Quincy residents to hold July 7 ‘Repeal the Raises’ event at City Hall Plaza
Come to the rally at City Hall Plaza on Sunday, July 7, from 2 to 4 pm
When Quincy Mayor Tom Koch proposed enormous raises for himself and the city council, residents were given no opportunity for public comment.
When residents grumbled in a city council committee meeting where the raises were discussed, they were scolded.
And when the council rushed through votes for their 50% raises and the mayor’s 79% pay boost in the last council meeting before the summer break, residents – and at least one councilor – were confused about what had just happened.
Now, residents collecting signatures to legally repeal those raises are planning an event to give the public an opportunity to voice their concerns about the raises and their hopes for the city. The event will be held at City Hall Plaza on Sunday, July 7, from 2 to 4 pm.
“This is the starting point of the journey to strive for good governance in the city,” says event organizer Susan Yuan, a member of the newly formed group A Just Quincy, which is working to repeal the raises. “We need to send a loud and powerful message. We won't just quietly back down.”
A group of A Just Quincy volunteers holding a sign made by one of them (thanks, John!)
The event will also serve as the final gathering to collect the required signatures necessary to legally repeal the raises through what’s known as a referendum petition. Under state law, if 12% of registered voters sign the referendum petitions within 20 days of the final passage of the raise ordinances, those ordinances will either be repealed or put to a public vote in a city or special election. That means about 8,000 registered Quincy voters must sign each of the two petitions (one to repeal the mayor’s salary and one the councilors’) by July 8.
More than 100 volunteers have been tirelessly collecting signatures towards that goal, and residents from across the city have been lining up at collection locations to sign. “People are really upset about both the size of the raises and how they were pushed through,” says A Just Quincy member Maggie McKee. “It’s inspiring to see how much energy and time people are putting into trying to fix what they see as a broken system.”
To celebrate this massive grassroots effort, A Just Quincy is providing free ice cream (in individually wrapped packages bought from the store) and music by local DJ Spencer Henderson.
But A Just Quincy’s work is just beginning, and the group hopes to build on the momentum of this referendum petition to work towards greater transparency and accountability in city government. To join the group, go to ajustquincy.com/contact.
Patriot Ledger article
The Patriot Ledger provides a summary of what is going on with the elected leader salary increases and our group which is trying to repeal those same increases.
I was gratified that the Patriot Ledger wrote about our group’s efforts to repeal the salary ordinances.
The Ledger’s Peter Blandino wrote an article about our Petition Referendum.
Quincy group petitioning to repeal mayor's big raise (patriotledger.com)
I encourage everyone to share the article with as many people as possible. We are at a critical junction; we need to reach more people immediately. Most people we talk to agree with us: The mayoral salary should be raised. It’s overdue. But that does not mean a 79% pay increase (from $159,000 to $285,000) makes sense. Here are some of the many points to consider when asking people to sign our petition.
This repeal effort would not mean the mayor and city council could not get a raise, it would ask them to start over with a sincere process.
The 79% is justified using the Dorminson analysis, which has been widely criticized as flawed. It’s methodology seems to have been designed to achieve a desired outcome rather than a sincere analysis.
The mayor’s raise relies on comparisons to town managers; employees who are hired and fired by the relevant legislative body. Town managers are not selected through elections nor is their job political in nature. Being Mayor of a mid-level city is a higher-profile job that affords cachet and opportunity beyond this position. There is value in being the mayor beyond the salary.
The average salary of town managers referenced in the Dorminson report was $169,000. When this is pointed out, the replies point out that Quincy has a larger population. However, when you point out that this salary puts the mayor’s salary above cities exponentially larger and more populated, we are told not to focus on population or size.
The ordinances will immediately cost about $261,000 more per year. Over the next four years, they will cost well over a million dollars. This is real money that will affect property taxes and limit the city’s ability to provide services.
The mayor and city council were just reelected/elected last Fall. The raises were brought up a matter of weeks after having been sworn in. No one ran on the idea of increasing these salaries. The voters have not been given a chance to provide their input.
The repeal referendums will force the city council to either repeal the ordinances granting the new salaries, or put it to the voters in a city or special election.
