unalaskacitizen
Junior Member
I live in a small rural community in Alaska (Unalaska - home of the 'Deadliest Catch'), and have some concerns about the way our local City Administration is running our city.
There are no attorneys in our town, and no other real local resources I can go to for advice, so I'm hoping you can help me out. I've tried to do as much legwork as I can, but I don't know where to go from here.
Our City Council, like all City Councils, is governed in part by our local Code of Ordinances. One of those Ordinances sets out the compensation guidelines for our Council members, which states:
----------
§ 2.12.040 COMPENSATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
The salary of members of the City Council shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per scheduled regular meeting and one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) per special meeting. In the event a Council Member is absent from a scheduled regular meeting due to travel on City business, the Council Member shall be paid for the meeting. No elected or appointed official of the City shall receive additional compensation from the City for any service to the City, except pre-approved per diem for travel authorized by the City, or as provided by this Code.
---------
I researched the ordinances the best I could, and I cannot find any other part of the code which outlines other acceptable means of compensation for council members.
City employees cannot hold elected office (by another ordinance), which prevents them from falling under any section of the City's personnel code (as written).
Here's the problem:
The City Council has given themselves health insurance and retirement benefits, which are certainly a form of compensation. They receive these benefits at little or no cost to themselves.
In recent labor negotiations, our City Council has defined compensation to include health insurance and retirement benefits, amongst other common employer costs. They figure that these benefits add approximately $35,000 a year to our salaries.
Our recent contract negotiations have attempted to adjust the lack of cost of living increases over the past 6 years. As many of you know, costs for consumer goods and energy have increased a tremendous amount in these past years, and our salary was never changed to reflect that. We're seeking a modest increase, which they have stonewalled. We're now in arbitration, having met impasse after 1.5 years of unsuccessful negotiation.
There's a lot of history and details to this dilemma, so I guess I should sum it up simply:
Can our council use two definitions of "compensation", one for themselves, and one for the employees?
Have they violated their own ordinance?
How do you correct an ordinance violation when the ordinance is willfully and knowingly being violated by City Administration?
Any advice?
-UNK1
There are no attorneys in our town, and no other real local resources I can go to for advice, so I'm hoping you can help me out. I've tried to do as much legwork as I can, but I don't know where to go from here.
Our City Council, like all City Councils, is governed in part by our local Code of Ordinances. One of those Ordinances sets out the compensation guidelines for our Council members, which states:
----------
§ 2.12.040 COMPENSATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
The salary of members of the City Council shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per scheduled regular meeting and one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) per special meeting. In the event a Council Member is absent from a scheduled regular meeting due to travel on City business, the Council Member shall be paid for the meeting. No elected or appointed official of the City shall receive additional compensation from the City for any service to the City, except pre-approved per diem for travel authorized by the City, or as provided by this Code.
---------
I researched the ordinances the best I could, and I cannot find any other part of the code which outlines other acceptable means of compensation for council members.
City employees cannot hold elected office (by another ordinance), which prevents them from falling under any section of the City's personnel code (as written).
Here's the problem:
The City Council has given themselves health insurance and retirement benefits, which are certainly a form of compensation. They receive these benefits at little or no cost to themselves.
In recent labor negotiations, our City Council has defined compensation to include health insurance and retirement benefits, amongst other common employer costs. They figure that these benefits add approximately $35,000 a year to our salaries.
Our recent contract negotiations have attempted to adjust the lack of cost of living increases over the past 6 years. As many of you know, costs for consumer goods and energy have increased a tremendous amount in these past years, and our salary was never changed to reflect that. We're seeking a modest increase, which they have stonewalled. We're now in arbitration, having met impasse after 1.5 years of unsuccessful negotiation.
There's a lot of history and details to this dilemma, so I guess I should sum it up simply:
Can our council use two definitions of "compensation", one for themselves, and one for the employees?
Have they violated their own ordinance?
How do you correct an ordinance violation when the ordinance is willfully and knowingly being violated by City Administration?
Any advice?
-UNK1