https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/06/07/amid-outrage-over-proposed-64-raise-councilmembers-will-take-up-measure-that-would-ban-outside-income/

Waters said voting on their own salaries is a conflict of interest and the raise is justified by the job’s hours, complexity and responsibility. He also said he believes members can survive the voters’ anger.

In other words we have a government that is not afraid nor do they care about voters..something our Founders warned us about. Let that sink in real good, especially those in Waters district.

I’m confident that if council members devote their 100% effort to making good solid ordinances, laws and policy, that we will earn people’s trust, if we haven’t already,” Waters said.

Well, as a former employer of my own business as well as a former employee of a large local company, I have concluded the following.

You cannot pay somebody more to get them to work harder.  A lazy person will continue to be lazy and a hard working person will be a hard worker no matter what the pay is.

The effort to ban outside employment, aka the retaliate against Augie proposal is just an attempt to
silence any council members who might oppose the pay raise. Anyone with half a brain can see
that. Will the ban on outside employment also affect the family members of the council?.
After all, we would not want to see millions of $ from foreign nationals and companies like Burisma
buying influence and enriching themselves and their family members. 

Call your council member. Be respectful but let them know how you feel.   .

They are overly confident because they have election fraud systems in place. Of course that doesn’t stop civilization from collapsing from their mismanagement.

I do think they need to make more as the cost of living here sucks and it would be difficult to get a legit job when not in session.  I say $80K for everyone.

Here's why:

During session, I'm sure they all work more than 40hrs a week.  Then add in any appearances/events they need to attend to show face and get votes.  But once the session is over, it's more cruise. Kind of like how teachers get summer off.  So during session, they don't have the time to work another job.  But off session, they will.  But who's going to hire someone for a few months out of the year and pay enough for an adult to have a decent income?  The answer is only if they're getting hooked up.

If the counselmember is single, it's very difficult to support living by themselves on what they currently make.

I do think they need to make more as the cost of living here sucks and it would be difficult to get a legit job when not in session.  I say $80K for everyone.

Here's why:

During session, I'm sure they all work more than 40hrs a week.  Then add in any appearances/events they need to attend to show face and get votes.  But once the session is over, it's more cruise. Kind of like how teachers get summer off.  So during session, they don't have the time to work another job.  But off session, they will.  But who's going to hire someone for a few months out of the year and pay enough for an adult to have a decent income?  The answer is only if they're getting hooked up.

If the counselmember is single, it's very difficult to support living by themselves on what they currently make.

You do know you're taking that money out of the pockets of others who might not be earning $80K, right?

Maybe what we need is fewer people feeding at the public trough, so the rest of us get to keep more of what we make, and the revenue can better sustain the size of government?

Just a thought, but not a recent one.

Also, if the job pays $30K for the time they spend in shorter sessions, that's okay.  Many of these officials are lawyers, and they can accept clients when they have time.  Bet they make a lot more doing legal stuff, too.  There are plenty of other jobs that officials can do, too, including teaching, where they don't miss very many classes.

There was once a theory that public employees need to be paid higher than most private industry counterparts.  The rationale was that public employees would be less tempted to take bribes or "donations" from entities that represent a conflict of interest.  That never worked.  People are people, and greed exists regardless of how much they earn legitimately. 

They say everyone has a price.  Sometimes the price is secrecy if you have something you'd rather not be made public.

While it sounds okay in theory, the reality is much more complicated.  Money, it is said, only solves budget problems -- not morality problems.

Looking at the Honolulu City Council calendar, they have one council meeting per month on a Wednesday, and 3 committee meetings Tue-Thu once a month.  That's only 4 meeting days per month -- except for December when there's only the one council meeting but no committee meetings.

If they have to make appearances and "give face" to keep their jobs, that's not something we should be paying them to do.  Not only is it wrong to pay them to do business that doesn't benefit the city, but it's unfair to others running for their seat.  They already have name recognition and a record to run on.  We should not be giving them the added advantage of paying their salaries for doing campaign appearances, too.

You do know you're taking that money out of the pockets of others who might not be earning $80K, right?

Maybe what we need is fewer people feeding at the public trough, so the rest of us get to keep more of what we make, and the revenue can better sustain the size of government?

Just a thought, but not a recent one.

Also, if the job pays $30K for the time they spend in shorter sessions, that's okay.  Many of these officials are lawyers, and they can accept clients when they have time.  Bet they make a lot more doing legal stuff, too.  There are plenty of other jobs that officials can do, too, including teaching, where they don't miss very many classes.

There was once a theory that public employees need to be paid higher than most private industry counterparts.  The rationale was that public employees would be less tempted to take bribes or "donations" from entities that represent a conflict of interest.  That never worked.  People are people, and greed exists regardless of how much they earn legitimately. 

They say everyone has a price.  Sometimes the price is secrecy if you have something you'd rather not be made public.

While it sounds okay in theory, the reality is much more complicated.  Money, it is said, only solves budget problems -- not morality problems.

Looking at the Honolulu City Council calendar, they have one council meeting per month on a Wednesday, and 3 committee meetings Tue-Thu once a month.  That's only 4 meeting days per month -- except for December when there's only the one council meeting but no committee meetings.