The current mayor has worked for the city his whole life, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of how it runs. If Quincy’s city plan allowed for a town manager, he would be an excellent candidate. However, the next mayor of Quincy may not have similar experience and know-how each department runs and could need to rely on department heads and possible new hires.
This new salary will make it more difficult for future mayors to hire the staff they may need.
The mayor’s office and city council have expressed concern that they may not be able to attract good candidates without a far larger salary. They do not seem to worry that an overly large salary like this could cause an entrenched incumbent to hold onto power longer than they might otherwise.
Elected positions were not meant to be lifelong careers.
Public service is not meant to be a path to financial prosperity
There are better ways to find a fair number. To name a couple:
Compare the salary with any of the 100+ cities with similar populations and challenges.
Take his salary and apply the raises afforded teachers or city workers since it was last increased. Or simply apply a 3% raise each year, a better deal than the teachers and workers got.
Applying similar raises to the city council ($30,000 x 3% from 2014 - 2023) would net them a salary just below 40k rather than the $44,500 they approved. (City Council is a part-time position)
Will residents face retribution for trying to block the raises?
The US Constitution protects our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Our volunteers keep reporting that folks they talk to WANT to sign the petitions to repeal Quincy politicians’ raises, but they’re afraid to do so for fear of retribution from the city. (Hopefully that fear is not based in reality, but it’s concerning that it seems to be so widespread.) So here is a little information for anyone who is worried about that.
A Just Quincy will only send the signed forms to the city clerk’s office if it looks like we have the required number of signatures to pass one or both repeal referendums (one is to repeal the mayor’s 79% raise, the other is to repeal the council’s 50% raise).
The city clerk’s office will then have to check that the signatures come from registered Quincy voters and that the number of those verified voter signatures is equal to at least 12% of all registered Quincy voters.
Citizens’ right to follow their consciences and petition the government for a redress of grievances is enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution. But even so, I’ve asked the city clerk to confirm that citizens will face no negative repercussions if they sign these petitions, and I fully expect she will do so when she returns to the office after the weekend.
—Maggie McKee
A letter from Lorrie
Take a Stand Against Unjust Salary Increases
On June 17, 2024, the City Council approved a 79% salary increase for the Mayor and a 48% increase for themselves, despite constituents' opposition. At the June 3 meeting, several councilors acknowledged hearing from residents against these raises. Still, they chose self-service over public service.
What can we do? Fortunately, we have a recourse. Section 42 of the City Charter and Massachusetts General Laws Part I Title VII Chapter 43 Section 42 allow us to seek a repeal of these ordinances.
A group of concerned taxpayers, A Just Quincy, is collecting signatures for two referendum petitions to repeal Ordinance 2024-055, which raises the Mayor’s salary to $285,000, and Ordinance 2024-056, which raises the City Council's salary to $44,500, effective January 1, 2025.
To submit these petitions, A Just Quincy needs signatures from at least 12% of registered voters within 20 days of the ordinances' final passage. That’s over 8,000 signatures by July 10, 2024. If successful, the Clerk will forward the petitions to the City Council, suspending the ordinances and prompting immediate reconsideration. If not rescinded within 20 days, the petitions will go to a city-wide vote.
We must act now to ensure our voices are heard. Sign one or both referendum petitions to repeal these raises, or join A Just Quincy in gathering signatures. Visit ajustquincy.com or email info@ajustquincy.com to help restore integrity to our local government. Let's make a difference together.
Lorrie Thomas
Quincy
How it started vs how it’s going
One week into the repeal referendum process, we take stock
It’s been one week since a group of Quincy residents launched an effort to repeal the 79% and 50% raises for the mayor and city council, but it feels much longer.
In part, that’s because we had been working for several weeks before that to convince the city council not to vote the raises through. That work sprang up quite organically. Folks shared news of the record-setting salary range proposed by consultants connected to city officials, researched the bidding process through which the consultant’s contract came about, discovered that (a) the city has a charter, (b) the charter requires politicians’ raises to go into effect in the term following the one in which they’re voted, and after a public vote, and (c) apparently the charter has no teeth, and state law allows the raises to go through in the calendar year following a raise vote (ie, January 1, 2025).
Neighbors who had never met in real life shared findings from their public records requests and calls to the state attorney general’s office and organized protests at City Hall.
