Brookfield Alderman Salary

Summary

In the public sector, setting your own salary is always controversial. Then again, public officials put in a lot of time, bear a lot of responsibility and perform a job that few others are interested in.

Ald. Berg believes that some compensation is fair and reasonable, but he also believes that the current aldermanic pay levels are excessive.

Let's start out with a listing of Brookfield's aldermanic salaries since 1992. Starting with the year 2000, Ald. Berg's first year in office, and given the fact that every alderman (except Ald. Berg!) of that time accepted their salary and full expense account ($6,629), the chart shows the inflation adjusted value for each year. A rate of 3% was used for 2008 and forward. It appears that a change may be due in about 2013, which is what Ald. Berg suggested at the January 15, 2008 Council meeting. Also note that would be the 1992 salary level, inflation adjusted.

The calculation was performed using the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics - Consumer Price Index "Inflation Calculator" found at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Year	Salary + Expense Account	2000 Compensation of $6,629 at Inflation Adjusted Value
2012	$9,911 + $0 ($10,110 + $0 proposed)	9,253.12 (+3%)
2011	$9,911 + $0 ($10,010 + $0 proposed)	$8,983.61 (+3%)
2010	$9,911 + $0	$8,721.95 (+3%)
2009	$9,911 + $0	$8,467.91 (+3%)
2008	$9,911 + $0	$8,221.27 (+3%)
2007	$9,622 + $0	$7,981.82
2006	$9,342 + $0	$7,760.78
2005	$9,070 + $0	$7,518.26
2004	$8,805 + $0	$7,271.88
2003	$8,549 + $0	$7,083.25
2002	$7,551 + $0	$6,925.42
2001	$5,729 + $900 ($6,629)	$6,817.63
2000	$5,729 + $900 ($6,629)	$6,629.00
1999	$5,400 + $900 ($6,300)	$6,413.42
1998	$5,325 + $900 ($6,225)	$6,274.84
1997	$5,100 + $900 ($6,000)	$6,178.60
1996	$5,100 + $900 ($6,000)	$6,040.01
1995	$4,800 + $900 ($5,700)	$5,866.78
1994	$4,800 + $900 ($5,700)	$5,705.10
1993	$4,500 + $900 ($5,400)	$5,562.66
1992	$4,500 + $900 ($5,400)	$5,400.98

Here are a few basics on elected official salaries:

Up until 2005, new salaries took affect after Election Day. Thus, the salaries listed here for 2004, 2003, 2002, etc. are the old salary for the first four months of an election year plus the new salary for the rest of the election year. Some sources list only the new salary for that year, effectively making the true cost for the year higher than it actually is by that four month error. Starting in January, 2005 the new salary started on January 1 which simplified budgeting.
Prior to April, 2002, each alderman had an expense account of $900 / year. This was intended to pay for seminars, postage for official correspondence, etc. Starting after April, 2002, the expense account was eliminated and the $900 was rolled into the base salary with the intent that aldermen will pay their expenses out of their base salary. Certain travel expenses may be paid out of a general city staff travel expense account. Ald. Berg never accepted a penny of the expense account money. Contrary to what was reported in the Brookfield News in May, 2001 under the 2002 compensation plan, aldermen do not receive mileage reimbursement. Aldermen do not receive fringe benefits. A few of the aldermen do participate in the city's health insurance program, paying 100% of the premium (well over $900/month).
It is illegal for the city to pay an elected official (alderman or mayor) anything other than the amount stated in the salary ordinance. This is due to the fact that the salary ordinance defines what the city government must do. Also, there is a legal principle rooted in the United States Constitution which states that salaries of elected officials may not be diminished during their term. That rule prevents a congress controlled by one party from dropping to zero the salary of a President from the other party as part of a partisan struggle, and the idea is carried all the way down to the local level. It also prevents a greedy politician from raising his own salary through the roof without at least one election in between.
It is possible for an elected official to cash the check and return a portion of the money to the city. As long as it is a no strings attached donation, there is no income tax assesed on that returned money. The money still has social security (FICA) tax deducted, so the person is out about 8.5% from his other income.
A wide variety of percentages have been quoted for the change in salary amounts. They vary by considering the expense account (at least one alderman has never used the account, while others use all of it) or by comparing salaries several years apart.
Aldermen may participate in the city's health insurance plan. They pay the entire premium (about $500/month for a single plan with high deductibles and about $950/month for a family plan with low deductibles) which can exceed their aldermanic salary. This is popular with aldermen who are self employed or who took early retirement from their regular jobs and could not get insurance at a reasonable price. This insurance always ends when the person becomes eligible for Medicare. Other cities, such as West Allis, include health insurance in the aldermanic salary and it can exceed the regular income.

