-
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
-
|
| E-Mail Forum |
| RETURN |
| How Much Should Mayor and City Council be
Paid? July 28, 2007 |
|
On July 21, 2007, the West County Times editorialized against a raise
for the Richmond mayor, on which the vote took place at 1:30 AM last
Wednesday morning. Not mentioned in the editorial was a 25% raise City Council members awarded themselves without public comment or substantive debate. I voted against both measures because I did not believe the issue had been sufficiently studied. It is also important to know that the mayoral raise was not initiated or voted on by Mayor Gayle McLaughlin. In fact, McLaughlin recused herself and left the Council Chamber when the agenda item was announced. Both the City Council and mayoral raises were originally requested to be placed on the “checklist” by Councilmember Maria Viramontes during the budget hearings. I supported both with the clear understanding that it did not constitute an approval but simply a reservation of funding with additional debate to come later. “Later” turned out to be 1:30 AM on July 18. The measures were placed on the agenda by staff, not any City Council member. There are legitimate arguments, both pro and con, for both the mayoral and City Council raises. This is a fascinating subject, for in many ways, it goes to the heart of our Democratic institutions and how and why they work – or don’t work. General Law Cities For general law cities in California, compensation of council members, including mayors, is limited by Government Code Section 36516, based on city population. For cities of 75,000 to 150,000, which is the range that would include Richmond, compensation is limited to $600 per month ($7,200 per year). This can be changed by an election with the majority of voters setting compensation at either a higher or lower level. It can also be increased by ordinance not to exceed 5% each calendar year. There is also a limitation of $150 per month for additional compensation for serving on a “commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.” Furthermore, a raise cannot apply to a councilmember while that councilmember is in his or her current term. At least from the perspective of the California legislature, the population of a city is the prime determinant of appropriate compensation for mayors and city council members. In general law cities, the mayors are typically rotated among councilmembers. Charter Cities California charter cities, such as Richmond, have almost unlimited flexibility to set compensation for mayors and councilmembers, and this can generally be accomplished simply by ordinance. Click here for more information about types of California cities. Compensation Survey The Richmond Human Resources Department conducted a compensation survey in April of 2007, using the same 21 cities typically used for evaluating compensation levels for City employees. These Bay Area cities are in the same general population range as Richmond, and many of them share demographic and governmental similarities. Click Here for the Mayor Compensation Survey, and Click Here for the City Council Compensation Survey. Click here for a summary I prepared of the information provided by Richmond Human Resources Department, which adds an analysis based on city population. In the discussion that follows, I have dropped information in the survey about South San Francisco because the information is incomplete. In the discussion that follows, I have included information about per capita compensation because of the obvious correlation between city population and the level of councilmember and mayor compensation, including the legislative basis for compensation of general law city council members. Comparing Mayoral Compensation and Job Descriptions Only two of the 21 cities surveyed, Oakland and Union City, have mayors described as full time. About half the cities have directly elected mayors, including Alameda, Antioch, Berkeley, Fairfield, Fremont, Hayward, Mountain View, Oakland, Union City, Vacaville and Vallejo. Oakland has the highest paid mayor at $128,388 ($163,836 with benefits) and the only city with a “strong mayor” form of government. In Oakland, the mayor appoints the city administrator, who hires everyone else, effectively giving the mayor executive control of the city. On a per capita basis, however, Oakland, with $39.70 salary plus benefits per 100 population, is behind seven other cities. Oakland, Charter describes the mayor’s duties as follows: Section 305. Functions, Powers and Duties. The Mayor shall be the
chief elective officer of the City, responsible for providing leadership
and taking issues to the people and marshalling public interest in and
support for municipal activity. The Mayor shall have the following
powers, duties, and responsibilities: San Leandro has the highest paid mayor on a per capita basis at $40.29 per 100 population for salary only and $67.39 including benefits. Considered a part-time job, the mayor’s duties are described by the Charter as: Section 305: POWERS AND DUTIES OF MAYOR.
