Pay Raises for Elected Officials and Commission Reform
Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation
Meeting overview
The Committee on Governmental Operations, State and Federal Legislation held a hearing on a preconsidered local law (T2026-2196) to codify the recommendations of the 2026 Quadrennial Advisory Commission on elected official compensation. The bill would raise salaries for the Mayor, Public Advocate, City Council members, Borough Presidents, Comptroller, and District Attorneys by 18.2%, retroactive to January 2026. It would also reform the commission process itself: moving future commissions to the third year of the mayoral term, extending the commission's working period from 75 to 120 days, requiring that any salary increases take effect only at the start of the following term, and establishing an automatic annual inflation adjustment of 2% or actual inflation, whichever is lower, as a backstop if a future mayor fails to convene a commission. The bill essentially enacts in law what the commission recommended in its June 23, 2026 report, and no Council members present voiced opposition.
Commission Chair Carl Weisbrod testified in support of the bill, explaining the 18.2% figure as reflecting the increase in the cost of living since January 2022, when most current elected officials took office, rather than from 2016 when the last raise was enacted. He acknowledged the actual inflation since 2016 has been considerably higher but argued officials accepted their salaries knowingly when they took office. He defended the retroactive effective date of January 2026, noting the commission considered July 2026 but deferred to the law as written. He also defended the commission model over automatic adjustments, arguing commissions can account for fiscal context, crises, and institutional reform in ways that a formula cannot.
Good government groups Citizens Union and Reinvent Albany both supported the core salary increase and process reforms but opposed the automatic inflation-adjustment backstop, the one point of substantive disagreement in the hearing. Both argued the backstop would perversely eliminate the political incentive for mayors to convene commissions at all, since automatic raises are the path of least resistance. Both also suggested distributing commission appointment power among multiple elected officials, such as the Comptroller, rather than leaving it solely with the Mayor, as a more durable structural fix. Reinvent Albany additionally urged the Council to accompany the pay raise with ethics and transparency reforms, specifically making financial disclosure forms available in open data format, removing the notification requirement triggered when disclosure forms are requested, and requiring that the Council formally explain in writing any departures from commission recommendations. Citizens Union flagged a possible drafting error in the bill that could cause the automatic adjustment to trigger even when a commission is convened.
The hearing was brief and uncontentious at the Council level. One member of the public, Christopher Leon Johnson, testified in favour but also called for repealing the ban on outside earned income and raising Council salaries further to at least $200,000. Chair Brewer noted the ten-year gap since the last raise is the longest in the forty years the commission framework has existed, and observed that de Blasio failed to convene a commission in 2020 and Adams failed to do so in 2024. The bill is expected to pass.
Numbers
- Proposed salary increase for all covered elected officials: 18.2%.
- Last salary increase for New York City elected officials: 2016, making the gap ten years as of 2026.
- Inflation increase since January 2022, which is the basis for the 18.2% figure.
- Current working period for the Quadrennial Advisory Commission: 75 days.
- Proposed working period for the Quadrennial Advisory Commission: 120 days.
- Proposed automatic annual inflation backstop if no commission is convened: 2% or actual inflation rate, whichever is lower.
- Current City Council member base salary before the raise: approximately $140,500.
- Current City Council Speaker salary referenced in public testimony: approximately $190,000.
- Los Angeles Council member salary cited for comparison: $200,000, with nine Council members total.
- Chicago City Council has 51 members, same as New York City, but members are paid more despite a smaller budget.
- Philadelphia Council members are paid more than New York counterparts and represent a smaller jurisdiction.
- Commission report issued on June 23, 2026, on the 75th and final day of its working period.
- Next commission, if the bill passes, would be convened in 2028, with recommendations taking effect in January 2030 and every four years thereafter.
- New York City Council members represent more constituents than Council members in any comparable US city except Los Angeles.
- Citizens Union has operated as a nonpartisan good government group in New York for nearly 130 years.
Action Points
- Council to review and correct potential drafting error in T2026-2196 that may cause automatic inflation adjustment to trigger even when a Quadrennial Commission is convened, as flagged by Citizens Union.
- Council to consider amending T2026-2196 to allow an alternative elected official, such as the Comptroller, to appoint a Quadrennial Advisory Commission if the Mayor fails to do so by the statutory deadline.
