Arguing that we should pay our elected officials more money is probably not going to generate a great deal of enthusiasm. But, after reading today's Washington Post article on Fairfax County Board Chairman Gerry Connolly and the possible (probable?) conflicts of interest stemming from Connolly's jobs at SAIC and elsewhere, I'm convinced that this is an issue we need to think about. For instance, what if we paid our elected officials a LOT more money but banned them from holding outside employment while in positions of power? Would it help avoid situations like the following?
Connolly's dual roles [as County Board Supervisor and as SAIC's vice president of community relation] have raised questions of conflict and overlap. "It's a problem of appearances," said Mark J. Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University."People in leadership positions are correctly expected to hold to a much higher standard.... There is a presumption that they are neutral to various interests that want access to government policymakers."
Susan Turner, a Democrat and second vice president of the McLean Citizens Association, watches land-use matters in the county closely. She is among those troubled by the arrangement.
"I think it's totally inappropriate," she said. "I think [Connolly]'s benefiting financially from the success of SAIC, which will benefit from having a rail station there."
By the way, the point I'm trying to make here is NOT whether this situation constitutes a conflict of interest for Gerry Connolly. The point I'm making is that Connolly's actions regarding Metro-to-Dulles project LOOK like a conflict of interest to many people. The Connolly case is getting so much press attention because the Fairfax County Board Chairman is a position with tremendous influence over land use and transportation in Fairfax County, one of the wealthiest counties in America.
The question is, why does Connolly work for SAIC at all, when he's already got a job that is easily full time if not greater as Fairfax County Board Chairman? According to Connolly, he "can't live on a supervisor's salary" and is "entitled to earn a living." And Gerry Connolly is absolutely right about that; he IS entitled to earn more than the $59,000 per year he receives as Board Chairman. Frankly, in Northern Virginia, that's an absurdly low amount of money for someone with the responsibilities that Gerry Connolly has. It's also absurdly low given the cost of living in Fairfax County.
No wonder why Gerry Connolly needs to supplment his income by working for a company like SAIC. And no wonder why we run into these appearances (at least) of impropriety. Talk about "penny wise, pound foolish." By paying our elected officials such (comparatively) paltry wages, we save a bit of money BUT we also create a situation that breeds cynicism and lack of trust in our government. Is that worth it? Not in my book.
That's why I say, let's pay Gerry Connolly $200,000 (or more) per year, but let's also make the Board of Supervisors Chairman job a full-time position that strictly forbids outside employment. Also, let's put rules in place strict ethics rules that constrain elected officials from voting or lobbying for any project that could benefit them financially. When I worked for the U.S. government, we had to take annual ethics briefings, file annual financial disclosure forms, and avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety (e.g., an oil analyst at the Department of Energy speculating in crude oil futures). Why don't we do the same for our local and state elected officials, like the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors chairman?
We must remember, however, that the Chair and the supervisors have full time staff in their office. They also have full time county staff to research, analyze, and prepare reports on land use, transportation, environment, etc. I have been told that staff write all the Chairman/Supervisor's position statements. All the Supervisor does is to read what is written. Maybe this is not true.
Granted they do go to community meetings and face their constituents. But lately, they bring along county staff who do most of the talking. Getting pictures taken cutting ribbons or turning dirt does use some of their time. Perhaps the Chairman/Supervisor position should be evaluated and, if warrented, raise the salaries.
There is a conflict whether it is real or only perceived. Being underpaid does not relieve Connolly of the responsibility to at least appear to be avoid conflict.
The big question here is what is an appropriate salary. In theory, a $59K salary for part time work is a good one. But since Fairfax County Supervisor isn't really a part time job (and shouldn't be), a salary like that is quite low. What's the going rate for managing a public system for a million people? I have no idea. The $200K you suggest seems a bit high for that sort of public job - although it would be low in the private sector.
Also, I was disturbed by the fact that Gerry was whining that he can't live in his own county on a salary of only $59K. Yes, it's below the median income, but it would still be a good salary for many people who do live in the county and don't have a second high paying job with an office on the 12th floor. I do agree that the Chairman position should be paid much more money, but it's an insult to whine that his part time salary of $59K just can't cut it in Fairfax. Perhaps his complaint should be amended to "he can't live an upper-middle class lifestyle in Fairfax on $59K".
