What’s America’s Favorite Radio Station?
No, it’s not KHAY or the Boomer. It’s WII-FM. Never heard of it? It stands for “What’s in it for me?”
That’s not to say that Americans in general – and you and I in particular – are motivated solely by self-interest. But our hyper-competitive and individualistic society naturally reinforces our human tendencies toward envy and resentment. It’s hard to escape the temptation to compare ourselves with others and wonder why we work so hard and others get so much.
That thought crossed my mind when I read about the new City Manager in Salinas, a friend who I’ve known since he was an intern in Pasadena. Most recently, he was an Assistant City Manager in West Covina. Salinas is a struggling town that three years ago narrowly averted closing its libraries for lack of funding. His starting salary? It’s $205,000 or 18% higher than what I’m paid after more than four years leading a similar sized-city. In Palo Alto, the new manager will be getting $240,000 starting salary, a transportation allowance of $600 per month and the city will contribute another $23,000 a year toward a supplemental retirement plan. There is also a generous housing assistance plan of up to $2 million dollars.
It may be tough for City Councils to recruit top managers in this tough political climate, but these kinds of compensation packages not only evoke jealousy from other city managers, they understandably stoke hostility from citizens. And that generalized anger extends to virtually anyone in public employment, as reflected in the comments on the Ventura Star’s website regarding the Firefighter contract approved last week by the Council on a 4-3 vote. “They already have fat pensions,” insists a reader who calls himself ‘Growlerboy.’ “How much is enough? When does it end? The only way to get the city's attention is to vote down all future taxes. No more money until they can prove it will be spent wisely!” ‘Sassygal’ weighs in with her opinion that Ventura firefighters have it “made in the shade” and growls: “We should pay them more for their services? HARDLY!!!”
In this polarized environment, our City Council must weigh and balance the conflicting demands of a public clamoring for high quality services and a workforce expecting competitive compensation to provide those services. Each side is focused on the obvious question: “what’s in it for me?”
That's hardly surprising. Citizens pay Federal, State and various local taxes seemingly at every turn at a time when families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. If you work for a bank, a car dealer, an airline, a real estate firm or a builder, losing your job is probably more likely than getting a raise. Not much sympathy for public servants, especially if higher taxes or fees are involved!
Ironically, those same public servants mirror that frustration. They pay those same taxes and face the same higher gas, food and medical costs. They recall tough times where they skipped cost of living adjustments for years at a time with the hope that they would catch up later. They wonder why their families should remain loyal to Ventura if Ventura won't pay them benefits comparable to at least the average of other communities.
I don’t have a pat answer to those who ask the question: “What’s in it for me?” To the citizens, I’ve tried to make the case that you can’t run a first-class city with second-class compensation. To city staff, I’ve tried to make the case that pride, respect, excellence, public service, innovation, sustainable finances and a positive work environment are just as important factors as pay and benefits. I’ve tried to set a personal example – my pay remains below my predecessor’s, well below the market average and is no longer even the highest paid in our city government (I’m now third.) Yet I recognize that my willingness last year to participate in the Austin city manager selection process reinforced the natural suspicion that I am just another mercenary who was willing to jump for a more lucrative offer if it had been extended. Few seemed to believe that I would be intrigued by the challenge of helping one of America’s fastest growing big cities to achieve their goal of becoming “the most livable and sustainable city in the nation.” Or that I would conclude on my own that running an organization with 12,000 city employees was not the job for me, even if it did mean lots more money and prestige.
So I don’t know how much anyone – citizens or city staff – buys my argument that we actually all have it pretty good here. Comparative studies show we run a remarkably economical city government – but you wouldn’t know that from the constant carping of those who rail against “the gang in the Ivory Tower.” Market data shows that while we remain behind the curve on competitive compensation, we have made significant progress – and we are continuing to make modest progress in catching up to the average.
Clearly the City Council doesn’t get sufficient credit for their steady and responsible efforts to find the right balance. Nor will it get easier for us as the economy continues to deteriorate. But the problem with the question of “What’s in it for me?” is that we all depend on each other. When we lose sight of that, envy and resentment can blind citizens and staff alike to the blessings we share and the mutual obligations we owe each other.
In much tougher times, Ben Franklin told his fellow pioneers in self-government, “we must all hang together – or most assuredly, we all hang separately.” Subordinating one’s immediate interests for the long-term greater good isn’t the mark of either a saint or a sap. It’s enlightened self-interest. Those little stickers that sprouted after 9/11 have begun to fade and peel. But the sentiment still holds: “United we stand.” Divided we fall.