- Council to consider requiring written justification when it modifies or declines to adopt Quadrennial Commission recommendations, as recommended by both the Commission and Reinvent Albany.
- Council to consider requiring elected officials' financial disclosure forms to be published in open data format, as recommended by Reinvent Albany.
- Council to consider requiring financial disclosure forms from the full period of an official's service to remain publicly available online, rather than requiring formal FOIL requests with notification requirements.
- Council to consider removing the notification requirement triggered by requests for financial disclosure statements, bringing the City in line with State practice.
- Council to consider removing references to stipends from the Charter as a vestige no longer reflecting current practice, as flagged by the Quadrennial Commission and supported by Reinvent Albany.
- Comptroller to publish a table of all covered elected officials' salaries, with Council to specify this be published on the Comptroller's website.
- Mayor to convene the next Quadrennial Advisory Commission in 2028, per the schedule codified in the bill.
▸ Full Transcript
Good morning. Thanks.
Hello, hello, good morning. Welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Governmental Operations, State and Federal Legislation. At this time please silence all phones and electronic devices. If you wish to speak in today's hearing please fill out an appearance card with one of the sergeants. Moving forward, no one is to approach the dais. Chair, you may begin.
Thank you very much. I am Gale Brewer, Chair of the Committee on Governmental Operations, State and Federal Legislation. Thank you everyone for joining, particularly interns and children — those are the best.
I would like to welcome elected officials, members of the public and any City Council colleagues who have joined us today, particularly CM Wilson. We will be hearing Deputy Speaker Williams's Bill, which we are hearing as a Preconsidered introduction. It would increase the compensation of the Mayor, Public Advocate, members of the City Council, Borough Presidents, Comptroller and District Attorneys. All the DAs have a different system. Elected official pay is set by local law, but under our City's Administrative Code the Mayor is required to appoint a commission to review the compensation levels of elected officials every four years.
And make recommendations to the Council. The design and function of this quadrennial commission is meant to create regularity in the review of elected official salaries. However, with the exception of — as I said earlier — the last time City elected officials received a raise was back in 2016. Mayor de Blasio failed to impanel the required commission in 2020, maybe because of the pandemic — who knows. And Adams subsequently failed to convene one in 2024, although Mayor Bloomberg did not do much either.
This ten-year gap is the longest that City officials have gone without a raise in the 40 years since the commission's framework has been in place. Over that time, salaries of New York elected officials have failed to keep pace with inflation and with the salaries of elected officials across the country. Legislators and other places — Los Angeles, I was on the board of the National League of Cities so I got to hear a lot from other cities. LA has a completely different system. They do get paid more but they have a stronger — so weak mayor — they only have nine members in LA. But Chicago has the same number, 51 members, and much smaller, and they get paid more.
And Philadelphia definitely gets paid more and is definitely smaller. All those cities have much smaller budgets and smaller workforces. These stagnant wages not only affect elected officials. For non-executive roles, an elected official's salary serves as a cap on the salaries of those employees who work for them, in some cases keeping those salaries artificially low. This keeps the City from offering competitive wages, which can prevent us from being able to attract the best and brightest to crucial City jobs. I will say that staff, however, in the Mayor's office and the Speaker's office and maybe elsewhere is often paid higher than the elected officials.
Low salaries for elected officials can also negatively influence who is even able to run for office. Being an elected official in New York City is a challenging and demanding 24/7 job. Elected officials should be able to support themselves and their families on their government salary without having to rely on family or other outside income. If salaries are too low, only wealthy individuals will be able to run.
Earlier this year, shortly after taking office, the Mayor, along with the Speaker — much thanks to the Speaker — moved forward with the formation of the quadrennial advisory commission to review compensation levels for elected officials. The commission released its findings in a report on June 23 of this year. It recommended an increase in the salaries of the Mayor, Borough Presidents, City Council members and DAs by 18.2%. All of the DAs have a different system based on other jurisdictions.
In addition to the pay increase, the commission also made several other recommendations regarding elected official pay. They recommended actually convening the commission every four years and altering the timing of future commissions so that they will occur during the third year of a four-year term of office rather than the first year, along with requiring that any compensation increases not take effect until the beginning of the next term.