Before the June 17 council votes on the raises
Teachers got between 0 and 3% increases every year since 2015, when the mayor’s last raise went into effect. The mayor’s newly approved salary is equivalent to him making a 6% raise for each of those years.
Quincy is one of 15 cities with so-called “plan A” governments in Massachusetts. The mayor’s new raise is far out of line with what the mayors of all those other cities make
After the council rushed through the first of two votes to approve the mayor’s raise and looked set to rubber stamp both raises at the following council meeting, the group of residents that had come together started holding Zoom meetings to plan more protests and create an online poll to show the city council how many folks were against the raises. But on June 17, the council voted to push the raises through – without a public hearing – before working out a better system for calculating salary changes, which they vowed to do in the fall.
One resident who had seen the writing on the wall had already been researching how to UNDO the raises once they had passed. She found out that according to state law, any measure (like the raises) can be repealed if 12% of registered voters physically sign a referendum petition within 20 days of the measure’s final passage. We had more Zoom meetings, and debated whether we could get the 8,000 signatures needed by July 8. After all, that’s equivalent to 40% of the voter turnout in the 2023 election, which people had a higher chance of knowing about, in large part thanks to the ubiquitous yard signs and frequent mailings that one of the candidates spent about a million dollars on.
Could we, a group of about two dozen residents who had come together to organize the protests, along with the signers of our online poll, get so many signatures in such a short period of time? In the summer, when many residents are away for the July 4 holiday? Was it worth the daunting effort? And if we didn’t get the signatures, which seemed likely, would that contribute to more cynicism about residents’ ability to effect change and even about the democratic process itself?
We discussed it and decided that the effort was worth it. The trying was the whole point. By trying, we could spread awareness of how this raise process was handled, and remind our elected officials that they are meant to look out for our interests above their own. By trying, we’d meet new people, build community, and flex the muscles of our out-of-shape democracy, where less than a third of eligible voters cast ballots in the last election.
And it’s working! Nearly a hundred volunteers have taken petition forms to collect signatures, and we’re all meeting new people across the city and having conversations and (thankfully respectful) debates about how we want things to run here. I am energized after these conversations. Sometimes I start to worry that we’ll never reach our goal of 8,000 signatures at that pace, but then I stop and remind myself that those conversations are the goal. That sense of community and camaraderie is the magic that makes a street feel like a neighborhood. And that mutual sharing of information and hopes and frustrations is what a democracy is all about.
A bonus is that this magical feeling of connection and empowerment seems to be spreading, and people have been lining up to sign the petitions. So while I think that our efforts have already paid off in strengthening our democracy and community, I am increasingly hopeful that we will also meet our goal of repealing these raises and forcing our elected officials to come up with a fairer and more sensible raise process.
So if you haven’t already, please find out where to find tireless signature collectors at ajustquincy.com/petition. And stop to chat with them, even if you don’t end up signing. Talking together is not just a way to keep democracy alive. It’s our only hope.
Folks signing the petitions to repeal the mayor’s and council’s raises
—Maggie McKee
Will a higher mayoral salary encourage more candidates to run?
Incumbents’ war chests, particularly here in Quincy, seem the bigger issue
The following is from a Facebook post by Maggie McKee on June 5 (after the city council’s finance committee voted on June 3 to approve the mayor’s 79% raise).
At the city council meeting the other night, a couple of councilors mentioned that people don't tend to run for office in Quincy (and one suggested that lower-than-the-private-sector salaries could keep more women and people of color from trying).
But I think what prevents more people from running is the political machine that builds up around incumbents, making it very hard to compete as a challenger (particularly a new challenger).
For example, Quincy's incumbent mayor, Tom Koch, raised and spent more than all 85 of the other mayoral candidates on Massachusetts ballots last year, taking in about $620,000 and spending about $962,000. (https://ocpf.us/Reports/MayoralReports?year=2023)
The average amount spent by all mayoral candidates on Massachusetts ballots in 2023 was $62,000. Mayor Koch spent nearly $1 million.
That war chest (war bank vault?) seems more likely to discourage would-be contenders from throwing their hats in the ring than the mayor's purportedly "low" salary of ~$158,000 ($150k base salary plus car allowance).
If we truly want to help more people run for office, campaign finance reform might be a good place to start.