There is a proposal before the Wisconsin Assembly to allow local officials to refuse their salary. It is called AB527 and was approved in November, 2007 at the committee level.

January 15, 2008

The following is the resolution and staff report for the Council meeting of January 15, 2008. The salaries for 2011 and 2012 will be set then.

Council meeting of January 15, 2008 - Staff report (comparison to other cities) and resolution on alderman's salary.

In fact, the proposal was rejected.

MJS - January 16, 2008 - Aldermen reject 1% raise, Brookfield council votes to freeze pay at 2008 rate through 2012

BN January 15, 2008 - Brookfield alderman shoot down pay raise

Waukesha Freeman January 15, 2008 Brookfield aldermen to vote on pay raise, 1 percent common council pay increase would take effect in 2011 and 2012

BrookfieldNow January 8, 2008 Aldermanic Pay Increase Recommended

MJS January 8, 2008 - Brookfield Panel Backs Pay Raises

The Human Resources committee had approved the 1% raise in 2011 and 2012. The Council amended that recommendation to freeze the salary for those years at the 2010 rate. The amended proposal (freeze) as approved 10-3 (For: Sutton, Carnell, Owen, Balzar, Ponto, Mahkorn, Berg, Blackburn, G. Mellone, L. Mellone and Against: Reddin, Garvens, Nelson. Ald. Franz was absent)

December 6, 2005

The Council meeting of December 6, 2005 set the salaries for 2009 and 2010. As the official minutes (Click here to download a PDF file of the official minutes.) show:

15) Alderman Ponto moved approval of the Ordinance establishing the rate of pay for the elected position of Alderman for calendar years 2009 and 2010. The motion was seconded by Alderman Heinrich.

Alderman Sutton moved to amend the salary ordinance to state as follows: "For Aldermen whose term of office shall begin in 2006 or thereafter, the rate shall be: First meeting after the April 2008 election $9,342. This pay schedule will stay in effect until the first meeting of the Brookfield Common Council after the 2010 election." The motion was seconded by Alderman Blackburn. An electronic vote was taken and the vote was tied Ayes 7, Nays 7 with Aldermen Sutton, Kilkenny, Mahkorn, Berg, Blackburn, Schellinger and Franz voting Aye; and Aldermen Brunner, Owen, Garvens, Balzer, Ponto, Nelson and Heinrich voting Nay. (The Council took a break from 11:00-11:05 p.m.) Upon reconvening, the Mayor broke the tie by voting Nay; therefore, the amendment failed.

Alderman Kilkenny moved to amend the salary ordinance to change the aldermanic pay for 2009 and 2010 from $10,060 and $10,211, respectively, to $9,750. The motion was seconded by Alderman Berg. An electronic vote was taken and the amendment failed Ayes 5, Nays 8, Abstain 1 with Aldermen Sutton, Kilkenny, Mahkorn, Berg, and Blackburn voting Aye; and Alderman Brunner abstaining.

Alderman Berg moved to amend the salary ordinance by freezing the 2008 salary for the years 2009 and 2010 to $9,911. The motion was seconded by Alderman Sutton. An electronic vote was taken and the amendment carried Ayes 12, Nays 1, and Abstain 1 with Alderman Ponto voting nay and Alderman Brunner abstaining. Ordinance No. 2034-05*

Aye (freeze): Berg, Schellinger, Mahkorn, Sutton, Owen, Franz, Blackburn, Heinrich, Kilkenny, Nelson, Garvens, Balzer

Nay (raise): Ponto

Abstain: Brunner

MJS - December 7, 2005 - Brookfield council votes to freeze pay for aldermen

MJS - December 6, 2005 - Brookfield council is one of the costliest

MJS - November 16, 2005 - Brookfield delays some pay hikes

MJS - November 9, 2005 - Brookfield mayor to veto pay raises for his job

MJS - August 30, 2005 - Alderman pay proposal put off

MJS - July 25, 2005 - Brookfield official wants to scrap pay raises

The Salary and The Cindy

Remember that famous quote from Ald. Kilkenny?

Ald. Cindy Kilkenny, who sits on the Personnel Committee and voted for the raises, said being on the Common Council is becoming more expensive.

"It's hardly a big deal," Kilkenny said of the pay raises. "You need it for baby sitters and photocopying."

MJS - December 18, 2003 - Brookfield council gives aldermen pay raises through 2008; Salaries will have risen 73% in seven years

On the evening of Thursday, December 18, 2003, Ald. Berg spoke on the phone to 2nd District Alderman Cindy Kilkenny and asked about second district resident reactions to the MJS story. Ald. Kilkenny stated that she had received two phone calls on her answering machine that day. The first said she was worth every penny. The second was highly critical. When Ald. Kilkenny called the second person back, he apologized for being harsh. Ald. Kilkenny interprets this as being validation and support for her decision. I did reported this on my web site at the time.