The commission also recommended giving future commissions 120 days instead of the current 75 days to complete their work. Additionally, the commission recommended that if salaries for the covered elected offices remain unchanged during the four-year term, they should automatically increase by 2% per year or the actual inflation rate, whichever is lower. This will ensure regular pay raises for elected officials. This Preconsidered introduction that we are hearing today would codify these recommendations.
We thank the members of the commission for their service, in particular Carl Weisbrod, Larry and Angelo, and Dr. Lily... all friends of mine for about 40 years. All — oh geez, that is why I like them. Before I conclude I would like to thank the following Council staff for their work from the Governmental Operations Committee: Harry Frazer, Eric Coen, Cynthia Morningstar and everyone in the background — I also appreciate you so much.
And I do not know if CM Williams is here, but CM Dinowitz is here also, which I very much appreciate. So now I think we will turn it over to the Council to administer the oath after we — let us read this first.
I now open the hearing for public testimony. The public should know that this is a government proceeding and decorum will be observed at all times. Members of the public shall remain silent at all times. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video or photography is allowed from the witness table. Members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony but may submit transcripts of such recordings to the Sergeant at Arms for inclusion in the hearing record. If you would like to speak, fill out an appearance card with the wonderful Sergeant at Arms and wait to be recognized. You will have three minutes to speak on today's hearing topic, although you can speak much longer if you want. Compensation is the topic — of the Mayor, Public Advocate, City Council, Borough Presidents, Comptroller and District Attorneys. If you have a written statement or written testimony you wish to submit, please provide a copy of that testimony to the Sergeant at Arms. Those on Zoom may also email written testimony to testimony@council.nyc.gov within 72 hours of the close of the hearing. Audio and video recordings will not be accepted. And obviously if you are here and you want to speak you are going to be called up.
I would like to call up Carl Weisbrod, who...
...was the chair of the commission. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am just really here to thank you for embracing our recommendations. I just want to stress one particular recommendation, which is the importance of the Council and the Mayor making recommendations on compensation for the following Council — not the one that makes the recommendation. So it was a very important recommendation of ours. We hope we created an incentive for the Mayor to call a commission so that we will not go through the inordinate, unconscionable — really unconscionable — ten-year gaps between one recommendation for compensation and the next. With that I just wanted to thank you and I have no further statements. We submitted our report to you and thank you for your consideration of it.
Well, thank you. I think we...
...have some questions. I am sure my colleagues do too. I have a few. I do want to thank you for your service. You must be the most decorated commission person in the United States of America and you have done such a great job on every commission you have served on. You are a true New Yorker. Carl, the feeling is mutual, Madam Chair. Yes, well — no, well — really appreciate it.
I guess one of my questions — I know that you had the number that you came up with in terms of the 18.2%, and you talked about the fact that it should be applicable to the next group, not the current one. So I guess I want to know: how do you reach that figure? What was the thinking behind that?
The thinking behind our recommendation was, given the inordinate, unconscionable period of time between the last recommendation for compensation and this one, that our recommendation of 18.2% across the board for all elected officials — going back based on their compensation in 2016, effective as of January 2026 — and that future commissions be called two years into a mayoral term, and the recommendations of those commissions should be effective, if approved by the Council, for the following term of the Council. So the next commission should in our view be called in 2028, recommendations made within 120 days, and whatever is enacted by the Council would then take effect in January 2030 and every four years thereafter.
We came up with our 18.2% because that represents the increase in the cost of living since January 2022, when the vast majority of current elected officials — in fact I think just about all except for the District Attorneys — commenced their first four-year term. I should note that the actual cost of living since the last increase in 2016 has been significantly higher than that, but we felt that all elected officials took office with the understanding of what their salaries would be in January 2022. As you know, we have gone through a period of intense inflation and it is on that basis that we reached our 18.2%.
I would also just note that while New York City is the largest city in the country and the most complex city in the country for sure, the proposed salary of the Mayor is still less than those in some other cities, even if these recommendations are approved as we hope they will be. And the proposed salaries of Council members will still be behind a couple of other major cities in the country, even though Council members here — with the exception of Los Angeles — have many more constituents than Council members elsewhere in the country.
Thank you. And then — I know this was a request of the Council member who proposed the legislation — but why would you make it retroactive to...
January 2026? The legislation that we were dealing with calls for it to be retroactive to January 2026. We contemplated July 2026, but we felt, again, given the long interim between the last increase and this proposed increase, we should respect the law as written.
