Because of the denial, Combs, who was elected as a full-time mayor and recently had his pay reduced and benefits stripped, said he is seeking supplemental employment to make ends meet. His salary went from $45,000 per year to $24,000 per year in October following the municipal election. The change made Combs a part-time city employee.
Last week, some council members tried to introduce an ordinance that would reinstate Combs’ pay and benefits back to full-time status. The move was shot down 3-2, and the timing of the vote appears to be irking many Palmer residents.
|
|
“I was making funeral arrangements and comforting my younger siblings,” Combs said.
Although he would have recused himself anyway because the vote dealt with a matter that directly affected him, Combs supporters say the council should have waited until he was able to be there out of respect.
“John Combs has been a great asset to the city both young and old,” Palmer resident Patricia Buxbaum says in an e-mail. “You could not ask for a more committed mayor.”
The issue of Combs’ pay goes back a few years, and former city councilman Tony Pippel said there was a good reason last year for making the decision to reduce it.
In an interview Monday, Pippel said the mayor’s pay was increased about three years ago when the council decided to make him a full-time employee to act as a liaison between the council and city management. The move also allowed Combs to lobby in Juneau and Washington, D.C., along with being more available to the residents of Palmer.
Pippel said the amount Combs was being paid “created doubt in people’s minds who had the power.”
Per its city charter, Palmer has a weak mayor, meaning the city manager, currently Bill Allen, has the power to implement changes and manage day-to-day city business. Knowing that, Pippel said he introduced an ordinance Nov. 13, 2007 seeking to change to mayor’s position back to its original part-time status.
At the time, Pippel said the initial change in the mayor’s duties was an “ad hoc” solution to a set of perceived problems, though he didn’t elaborate on what those problems were. In February, the ordinance passed, with the directive the mayor’s pay would return to part-time after the 2008 municipal election.
Combs’ term expires in 2010.
“It created constitutional uncertainties as to who was in charge, who made decisions at the city,” Pippel said of the mayor’s increased pay. “Also, because the performance was less than we anticipated.”
Palmer’s form of government differs from Wasilla with regards to the amount of power the mayors have. In Wasilla, Mayor Verne Rupright earns a $75,000 annual salary because of the city’s strong form of mayor. In his elected position, Rupright acts as the city’s chief executive officer and runs the day-to-day operations of the town. In Palmer, the mayor serves as the chair of the city council. His or her duties fall mainly within an ambassador-like context.
For his part, Combs said the city benefited greatly when he was made a full-time employee.
In an undated report to city council, Combs defends his $45,000 salary and points out the benefits he’s obtained for Palmer as a full-time mayor.
“During the four years as mayor, I have taken an active role in securing $28.215 million in capital funds for the community,” he says in the report. “During the three years I have been available with a $45,000 salary and health benefits, the number is $26.220 million.”
Combs also says in the report that if his salary is reduced it will cause him to “obtain a full-time position with benefits with another entity. The result of this actions, which is to begin Oct. 14, will drastically reduce my opportunities to represent the council and the citizens who elected them.”
In an interview last week, Combs said even though he ran unopposed for re-election, he feels the number of people who voted for him anyway shows he’s doing a good job. More than 75 percent of voters cast their ballot for Combs.
Combs did have support from the public when the subject of his pay came up, and many went to bat for the mayor.
According to minutes from a Nov. 13, 2007, meeting, Palmer resident Don Benson, who spoke during a public comment session, urged the council to leave Combs’ pay as is.
Benson cited what he called Combs’ contacts in state government as one reason to maintain his pay.
Combs appears to have allies in the council who want to see his pay increased. At last week’s council meeting, Councilman Richard Best moved to introduce an ordinance that would have created an agenda item for a future meeting seeking to reinstate Combs to full time.
Kathrine Vanover, the council member who seconded the motion, said having a full-time mayor is not a personal issue; rather, it’s more about what the position can bring.
“I believe he’s accomplished a great deal,” Vanover said of Combs’ full-time tenure as mayor. “When you reduce that to part-time I don’t think we’re going to get everything done we need done.”
She also said voters in Palmer elected a full-time mayor, and the council should be honoring that.
As to Pippel’s claim the higher pay rate was causing confusion as to who was in charge, Vanover said she saw no evidence of that.
“There was no confusion,” she said, adding she thinks the move to make Combs part time comes from a personal issue.
Vanover said she likely won’t try again to overturn the previous council’s decision unless there is a lot of public support. There isn’t enough support on the council to use city time attempting to push the ordinance.
Kevin Brown, the council’s newest member, said Monday the current job description of Palmer’s mayor does not detail a full-time spot.
“He’s the chair of the city council, essentially,” Brown said. “And sort-of ambassador for the city.”
