League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Riverside County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
	Measure S Council Compensation City of Indian Wells Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required Pass: 1,894 / 80.32% Yes votes ...... 464 / 19.68% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure S

Arguments Against Measure S

STOP Excessive Compensation for Indian Wells Council Members Excessive compensation and benefits for elected officials erodes public confidence in government. The members of our Indian Wells City Council vote to set their own compensation and benefits. They have abused their authority. According to official city records, in the past five years, our councilmembers each received an average of $61,800 per year in salary and benefits (the records are available at http://www.cityofindianwells.com/city-council/agendas). That's not all! Currently, each City Councilmember is enrolled in the state's generous public pension system in which they are eligible to receive tens of thousands of dollars in additional benefits each year for the rest of their lives. Lifetime pension and healthcare benefits for each current Councilmember could top $500,000! This compensation system is excessive for a city of 5,000 residents, where City Councilmembers attend a few meetings per month. That is why, more than 700 of your neighbors, signed petitions to place Measure "S" on the ballot. Measure "S" will reform our city charter and limit amount the amount of compensation our city councilmembers can receive to $1,000 per month...PERIOD. That is more than generous considering the limited amount of work our city elected officials are required to do. Excessive compensation and benefits for part-time elected officials reduces available funding for public safety, road maintenance and other necessary public programs. When our city was founded in 1967, the mayor and city council served without compensation and there was no shortage of good, qualified public-spirited citizens who were willing to serve. Our recent mayors and city councils have failed to set the right priorities for our city by limiting their own compensation and benefits. We, the people, must do it for them. Vote YES on "S" By: Peter F. Schabarum, "A very interested citizen" Andy G. Elchuck Carol Cirbes, Concerned Citizen Dana Reed, Governmental Ethics Attorney Rebuttal to Arguments For The Indian Wells Council Compensation was never excessive. Yet in spite of this, in August, 2011 the Council voluntarily cut its compensation 26%. Council members spend on average 20 hours per week representing the residents on City business which includes consideration of fiscal, legal, environmental, labor and other issues and challenges. Indian Wells Council Members have the added responsibility of maintaining City liaison over major hotels, worldwide events and the 5th largest tennis stadium in the world. The Council on its own has proposed additional compensation package reductions which would place the Indian Wells Council in the lower third of Coachella Valley Cities when it comes to Compensation. The Charter amendment proposal would cut compensation to a level BELOW minimum wage in California! Certainly the expertise and experience that our duly elected Council members bring merits higher compensation than a fast food fry cook. This measure, if enacted, would greatly discourage qualified candidates in being attracted to serve on its Council. It is neither well thought out nor well intended. The current Council acted responsibly in carrying out its mandate regulating Compensation. They have also performed in a responsible manner in maintaining fiscal soundness in having not only an unbroken record of balanced budgets but a reserve set aside as well. Don't try to fix what is not broken! Vote No on the Proposed Charter Amendment. By: Michael Kruppe

We agree with the sponsors of Measure "S" that the current level of Council compensation needs to be reduced. We also agree that when a new council pay base is agreed upon, it should be changed by a majority vote of the residents. We do not agree with the draconian cuts in Council Compensation proposed in this initiative, especially with no stated basis other than "they are overpaid"! Council compensation should be based on an objective and reasonable valuation after considering all of the tangible and intangible assets of the City. This decision should be about a reasonable choice not a punitive action against current Council members. On August 2, 2012, a reasonable proposal for restructuring Council compensation was introduced. We believe this to be a fair and reasonable compromise plan. It cuts the total Council Member compensation, including all benefits and taxes, by slightly less than 70% of the 2011 high point and 5% below the 2002 total Council Member compensation. It must be noted that whatever Council compensation levels are adopted they are not just applicable to the current Council, but to all future Councils as well. The bottom line is vote no on this amendment! If the voters are unhappy with Council's performance, vote them out. Do not punish all future Council members. By: Gail S. McQuary Rebuttal to Arguments Against Opponents of Measure "S" want you to believe that the City Council's efforts to reduce their own compensation have been "reasonable," and the $12,000 annual limit set by Measure "S" is "draconian." They are wrong on both counts. The `Desert Sun's' well-researched data show that only a handful of California's 478 cities pay their councils more than $20,000 annually. The norm is less than $10,000 annually. Some large cities that pay their council members less than our proposed $12,000 annually include; Laguna Beach ($7,487, population 36,224), Ventura ($7,725, pop. 107,514), Whittier ($10,228, pop. 85,943), Temecula ($10,320, pop. 100,146) and Murrieta ($7,200, pop. 101,462) San Clemente ($5,135, pop. 64,401) The city attorney's "impartial analysis" of Measure "S" mentions that council members reduced their cash stipend by 8% (to $27,600 annually) but retained all their "employee" benefits (pension & health care)! Additionally they retained their ability to "receive compensation in the form of tickets in the possession and control of the City for admission to entertainment, recreational, amusement and similar events." In light of what other similarly-sized cities pay, their self-imposed reduction to $27,600 annually, we continue to overpay the council. Measure "S" is NOT designed to "punish" present or future council members + it was signed by five (5) of the ten (10) candidates who are running for city council! It provides fair and reasonable compensation to part-time council members, and puts the controls back in the hands of Indian Wells taxpayers. Vote Yes on Measure "S". By: Peter F. Schabarum, Very Concerned Citizen Carol A. Cirbes, Concerned Resident Andre G. Elchuck, (Concerned Resident) Dana Reed

Full Text of Measure S

1. Section 101 is added to Article I of the Charter of the City of Indian Wells to read as follows: "Section 101. Councilperson's Compensation. Except as below or as may be required by applicable Federal or State law, no City funds shall be expended, or anything of value provided to, or on behalf of, any member of the City Council for his or her personal use or benefit. The City Treasurer is authorized to make the following payments: For services rendered as a member of the City Council - $1,000 per month For services rendered as Mayor + an additional $500 per month For services rendered as Mayor Pro Tem + an additional $250 per month Beginning July 1, 2014 and each year thereafter, the City Treasurer shall adjust the amounts above to reflect any changes in the Consumer Price Index for this area as determined by the Bureau of Labor Standards of the United States Department of Labor. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the reimbursement of ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of ones duties as a Member of the City Council, or Mayor, or Mayor Pro Tem provided such expenditures were reasonably incurred and approved in advance by the City Council.