QATV interview
Maggie and Joe went on AM Quincy. In this blog post, Joe walks everyone through some of the highlights.
Joe Catalano, affectionately known as Joe C by many locals in Quincy, is a well-known figure. He serves as a producer and on-air personality for much of Quincy Access Television’s (QATV) content. Joe is widely respected for his fairness, honesty, and friendly demeanor.
Recently, I (Joe M) contacted Joe C and proposed that he feature “A Just Quincy” on his show for an interview. To my delight, he responded and had A Just Quincy reps on. On Wednesday, my colleague Maggie McKee and I overcame our shyness and appeared on his show. Let me walk you through the experience.
The interview began with the expected question: “What is ‘A Just Quincy’?” We explained that in response to the announcement of two ordinances aimed at increasing the mayor and city council salaries, a group of Quincy citizens came together to voice their protest. Notably, we informed Joe C that, beyond the two dozen active volunteers currently working with A Just Quincy, we swiftly garnered approximately 600 signatures on a survey opposing the ordinances. Most of the respondents also chose to leave comments we promised to share with the city council.
We then moved on to the nuts and bolts. What is this “petition referendum” that we are working so diligently to get signed before a quickly approaching deadline?
Maggie and I explained that the referendum is the recourse prescribed by state law when the public wants to request a repeal of recently passed ordinances. Within 20 days of the ordinance’s signing, 12% of the registered voters need to sign the petition and submit it to the city clerk’s office. In our case, we would need approximately 8,000 signatures. This Herculean task will require the assistance of many people.
Given that this task is a substantial undertaking, and there’s a very real possibility that we may not achieve our goal, why are we attempting it? The members of A Just Quincy recognize the inherent value in our efforts. By advocating for change, we’ve already made an impact. The city council lowered their salary request by $3,000 per year, resulting in a savings of $27,000 for Quincy taxpayers next year. These positive effects will continue to ripple through the years, eventually affecting pension funds. Moreover, we believe it’s crucial to wield democracy more effectively within our city. Our hope is to empower the often-unheard voices of average Quincy residents.
We’ve discussed the value of this endeavor even if we fall short. However, we’re determined to successfully submit this petition to the Clerk’s office. What will happen if we achieve our goal?
If we successfully gather the signatures and submit them to the city clerk’s office within the allowed timeframe, the City Council may decide to repeal the ordinances voluntarily. If they opt not to do so, the decision will be put to the people of Quincy through the next city election or a special election. At that point, the residents will have the opportunity to make their choice, as intended by the city charter.
We appreciate Joe C bringing up the metaphorical elephant who had taken up residence in the room. Some have suggested, including Mayor Koch and at least two city councilors, that our efforts are a personal attack on the mayor. Let me clarify: we harbor no animosity toward the mayor. Our concern lies with the excessive salary raises and the unprofessional, undemocratic process behind them.
Within “A Just Quincy,” individual feelings toward Mayor Koch are not only irrelevant but also diverse. The notion that our actions stem from personal dislike is both inaccurate and insulting. We don’t need to like or dislike the mayor to recognize when a decision is flawed.
Furthermore, let’s consider an alternate scenario: had Anne Mahoney won the election and proposed a similar salary increase package, we would still be out there collecting signatures to oppose it.
There are many reasons these raises feel wrong. Obviously, they are enormous—people do not get 80% salary increases in real life. Also, the whole process felt icky. There was almost no pushback from the city council. Even though they received many calls from constituents voicing opposition, no one really felt the need to question the appropriateness of the raises. The only councilor who did was Councilor Dan Minton. He actually proposed lower numbers but stopped short of proposing an amendment to the ordinances. But what some people have expressed was that this just doesn’t feel in line with public service. When you go into certain fields, it’s a foregone conclusion it is not for the money.
This discussion traces back to the founding of the republic. It was a topic explored in the writings of Alexander Hamilton, who believed that public servants should receive adequate compensation to meet their necessities without being vulnerable to manipulation. However, he cautioned against excessive pay that could fuel avarice and compromise their integrity. Benjamin Franklin, in a speech to the Federal Convention, also warned against enriching leaders solely for the benefit of those who seek to do so, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balance. To Franklin’s point, although there was no natural moment to bring this up yesterday, the fact that the council is having its own salary raised dramatically along with the mayor’s is problematic.