Where I disagree though, is that local politicians wouldn't be bought off after these new rules and salary were put in place. There are just too many ways to influence a politician and when there's big money involved, most politicians will be influenced. When all else fails, corporations can simply donate to the candidate's campaign funds or fund the official's pet projects.
So, do I support this idea? Hell yeah! It's a much needed improvement over what we have now. But let's make sure no one is under the impression that it would solve the problem altogether.
It has been said on this thread several times already, Fairfax County is larger then some states, and Gerry and the other Supervisors are constantly conducting the County's business and then spend all there personal time out in the community listening to constituent groups, attending functions, cutting ribbons, etc...
I know a lot of people from the blogging community are upset about how the Tyson's Tunnel fight played out, and it weighs heavily in my mind as well, but not so much as to out weigh the fact that Fairfax has been named best manged county in the country, has a top notch school system, and has a fantastically low crime rate, just to highlight a few of the reasons I still have faith in the Board.
By the way, in "Vile Hypocrite, Part 3", I'll tell you why he needs the extra money. :-)
What about that relationship? I guess you are saying pay the Chair more money then he want have to work for SAIC.
Doesn't this thread of association run a bit deeper than $$$$$$$?
Now might we focus on what the article is, and the discussion should be, about: the appearance (if not more) that the county has had a "For Sale" sign hung up on it, and the belief of an increasing number of voters that our Chairman has sold us out to the highest bidder in order to fund his quest for higher office, regardless of the consequences to those he is ostensibly serving (to say nothing of the damage he's doing to the Blue resurgence in VA).
Granted, as long as they are not paid commensurate to the needed skills and workload, there is the chance for these problems.
But my question is this - why is it that so many of our leaders are tied to the development industry? Sure, it's a big part of our local economy, but still when you look at the numbers, that sector's influence and presence in County government is disproportionately high. And it's not just a "blue" problem.
The Chairman's conflicts are well known and documented. But there's also outgoing Supervisor Dana Kaufmann. His one non-government job with a developer consultant. And Joan DuBois, the Chairman's favorite Republican who actually lamented having to vote for her constituents' interests on Tysons density, is terribly under-qualified for her role, having only a background working for a developer law firm. The Chairman's handpicked empty suit in the Providence seat, Linda Smyth, knows the process very well as a longtime Planning Commissioner, but her contributions, like the Chairman's, far and away come mainly from developers. At least she doesn't have a personal paycheck coming from them; but if she did, the Chairman would say it's "none of our business," as he arrogantly said about his own paycheck.
That's 40 percent of the board right there; clearly, the development industry is disproportionately represented. Why do Fairfax Democrats of all people think this is fine?
But it doesn't stop there. At-Large Planning Commissioner Walter Alcorn, who chaired the PlanComm's Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) committee, was also a SAIC employee. Did he ever recuse himself from votes that would directly or indirectly impact SAIC?
Later, he became an "independent consultant," and that's fine. Who are his clients? Planning commissioners are only paid a small, token stipend. Who is paying the man's salary? Typically, when someone forms a consulting firm, their past employer is often among the first clients. Further, some of Alcorn's relatives have (and may still) work for or have major ties to the biggest Tyson's landowner, the West Group. Is SAIC, West Group, or other firms that stand to benefit from Tysons rail and higher density among Alcorn's clients? We may never know.
The point is not to badger someone who puts in long hours of public service. Given his ties and responsibilities, these are perfectly legitimate questions.
Finally, it drills down even deeper. I well remember the years of railing against Reagan-Bush toadies who used the revolving door between government and industry to enrich themselves in highly suspicious manners. Some crossed lines, some were found innocent, but a lot of them just didn't pass the smell test even if they were never charged with wrongdoing. Now, we see a whole lot of the same thing as county land-use staffers routinely go to work for consultants and other firms who are paid by the developers whose applications are reviewed by the very departments these people just left.
If it was right to condemn the GOP for this very practice at the federal level, should we remain silent when local officials of either party do the same thing?
We need better ethics from all parties and all officials, elected, appointed or hired, in Fairfax. One would think the Democratic party would be the natural source for such an effort. Sadly, under Connolly's abhorrent leadership, the Democrats are the main source of the problem.