OK. And then obviously you recommended more time — 120 days — and I guess the current requirement is 75 days. I do not even know if you had 75 days. I do not know how much time you had. Not much. So the question is: were there things you would have liked to consider if you had more time?
We would have liked much more. We were extremely fortunate because within that 75 days — we did do it within 75 days, we submitted our report exactly on the 75th day. We were extremely fortunate to have been able to utilize the resources of the City University's Institute for State and Local Governance to do extensive analytic work for us, and managed to attract a handful of other highly competent people to work on this with very, very thin staff rather than the help we got from the City University's Institute for State and Local Government. Without the ability to have and the good fortune to have attracted that at the very beginning, we would never have been able to meet our deadline. And it usually — as you all know — it is not easy and it is not expeditious usually to get resources on board through the City of New York engagement process. Let me put it that way.
All right. And then obviously we do not want other mayors to not convene a commission, so you came up with a way to deal with that in terms of kicking in a way to handle the salary increase if in fact they do not. So if you could talk about that a little bit — obviously tied to inflation — and I was just wondering... hopefully this will not kick in because there will be commissions.
But can you just talk about that a little bit? A number of recommendations were made to us to reconstitute who appoints members of the commission and what happens if the Mayor does not appoint a commission — should some other elected official be able to appoint a commission? We believe strongly that since the Mayor does ultimately control the resources of the City and the budget, the Mayor should be the one to convene a commission, and moreover that any alternative would probably require a Charter change that would have to go before the voters. We felt that we wanted to give a modest incentive to mayors to meet their obligations in the future, while at the same time providing some hedge in case they did not. So that is how we came up with the formula we did. I do have to give a lot of credit to my co-commissioners Lillian, Larry and Angelo, both of whom are very savvy with respect to New York City government, and they were very helpful in helping us fashion these particular incentives.
It is quite a threesome, if I say so. Just finally, from my perspective — the salaries of staff. There are different kinds of staff in the Mayor's office and City government and in the City Council. There are obviously many workers in both who are union — that is a bargaining discussion — and then there are the ones that are, I guess, at-will, I would call them. So in the City Council, I guess my question is — because I have staff who are very underpaid, and I think many Council members do also — the staff often of the Speaker or the Mayor directly in the Mayor's office are highly paid. So I guess my question is: I do not think this commission or any commission can really address salaries of staff, but I just did not know if that came up, or is that something that we should be... what do you think about that?
That issue came up in the following context. You are absolutely right that we are charged — and the law requires us — only to look at and comment on and opine on the salaries and compensation of elected officials. However, one of the factors that the law requires us to look at is what is called wage compression: to the extent that the salaries of elected officials compress the salaries of staff, thus limiting the expertise that the City can hire or that elected officials can hire. We did look at wage compression and we were particularly asked by the District Attorneys to look at wage compression. But we found that both in the Mayor's office and in the Council and elsewhere in the offices of elected officials, there were many, many people who were earning a lot more than the elected officials that they worked for. We determined that wage compression was not a serious concern in terms of determining the compensation for elected officials. I certainly agree it is a real issue for individual Council members, but that is more of an internal issue both for the Mayor and the City Council. I think you are right.
And just finally, one other question. Around the country I guess in some cases there is an automatic process as opposed to a commission. In other words, you set it and... but I think here, because of the — I guess I believe a commission was the way to go even though it was not constituted. Do you think that...
...is a good idea as opposed to just an automatic process based on whatever criteria is set?
Yes, I do. I think that...
...you are right that some do use an automatic method of just increasing compensation based on the cost of living or whatever other factors. But I do believe that a commission, which also reflects the context of where the City is at a given time, is much more appropriate. Many state legislatures also use a commission, as does the federal government. There will be instances where for one reason or another — a crisis like 9/11 or COVID or a similar crisis — where even though the cost of living has temporarily spiked, a commission would not recommend an equivalent increase in compensation because the spike in the cost of living was temporary, or the City's finances were in such terrible shape that it did not make sense to do that, and it would be a bad reflection on a whole host of other factors. So yes, I do think a commission is a much better idea.
