COUNCIL'S SELECTIVE LISTENING

Council's Selective Listening

The City Council last week took half the advice of a mayoral advisory panel by voting itself 25-percent raises - from $90,000 to $112,500 - but deferred action on the other half - that it consider restrictions on outside employment for its members. No one should be surprised that it handled the group's recommendations that way, but there is reason to be disappointed.

The pay raises were part of an overall package for various city officials, including the five city District Attorneys. The Mayor's salary (of which Michael Bloomberg collects $1) was boosted from $195,000 to $225,000 (15.4 percent), the DAs got a 26.7-percent boost from $150,000 to $190,000, the City Comptroller's pay jumped from $160,000 to $185,000 (15.6 percent), the Public Advocate's from $150,000 to $165,000 (10 percent), and salaries for the Borough Presidents climbed from $135,000 to $160,000 (18.5 percent).

The raises were the first granted in seven years, explaining why they appear so generous. It could be argued that the Borough Presidents, who lost much of their real power when the Board of Estimate was abolished by a 1989 referendum, are overpaid, but the other raises make sense.

Somewhat predictably, a poll that covered a variety of other topics found that city residents by a 2-1 margin believed Council Members did not deserve a raise. We, however, share the view of the mayoral panel that the increase was justified but that there ought to be a re-examination of whether, and with what limitations, Council Members should be permitted to have other employment.

Those who defend the current practice, under which several Council Members earn six-figure salaries from second positions, argue that the Council job is supposed to be a part-time endeavor, and that they are not the only public officials who hold lucrative outside employment. By most lights, however, the new pay level for Council Members represents a pretty good full-time salary. The lack of preparation that more than a few of them display at hearings makes clear that they aren't giving their duties the attention that they should, and the Council suffers for it, both in the quality of its work and in the regard that the public holds for it.

State legislators also in more than a few cases have second careers, including those with positions of leadership. One of the interesting tests of Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer's campaign promises to reform the ethical climate in Albany is going to be whether he acts to curtail that kind of moonlighting by some of the most powerful officials in both the State Senate and the Assembly.

It is all well and good for officials to say that they keep their private business dealings separate from the work they handle in the Council or the Legislature. Even if they do, however, there is the inevitable perception that someone retaining their law firms is buying their clout as much as their legal expertise, and will benefit either through their overt actions or the less-obvious favor-trading that goes on in government.

That is why at some point Council Speaker Christine Quinn should revisit the issue of outside employment and whether it is tenable, if the Council is to be perceived as doing the people's business rather than helping to feather the nests of individual members.

Those who complain that they can't get by on $112,500 a year have options: going full-time into their other jobs (which they have to do after eight years anyway under the term-limits law), seeking higher offices that pay more, or taking on more-lucrative related work such as lobbying or political consulting that have been traditional landing spots for those who lose elections or eventually gravitate to them for financial reasons.

Holding public office is a privilege that requires some sacrifices beyond diminished privacy. Asking Council Members to get by on their city salaries would hardly amount to asking them to take vows of poverty.