Councillors May Raise Their Salaries By $10K

The Cambridge City Council proposed to raise members' salaries by nearly $10,000 to $52,500 at its meeting Monday night, drawing heavy criticism from those who said the public should have been informed more about the proposal.

Six city councillors voted to bypass a public hearing on a future salary hike for themselves and members of the school committee, deciding instead to go directly to a second reading of the amendment next month.

The proposal was phrased in technical terms in the city manager's agenda--a move which some said was meant to avoid public discussion on the matter.

The wording of the agenda item spoke only of a "recommended amendment to the Cambridge Municipal Code" and did not make any formal mention of the proposed increase.

"This was proposed in a manner that was not understandable," said Cambridge resident Eli Yardin, who attended the council meeting. "It was put forward so that no one, except a few people, had a clue what it was about."

City Manager Robert W. Healy disagreed, saying the wording of the amendment was routine procedure.

"That's the standard form that the council has used for pay increases for the last 20 or 30 years," Healy said.

Robert Winters, a longtime council observer and publisher of the online Cambridge Civic Journal, used the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting to criticize the wording of the agenda item. He called for councillors to enact a "charter right"--which would postpone discussion on the matter for a week.

Councillor Jim Braude went a step further, calling for the item to be given a public hearing.

Six of the council's nine members voted to reject Braude's proposal, which also drew support from Kathleen L. Born and Henrietta Davis.

"It was the six councillors who lifted their middle finger at the city of Cambridge," Winters said. "There seemed very much to be some understanding to keep this as quiet as possible."

The councillors who voted against holding a public hearing did not offer an explanation for their vote during the meeting.

But yesterday, councillor Marjorie C. Decker said she voted against a public hearing because she believes they would be a waste of time.

"I voted for something that was going to happen anyway, so that we can focus on issues that are important, like affordable housing, the budget and the school merger," Decker said.

Although Winters did not attack the pay raises, he said the public deserves to have more information.

"Regardless how you may feel about these proposed pay increases, you are entitled to know what is being proposed so that you may draw your own conclusions," he said. "Voting without any of that discussion is just deplorable."

Braude also does not reject the idea of a pay raise, but does not believe it should go into affect on July 1, like currently planned. He prefers to have a salary increase take affect for the next council.

"No legislative body should vote to increase its own pay," Braude said.

He also believed the public should be given more information.

"I would hope that people agree that when you are voting to appropriate money, especially to yourself, that the public is entitled to a full and fair hearing," Braude said.

After rejecting Braude's proposal, the council approved a second reading for the item, which is a mandatory procedure.

Councillor Timothy P. Toomey Jr., said the second reading--which cannot happen until the June 5 meeting--will offer the chance for the public to speak on the matter.

If the proposed amendment passes, school committee members would also each receive a raise to $25,900, an increase of nearly $5,000. Mayor Anthony D. Galluccio, who chairs the school committee and sits on the city council, would receive both increases.

The last pay raise for council and school committee members was enacted in July 1998.

The council also spent a major part of Monday's meeting discussing the appropriation of an additional $80,000 to a feasibility study for a new city library site.

Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves '72 blasted the council for dragging its feet on choosing a site from the ones currently under review.

"We've have had enough consulting firms and architectural renderings about where to put this damn library," Reeves said. "How much more time are we going to waste?"

According to Healy, the new appropriation would push the costs of the library site search to over $300,000.

"We are just openly and flagrantly wasting money for no reason," Reeves said.

The council approved the additional funds for the study over Reeve's solitary objection, with the other councillors saying the site study could also evaluate the feasibility of other municipal uses of city property.