That is very helpful. Knowing my colleagues, I do not think anyone has questions. OK. Thank you very much, Carl Weisbrod. I appreciate everything more than I could ever say. The next panel is Grace Rau from Citizens Union and Rachel Fauss from Reinvent Albany. And I want to thank Grace's interns — I am very supportive of interns and staff. Go ahead.
Who would like to begin? Go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning. Chair, Commission, my name is Grace Rao — members of the Council Committee, excuse me — my name is Grace Rao, on the executive of Citizens Union, a nonpartisan good government group that has worked to advance honest, accountable and effective government and fair and open elections in New York for nearly 130 years. I want to thank you, Chair, the Chair of the Quadrennial Advisory Commission and the members of the Commission. We supported its establishment through advocacy and testimony because we believe periodic reviews of elected officials' compensation are essential to good government and because we felt that the ten-year salary freeze was unsustainable.
We want to thank the Council for incorporating nearly all of the Commission's recommendations, including most of our own recommendations to the Commission and to this proposed Bill, and for bringing it to the public hearing today. We do support the Bill but I want to flag that we are concerned about the proposed automatic inflation-adjusted salary increases as a backstop when a Commission is not convened. My written testimony has more details but I will go through some of it now at a high level.
We support increasing all elected officials' salaries by 18.2%. Our longstanding position is that elected officials should be well compensated. Competitive salaries attract strong candidates, enable individuals who are not independently wealthy to pursue public service, reduce incentives for corruption and signal the importance of public service. The proposed increase reflects those goals and we support it. We also support restoring the Quadrennial Advisory Commission cycle to the third year of the term, with the next Commission set to be established in 2028. We support codifying prospective salary recommendations and we support extending the Commission's timeframe from 75 days to 120 days.
On the establishment of automatic inflation-adjusted salary increases if no Commission is convened, we are opposed to that change. Citizens Union does not recommend adopting the backstop mechanism proposed by the Commission and incorporated into this Bill. We fully support establishing a mechanism to ensure that Quadrennial Advisory Commissions are convened in a timely manner so that we can prevent another decade-long salary freeze. However, we are concerned that the proposed approach would effectively eliminate the incentive to convene Quadrennial Advisory Commissions in the future. We think the Commission-based review process is preferable to an automatic adjustment for two principled reasons.
First, salary reviews involve qualitative considerations that cannot be captured through an inflation adjustment alone. Second, pay commissions serve as vehicles for broader institutional reform, not merely salary recommendations. In 2025, the Commission's recommendations resulted in the ban on outside earned income, the elimination of Council lulus and other significant reforms. Commissions have also advanced recommendations related to transparency and accountability and we are concerned that eliminating the incentive to convene commissions would diminish an important mechanism for improving government.
Finally, the Bill appears to provide that the automatic salary adjustment would take effect even if a Quadrennial Advisory Commission were convened. This may be a drafting error and something to look at more closely, but that is another flag for us. We recommend amending the Bill to authorize another citywide elected official, such as the City Comptroller, to appoint a Quadrennial Advisory Commission if the Mayor fails to do so by the statutory deadline. Thank you very much.
Good morning. Thank you, Chair Brewer and other members of the Council, and thank you to Commissioner Weisbroward for his testimony. My name is Rachel Foster. I am the Senior Policy Advisor for Reinvent Albany. Reinvent Albany advocates for transparent and accountable government in New York. We support competitive salaries for elected and appointed government officials because we want government service to appeal to a broad spectrum of qualified and diverse candidates. We are encouraged the Council reached an agreement with Mayor Mamdani to appoint the public. Testimony informed the report and recommendations. This Council hearing is another important opportunity to hear from the public about this legislation, so thank you for this hearing today.
In brief, here are our positions on Int 0786-2026. We support the 18.2% salary increases for elected officials. We also support the reforms to the Commission process, such as restarting the Commission in 2028, the third year of the term, and then every four years thereafter. We support the one-time increase in 2026 and we also support increasing the time the Commission has to issue a report to 120 days.
Like Citizens Union, we do not support — we oppose — the automatic 8.25% or inflation adjustment if commissions are not formed. And if there is a drafting error, we certainly encourage you to look at that. The provisions would effectively eliminate all public input regarding elected officials' salaries if a Quadrennial Commission is not formed. Currently the Council must pass legislation to enact raises and that triggers a public hearing, and then the Quadrennial Commission itself typically holds hearings. The Commission process at the city level is one of the few opportunities for the public to discuss with policymakers not only salary levels but important reforms like caps and bans on outside income and financial disclosure transparency, for example. This proposal creates an unintended consequence and incentive for the Mayor to not convene the Commission because it is the path of least resistance.