That’s not to say that Americans in general – and you and I in particular – are motivated solely by self-interest. But our hyper-competitive and individualistic society naturally reinforces our human tendencies toward envy and resentment. It’s hard to escape the temptation to compare ourselves with others and wonder why we work so hard and others get so much.
That thought crossed my mind when I read about the new City Manager in Salinas, a friend who I’ve known since he was an intern in Pasadena. Most recently, he was an Assistant City Manager in West Covina. Salinas is a struggling town that three years ago narrowly averted closing its libraries for lack of funding. His starting salary? It’s $205,000 or 18% higher than what I’m paid after more than four years leading a similar sized-city. In Palo Alto, the new manager will be getting $240,000 starting salary, a transportation allowance of $600 per month and the city will contribute another $23,000 a year toward a supplemental retirement plan. There is also a generous housing assistance plan of up to $2 million dollars.
It may be tough for City Councils to recruit top managers in this tough political climate, but these kinds of compensation packages not only evoke jealousy from other city managers, they understandably stoke hostility from citizens. And that generalized anger extends to virtually anyone in public employment, as reflected in the comments on the Ventura Star’s website regarding the Firefighter contract approved last week by the Council on a 4-3 vote. “They already have fat pensions,” insists a reader who calls himself ‘Growlerboy.’ “How much is enough? When does it end? The only way to get the city's attention is to vote down all future taxes. No more money until they can prove it will be spent wisely!” ‘Sassygal’ weighs in with her opinion that Ventura firefighters have it “made in the shade” and growls: “We should pay them more for their services? HARDLY!!!”
In this polarized environment, our City Council must weigh and balance the conflicting demands of a public clamoring for high quality services and a workforce expecting competitive compensation to provide those services. Each side is focused on the obvious question: “what’s in it for me?”
That's hardly surprising. Citizens pay Federal, State and various local taxes seemingly at every turn at a time when families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. If you work for a bank, a car dealer, an airline, a real estate firm or a builder, losing your job is probably more likely than getting a raise. Not much sympathy for public servants, especially if higher taxes or fees are involved!
Ironically, those same public servants mirror that frustration. They pay those same taxes and face the same higher gas, food and medical costs. They recall tough times where they skipped cost of living adjustments for years at a time with the hope that they would catch up later. They wonder why their families should remain loyal to Ventura if Ventura won't pay them benefits comparable to at least the average of other communities.
I don’t have a pat answer to those who ask the question: “What’s in it for me?” To the citizens, I’ve tried to make the case that you can’t run a first-class city with second-class compensation. To city staff, I’ve tried to make the case that pride, respect, excellence, public service, innovation, sustainable finances and a positive work environment are just as important factors as pay and benefits. I’ve tried to set a personal example – my pay remains below my predecessor’s, well below the market average and is no longer even the highest paid in our city government (I’m now third.) Yet I recognize that my willingness last year to participate in the Austin city manager selection process reinforced the natural suspicion that I am just another mercenary who was willing to jump for a more lucrative offer if it had been extended. Few seemed to believe that I would be intrigued by the challenge of helping one of America’s fastest growing big cities to achieve their goal of becoming “the most livable and sustainable city in the nation.” Or that I would conclude on my own that running an organization with 12,000 city employees was not the job for me, even if it did mean lots more money and prestige.
So I don’t know how much anyone – citizens or city staff – buys my argument that we actually all have it pretty good here. Comparative studies show we run a remarkably economical city government – but you wouldn’t know that from the constant carping of those who rail against “the gang in the Ivory Tower.” Market data shows that while we remain behind the curve on competitive compensation, we have made significant progress – and we are continuing to make modest progress in catching up to the average.
Clearly the City Council doesn’t get sufficient credit for their steady and responsible efforts to find the right balance. Nor will it get easier for us as the economy continues to deteriorate. But the problem with the question of “What’s in it for me?” is that we all depend on each other. When we lose sight of that, envy and resentment can blind citizens and staff alike to the blessings we share and the mutual obligations we owe each other.
In much tougher times, Ben Franklin told his fellow pioneers in self-government, “we must all hang together – or most assuredly, we all hang separately.” Subordinating one’s immediate interests for the long-term greater good isn’t the mark of either a saint or a sap. It’s enlightened self-interest. Those little stickers that sprouted after 9/11 have begun to fade and peel. But the sentiment still holds: “United we stand.” Divided we fall.
posted by Rick Cole at
3:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home