CONTROVERSIAL ORDINANCE INTRODUCED
Council President Mixon introduced an ordinance that would reduce the next mayor's salary; because the city now has an Administrator that runs the daily operations of the city -- under direction of the Mayor and Council. Mixon said he studied the salary schedules of comparable cities to come up with the proposed the new salary ($30,000/year).
PUBLIC SERVICE NOT ABOUT MAKING MONEY
Mixon: "None of us own our positions . . . could be six new people here . . . next time . . . Mayor Kant's done a great job . . . under adverse conditions . . . this has nothing to do with Mayor Kant himself. . . . just sound, frugal management of city resources."
Mixon went on tho say the next council could choose to raise the next Mayor's pay to whatever level it wanted: "We don't know who the next Mayor will be. Politics not a job . . . this country's based on volunteering . . . we're lucky to offer our services to the people . . . not just a job for hire."
"PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS" CALLED THE PROBLEM
Councilmemeber Stankoski concurred saying he thought the problem nationally was a bunch of professional politicians were running the country, " . . . don't vote for good of the country . . . vote to keep their jobs and office . . . big salary isn't meant to attract them . . . either want to serve or not . . . no one makes anyone run for office."
Councilmember Quinn agreed with Stankoski: " . . . don't want professional politicians siting up here . . . a big salary . . . sometimes makes that happen. . . administrator . . . takes pressure off the Mayor."
Councilmember Ford said he didn't understand why the others would want to reduce the pay, since he had heard 2 or 3 were considering running for Mayor next year.
(Publisher's Note: Kant also receives $30,000/yr in retirement, from the previous jobs he held with the city)
Council President Mixon introduced an ordinance that would reduce the next mayor's salary; because the city now has an Administrator that runs the daily operations of the city -- under direction of the Mayor and Council. Mixon said he studied the salary schedules of comparable cities to come up with the proposed the new salary ($30,000/year).
PUBLIC SERVICE NOT ABOUT MAKING MONEY
Mixon: "None of us own our positions . . . could be six new people here . . . next time . . . Mayor Kant's done a great job . . . under adverse conditions . . . this has nothing to do with Mayor Kant himself. . . . just sound, frugal management of city resources."
Mixon went on tho say the next council could choose to raise the next Mayor's pay to whatever level it wanted: "We don't know who the next Mayor will be. Politics not a job . . . this country's based on volunteering . . . we're lucky to offer our services to the people . . . not just a job for hire."
"PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS" CALLED THE PROBLEM
Councilmemeber Stankoski concurred saying he thought the problem nationally was a bunch of professional politicians were running the country, " . . . don't vote for good of the country . . . vote to keep their jobs and office . . . big salary isn't meant to attract them . . . either want to serve or not . . . no one makes anyone run for office."
Councilmember Quinn agreed with Stankoski: " . . . don't want professional politicians siting up here . . . a big salary . . . sometimes makes that happen. . . administrator . . . takes pressure off the Mayor."
Councilmember Ford said he didn't understand why the others would want to reduce the pay, since he had heard 2 or 3 were considering running for Mayor next year.
(Publisher's Note: Kant also receives $30,000/yr in retirement, from the previous jobs he held with the city)
Comments