Item G.2. on the Common Council agenda this past Tuesday: A proposal by Alderman Steve Olson to suspend elected officials' expense and mileage payments.
I made my opinion clear on this earlier in the week. l found the idea self-serving, to say the least, and I think Alderman Olson was surprised by the reaction he received at the meeting. (He didn't help his cause when, at the outset, after saying "there is so much misconception about what this mileage and expense is ..." he misstated the monthly amount of the expense and mileage payment per official as $300. It's actually $150, quickly corrected by his fellow aldermen.)
Olson framed his argument for eliminating the expense payments as a show of support for those losing their jobs working for the city due to the budget crunch; lead by example. He believes it is "added pay" and that others see it that way as well.
I was somewhat surprised to hear aldermen speak strongly - and appropriately - against eliminating those payments. In addition to the fact that it erodes their professional status, changing the alderpersons' compensation in mid-term is hardly fair; as Alderman Kristen Wilhelm noted, she did a certain calculus to make sure she could support her responsibilities as a city official, including what would come out of her family budget, without taking contributions from local developers given the $8000 yearly stipend that has been in place since 1998.
For comic relief, visit Janet Evans' Righty Blog and listen to the podcast entitled "Aldermen Skowronski, Taylor and Wilhelm oppose the Ordinance and voice their opinions." Cue it to 6:20 and enjoy the rolling gales of laughter that greet Alderman Wilhelm's straight-faced suggestion that, in a community that is the very model of sprawl, Alderman Olson is the only member of the council close enough to city hall to actually walk there. That notion apparently tickled the funny bone of everyone in the room.
Except for Olson, who scowled with the intensity of a man who was expecting ticker tape and instead got pasted with curiously - infuriatingly - well-stated opposition.
It got worse. We were reminded that three of six council members voluntarily returned their expense stipend on an individual basis some years back (they included Mayor Taylor and Don Dorson, who was unseated by Olson and the Franklin Citizens for Responsible Government cadre; the other three aldermen promised to do so as well but ultimately reneged).
Observation from the meeting: Alderman Olson can barely contain his contempt for Dorson, who is currently working to fund and build the Franklin Cultural Arts Center; it's noticable even to persons who have never before attended a common council meeting.
Taking up Olson's defense, Alderman Sohns sternly resented the suggestion that the motion represented political grandstanding. Unmoved, Mayor Taylor later went ahead and called it political grandstanding.
Olson helpfully reminded all assembled that this was not grandstanding, because, after all, "not once did you hear me mention any of the other things I've done for the city." Not once, ladies and gentlemen.
And, as if that wasn't precious enough, Olson unleashed this gem:
"I have heard from my colleagues that they were going to give $150 out of their pocket, and that they were going to do something; that, my friends, is grandstanding."
Well, no. That, my friends, is conversation. Introducing a motion in open session, noted on a public agenda - with "Ald. Olson" as sole author - and expecting a vote on it days after it slides out of your inkjet printer? That's upper deck.
In the end, the motion was struck down with only Sohns and Olson voting "Aye." Good sense prevailed.
Comments