December 16, 2003

In mid-2001 Ald. Berg stood alone in opposing a huge pay increase for aldermen. On December 16, 2003, history repeated itself. The Brookfield Common Council awarded itself another raise that was out of touch with legitimate expenses, the economy and public sentiment. Once again, Ald. Berg voted NAY! but was outvoted.

The Council meeting of December 16, 2003 set the salaries for 2009 and 2010. As the official minutes (Click here to download a PDF file of the official minutes.) show:

Alderman Wolff moved adoption of the Ordinance establishing salaries of certain elected officials (Aldermen) for calendar years 2007 and 2008. The motion was seconded by Alderman Garvens. A roll call vote was taken and carried Ayes 10, Nays 3 with Aldermen Berg, Schellinger and Franz voting nay. Ordinance No. 1942-03*

Aye (raise): Ponto, Mahkorn, Cindy Kilkenny, Wolff, Shaw, Schulz, Clappier, Garvens, Brunner, Steinke, Heinrich

Nay (no raise): Berg, Schellinger, Franz

MJS - December 18, 2003 - Brookfield council gives aldermen pay raises through 2008; Salaries will have risen 73% in seven years

This story does have one error. Ald. Berg's term ends in April, 2004 and he had already filed his re-election petition. The web based version (see link above) had the error, the printed version did not. No formal correction was printed.

MJS - December 19, 2003 - What were they Thinking? (editorial)

MJS – December 21, 2003 – Editorial Cartoon

MJS – December 22, 2003 – Brookfield Aldermen to be Paid More Than Most Regional Peers

Just to make the intention of Ald. Berg’s quote clear: Ald. Berg believes that his aldermanic salary should pay for expenses incurred by performing his duties (postage, books, etc.), cover his campaign costs (do you really want an alderman beholding to contributors instead of residents and his conscience?) and have enough left over for a nice family vacation (how do you make up lost time to young children?). Ald. Berg does not think the pay should be so much as to pay for his children’s college education. An inspection of his voting record speaks for itself.

MJS – December 24, 2003 - Brookfield pay-raise vote spurs man to enter race - More than half of the aldermen up for re-election face challengers

MJS – January 11, 2004 – Attack on Alderman was Shameful

A few comments about this letter to the editor:

· I am delighted that a resident took the time and trouble to state his view so publicly.

· In 2003, a Brookfield alderman’s salary was $8,549 and Wisconsin’s minimum wage was $5.15. This letter implies that aldermen work more than 1,660 hours/year on city business. I think about a third of that is closer to reality, especially for those aldermen who have full time jobs.

· The author, Joseph Niebler, Sr. is the lawyer who would eventually develop The Shire subdivision on Brookfield Road. While freedom of speech certainly guarantees his right to make this statement, you decide if there is an undisclosed conflict of interest or not.

MJS - January 25, 2004 - Vote for pay raises sends wrong message

The author of the letter, Dan Sutton, is running for 1st District Alderman. He makes some of the points I noted above.

When this story broke on December 18, 2003, Ald. Berg received several phone calls and e-mails thanking him for his stand.

Some may call Ald. Berg a "political opportunist." That is, the "no" vote was just for show during an election cycle. Given that no matter what decision was made, someone would be unhappy, Ald. Berg relied on his personal core values and character to make the decision. Ald. Berg chose to vote no because he believed in: fiscal responsibility in a time of economic hardship.

On Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4th district resident Denis Alesci sent the following message to 4th District Alderman Karl Schulz. Ald. Schulz's reply follows. When reading the two emails, please keep these points in mind:

The emails are shown in their entirety and without editing except for the deletion of email addresses.

Ald. Schulz appears to be saying that the current situation is a sinister conspiracy of alderman running for re-election, lazy newspaper reporters, opportunistic radio talk show hosts, etc. Where does his personal responsibility come into play?

It is true that the three aldermen opposing the raise are running for election in April, 2004 (Berg and Franz for re-election as Brookfield Aldermen and Schellinger as Waukesha County Supervisor.) However, five other aldermen are running for re-election and they supported the raise [Steinke, Wolff, Shaw, Ponto, Clappier]. If opposition to a raise is all it takes to get re-elected, how come only two of the seven alderman running for re-election figured it out?

From: Dennis Alesci

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:54 PM

To: [Ald. Schulz, Ald. Ponto & Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter Reid Epstein]

Subject: your raises

I won't bore you with the customary disgust the public reacts with every time a trusting constituent is alerted by the media that their government officials again self reward themselves. Your indifference to government revenue dilemmas and the tax payers burden is insulting.

I don't care if Boris Yelstin is your opponent come re-election - you won't get my vote.

