I understand that the city council doesn’t actually turn on the street lamps, repave roads, arrest drug dealers, or make the city “function” in a literal sense. However, the heads of most organizations don’t do much that matters to the “daily functioning” of their companies/groups. Like the council they “legislate,” provide guidance, and seek to sustain the overall health and future of their organizations. I know my boss doesn’t turn on the lights in the building each morning and unclog the toilets, do you?

While the council does get a little more than twice median ($45k) for the city, and they do get more than NYC, Chicago, Houston and Pheonix, the figures match up pretty well.

Houston and Phoenix councilmembers might make only slightly higher (around $10k) than median, but NYC and Chicago are on par with Seattle (at around 2x). If you look at the census data on the cost of housing it shows why our councilmembers should make more than their counterparts in Houston and Phoenix: It costs 2-3x as much to live here than it does there. Comparing salary figures is rather suspect if you don’t take into account that some places are simly less expensive.

Not dictated by market forces? By what logic? Since it was discussed and made by a group of people rather than by invisible market forces? Then no negotiated contract includes market driven wage scales, because the unions and employers came up with the figures out of nothing, just like the council. They simply suggested “hey, how about $100k?” and everyone agreed. That’s preposterous.

Outside of the money, I would argue that the purpose of the council is not to “complement the mayor’s executive role.” I can infer from your other posts that you support the top down model, and dislike the slowing of the legislative process by conflicts between branches. I can also infer that you simply do not like the legislative process, as you derride is as what the city council does instead of makeing the city “function.”

I do not beleive in the top down model. I think the city council is supposed to argue with the mayor, a lot. I think the mayor is supposed to have to fight to get his plans throught the council. I think the council should get things shot down by the mayor. I think there should be a groundswell of dissent from a neighborhood that makes the mayor and the council change their minds on an issue. I think a large chunk of people should be mad all the time. It keeps us involved.

I also believe in the districting of the council.

And, no matter how much you dislike it, politics is a profession. While members bring their different skills to the table (Steinbrueck in planning, McIver in housing development, etc.) they need to regard it as a profession. They are in charge, and wield phenomenal power, over a large number of people and city resources. If they do not treat it as a proffesional engagement that deserves pusuit, they are simply filling a chair.