What are we going to do about it? Just paying them more won't solve the problem. We need to clean house.
If he makes it to Congress, his salary per year will be $169,000 plus benefits. What is it, he has to serve one or two terms to have a retirement benefit for life based on $169,000.
I bet there is not one of us bloggers who will be so compensated. Sorry no tears for Connolly about his $59,000 plus benefits that he now receives.
Keep up the good information flow.
Many politicians on both sides of the aisle spend vast amounts of their time raising money, campaigning, or raising money and campaigning for others. Gerry is one of them who does so. So does Tom Davis, Dick Saslaw, Dave Albo, etc. I don't necessarily think its bad -- I think its great when Democratic leaders help other Democratic candidates get elected. But as a citizen and taxpayer, I sure don't want to pay them to do it.
Gerry may spend 100 hour weeks working, but large portions of those hours are things I don't want to pay for.
I would promote Connolly and the other supervisor publishing their schedule on their website. Aren't there some congressmen who publish their schedule?
I have never objected to paying public servants on a par with private enterprise. Nor do I have this peculiar anti-politician fixation that reeks of contempt because the elected officials have to "glad hand" folks to get elected. That's is part of the system in a democracy, and until we figure out a way to remove money from the campaigning equation you're going to have to put up with it. Either that, or go to a classical Chinese mandarian system of public administration, appointments from the top right down to dog catcher level, and no elections.
Please get real, and drop this surly attitude that all officials are "politicians" as if that were something nasty. With that attitude we will in fact get nasty folks who are sleazy in public office because we treat government as part of the problem (a typical republican attitude, by the way). If we have standards and expect the officials to live up to them, and PAY them commensurate with those high standards, we will get high standards of conduct.
On the same vein, our young company grade officers in the military are responsible for the lives of dozens of men and for enormous amounts of costly equipment in their command, and when a change of command occurs they go through a lengthy and precise inventory of equipment and personnel. They aren't paid all that much, either, compared to the responsibilities, but they do get great benefits, health care, and retirement. And an honor code. And when we send them overseas on extended deployments repeatedly the strain does begin to tell; no wonder the retention level is beginning to decline seriously.
The system of rewards in our culture is, I feel, out of whack all along the line, when we let financial experts on Wall Street make literally billions of dollars a year, our egotistical entertainers and sports figures earn millions and millions--- and then pay our hardworking, loyal public servants including teachers, firemen, and military, poverty-level wages in no way commensurate with the importance of their jobs.
Not sure I agree on you re: the compensation of local elected officials. Running a county of a million people is a big job. Which is why we pay a professional county administrator more that $200k, provide him with large staff, and thousands of employees.
Being an elected supervisor of a county of a million people is a different job, a big one in its own way. When it was set up, we anticipated members of the community working part-time on this policy-creating body. These people in the community (otherwise gainfully employed) would make local legislation that could be enacted by professionals, and be accountable electorally to the rest of us. Instead, we now have people who want to make a living and career out of being in this job, or use it as a springboard to other political opportunities. This may be a bad or good thing. Maybe its time for the system to change, and have full-time elected officials in these positions. Certainly the hybrid system as it exists now has its flaws.
But what we ought not to think is that we need to compensate elected officials for campaigning. I don't think its dirty to be a "politician," or go out and get votes. In our system, the elected officials need to do that to get office, and that's democracy. However, I don't want to pay people to do it, and I don't think taxpayers want to either. I don't want to hear that these people work "really hard" or that its a "hard job," so they should make more money. I'm in politics enough to see how many elected officials spend their time, and a lot of it isn't what they're paid for. I also understand that running for and holding office is not a mandatory obligation. If you got into it to make money, get out of it. There's plenty of better people for the job, NOBODY in these offices are indispensible.
In other words, I might be interested in paying Gerry Connolly $200k if it means he wouldn't work for SAIC or special interests while serving as our county chair. If he'd work fifty hours a week just on my county issues, that would be good. But I'm not willing to pay Tom Davis more so that he can spend more time knocking on doors for his wife, gathering money for his Senate ambitions, or otherwise building a political machine. My tax funds are better served elsewhere.