Brown said that while those duties are important, they don’t necessarily require a full-time position.
For now, Combs is looking for another job that will help pay the bills and provide health insurance. He said when he finds other employment, he fears it will drastically affect his ability to perform all the mayoral duties he has goals for.
“That’s going to hamper my ability to be available for social things, because I’ll be working,” he said.
Contact Michael Rovito michael.rovito@frontiersman.com or 352-2252.
Comments
37 comment(s)intheknow wrote on Dec 9, 2008 9:14 PM:
Palmeranian wrote on Dec 9, 2008 8:23 PM:
To Too Sad wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:43 PM:
JIM wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:05 PM:
too sad wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:34 PM:
The Council is barely ever seen in the community that elected them. How can they be witness? Most citizens and business owners could not even tell you who sits on the Council because tehy are too busy patting themselves on the back behind closed doors somewhere.
What they do is pass judgement but god forbid that they actually turn a wheel to do any work.
Worst bunch of hogwash printed in decades. "
To Oops wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:14 AM:
YOU NEVER VOTED wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:39 AM:
Oops wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:28 AM:
To James wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:23 AM:
james wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:02 PM:
sounds to me he was doing a great job and i dont even live there "
To Hopeless wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:43 PM:
The budget that affects the entire town is far more important than the "individual"... which shouldn't even be on the council's radar. The purpose of procedure is to remove "individual" from the process. So that regardless of the "individual" the law is always equally applied. Furthermore, the changes proposed to the Mayor's job description has nothing to do with the "individual" and affects the town as a whole greatly. You must approach this subject without any regard to the current individual holding the position. "
South Palmer Area Residnt wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:29 PM:
Down with Tony Pippel wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:22 PM:
hopeless wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:45 AM:
Right IT IS NOT usual procedure moving things the way this was done. Anyone regulary attending Council would tell you TWO readings would treat this issue as expected and as proscribed.
Want it to be treated fairly, identically ?
Turn your thoughts around.
Waste of time though.
Budget more important than an individual ? "
Disappointed wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:41 AM:
As long as that is the case,"Somebody" is right.
Palmer will never change. "
To Thought So... wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:19 AM:
Somebody wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:00 AM:
Thought so wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:22 AM:
Yep ! Say it all you want. Technically procdure can be handled this way. Don't kid your self. Matters of clear cut importance to the voters are NOT handled this way.
Sure it is the third time. With good reason. Each time it has surfaced the majority of indivudauls and groups responding were in favor of leaving the 2005 change to full time alone.
Consider that just because a thing can be done does not mean it should be done. "
know better wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:41 AM:
Missed the point wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:17 PM:
Sept. 13 2005
Pippel stated growth is making increased demands on the City creating the necessity of an elected official being face-to-face with elected officials at the State and Federal level.
Hanson supported the ordinance stating greater representation by the Mayor enhances the community as a desirable place to live and that those duties need compensation.
Erby stated that he was comfortable with the differentiation in duties between mayor and manager. "
K W Brown wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:54 PM:
K W Brown wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:41 PM:
RE Third Point wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:37 PM:
and scheduled to be on the "Action" Agenda the following week. Since the action agenda is the one that includes an opportunity for public input, a real disservice was done to the citizens when that step was bypassed.
Guess we are all getting used to the notion that only a few Council members REALLY know what is right for this City and that the voters know nothing about what is best or the right thing to bring the community into this century. "
mediaak wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:49 PM:
To Dangerous wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:05 AM:
By the way, when John Combs ran for mayor in 2004, he ran for a part-time, $200-per-meeting job. When the council "reinterpreted what we elected our Mayor for" were you up in arms then too? The Council made a mistake then, and voted a year ago to correct that. That's when the pay vote happened. The recent vote was a vote to not change things a third time. Nothing more. "
go4it wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:55 AM:
Let's have a special vote on the salary for Combs our elected Mayor.
We should have a say. Since Pippel finds the position of Major not a strong form then we should change it and let Combs be more involved, it appears to be a witchhunt. Look for Pippel running for Mayor! "
Oops wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:44 AM:
Final Point wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:36 AM:
Bert wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:29 AM:
Third Point wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:29 AM:
Second Point wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:25 AM:
First Point wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:25 AM:
HOW wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:16 AM:
Palmer Resident wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:12 AM:
sam wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:35 AM:
As far as the Mayor goes, he needs a raise not a pay cut. If you look at the amount of money he has brought in for the city, it exceeds that of all previous mayors combined. Cutting his pay is an insult to him and the city.
Lets get the Pimple (oops I mean pippel) off the face of Palmer. "
TTOSBT wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:59 AM:
Dangerous.. wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:37 AM: