State rules council can get benefits until terms end

Jeffrey Libby

Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2002 | 10:53 a.m.

Despite residents' decisive vote in September to dissolve health and automobile benefits for the Boulder City Council, the state Attorney General's office says council members should continue receiving benefits through their current terms.

Former Councilman Bill Smith, who led the initiative to strip council members of benefits -- worth about $11,200 annually, or half of their pay -- said Tuesday that the state's opinion was "ridiculous" but no surprise. If council members don't voluntarily take the pay cut now though, Smith said, their delayed response to the Sept. 3 ballot vote will only make for a more inflammatory campaign issue in spring municipal elections.

"It's better honestly to let the community see what kind of council they have," Smith said. "My feeling is, it will come home to roost with them next election cycle."

Mayor Bob Ferraro, who plans to run for re-election this spring, said, however, that he will propose a new pay package in the coming weeks that will provide the council an equivalent, if not higher, annual salary.

Senior Deputy Attorney General James Spencer issued his four-page interpretation of state law on Friday in response to a request Boulder City Attorney Dave Olsen made shortly after the election. Boulder City Hall was closed Friday and Monday, so the city received official word from the state Tuesday.

In his decision Spencer said, "The clear purpose behind the initiative, as expressed by its proponents, was to tie all 'compensation' to the re-election process.

"We therefore conclude that the current mayor and council members may continue to enjoy the health insurance benefit and automobile allowance until the time of their re-election ..." But Olsen said even if the state's opinion binds the city to pay the benefits, elected officials may decide it is not in their best political interest to accept them.

Councilman Joe Hardy, who resigned Tuesday in anticipation of taking a state Assembly post, and Councilwoman Andrea Anderson stopped accepting the $950 in monthly benefits pay voluntarily shortly after the September vote.

But Ferraro and Councilmen Bryan Nix and Mike Pacini argue that they took office with the expectation of receiving current pay for four years.

Nix and Ferraro made a different argument in June 2000, however. They voted for midterm raises for the City Council that would have gone into effect before either of them had to stand for re-election. Pacini had not yet been elected to office.

Nix, who plans to run for re-election in June, said if midterm raises are prohibited, then midterm pay cuts also should be prohibited. But he doubted others will follow that logic.

"The state's opinion will not stop us from being accused of circumventing the will of the people, or of anything else devious they can think up," Nix said. "But I anticipate no reason to not continue receiving full pay."

Hardy, a family physician, said he was following the will of the people in volunteering to stop accepting payments.

Anderson, a community college administrator and part-time real estate agent, stopped accepting benefits in October. It will cost her about $30,400 by June 2005, when her term ends.

"It wasn't a pleasant decision," Anderson said, "But that's just what the voters have said to us and until I hear something different, that's what I'll do."

Ferraro says he is working on a proposal to increase salaries before his term and his benefits expire in June. The raises would maintain or exceed his current pay of $25,100 and council members' pay of $22,402, he said. There would be no monthly benefits.

Ferraro, who is retired, said he depends on the city health benefit for his health insurance.

"My understanding is, it wasn't the amount of money that upset some people, it was the way it was given out," Ferraro said, referring to Smith's goal to have the council's stated salary clearly reflect actual compensation.

"I would think the council should come back with a package that maintains at least what is being given right now," he said.

Pacini, a grocery clerk and young father, said he remains undecided. Like Anderson, he is not up for re-election until 2005.

"If I give up that pay, I'm working three years at half the pay that voters agreed to when they elected me," Pacini said. "Is it a tough question? Yes."