The people participating in A Just Quincy believe that the mayor and council should have their salaries raised just as we feel everyone deserves for their salaries to rise over time. But the drastic increases, justified by a financial analysis with a suspicious methodology and flawed conclusions, defy reason and common sense.
In 2021, Quincy enlisted Dorminson Consulting to do financial analysis for Quincy, particularly around salaries. One specific report they produced was concerning the salary of Quincy’s mayor. The Dorminson report seems to have reinvented the wheel, so to speak. With thousands of mayors across the United States and approximately 100 cities having populations around 100,000 (including Quincy), a more sensible approach would have been to select 10 or 20 cities with similar characteristics and challenges to Quincy. Using those mayors’ compensation as a dataset would have provided a more relevant comparison. There are also 14 other cities in Massachusetts with a type of government similar to Quincy’s, and those could have been used as a benchmark for comparison.
However, Dorminson took a different route by comparing the mayor’s salary with that of city administrators. City administrators are a distinct type of professional. They serve as hired experts who can be dismissed if things don’t go well. Unlike mayors, they remain non-political and are accountable to the city council. Their performance undergoes scrutiny through reviews conducted by the elected body or even the public.
Dorminson based their recommendation for the mayoral salary on data from over 40 city manager positions in Massachusetts. Interestingly, the average salary for these positions amounted to approximately $169,000. To justify why the mayor of Quincy deserved significantly more, they pointed to Quincy’s population in comparison to the smaller cities and towns overseen by these city/town administrators.
However, when critics highlighted that Dorminson’s recommendation would have placed the mayor of Quincy’s salary above that of the mayor of New York — a city with 81 times as many constituents — the size comparison suddenly lost its relevance.
Lt. Gov Kim Driscoll, former Mayor of Salem
In addition to the salary and privileges afforded them by their citizens, mayors can parlay their experience and public profiles into higher office. Examples would be Kim Driscoll, former mayor of Salem, now the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, and Secretary of Transportation and former presidential nominee Pete Buttigieg, who gained prominence for his success as mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Three mayors of mid-level cities have gone on to the presidency: Calvin Coolidge (Northampton, MA), Grover Cleveland (Buffalo, NY), and Andrew Johnson (Greenville, TN).
Mayors often go on to lucrative public-private partnerships (P3s), consulting/advising roles, corporate boards and nonprofits, education/academia, business development, etc. This diversity of opportunities underscores why mayors are not compensated like their lesser-known non-political colleagues.
Sec. of Transportation, Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg
To illustrate, literally, our point, Maggie brought some data-driven visuals. While we discuss numbers and methodology, it’s important not to lose sight of how strange and glaring these raises are. So, here we are using our sight.
In my personal opinion, this argument lacks sincerity. I don’t believe our elected leaders genuinely worry about having insufficient good opponents. It seems like an argument that sounds appealing without much critical thought. However, this issue highlights a core problem in Quincy’s democracy. People hesitate to run against the mayor because they know he will have significant financial resources (around a million dollars to spend), strong connections to power, and upsetting the likely winner is daunting.
As we discussed earlier, many competent and accomplished individuals would relish the chance to serve as mayor in this city.
Now, let’s delve into another aspect. While on my way to QATV, something struck me—perhaps it had crossed my mind before, but this time, it resonated loudly. Why are we raising these salaries now? When the Patriots or Red Sox sign a free agent, does management immediately revisit those contracts at the start of the season? No, they’ve already agreed to play for that existing salary.
This is so strange when you think about it. How is this decision, at this moment, helping the people of Quincy? These ordinances affect nine council positions and the mayor, all of whom were sworn in weeks before this conversation started. It is a strange time to give a raise, right? We aren’t in danger of losing any of these newly electeds, at least not to salary demands. There is a theory as to why it had to be now. We can talk about that in another blog post.
Thanks for going through all this with us. It’s a lot… we know.
Thoughts from a resident, data edition
Maggie McKee says the size of the mayor’s raise is far outside of state – and national – norms
These comments were made by Maggie McKee at a standout against the raises in front of City Hall on May 29, 2024 (before the council voted on them).
Hi, everyone. My name is Maggie, and I live here in Quincy with my family.