The Mayor shall be the political head of the City. The Mayor shall: (a) recommend City policy; (b) recommend to the Council appropriate and necessary legislation; (c) recommend programs for the physical, economic, social and cultural development of the City; (d) be responsible for public relations activities and represent the City for ceremonial purposes; (e) represent the City in intergovernmental relations, personally or by delegated representative, at the direction of the Council; (f) preside at meetings of the Council; (g) establish and dissolve ad hoc committees, subject to approval by the Council; (h) possess the authority to suspend implementation of any action taken by the Council by filing with the City Clerk, within three days after such Council action, a notice of suspension thereof. Such suspension shall constitute a motion for reconsideration of the action taken, to be voted upon by the Council at its next regular meeting; (i) provide leadership and marshal citizen participation in City activities; (j) report to the public from time to time on the affairs of the City; (k) possess the authority and attributes of a Council Member; (l) possess such authority and perform such duties as are granted or required by this Charter or by the Council. Hayward has a part-time mayor with a salary of $42,024 ($70,788 with benefits). On a per capita basis, this is $28.71 salary per 100 population and $48.35 with benefits. The mayor’s duties are: SECTION 604. MAYOR (Powers and Duties) Until the General Municipal Election next following the effective date of this section, the Council's presiding officer shall be selected and hold office as provided theretofore. Thereafter, the elected Mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, and by the Courts for the purpose of serving civil processes. The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council, shall preside at the meetings of the Council and shall sign the official documents of the Council. He shall be included as a member of the Council at all meetings of the Council for the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum. He shall be entitled to a vote on all matters coming before the Council, but shall possess no veto power. He may use the title of Mayor in all cases, but the same shall not be construed as conferring upon him administrative or judicial functions or other powers or functions of a Mayor under the general laws of the State. (AMENDED: STATS. 1964 CH. 41) Berkeley, a city near the size of Richmond and with much of the same complexity, pays its mayor $42,936 ($61,992 with benefits), although the current mayor takes none of the salary. On a per capita basis, that is $40.74 per 100 population for salary and $58.82 with benefits, making it number two behind San Leandro. Section 21. The Mayor's powers. The Mayor shall be the chairman of the Council, and shall preside at the meetings of the Council and perform such other duties consistent with his or her office as may be imposed by the Council. He or she shall be entitled to a vote on all matters coming before the Council, but shall possess no veto power. He or she shall be recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purposes of serving civil processes, and by the Governor for military purpose. He or she may use the title of Mayor in any case in which the execution of contracts or other legal instruments in writing, or other necessity arising from the general laws of this State, may so require; but this shall not be construed as conferring upon him or her administrative or judicial functions or other powers or functions of a Mayor, under the general laws of the State. The powers and duties of the Mayor shall be such as are conferred upon him or her by this amendment, together with such others as may be conferred by the Council in the pursuance of the provisions of this amendment, and no others. Concord, Contra Costa County’s largest city at 124, 436, was incorporated in 1905, the same year as Richmond. It appears to be a general law city without a charter and with a rotating mayor who is paid a $9,096 salary, $39,036 with benefits. On a per capita basis, the mayor gets $7.31 per 100 population compared to Richmond’s $35.95. With benefits, the per capita is $31.37 compared to Richmond’s $56.96 per 100 population. All the charter cities surveyed, except Oakland, have similar charter language describing the duties of the mayor, including chairing and voting with the City Council, representing the City for ceremonial purposes and providing a varying level of policy leadership distinguished from city council members. Richmond’s Charter is similar but perhaps somewhat wordier. There is no indication in the Charter that Richmond intended to have a “strong mayor” or a mayor with powers and responsibilities significantly different from other comparable cities with elected mayors. In fact, the ambiguity of Richmond’s charter in this respect is often a problem, as it may be in other cities where elected mayors in city manager governments acquire a high profile politically but have minimal real power. Often, the mayor becomes the most desirable or the initial point of contact for any number of other government agencies, organizations, supplicants of various types or individuals with city business. In many of these cases, the city manager or a staff member would be a more appropriate point of contact, but people believe that they should begin with the mayor. Being a conduit for routine City business may explain one of the reasons that the job becomes so time consuming and requires substantial staffing. People with routine needs or problems have professed, not infrequently, to have been put off or disappointed because the mayor doesn’t have time to personally meet with them and discuss their particular business or issue in detail and within a time period they perceive as being reasonable. The Mayor (Richmond Charter)
Justifying Proposed Richmond Mayor Compensation Currently, Richmond’s mayor is fourth in salary when compared to cities surveyed ($37,200 salary and $58,932 with benefits), behind Berkeley, Oakland and Hayward. On a per capita basis, Richmond would still be fourth in salary but would rise to third when benefits are included, behind only Berkeley and San Leandro. At, $37,300, Richmond is currently 250% above the median for cities surveyed and 76% above average. On a per capita basis, Richmond is 221% above median and 118% above average. Based on compensation plus benefits on a per capita basis, Richmond is 68% above median and 59% above average. With the proposed step one raise to $54,000, Richmond’s mayor would rise above all others except Oakland in every measure. The step two raise to $72,000 would place Richmond behind only Oakland in total salary and benefits but 34% ahead of the nearest competitor, San Leandro, on a per capita basis. At the step 2 raise, Richmond would also be 167% above median and 154% above average on a per capita basis. The arguments of those who favor the proposed mayoral raise fall into several categories, with commentary provided by recent quotes from the media:
By contrast, Richmond's decision-makers must grapple with chronic violence, serious environmental problems caused by heavy industry, and the Herculean task of improving the city's image, challenges that the mayor's office traditionally takes the lead on (West County Times, July 17, 2007).
