Personally, I’m proud of the Park City Council returning to the scene of the crime to make things right. That’s how I view this, shucking self-righteousness, suffering whatever embarrassment, focused in the end with what is right and what is wrong. They, or enough of them, know this was n o way to jam a raise through, never mind doubling their salaries all around, never mind so obscenely beyond the pay for any other western ski town council or mayor. So they will take up this subject again Thursday. Maybe they will get it right this time. I hope so. As Councilor Ed Parigian pointed out bluntly last week, the whole thing was botched in mid-May, which culminated in a 4-1 vote for the raises, with Councilor Bill Ciraco against. Mayor Ryan Dickey plainly agreed in talking last week about talking some more about the raise issue again this Thursday. My main objection had to do with how little the council thought this through and how thin the research for their discussions turned out to be. For instance, the city could show no evidence of a pay comparison “with peers” beyond the Summit County Council — nothing from the 19 or 20 actual peers of Park City the ski town. I don’t believe the council even knew the mayor already was the highest paid of all the ski towns before they doubled the already-highest salary for the position. The staff recommendation that night was, let’s be gentle, vague about what other ski towns had done or not done with raises, and when, suggesting this topic had languished for decades. But that’s not exactly true. Aspen raised their mayor’s pay to $39,000 in 2020, and Vail went to $20,400 in 2023 for theirs. Cranky citizens just last year shouted down the Ketchum City Council’s bid to bump up their raises, so yeah they remained at 2009 levels. I hope for Thursday the research and staff recommendation can be sharper and more detailed, more reliable — you know, something beyond Summit County and I think there’s a county in Idaho that pays …. I hope the council and mayor can begin at the beginning of this topic. That is, every ski town council was set up as a part-time board. That’s why the pay for all of them is nominal. There never was an expectation of a living wage to meet each week or every other week and make policy decisions. No ski town council has changed that to date. Just deciding you happen to work hard and have filled your days with perceived duties does not make this so. Should the original purpose that the Park City Council set some 140 years ago now change? Let the conversation start there. There are good arguments for professionalizing the elected positions and filling the slots with full-time politicians. Understand, though, that even the so-very-complicated state Legislature of Utah is not peopled with full-time representatives and senators. They are not paid as full-time professionals, either. They get something like $13,500, access to health care and per diem expenses during their sessions and committee work. Seems like they might have the more compelling argument for a living wage for elected service, given the weight of that service.   And there are good arguments for scaling back the accretion of duties the councilors have taken on themselves, only to tell us how they need raises because it’s all so hard. Of course it’s hard, and every one of them made a calculation to run for office or appointment anyway. Our councilors are talking a lot about the logic that better pay means more people with ordinary means will run for council. But this is only a thought experiment, an assumption. There is no evidence that more and better candidates will come forward because they judge the pay better. Regular folks income wise already run for the office routinely. I count at least four of the six serving now among them. I see only one retiree, and one I would consider wealthy. What is the great disparity, then, we presume to fix by doubling everyone’s pay? Also, do we really think someone running for the paycheck is the best suited to the role? Aren’t we after who we think will do the best job? I’d settle for candidates who know what they are talking about, ones who have gone to a council meeting before deciding to run. There’s also the small matter of when a raise should take effect. I confess I’m used to councilors making a point of passing raises for the next council rather than for themselves. That typically is meant to blunt the appearance of self-dealing for people who ran for office at the current remuneration.   At a minimum, the mayor and counselors should think through these things while discussing raises, how much and when to enact them. Bonus points for using evidence rather than blather. But I’m very glad they are willing to look at this again. As much as anything, that alone is a character test they have passed. So much more so that this comes at the possible bruising of their pride. It can be very hard and painful to do what’s only right. Don Rogers is the editor and publisher of The Park Record. He can be reached at [email protected] or (970) 376-0745. The post Journalism Matters: Let’s try this raise discussion again, with actual, you know, discussion appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less