I want to start out by saying that I am not opposed to salary increases for our elected officials. I believe that all employees should get cost of living adjustments regularly, and the fact that this does not happen now is, I think, a fault in the system.
But the mayor is not proposing a different system, one that would tie his salary increases to, say, annual rates of inflation or teacher contract changes. He is simply asking city councilors to vote for a 79% raise for him, from $159,000 to $285,000. The basis for this request is a mayoral compensation review done by the City’s Finance Department.
But I do not think the council should vote for the mayor’s proposed change. That’s because the amount of the raise is far outside of state – and national – norms.
The city’s compensation review lists 42 salaries for what it calls “chief administrative officers” of relatively small Massachusetts communities, with populations smaller than two-thirds that of Quincy. The salaries of these communities’ leaders range from $98,000 (Southampton) to $293,000 (Plymouth), amounts that make $285,000 seem quite reasonable for a leader of Quincy’s larger size.
The problem is, none of the 42 communities selected have Quincy’s form of government.
Massachusetts cities and towns can choose from a bewildering menu of government types. Quincy has a “plan A” government with a mayor and a city council, for example, while Plymouth has a representative town meeting form of government, with 135 representatives elected from the city’s precincts, five elected select board members, and a town manager appointed by the select board.
All of the 42 communities list “manager” or “administrator” as the title of their city’s CEO. These positions are hired by an elected council, which can set the desired experiences and qualifications for the position – and can remove the manager at any time through a vote. Like business consultants with expertise in a particular field, these managers are workers whose contracts can be ended if their performance falls below expectations. And as a result, they seem to command salaries more in line with the private sector. Plymouth’s town manager, for example, has a master’s degree in public administration and worked as director of administration and public health in Worcester and town manager of Upton before taking the top job in Plymouth.
Quincy follows a different model. Its residents vote for mayoral candidates who can collect the required 50 certified signatures to run for office. Any eligible candidate who receives the most votes wins the seat, regardless of their level of education or prior experience. And then they serve for a set term (in typical plan A governments, that term is two years; in Quincy, it’s four).
So how much do these directly elected mayors make? I looked up the 15 plan A cities listed in the Massachusetts Municipal Association directory. Their average population is 108,000 and their average mayoral salary is $140,000.
Quincy, with a population of 102,000 and a mayoral salary of $159,141, is currently very much in line with those averages. But if the city council votes to increase the mayor’s salary by 79% – to $285,000 – it will be far out of line.
Not only that, but the mayor’s requested salary would be higher than that of Governor Healey, who makes $222,000, and our two US senators, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, who each make $174,000.
And it would be higher than the mayors of nine out of ten of the largest US cities, which have populations ranging from 10 to 82 times Quincy’s size.
For Quincy’s mayor to potentially make more than all of those positions seems unfair, even egregious. But what troubles me the most is the fact that he felt entitled to ask for that much money in the first place. In our plan A government, also known as a “strong mayor - weak council” system, the mayor holds nearly all the power, appointing department heads and members of city boards that rule on any manner of issues. Asking for a 79% raise seems like a brazen display of unassailable power, and I can’t imagine many of us have had the temerity to request the same of our bosses.
But our tax dollars pay for the city’s expenses, and I hope that we will all raise our voices to tell our elected leaders how we want our money spent.
Collecting in-person signatures
FAQs on how to collect signatures to legally repeal the raises for mayor and councilors
We need to get about 8,000 in-person signatures of registered Quincy voters by July 8 to successfully repeal the mayor’s and council’s 79% and 50% raises, so we are going to need everyone to pitch in as much as humanly possible up to that time!
The two petitions (one to repeal the mayor’s raise and one to repeal the councilors’) are available to download and print at ajustquincy.com/petition (please print double sided). You can also request printouts using this form, or come pick them up from the porch at 117 Rawson Road starting Tuesday, June 25.
PLEASE SIGN UP FOR AT LEAST ONE LOCATION & TIME TO COLLECT SIGNATURES HERE. We will post the times and places on our website so registered voters wishing to sign the petitions can find you.
