Editorial: Block pay raises for City Council

Who decides what a job pays? Generally, it’s the employer, and that principle should weigh into the current case of the Honolulu City Council member salaries.

The people of the City and County are the employers of the Council on two fronts. One, they shoulder the bills for all personnel receiving a city paycheck. Two, in the case of elected officials, voters go to the polls and hire them directly.

That’s why decisions on expectations, of what the job entails and how much it should pay, are of public concern — and the reason a proposed 64% salary increase rightly has drawn huge blowback.

It’s also the reason the matter should be put on the agenda for the City Council’s June 7 meeting — and a vote taken to reject the raise. People would have space to air their views, and each member’s position then would become a matter of public record.

On Wednesday, Council Vice Chair Esther Kia‘aina said she supports “an open dialogue by the Councilmembers” on the issue. The right way to do that is through an open hearing and vote. Kia‘aina’s position adds important weight to earlier, correct calls by fellow Councilmembers Augie Tulba and Andria Tupola for a public hearing on the proposed raises, and to reject them.

Of course, many other people also have been speaking up, loudly, against the Council’s 60%-plus raises, which would increase a member’s pay from $68,904 to $113,304, and the chair’s salary from $76,968 to $123,288.

These are amounts set by the Honolulu Salary Commission, a body established under the City Charter intended to make the process less political and guided by professional standards.

In its April 25 decision covering a wide range of city salaried positions, the commission clearly struggled to find the right standard to apply to the Council. The difficulty comes because the panel decided not only that some salary increase is deserved — and it is — but that it needs to be this outrageously large, all in one step.

In the “findings of fact” attached to the decision, the commissioners noted that unionized government staffers gained more regular raises through collective bargaining, while Council member salaries had been frozen 19 times over a 33-year span. The findings also cited figures that 46% of staffers earned more than the Council chair, and 77% made more than other Council members.

That said, those elected to the City Council knew what the job paid when they ran for office, and presumably did not consider pay as its primary attraction. There is also power and influence, an ability to effect change that eludes most people.

When attempting to narrow the pay disparity, the commission should have factored in the reaction of voters, many of whom also saw their income curbed by the pandemic and have yet to recover.

The commission decided that “indexing” the Council salaries to the starting level of a division chief, “would be most consistent with the managerial and policy-setting type of work Councilmembers perform.”

They are not really comparable, though, especially because specific credentials and skill sets are generally required for managers, whereas the Council is open to all candidates. But even if that pay is set as a target, hitting it in one shot is hard for the public to stomach. The commission’s process needs some reform to ensure raises are more gradual.

It’s in this context that Council Chair Tommy Waters and Kia‘aina recently introduced two measures that, through ordinance or a City Charter amendment, propose to change another condition of their Council jobs: No outside employment would be allowed.

These measures will come up June 7, opening a needed debate over their potential effects. While barring potential conflicts of interest, which would be a positive, this change also could constrain who would have the capacity to seek Council office.

And until there is a correction to the way Council raises are granted, the mammoth one on the table should go back on the shelf.