But Richmond, with a population slightly larger than 100,000, has significant problems those cities don't. For years Richmond has been struggling with the scourge of chronic violence, high rates of unemployment, industry-related environmental pollution and a poor public image. These are issues on which city residents and the Bay Area at large look to the mayor's office for leadership. (West County Times, July 20, 2007).
The higher pay might create greater interest in the job, enlarging the field of potential candidates, said McLaughlin's chief of staff, Dave Grenell (West County Times, July 17, 2007).
McLaughlin's chief of staff argued that Richmond traditionally has had mayors who are retired or well off and that a good salary will open up the office to other candidates who are qualified but can't afford to be elected (West County Times, July 20, 2007).
Former Mayor Irma Anderson says she spent 60 hours a week on city business. Current Mayor Gayle McLaughlin says she puts in 80 hours. (West County Times, July 21, 2007)
McLaughlin, who was elected in November, said the raise is justified because being Richmond's top elected official is all-consuming. "I have worked much more than 80 hours a week to bring about change. This is a lifestyle -- it's more than a full-time job," McLaughlin said. "I'm on my computer at home early in the morning, telephone calls, meetings, then I'm on the computer until the wee hours of the morning. This is something I'm giving my life to." (West County Times, July 21, 2007)
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin currently earns $37,200, which is significantly less than what the city's administrative assistants, secretaries and gardeners make. (West County Times, July 17, 2007) Justifying Proposed City Council Compensation Only two surveyed cities, Oakland and Union City, reported that city council jobs are considered full time. How many hours city councilmembers work probably varies widely. I probably put in at least 20 hours a week. Currently, Richmond is eighth in salary among cities surveyed and sixth with benefits. On a per capita basis, Richmond ranks seventh in salary and sixth, including benefits. For salary alone, Richmond is 50% above the median and right at the average. For salary plus benefits, Richmond is 31% above the median and 13% above average. On a per capita basis for salary alone, Richmond is 32% above the median and 19% above average. Adding in benefits on a per capita basis, Richmond is 28% above the median and 20% above average. With the proposed salary raise from $14,664 to $16,830, Richmond will rise to fifth in salary and sixth with benefits. For salary alone, Richmond would be 72% above the median and 15% above average. For salary plus benefits, Richmond would be 39% above the median and 20% above average. On a per capita basis for salary alone, Richmond would be 51% above the median and 36% above average. Adding in benefits on a per capita basis, Richmond would be 36% above the median and 27% above average. Similar arguments made for raising mayoral compensation could be made for councilmember compensation. Establishing Compensation in the Public and Private Sector Private Sector In the private sector, it may be too simple to say that the market alone determines compensation. However, at the end of the day, within a given job category, an employer generally gets what it is willing to pay for, although money is not the only measure of value. Employees will consider less money if there are good prospects of advancement, bonuses, stability, benefits, opportunities for extraordinary experience or the opportunity to add a prestigious employer to one’s resume. Sometimes intangibles also play a role, such as location, workplace environment or opportunity for unusually exciting or interesting work. In areas where unions are strong, compensation typically becomes ratcheted upwards beyond what the market would dictate, alone. Public Sector In the public sector, much of what drives the private sector is also true, although the marketplace is not as flexible. Compensation packages are typically established by bureaucratic, legislative and collective bargaining processes that are slow and ponderous. While compensation is also a function of the marketplace, surveys of that marketplace are typically limited to the public sector, as if public sector employees never rotate in or out of the private sector. However, some public sector jobs are unique, such as public safety positions, so only public sector comparisons are available. Others are not significantly different from the private sector Compensation for some positions is clearly size related. Managerial employees, such as city managers and department heads of larger cities make more than their counterparts in smaller cities. Other jobs, such as gardeners and maintenance workers are generally the same for small or large cities and do not show size-related differences. Compensation for Elective Office In the United States, elective offices, particularly legislative positions, are perceived as “public