Lastly, we support the Comptroller publishing a table of elected officials' salaries. This makes sense. The Bill could specifically say that this be published on the Comptroller's website, just to make it a little bit more 2026-appropriate. And lastly, we encourage the Council to accompany salary increases with additional reforms to ethics and transparency. In 2015, the Council required disclosure forms of elected officials be published on the Conflicts of Interest Board website and eliminated lulus. The Council should continue this important tradition of providing a benefit to the public while they provide a
benefit to themselves. We recommend the following. The Council should be required to provide reasons in writing when it modifies or does not accept the Quadrennial Commission recommendations. The Quadrennial Commission endorsed this proposal in their report. The Council should remove mention of stipends in the Charter. This is a vestige of the past. The Commission flagged this for you to consider and we support that.
The Council should lastly make financial disclosure forms much more accessible. The Quadrennial Commission said that our proposals in this area have merit, though felt they were outside their purview. Fortunately, you, the Council, have the authority to make this happen. We support requiring elected officials' forms be available in an open data format. We know that this would require the Conflicts of Interest Board to upgrade its databases, which they told you at the budget hearing that they would like to do anyway. We support requiring all financial disclosure statements from the time that elected officials are in office to be available on the website. Unfortunately, forms of former officials like Eric Adams from 2025 must still be requested, which triggers a notification requirement. We think this needs to be corrected. And lastly, we support removing the notification requirement for all financial disclosure statements altogether. The State does not require this for financial disclosures. It is simply a FOIL request and we think the City should treat it the same way. Thank you for your consideration.
Very much. Other questions from anybody over here?
OK, I always have some. So I have one question, which is this — maybe I should have asked Commissioner Weisbroward but I was... The Mayor and the Speaker said they would be able to, or they do not want to, take the full salary. That was in the newspaper. How would they do that? Can you split that up? I do not know... I remember right, they can refund the money or they can donate it. I think there have been different ways in the past that elected officials have done this.
And I think Mayor de Blasio also declined the salary increase after a pay raise was enacted. Until there is a method...
The question I have is: do you think that mayors — I guess you felt strongly — could in fact, or would in fact, even Council Speakers and Council members, would in fact feel like this is too much work to have the Commission? This is, you know, nicer to just take our salary. You were quite strong about that feeling. I just was wondering what you base that on. I mean, because I must have...
...meant, having listened to this — I did not realize, this is embarrassing for me because I have been in office since all these folks did not have these commissions. I think I am the only one. But in the whole time I did not pay attention to it, to be honest with you. So then I think no, because there is such interest and pressure, like you must have a Commission, that I think it will happen. However, it could not, but you know, down the line, who knows. I just want you to talk about that a little bit.
I think for us we are basing this on what we have seen happen over the last decade, where we had Mayor de Blasio convene the last Quadrennial Commission. He would have been able and was sort of legally required to convene a second one during his term. He did not do that. Then we had Mayor Adams who never convened one during his term. So we have seen, in recent years, a reluctance to move forward with this. My sense is that it would be viewed as a politically dicey or challenging endeavor to pursue, despite the fact that it is legally required. And so, given the reluctance already to create these commissions, we are concerned that if the option of an inflation-adjusted pay raise exists, then there will be no appetite at all by our political leaders to ever have a Commission again.
Yeah, I think our view is very similar. As I said in my testimony, it does seem like the path of least resistance to just not do it. You know, there is always press interest in the salaries. And then I would add that there are other ways to perhaps make it so that this Commission... there are other backstops. I know that Citizens Union mentioned the Comptroller. In our previous testimony to the Council back in...
2025, we suggested alternative means. I think the issue is the Mayor holds all the cards in appointing the Commission and can hold that over the Council. So another way, other than an automatic increase, would be to have a Commission appointed by the Mayor, the Council, the Comptroller, the Public Advocate, different officials, so that it is more likely to be formed. Since it is advisory, I think it is something for you to look into in terms of whether it requires a Charter Commission approval from the voters. Maybe it does. I know the Commission looked at this but, you know, there are other ways to have a backstop and one of them is to not have the Mayor have unilateral power over the Commission.
