The elected official compensation increase should be limited to a simple inflation adjustment. Math in the June 11 report shows some stretch logic to satisfy direction from the Park City Council (kudos to city staff, it’s their job), but some components are loosely relevant and not the core issue anyway. This change fundamentally alters the nature of the role without having the real conversation regarding our local form of government.  Our city already employs professional staff and a city manager with deep expertise and relevant education, compensated accordingly: strong salaries, excellent benefits, and guaranteed contracts. Compensation packages often exceed $200,000 for managers, with executives approaching $300,000, plus severance parachutes into the millions. Park City’s elected officials are meant to represent the voice of the people and guide policy, not be experts in all aspects of government administration to the point it’s a full-time job. That’s why the main qualification to influence hundreds of millions of dollars and our community direction is less about an accomplished resume and more about a perception of who cares most or who our friends’ friends are. If we’re turning elected officials into full-time professionals and sidelining the staff’s expertise, then we should offset it by reducing staff pay. Fair’s fair, although it’s a really bad idea.  Making elected office a career invites trouble: like temptation of bowing to influence to protect personal income, eroding true community interests. If you can’t live here on the new full-time salary without a second job, then you can’t serve. Or is having two jobs OK in that scenario? A family of four AMI is almost $170,000. Seems this policy is one of unintended exclusion, impacting the “forgotten middle” and families. Plugging one hole opens up multiple new ones. If the goal is truly greater inclusion, get creative: Stagger meeting times for different worker shifts, hold occasional weekend or weekday meetings on slower days for hospitality workers, and keep remote attendance fully open. Money doesn’t solve this. And let’s be honest, a councilor adamantly selling this raise as inclusion tried to restrict remote attendance last year, despite many residents having to travel for work to afford living and raising families here. It’s OK to exclude them? Quite the plot twist. If the massive raise is truly warranted, prove it’s not self-serving. Implement it in two stages, announcing it before the next election cycles (June 2027 and June 2029), effective the following Jan. 1 before the elected take office. That way we’ll see impacts on candidacy (good or bad) before it even takes effect instead of playing pick-a-number with taxpayer dollars. Doing it now isn’t just a bad look. It’s bad governance. Please keep the role what it was meant to be: genuine public service. Jeremy Rubell Park City The post Heart for service? appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less