For Boulder's sake . . . pt3 Yes on 2A

  I will preface this post with a few points for disclosure:

1. I have not decided whether or not I will run for City Council next fall.

2. This measure failed by  less than 100 votes last year

3. I am no fan of our current City Council

  This is the right measure at the wrong time, but I do ask the reader to consider a vote of yes on 2A to raise council compensation. Like the other City issues on the ballot, it is important to decouple the merits of the issue from the performance of this council. 

     Without saying "you get what you pay for . . ." It is important to realize that the compensation of about $6000 a year for at best a part-time job, but really and additional full time job is not enough to encourage those who would likely be the best for the gig. Boulder is an expensive place to live, and if you are a working class person in Boulder it is a decided disincentive to serve on council, not to say that a raise to $12,000 will open the flood gate of opportunity but it would certainly cast a wider net. If the goal is to attract a higher quality of council members, and to diversify the tax brackets that are represented on council, and thus have a council who's decision more accurately reflect the values of Boulder's residents, particularly it's working class, in the cost benefit analysis an additional $6,000 dollars spent on council compensation in the context of 237 million dollar budget is worth the risk. 

   

   There is also the argument about "public service" I understand that argument, but encourage you to consider the value of the practical input of lower economic classes in the political process. When positions of public policy are solely occupied with those with great means, you tend to get a body politic that doesn't give appropriate gravity to the dollars they spend. Working class people inherently know the importance of tightening the belt in hard times. Further they are intrinsically more empathetic to the impacts of public fiscal policy on personal finances. I do not intended to begin class warfare here but there is no denying that as the  taxation measure becomes a larger percentage of your income, the less likely you are to support it. The lower the income of a council member the more fiscally conservative they are likely to be, not to say the wealthy members are reckless, it's that they are as sensitive as is appropriate in their personal lives. A higher level of sensitivity to revenue generation and a higher burden of proof for the effectiveness of expenditures is a good thing in the public discourse. If you believe that is valuable to broaden the economic perspective of our city's leadership then vote yes on 2A.

  This issue is not a referendum on the current council, but it may play a role in the composition of future councils. And there is the question of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. When the City's charter was written and council compensation established in the early years of the previous century, $400 a month was A LOT OF MONEY. The intent of the authors was that for members of council, attention to the city's business should be a major priority and therefore should be compensated thusly. A pay increase to $1000 a month is a big increase by percentage but falls short of the Consumer price index inflation adjustment of $6,469.33 for equivalent value in 1917. The spirit of the law is that council should be compensated in a manner consistent with a considerable time commitment. Perhaps the failures of recent councils is a direct result of those who do work not being able to devote enough time, while the majority of the body is comprised of those who do not work and have lost touch with the true value of the hard earned dollars of their constituents. 

  Local government is best when it is pragmatic. Practical solutions can only be effective if they encompass the needs of the full body of residents. The best way to assure that we have a broad discussion is to ensure the full economic spectrum is represented. 2A is not about this council, it's about improving opportunities  for our residents to serve. Please consider a vote of yes on City of Boulder 2A, for Boulder's sake.