It turns out, Tucson voters could have been considering a much more modest pay-increase proposal than the one weโre facing.
It would have been a more transparent proposal, too.
In February, the citizensโ commission considering a raise for the Tucson mayor and city council latched onto an idea with a strong internal logic: Peg the mayor and council membersโ pay to the average salary in the Tucson area.
The proposal would have led to big jumps from the embarrassingly low current pay levels, if voters agreed. Council members who make $24,000 per year now would make $56,000 โ the most recent annual average salary in the Tucson area.
The mayor, currently paid $42,000 per year, would make 1.25 times Tucsonโs annual average salary, or $70,000.
These numbers represent huge increases over the current paltry pay, and big jumps over the most recent proposed increase, which narrowly failed in 2021. That year, Prop. 410 would have raised council membersโ pay to $36,000 per year and the mayorโs salary to $54,000 per year, but it lost by 970 votes, or about 1 percentage point.
In other words, the more modest proposal the commission was considering would have been risky in itself. It made common sense, though: Council members, with their big responsibilities for a $2.1 billion budget and their full-time duties, should at least make the average of what the rest of us make in Tucson, shouldnโt they?
But at the last minute, records show, the commission members decided to make an even bigger gamble than the substantial one they were considering in the first place.
A more aggressive proposal
Instead of pegging the elected officialsโ salaries to the local average, they would make it match the salaries of county supervisors, with 25% more for the mayor.
Right now, those figures would be $76,600 for the council members and $95,750 for the mayor, but, if passed, those pay levels are scheduled to soar much higher in 2025, under state law. Council members would make $96,600, and the mayor, $120,750.
The turning point was a meeting with Ward 1 Council Member Lane Santa Cruz, the records of the commissionโs meetings show.
Members of the commission had been meeting with individual council members and the mayor to hear about the work they do and their thoughts on the pay issue. One or two commission members would attend these meetings so as to avoid violating public-meeting laws.
Commission chair Alexa Scholl and member Tom Warne met with Santa Cruz before the last planned meeting of the commission, on March 14. They came away with their opinions changed.
Warne explained that Santa Cruz, โlooked me in the eye, and she looked at Alexa, and she said, โI think we should go for it. And it really means a lot to me. And if it fails, that means we can change the Charter, and we can do it again, and we can go for it again.โ So, she was willing to take the hit and lose, and I just throw that out. And I totally respected that. I mean I was really kind of moved by it.โ
So during that last meeting before the proposal was finalized, the conversation drifted away from the idea of tying council membersโ pay to the average local salary.
Agreement on need for raise
To grasp why they would have gone for an even higher pay level, you have to understand that this seven-member commission all agreed on the idea of a substantial pay increase from the beginning. No one was arguing that the elected officialsโ salaries should remain the same, or close to it.
I understand and largely agree with their thinking. Although serving as a council member was at one time considered a part-time job, in reality it is not. To compensate council members for their time, and to attract a deeper pool of candidates, we should raise the pay to something closer to a living wage.
There is also a natural tendency to compare the pay of council members to that of county supervisors. Their jobs are similar. But the supervisorsโ pay is set by the Arizona Legislature, whereas Tucson voters decide the pay of the mayor and council.
Thatโs just reality, with its own political ramifications. Tucson voters have been extremely hesitant to raise their elected officialsโ pay except by the small amount proposed in 2021.
Pegging the elected officialsโ pay to the average annual salary in Tucson would have meant more complicated ballot language. The ballot would have had to specify the source of the annual average pay measurement, for example. And they were considering tying it to measures of inflation, as well, which would have meant defining the source of that measurement, too.
Complexity is a turnoff in ballot measures.
Commission member Laura Dent said of the new proposal at the March 14 meeting: โI worry about the level of pay thatโs suggested in that alternative. But again, I think that one has a better chance of passing than the one with, you know, very intricate language.โ
No numbers in ballot language
There was another attraction to tying the pay to the supervisorsโ salaries. They could say nothing in the ballot language about the actual amount that council members and the mayor would be paid. Sticker shock would not be so much of an issue.
And thatโs what happened. The ballot language does not specify how much the mayor and council will be paid if we pass the proposal โ just the relationship to the county supervisorsโ pay. Only if you dig into the more detailed recommendation made by the commission do you find the new pay levels that council members and the mayor would make if the proposal passes.
And even then, the materials donโt reveal that the pay will shoot up again in 2025.
The one dissenting commission member was Agustin Urquidi. He explained Friday, โI thought the first proposal was a little ambitious, but we were using Tucsonโs average salary.โ
As to the proposal that made the ballot, he said, โI just didnโt feel comfortable with the amount of the raise, and the fact that it wasnโt transparent.โ
Neither do I. So while Iโve supported all the proposed pay increases for the mayor and council over the years, Iโm planning to vote against this one.
Their first idea presented problems of complexity in the ballot language, but it was defensible on its own terms, and it didnโt hide the numbers.