service,” where serving is more important than remuneration. What drives people to seek public office is not the same competition that forms the conventional employment marketplace. The intangible benefits that presumably accrue to elected officials and motivate them to serve perhaps also benefit the electorate by providing policy management of large (municipal) corporations at bargain basement rates. This is not significantly different than the motivations that lead people to serve in the clergy, the armed forces, the Peace Corps or to volunteer in non-profit organizations. Would we get better people for these jobs if they paid more – or paid at all? Elective office, in general, is not a place to get rich. California’s highest elected official, the governor, makes $212,000, about the same as Richmond’s city manager. State legislators make $116,000, less than a typical municipal department head. Perhaps near but not at the bottom of the barrel in compensation of all elective offices is serving on city councils, including serving as mayor of a city with a city manager form of government. School boards are probably the worst, with the lowest pay for the highest level of aggravation. The public typically has an ambiguous relationship with those they elect as legislators. Although a successful election might be seen as a vote of confidence in an individual, the city councils of most cities, including Richmond, seem to be held in low esteem. In the recent citywide survey, only 17% of respondents described the quality of Richmond services as excellent or good, with 83% describing them as fair or poor. Presumably. they hold their City Council responsible. How Much Should Richmond Pay? So, how do you come up with the appropriate compensation for a mayor and city council member? Whether in the private or public sector, compensation evaluation begins with a survey. In Richmond, the compensation of all employees is based on surveys, and the public policy practice has been to keep Richmond employees at least above median or average for the 21 comparable cities surveyed. Based on the same survey data applied to other City employees, the mayor and City Council is already overpaid. Should we look at other factors for determining compensation? A number of criteria have been suggested:
· Level of effectiveness. Unlike hours worked, which is a measure of effort, arguments have been made that compensation should reflect results. Under that measure, different officials might warrant different compensation. For example “… incumbent Mayor Irma Anderson, was perceived by many voters as well intentioned but ineffective.” (“Reclaiming Richmond,” San Francisco Chronicle Magazine, Tim Holt, July 22, 2007).
How will I vote when this comes up for the second reading? I don’t know. I’m still thinking about it. But I do believe that we have the cart before the horse. I believe that City Council and mayoral compensation should be based on something rational that can be quantified. I also believe that if it is, at least in part, based on expectations of performance, those expectations should be debated, documented and adopted within the Charter or ordinances. Finally, should any raise, if adopted, be scheduled to take effect following the next election cycle, as required by general law cities? Let me know what you think. Following are three articles on the subject from the West County Times: Slow down on raise Contra Costa Times BEING THE MAYOR of Richmond is, without a doubt, a full-time job. No city in Contra Costa County has so many serious challenges confronting it at once. Former Mayor Irma Anderson says she spent 60 hours a week on city business. Current Mayor Gayle McLaughlin says she puts in 80 hours. It is clear that the city charter, which considers the mayoral position a part-time job, is out of date. So is the annual salary of $37,200. We agree that the city council must raise the mayoral pay to reflect the current demands of the job and to attract talented people. What we don't agree with is the way the council is going about it. Last week, the council voted, on a first reading, to adopt an ordinance that would raise McLaughlin's salary from $37,200 to $54,000 through the rest of the fiscal year. Then, on July 1, her pay would go to $72,000. This is in addition to a car allowance and travel budget. That figure is six or seven times more than what other Contra Costa mayors earn. Richmond never conducted a comparative study to determine what other mayor's are paid, relative to their duties. The city didn't create a new, full-time job description spelling out the mayor's duties. And, the council voted without any public discussion. We find that ironic given that McLaughlin professes to be a major proponent of public discussion in other matters. Councilman Tom Butt was right to vote against the measure. He said the city needs to do research first. We believe Richmond should give just compensation to its mayor. But this figure appears to have been plucked from thin air. During past elections, the Times took the unprecedented step of