Dennis Alesci

2245 Hammock Hill Lane

Brookfield

From: Karl Schulz

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:33 PM

To: Dennis Alesci , [Mayor Speaker & All Alderman], [Waukesha staff for Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]

Mr. Alesci,

Thank you for your email regarding this morning's Journal Sentinel piece on Brookfield Aldermanic pay.

First, it is important to understand that Brookfield Aldermen, by state statute, CANNOT raise their own pay, but only adjust [raise or lower] the pay of future Councils. The Journal story, while factually correct, is sort of a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' story. The sub-head "Salaries will have risen 73% in seven years" is intended , I believe, to be as inflammatory as possible. Remember, an increase from one dollar to two dollars is a 100% increase, yet most taxpayers would hardly be alarmed by a one dollar increase in Aldermanic pay.

Notably absent from the Journal story is any meaningful context. Competent (or honest) reporting would have included the fact that Brookfield Aldermen in recent years have been paid LESS than the average of neighboring communities of similar size, in some cases quite a bit less. Some other communities pay for added benefits for their elected officials and in some cases even pensions. Brookfield does none of that. Even after the 3% pay increase in the next Aldermanic term, Brookfield's Aldermanic pay will fall approximately in the middle of comparable communities. Anyone who has observed Brookfield's recent development and redevelopment will acknowledge that there is clearly more activity here than in many neighboring communities. This naturally translates into more work for the committees and commissions on which all aldermen serve (at NO additional pay) - Plan Commission, Parks & Recreation Board, Legislative & Licensing Committee, Sewer & Water Board, Board of Public Works, etc.

Also, citizens are not exactly standing in line to run for Alderman. I am now serving my 4th term as your Alderman, yet I have have run in 3 of those elections unopposed, indicating that it is likely not the lofty salary that draws people to serve this community. The 3% pay increase for future Councils approved last Tuesday evening will increase each Alderman's pay by just about $257 per year. Divided into the 13,500 households in Brookfield, the increase of all 14 Aldermen combined amounts to just over 26 cents, per average household, per year. Believe it or not Mr. Alesci, nobody does this for the money.

As you may know, City spending is less than a third of your and my property taxes (29%) and Brookfield has traditionally had moderate taxes for a full service community in Southeastern Wisconsin. You may have noticed that the three Aldermen opposing the Aldermanic pay increase are all running for office this coming April - two for their current Aldermanic seats and one for County Board. Perhaps they have political motives...I do not.

It is unfortunate that the Journal Sentinel reporter who wrote this story doesn't actually take the time to attend our meetings, but apparently prefers to initiate stories from whispered comments of those up for election and he chooses to exclude important elements of the whole story that might help readers have a full understanding of this issue. Apparently, WTMJ radio has a similar problem.

Please don't hesitate to call or email me - I'd be happy to further discuss this matter with you.

Best regards,

Karl Schulz

Alderman, 4th District

City of Brookfield, WI

On Saturday, February 23, 2002 the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a story on how Brookfield alderman had awarded themselves a huge pay raise. You can read the original story at:

MJS - February 23, 2002 - Brookfield Leaders Not Worried About Raises

Please notice the CORRECTION at the top of the story. Alderman Berg was the ONLY alderman to have voted against that raise. Alderman Berg sits on the Personnel Committee, which originates all salary actions. In that committee, Alderman Berg voted against the raises because he thought they were excessive. Also note mayoral candidate Jeff Speaker pledged not to take the raise.

The raises came to the Council on May 15, 2001. Alderman Berg was out of town that day and was absent for the vote. He did take the extraordinary measure of sending an e-mail to all the members of the Council and the press stating his views on the pay raise and the other issues on the agenda.

At the June, 2001 meeting, the salary ordinance needed a technical correction regarding the timing of the raises. Alderman Berg voted against that salary ordinance as well.

The press was copied on the e-mail at the time and didn't seem to think the raises were worth writing about. What a difference a year and the Milwaukee County pension scandal can make!

June 5, 2001

This was the first time Ald. Berg could vote on aldermanic pay.

The Council meeting of June 6, 2001 set the salaries for aldermen from 2002 through 2006. As the official minutes (Click here to download a PDF file of the official minutes.) show:

Alderman Ponto moved adoption of the Ordinance amending Ord. #1804, establishing salaries of certain elected officials commencing with their new term of office in April 2002. The motion was seconded by Alderman Garvens. A roll call vote was taken and carried Ayes 12, No's 1 with Alderman Berg voting no. Ordinance No. 1808*

Aye (raise): Mahkorn, Waffenschmidt, Schellinger, Clappier, Steinke, Washechek, Ponto, Heinrich, Brunner, Bauer, Garvens, Schulz

Nay (no raise): Berg

Absent: Jakus