If they have to make appearances and "give face" to keep their jobs, that's not something we should be paying them to do.  Not only is it wrong to pay them to do business that doesn't benefit the city, but it's unfair to others running for their seat.  They already have name recognition and a record to run on.  We should not be giving them the added advantage of paying their salaries for doing campaign appearances, too.

I thought that I read that they were only making $57K a year each.

I just thought of another thing that takes time.  They also have to meet with their constituents.  We met with Tam for about an hour about Bill 57.  I met with my rep for about 2 hours about Bill 57.  Other HIFICO members also met with their rep for at least 30 mins about Bill 57.  So I can imagine that other people take up their time as well even thought the counsel only meets a few times a week during session.  They're contributing to drafting bills, listening to their voters, etc... When I met with my rep, we had lunch and another guy approached our table to talk about something.  He had to tell the guy that he's currently with me in a meeting and took his number to call him later to schedule a time where they can discuss.  It was about residential zoning or something.  But to be fair, both meetings were during working hours (9-5pm).

It would be good if the reps were open about what they do all day during and off session.  I mean I could be wrong and they only spend like 20 hrs a week actually working. So if that's the case, then I retract my $80K and no raise is needed.

But you are correct about why they should be on the clock to show face where their rival isn't.  I never thought about that area.

I thought that I read that they were only making $57K a year each.

I just thought of another thing that takes time.  They also have to meet with their constituents.  We met with Tam for about an hour about Bill 57.  I met with my rep for about 2 hours about Bill 57.  Other HIFICO members also met with their rep for at least 30 mins about Bill 57.  So I can imagine that other people take up their time as well even thought the counsel only meets a few times a week during session.  They're contributing to drafting bills, listening to their voters, etc... When I met with my rep, we had lunch and another guy approached our table to talk about something.  He had to tell the guy that he's currently with me in a meeting and took his number to call him later to schedule a time where they can discuss.  It was about residential zoning or something.  But to be fair, both meetings were during working hours (9-5pm).

It would be good if the reps were open about what they do all day during and off session.  I mean I could be wrong and they only spend like 20 hrs a week actually working. So if that's the case, then I retract my $80K and no raise is needed.

But you are correct about why they should be on the clock to show face where their rival isn't.  I never thought about that area.

As a contractor, I had a minimum and maximum number of hours to work each pay period.  If we worked longer than 40 hours, and the total for the week was 48 or less, we still only got paid for 40 hours.  If the contract allowed, the company could get paid for the extra 8 hours.  That little extra sometimes made up for having to put in a low bid to win a contract.  Anything over 48 hours would allow the employee to get paid overtime for all hours over 40, but it had to be approved in advance.

Problems arose when a contract had X number of hours specified for the contract period.  So, if someone worked extra hours in the beginning weeks, they risked running out of hours for that task.  I saw one contract end 3 months earlier than expected because the employee burned all the hours allowed in just 9 months.

Having to work more or fewer hours on a task is not something other jobs don't require.  i see no reason someone who campaigned for the position should get it and only then complain it pays too little.  They all know what the hours and pay are going into the job -- not a big surprise.

I also think it's wrong for ANYONE in public office to have the power to raise their own salaries.  Everyone has a boss, even the governor who requires the legislature to up his/her compensation.  If the City Council wants, they should request the Mayor approve any pay increases, and the amounts should be governed by the tax liability it represents.

it's one thing to say a raise is justified.  It's another to hand out raises to yourselves when the revenue just can't sustain those salaries year-to-year.  Someone will have to get fired to pay the rest.  Simple law of economics.  Unlike the feds, states don't have a fed to borrow endlessly from. 

Too much authority over one's pay leads to corruption.

Five ex-officials from Bell, California, convicted in corruption trial

The trial stemmed from an explosive scandal in Bell, a small, mostly blue-collar
municipality near Los Angeles, following revelations in 2010 that its city manager,
Robert Rizzo, was paid a salary of $787,000 - or nearly twice that of President Barack
Obama.

The eight former city officials arrested in September 2010 in the investigation were
collectively accused of bilking taxpayers out of roughly $5.5 million through excessive
salaries, benefits and illicit loans of public money. Then-Los Angeles County District
Attorney Steve Cooley called it a case of “corruption on steroids.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-corruption-idUSBRE92J17M20130320

Their new proposed payraises are ridiculous.  There is no money for that crap.

So you City Council members are overworked and underpaid?  Cry me a river.

Join the club like the rest of us.

Their new proposed payraises are ridiculous.  There is no money for that crap.

So you City Council members are overworked and underpaid?  Cry me a river.

Join the club like the rest of us.

Wait till they gotta pay when losing their sensitive places lawsuit.

Wait till they gotta pay when losing their sensitive places lawsuit.

Yep.  Paid out of the coffers from tax paying citizens.  An expense that never would have to be addressed if these lawmakers truly had their constituents' interests at heart.

Something they have sworn to do and protect.  On the contrary, they march lockstep to their own special interests and agendas, confident that their electability is safe and secure due to Hawaii's voting culture and apathetic electorate.