not endorsing a candidate for Richmond mayor. That's because we didn't think any of those running had what it took to lead Contra Costa's second largest city. Maybe with better pay, the pool will improve on the next go-round. But in our view, the council made a serious error in rushing to increase the mayor's salary without following the proper public process. True, McLaughlin has a tough job. But let us not forget, Richmond is still a city manager form of government. The mayor's job is a bully pulpit, to be an advocate for the city. The mayor, however, does not bear the responsibility of running the city. Council members would be well advised to take the time to do their research and invite public comment before this measure comes up again for a final vote. Richmond mulls pay hike for mayor · Council will consider boosting top city official's salary by a hefty 45 percent -- and that's just for starters By John Geluardi CONTRA COSTA TIMES Article Launched: 07/17/2007 03:02:49 AM PDT The Richmond City Council will consider giving the mayor a substantial raise tonight. The council is expected to bump the mayor's annual salary to $54,000 effective Sept. 1, and then increase it to $72,000 starting July 1. Mayor Gayle McLaughlin currently earns $37,200, which is significantly less than what the city's administrative assistants, secretaries and gardeners make. The higher pay might create greater interest in the job, enlarging the field of potential candidates, said McLaughlin's chief of staff, Dave Grenell. "Most of Richmond mayors tend to be retired or semi-retired," Grenell said. "If you have people in the position who have money or are retired, it narrows the field greatly." In Berkeley, which has a population comparable to the size of Richmond's, the mayor earns $45,000 annually. But that figure has not been an issue for the last 61/2 years because Mayor Tom Bates, a former state assemblyman, would not give up his state pension to draw a salary. The money instead goes toward paying the salary of a mayor's assistant. Concord's seven councilmembers rotate into the mayor's position, each of them earning $10,000 a year. But in that city, the most populous in Contra Costa County, civic problems largely consist of commuter issues and development squabbles. By contrast, Richmond's decision-makers must grapple with chronic violence, serious environmental problems caused by heavy industry, and the Herculean task of improving the city's image, challenges that the mayor's office traditionally takes the lead on. At tonight's meeting, council members also will consider giving themselves a modest raise from $13,400 annually to $16,800. The raise would take effect immediately. Contact John Geluardi at 510-262-2787 or at jgeluardi@cctimes.com. Richmond considers giving mayor a raise · RICHMOND: City Council approves first step in process needed to increase salary to $54,000 a yearBy John Geluardi CONTRA COSTA TIMES Article Launched: 07/20/2007 03:05:34 AM PDT The salary of Richmond's mayor, already the highest in Contra Costa County, will nearly double if the City Council approves a pay increase later this month. Mayor Gayle McLaughlin's annual salary would rise from $37,200 to $54,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year, and then, beginning July 1, she would receive another bump, to $72,000. The job also includes full medical and dental benefits, a car allowance and a travel budget. McLaughlin, who was elected in November, said the raise is justified because being Richmond's top elected official is all-consuming. "I have worked much more than 80 hours a week to bring about change. This is a lifestyle -- it's more than a full-time job," McLaughlin said. "I'm on my computer at home early in the morning, telephone calls, meetings, then I'm on the computer until the wee hours of the morning. This is something I'm giving my life to." The pay raise requires adoption of an ordinance, which needs two separate council votes, according to the Richmond City Charter. The first vote, cast Tuesday night, was 5-1-1 in favor, with Councilwoman Maria Viramontes absent and McLaughlin recusing herself. Vice Mayor Nat Bates abstained, and Councilman Tom Butt dissented. The council voted for the initial approval without an audit of other mayoral salaries or a report on the scope of mayoral responsibilities -- reports the council requires when considering city employee salaries, Butt said. "What we're not seeing here is a council survey that compares council salaries, and we do that with all our employees," Butt said. "However, this is a discussion we ought to have. Richmond is a medium-size city with big-city problems, and it requires a full-time mayor." Even if the council gives final approval to the raise, the mayor's job description will remain unchanged in the charter. That description is vague and reflects a part-time job, which could be abused by future mayors who may not be able to devote themselves full time to city business because of other jobs, family obligations or lack of commitment. A salary of $72,000 would be