I appreciate having this role treated as a job and not a hobby; I think it reflects the respect I hold it in and others should hold it in, as well. As a society, we think more highly of those who are employed than those who have so much leisure time that they can volunteer 30+ hours a week.

A side effect of the increase in pay was intended to allow folks who aren’t either retired or well-off to hold office. Because the time commitment is significant, so is one’s ability to hold full-time employment. Being on Council should be something that’s open to a variety of folks from different demographics, including age and economy.

I voted, of course, against a pay raise. There are limits to how much any elected official should expect.

Sabra

Thank you, David, for the interesting statutory analysis on conflicts of interest.

I, however, believe the dual employment issue described above should be barred by a city ordinance, or at least recusal from voting and deliberation where such a relationship does exist.

I have heard about discussions relative to such a proposed ordinance, but nothing yet has materialized.

“This is, in fact, a democracy.”

Understanding the difference between a democracy and a republic is quite important. A true democracy is majority rule, something our founding father purposely wished to avoid and in doing so create a voice for the minority.

The framers felt that a true democracy would actually limit liberties and that freedom and liberty were to be protected and secured through a republic. In essence, a democracy is nothing more than mob rule. This is of course why we have separation of powers, etc. But I digress.

Yes, people disagreed with Benjamin Franklin. I acknowledged that when I wrote it. ;) Your phrase “The overwhelming majority” intrigues me– and is not something I give weight to. A statement such as that is nothing short of “mob rule” making an assertion that it must be right. Just because a majority agree on something, doesn’t make it correct.

History has shown us this repeatedly. After all, the overwhelming majority once felt that the Earth was flat, that women shouldn’t vote, that we were the center of the Universe, etc, etc.

Although the mayor and council’s salaries are taxpayer paid, they are not a “position” in which you describe. You don’t have the right to contact them at will– it’s simply not one of your “rights.” In fact, many people would believe that expression of dissatisfaction (or praise) would best be expressed in an open meeting, and entered into public record, where others can hear as well.

Once you elect this person to their term, they then have the power of that elected position until their term expires. An important part of their job is to oversee the government, make contracts, etc. In the rules of council, you not see that there is a duty to be available to a constituent 24/7. In fact, you will find that you should actually bring matters to the council’s attention during their meetings.

I strongly believe that elected representatives should not be paid a full-time salary. Other officials, where the job is not a representative measure, such as President, Sheriff, Clerk, etc. should be paid a full-time wage, but a representative or council member should not.

Of course, as stated before, this is simply my opinion. Thank goodness I have protections from the “overwhelming majority” that disagree.

This is, in fact, a democracy. You may not always like the way it functions (and of course, neither do I), but everybody in our city government is subject to us, the voting citizens. As Webster puts it: “A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections.”

The overwhelming majority has disagreed with Benjamin Franklin on the issue of pay for elected officials. In our city, the elected mayor and council members ARE taxpayer paid positions, and an important part of their taxpayer-paid job is to directly communicate with citizens. You are free to dislike this, but it does not change the fact that many others expect it, and exercise this right frequently.

I was responding to a comment of Ms. Gunn regarding praise. Additionally, we actually don’t live in a democracy, but that’s another story. I know enough about city council to know that they are very capable of handling emails in a rapid manner, as demonstrated by their lack of respect towards citizens in their email exchanges with each other (it also demonstrates ability to multi-task).

My beliefs of elected officials mirror Benjamin Franklin’s… elected representatives should not be paid. People disagreed with him. That’s the great thing about our country. People can disagree. City council was not intended to be a career, nor a full-time job. It’s an honor and something that is known when they volunteer to run for office.

I think a very low “salary” is a nice jesture– such as $250.00 per month for a city council position.

As far as taking calls from people all day and night, if that’s what they are doing, then great. They can also refer people to the taxpayer paid position that can help them as well. No reason for a duplication of service.

I would suggest that who you’re *not* hearing from is far more important. I take it on good information that many would-be council candidates decide not to run because they can’t afford to spend the 30+ hours a week on the “job.” If it turns out that half of councilmembers’ time is taken up by activities that are not part of the job description and have a questionable impact on staff opinions (e.g., “Heritage Row is better than the alternative”), I can’t see how any of this justifies excluding an entire demographic from public service.

I agree with Mr. Posner: make sure the professionals are doing what they’ve been trained to do, and let councilpeople do the legislating. Get them out of the business end of the city.

If you are under the impression that most communications to council members are praise, you show how little you know about city council, and citizen expectations thereof. Ms. Gunn is absolutely correct. I served on city council before e-mail, but there was the telephone, neighborhood meetings, etc. Since e-mail the communications have multiplied, improving citizen access to council, but obviously taking more time. Dealing directly with citizens is an extremely important part of any elected official’s job in a democracy.