OK, Council, question.
Thank you, Chair. I just wonder, did you do any research about increases in salary for elected officials and corruption? Is there any relationship between...
I would say that the outside income being banned by the City Council a number of years ago was a very important step to not have corruption. At the State level there is outside income that is allowed and there have been problems in the past. I think certainly to the extent that there is a higher salary, there is less of an incentive to seek private income that could create conflicts of interest. Thank you.
And we still have the question of staff. I do not know — Commissioner Weisbroward said correctly that it was looked at but not appropriate. So I am just wondering, do you think also on the staff issue, that is a different topic, or could it have been something that was discussed?
Perhaps it could not have been officially recommended but maybe it is a discussion point. I think we certainly support staff salary increases. As a former legislative staffer myself, I feel that personally. So I would agree, yes.
And then just also, during the 120 days — I know you both suggested that is a good timeframe — are there other topics that you mentioned, Reinvent Albany, that could be considered?
So those who think could be part of a future Commission — what you are saying essentially is that the value of the Commission is looking at pay but holistically, within the broader sort of City Council and government structure, to determine: are there reforms that could be tied to a pay increase? So as Rachel put it, if the Council is getting something in terms of higher pay, what are some reforms that are good for the public good — ethics reforms, accountability, transparency — that could be tied with a pay raise and provide a broader benefit to the City?
Yeah, I think the financial disclosure is what we focused on, given that it is obviously directly related and it does get at some of the corruption — potential corruption — issues that CM Zhuang mentioned specifically. So...
Are there suggestions that you made to the Charter Revision Commission that is currently meeting that are relevant to this topic? I know there are two separate issues. I find sometimes — I know this is not appropriate to say — going to the public on these nuanced issues can be complicated. That is why I like a Commission, because those folks are invested. To the credit of the Mayor, in my opinion, he picked three of the best possible people to be on this Commission, because they have the knowledge and the background. They do understand the nuances, they do understand the budget and they do understand City government. So I think this is a better route personally. But I did not know if there was some other route you also thought should be considered via the Charter. I do not think so. I mean, I do not... so I am just wondering how you felt.
About it. All right. I do not have any other questions. Anybody else? No.
Okay, thank you both very, very much. Thank you. Leon Johnson? Hello.
My name is Christopher Leon Johnson. I support these provisions one hundred percent. With two meetings — CM Williams and now you — first off, we have to eliminate the ban on outside income. The problem is that we want the right people in office, but if they make $400,000 or $600,000 in the private sector, or sometimes nonprofits — I know these two in the back probably make over $300,000 a year — why would you want to leave a $100,000-a-year job at a nonprofit to go make $140,000 in the City Council, $175,000 at the top? That is the problem here. We cannot attract the right people because nobody is going to take a big-time pay cut, especially where you are scrutinized for everything you do and everybody is thinking that you are taking money under the table.
Now I am calling for the removal of the outside income ban in the City Council. I am calling for the City Council to make at least $200,000 a year. Why? In LA they make $200,000 a year. Why do these members make $140,500? Look, the second thing is that the City Council, if you ever moved the provisions for outside income, I think that should be the priority. The City Council is classified as part time. Not only that, but part time — because these majority offices are open part time. Why are offices open 21 hours a week? She is full time. That is ridiculous. If you want to be full time you should open yours to at least 32 hours a week.
I will say this right here: when it comes to inflation, this should just increase the salaries any time there is an inflation increase. Nobody should be taking prolonged action just to stay in compliance with the money. Look, at the end of the day, I support this. This is long overdue. The Mayor and the Speaker should not be declining their own salary increase. They do not understand that what they make, or tend to make, is $300,000 a year. I think the Speaker makes $190,000 a year, which is like pocket change compared to what people who have to work in the private sector make. Especially when some program directors make more money than the Mayor. That is a different thing. Why is it that some workers who are in a contract dispute are complaining about their wages making more than the Mayor? Some City Council members — it is crazy.
Going forward, I support this. This should go through. There should be no more commissions, no more side commissions, nothing to that extent, to where it hurts your pocket. Because I know so many members who need a supermajority and the whip should not be involved. So thank you.
Much. Enjoy your day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Perfect timing. This is concluded and I certainly want to thank the...