six or seven times higher than other mayoral salaries in Contra Costa. Concord is the county's largest city, and the mayor, who is appointed on a rotating basis from among council members, earns $8,736 annually. The mayor of San Ramon, the only other charter city in the county, earns $9,600 a year, and the mayor of Martinez earns $7,650. Somewhat in the ballpark is the mayor of Berkeley, who earns $45,000, though it has not been an issue since Mayor Tom Bates was elected because it did not make financial sense for him to relinquish his pension from the state Assembly to collect a city salary. But Richmond, with a population slightly larger than 100,000, has significant problems those cities don't. For years Richmond has been struggling with the scourge of chronic violence, high rates of unemployment, industry-related environmental pollution and a poor public image. These are issues on which city residents and the Bay Area at large look to the mayor's office for leadership. "Certainly, Richmond has larger problems than other cities in the county," Martinez Mayor Rob Schroder said. "But we have to be careful when considering salaries because mayors in this county are not running the day-to-day business of these cities. The city managers are." McLaughlin's chief of staff argued that Richmond traditionally has had mayors who are retired or well off and that a good salary will open up the office to other candidates who are qualified but can't afford to be elected. At least one city union is fighting the pay increase. Juanita Taylor, chapter president of the International Service Employees Union, said the city is still recovering from a $35 million financial meltdown in 2003-04 and that many of the 300 city employees who lost their jobs have not been hired back. "This mayor doesn't sit on as many boards as our last mayor did, and the council refused to give her a raise," Taylor said. "And this city is still recovering from a budget crisis, and we need to put that money back toward all the services that were cut." Reach John Geluardi at 510-262-2787 or jgeluardi@cctimes.com. mayoral salaries All salaries listed are annual RICHMOND $72,000 (proposed) CONTRA COSTA CITIES Concord: $8,735 Danville: $8,100 El Cerrito: $5,292 Pittsburg: $11,292 San Pablo: $6,400 San Ramon: $9,600 Walnut Creek: $7,800 BAY AREA Berkeley: $45,000 Oakland: $183,395 San Francisco: $188,800 San Jose: $127,000 (added at election November 4, 1980) (Added at the election November 2, 2004) Effective with the November
2008 election, the Mayor shall have the authority to continue any item
being considered by the City Council at a Council meeting for up to two
weeks. The Council may override an action taken by the Mayor to continue
an item by the affirmative vote of four members of the Council. Slow down on raiseContra Costa Times Former Mayor Irma Anderson says she spent 60 hours a week on city business. Current Mayor Gayle McLaughlin says she puts in 80 hours. It is clear that the city charter, which considers the mayoral position a part-time job, is out of date. So is the annual salary of $37,200. We agree that the city council must raise the mayoral pay to reflect the current demands of the job and to attract talented people. What we don't agree with is the way the council is going about it. Last week, the council voted, on a first reading, to adopt an ordinance that would raise McLaughlin's salary from $37,200 to $54,000 through the rest of the fiscal year. Then, on July 1, her pay would go to $72,000. This is in addition to a car allowance and travel budget. That figure is six or seven times more than what other Contra Costa mayors earn. Richmond never conducted a comparative study to determine what other mayor's are paid, relative to their duties. The city didn't create a new, full-time job description spelling out the mayor's duties. And, the council voted without any public discussion. We find that ironic given that McLaughlin professes to be a major proponent of public discussion in other matters. Councilman Tom Butt was right to vote against the measure. He said the city needs to do research first. We believe Richmond should give just compensation to its mayor. But this figure appears to have been plucked from thin air. During past elections, the Times took the unprecedented step of not endorsing a candidate for Richmond mayor. That's because we didn't think any of those running had what it took to lead Contra Costa's second largest city. Maybe with better pay, the pool will improve on the next go-round. But in our view, the council made a serious error in rushing to increase the mayor's salary without following the proper public process. True, McLaughlin has a tough job. But let us not forget, Richmond is still a city manager form of government. The mayor's job is a bully pulpit, to be an advocate for the city. The mayor, however, does not bear the responsibility of running the city. Council members would be well advised to take the time to do their research and invite public comment before this measure comes up again for a final vote. |