Council Benefits

Yet another article about the City of Simi Valley Benefits/Compensation. This is due to the following article in the local newspaper:

The Acorn: Committee: Some council benefits need to go

Read the article and notice what the Council members said in the article, as well as what they said when they were running for Council. This issue is not a new issue, but if you look at the responses, it seems to me that they are acting like this is something that has only recently come up. I don't think that they expected the committee to raise such a "minor" issue since they consider the money for their benefits so low. One has to wonder how much money is wasted because they don't consider every dollar to be important.

A bit of background: Becerra said that if the people did not want them to have all the benefits that they would get rid of them. The problem is that he is not doing anything to allow the people to vote on the issue nor speak on the issue at a Council meeting. Sojka said that he would bring up the issue at a Council Meeting, but so far he has not kept his word. One could argue that he never said when he would do it, but I think that enough time has passed since he has said it to show that he does not intend to do what he said. Judge said that he would not take the benefits during the election. I spoke to Judge at one of Huber Town Hall Meeting (Simi Valley Side Step Dance) and he told me that while he did not take all of the benefits that he was not going to tell the other Council members what they could accept. I reminded him that he was elected to represent the people of the City, not the other Council members. As I recall, Huber also made statements against the benefits.

Some of the quotes is this article is amazing. Those people that we elect to represent us just don't seem to get it and instead do what is in their best interest, rather than what is in the best interest of the people. It seems clear to me that the laws should be change such that those people elected can not vote to given themselves ANYTHING, but that the PEOPLE have to vote on it.

Mike Judge, the newest member of the City Council, said he'd hoped the committee would stick to looking at the budget instead of taking positions on council benefits and "becoming a political animal that just makes noise."

But if the committee considers council benefits a serious budget item, Judge said, he's open to the suggestions.

"It's not a bad recommendation," he said. "I'm not a big fan of the council getting all the benefits that they get as far as the medical; I think it's a little over the top."

Although Judge said during his campaign last fall that he wouldn't take any benefits since he receives them from his employer, the Los Angeles Police Department, he does in fact accept some of them.

"The only thing I took from the city was the vision coverage . . . and I took the 401(k), which is like a matching thing-I kick in a little, the city kicks in a little," he said. "Those two I kept because I didn't think those were cost-prohibitive for the city."

Judge said the mileage allowance and flex-pay benefits help cover the cost of driving to and from meetings and events and attending charitable functions. But he agrees that council members shouldn't receive a pension.

"That's where you get career politicians in a City Council," he said.

Barbra Williamson, the longest serving council member, said she believes the committee's suggestion regarding council compensation is a fair request.

"I have to tell you quite honestly, we're not in this job because of the benefits. They're there and they're really nice, but when I took a look at those (recently), I was shocked actually."

She thinks the mileage allowance, disability and life insurance are appropriate. Still, she's open to discussion.