Much more could be added to this story. I don't have a problem with the salary increase, but any discussion about salaries should include a discussion about benefits.
I assume each council member also gets full medical coverage - how much does that cost the city? And if they already have medical coverage is that a savings or does that go to deferred compensation for the council member? As a result of the salary increase have the council members agreed to pay a portion of the cost of medical coverage?
How does the salary increase impact pension benefits and what exactly are those benefits?
Are there any other benefits?
After looking at the entire compensation package how does PA stack up against surrounding communities.

Nothing against the "salary" or stipend.

But what perks do they get? I believe designated parking spaces (that are not being used most of the time) in City Hall is a perk. Perhaps these should be reviewed also.

Don't mind an increase...but isn't 66% a bit much! Come on...how many other organizations give 66%? When was the last time you saw a raise like that in any company? Perhaps this should have been brought to the attention of the public to make the decision as to how much of a raise they should get. I wouldn't mind even up to 20% - but 66%?

@anon: 66% when annualized over 15 years since any raise at all doesn't seem excessive.

@ Midtowner -- Who has been on the Council for 15 years?

Really? The first thing this new council does is raise it's own salaries? Even if it's justified, it doesn't look good.

The increase is so small that it’s hard to understand why it was proposed. Taxes will eat up a significant portion of the $400.

Comments about benefits being discussed when pay increases of anyone associated with the City of Palo Alto have much merit. While the Council salaries are little more than a thanks-for-coming gift, the costs of pensions for employees is not so costly that total-compensation and total-life-time-earnings dollars should be on the table so that the public can see just how expensive the cost of government has become. Several of those on this Council ran on a plank of “transparency” in their campaigns. Not requiring the City Manager to provide full employment costs at times like these makes one wonder just how much to believe those Council Members making such promises.

> Holman took the opposite stance and voted in favor
> of the salary increase. You never know, she said, what
> it takes to sway someone to run.

Very unlikely.

I am on the fence because of both of these paragraphs below:

"Even with the change, Palo Alto remains in the middle of the regional pack when it comes to council salaries. At the higher end of the scale are cities like Sunnyvale, where a council member earns $2,194 a month, and Daly City, where the monthly stipend is $1,414. At the lower end are Saratoga ($250 a month), Los Gatos ($150 a month) and Monte Sereno (no salaries at all)."

"Scharff maintained that the council's salary is symbolic and that raising it so significantly just because the economy is improving will make it hard for the council to have the "moral high ground" when employees likewise request raises."

I don't begrudge the salary increase for council members. They spend a lot of hours doing thankless work. What bothers me is that the city has to find ways to spend money when the "economic fortunes" of the city grows. How about using this money to pay for things we've been promised for years (think underground utilities. How about not hiring a consultant every time a decision needs to be made about something we already have people in place to solve. City spending is typical of the liberal mindset. Get the money anyway you can and spend it as soon as you get it or hire more employees so you can grow the city government.

The city's real money is spent on the City Manager's salary and perks. Lots of expensive perks. And weekly hiring of consultants to do what we expect staff to do.

But it was amusing to read Mr Berman's comment:
"the public believes that in order to serve on the council you need to be retired, wealthy, self-employed or single," said Councilwoman Liz Kniss, the council's most fervent champion of the increase ("Or stupid," Councilman Marc Berman added as an aside).
So long Mr.Berman, it was nice knowing you.

Oh, please. No nurturing mom with kids young enough to need babysitters is going to run for City Council. Public office is a huge time commitment which doesn't have hours like a daily punch-and-leave job. Emails day/night, questions at the grocery store. I wouldn't even vote for someone who has young children - children are great but they are a distraction and to serve the community, I'd want someone who is focused on us.

$400 increase per member is nothing - they deserve to be paid, and should be paid more, for all the taxes we pay. Maybe if they are paid even more, we'd get better City Council members who actually care about our community (although this batch might be an improvement). Look at the millions wasted on the Mitchell Park Library and the design is impractical because of the childrens section not being blocked off so noise travels throughout. Good job, Einstein.

Ummm. Council Member Scharff has children at home. Council Member Burt served while he had children at home. Did you vote for either of these men? Both of these men get huge support on the home front from their terrific wives.

As a mom with children at home, I think it is important to have people on Council who understand the challenges of raising a child in Palo Alto today. We need more parents on Council, not fewer, and we need more women, too.

Finally! Some good entertainment from our politicians... long time overdue:

"I'm worried that now the public believes that in order to serve on the council you need to be retired, wealthy, self-employed or single," said Councilwoman Liz Kniss, the council's most fervent champion of the increase ("Or stupid," Councilman Marc Berman added as an aside).

10 points for Berman.

"...He also rejected Kniss' assertion that the move has anything to do with gender or that it will result in more women running for council, prompting Kniss to respond, "That's because you're a guy, Greg."

"(I) think is somewhat demeaning to men," Scharff countered.

10 points for Scharff


LOL!

@ To Stay-atHOme Mom: The best person for the job should be elected, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation. Women are the primary caretakers of children - that's why there is still gender inequality in the work force and why mothers usually get custody. Your posting is contradictory. First, you write they have wives who raised their children in a "challenging" city, then you state you'd rather have a women parent on the CC. Then who raises the children? Oh, it's okay for some other mom to sacrifice the care of their children?

What makes you think men are ignorant to raising children? If a couple communicates, the men know.

MAYBE I'M IN THE MINORITY HERE - BUT I DO MIND THIS INCREASE !

When I get or give a review for a raise the question is always has
the job been done well, and what was done to deserve an increase?

I just don't see a serious answer from this by the City Council.
If I saw some competence or improvement I'd be more willing to
let it slide, but ....

ENOUGH ALREADY !

Palo Alto has lots of nice trees, but I've never seen any money trees in our fair city!

> Maybe if they are paid even more, we'd get better City Council members who actually care about our community

I'm not really trying to be funny here, but this makes me giggle.

Has anyone who has ever had to give an employee a salary review ever responded positively to the argument that if they get paid more they will do a better job of doing their job, which they are supposed to be doing anyway? ;-)

Council member Berman comes to council meetings ill prepared. He tries to cover up his lack of preparedness, by parroting the comments already made by other council members. He acts immature and obviously isn't terribly bright. We will be better off when he departs the city council. He brings nothing to the table.

I doubt that the salary for council members is sufficient for anyone who is not homeless and out of work to run. It also sends a bad message to other city employees. It's not just the salaries, but the benefits and perks. I hope such benefits and perks end once that person leaves office and that there is no retirement attached.

If the city as so much money, lets spend it where it is really needed: 1. Repair roads and sidewalks in ALL parts of Palo Alto; 2. Trim trees away from street signs and traffic signs; 3. Repair the boardwalks at Palo Alto Baylands. There are others that I'm certain other residents can think of.

Well deserved increase!

City Council works very hard; this is the least we can do.

Respectfully

It is 2015.

Let us be respectful. If you do not like some one's work, please convey that privately.

It is a free world, but being disrespectful is not good taste; it is un-American - as I learned as an immigrant from India.

Respectfully

Mr. Reddy -- with all due respect, freedom of speech, including open criticism of government and public officials is indeed a most American right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

We may disagree with the opinions other people express. We may wish they were more factful and tactful. But the comments expressed here are well within the legal boundaries and therefore should be respected and protected.

I agree with the comment about character assignation ...

> He acts immature and obviously isn't terribly bright

This is not criticism it is over the line nasty cruel character assassination without value and it should be deleted.