Council pay raise is good public policy

Elected officials are easy targets for criticism. While some criticism may be deserved, much is not.

Elected officials are put in office to represent the best interests of the people who elected them while, of course, upholding their oath of office. Part of that representation often entails making difficult decisions.

It is ironic, then - although not surprising - that some of those difficult decisions lead to some of the loudest criticism.

So it is likely to be with the Wasilla City Council. At its fortnightly meeting last week, councilors took up a previously tabled proposal to raise the amount of their compensation from $75 per meeting to a flat rate of $6,000 for the year.

To the cynic or casual observer, the motivation may appear strictly self-serving. But this is short-sighted.

We appreciate the notion of citizen councilors serving the city out of a sense of civic duty and spirit of volunteerism, born of love for the place they call home. Public testimony opposing the proposal at Monday's city council meeting was steeped in this kind of sentiment. But it is no longer realistic.

The city of Wasilla is no podunk burg. It is a $31 million a year operation that is growing rapidly. With that growth comes both challenge and opportunity. Plans and decisions made today could easily shape the future for residents for years and decades to come.

The work that is necessary for councilors to become familiar with information needed to make these decisions far exceeds the bounds of a twice-a-month meeting, however lengthy each is. That workload usually looks very much like a part-time job. Viewed in this light, even the $6,000 yearly &#8220salary” is inadequate.

Perhaps the question of compensation would have been better left to voters to decide. On the other hand, the council routinely makes far larger fiscal decisions on its own, and voters have hardly batted an eye at some of the city's more questionable uses of public money.

Supporters of the measure say it will help attract better quality candidates. But nothing is guaranteed. Whether city residents, ultimately, approve of the council decision, they should realize how much it raises the electoral stakes.

More than ever, residents will have to be vigilant. Selfishness, lack of interest and unwillingness to be accessible or accountable should no longer be tolerated of those who would govern. Nor should anything resembling mindless rubber-stamping of the mayor's will.

The city's future is a work in progress. Showing would-be public servants that their hard work is appreciated and valued will help ensure that the future is promising.