You can also just go out and collect signatures without any advance notice to us, of course (please do!). Some ideas of places to go include playgrounds, dog parks, outside T stations, libraries, and grocery stores (apparently 10 am to 2 pm on Saturday is a peak time for shoppers), or anywhere people have to wait for a while (the line outside the soon-to-close La Paloma Restaurant on Newport Ave, or the pedestrian crossing at Squantum and Hancock Streets near North Quincy T station come to mind!). You can also door knock in your neighborhood or even sit out on your front steps and chat with people as they walk by!
Every day that you collect signatures, please fill out the short form at bit.ly/quincycount with the number you got (for both the mayor and council). That way we can keep track of how many we get and how many more we need so we have the best chance of meeting our goal.
Things to note:
To be counted, the signers must be registered voters in Quincy. Ask them, “Are you a registered voter in Quincy?” and if they say yes, have them sign the form. (If they’re actually not, their signature won’t count towards the goal, but this is a numbers game, so if there are other people around who might sign, it’s best to get everyone who thinks they are a registered Quincy voter to sign as quickly as possible. If there’s no one else around, and they’re unsure if they’re registered, you can suggest that they check their registration at bit.ly/mavotercheck.)
PLEASE MAKE SURE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES ARE LEGIBLE!
Since there are two different petitions - one for the mayor's raise and one for councilors' - it's important to clearly identify the forms so people know what they're signing. Because marking up the petition forms (such as with a highlighter over the words "mayor" or "council") might not be allowed (why risk it?), it's a good idea to use your own system: different-colored post-it notes (or a post-it note on just one form and not the other), or a colored ribbon tied around the clipboard used for one and not the other... Also, given that most people seem more upset about the mayor's raise than the councilors’, we recommend asking people to sign that one first. Thanks!
Here are some talking points about the raises. Please use them only to the extent necessary – talking too much can turn people off.
Signing one or both of these petitions doesn’t mean you don’t like the mayor or councilors or don’t think they deserve raises. It just means that you object to the size of the raises and/or the way they were pushed through.
For comparison, Quincy police, firefighters, and teachers recently received raises of 3% per year.
This raise would bring the salary of Quincy’s mayor from $159,000 to $285,000, making him the highest paid mayor of any city with a similar government type in the state. With the raise, Quincy’s mayor would make more than the Massachusetts governor and both US senators, as well as the mayors of major cities like New York ($258,000), Boston ($207,000), Chicago ($221,000), and Houston ($236,000).
The raise will substantially increase the mayor’s pension, which will cost taxpayers for the rest of the mayor’s life.
The report used to justify the mayor’s raise is fatally flawed and included no mayors of cities with similar government types to Quincy. It uses a specious argument that city managers’ jobs are equivalent to that of Quincy’s mayor. That’s not true. A city manager is hired and subjected to regular performance reviews (which are often public) and can be fired at any time. (If the same were true for Quincy’s mayor, it’s unclear that he would still have a job after some of the things that have taken place under his watch.)
Councilors quickly green-lit the raises without debate or a public hearing, even though they admitted that the way the pay boosts came about was flawed.
Please make sure to take a picture of each page of signatures you collect, and then drop off the completed forms (even if they only have a single signature on them!) BEFORE JULY 8 to:
Maggie McKee
117 Rawson Road
Quincy, MA 02170
617 669 1832
or
Kathy Thrun
234 Everett Street
Wollaston, MA 02170
1.617.872.4048
Or if you can’t drop them off, please email info@ajustquincy.com and let us know where to come pick up the signed forms from you.
THANK YOU!
Our next phase
They ignored the people they promised to represent. So we keep going.
Hello, neighbors!
We told city councilors that 500 people had signed our poll opposing the exorbitant raises that the mayor proposed for himself and them. But councilors voted for 79% and 50% raises anyway, so our next step is a repeal referendum.
This page contains a lot of information on what that is and what it entails. If you would rather skip to the action part, we need you to physically sign two petitions (and ideally help collect other signatures!). Please fill out this form and we’ll be in touch with you about how to do that, or come to the signing opportunities listed at ajustquincy.com/petition.
Now more on the nitty-gritty details.
Why are we against the raises? Many of us are concerned about the way the mayor and councilors pushed them through:
proposing the increases immediately after an election, so voters couldn’t weigh in on them at the polls and politicians wouldn’t have to vote on them in an election year
using a report by consultants with connections to city officials that made spurious comparisons to cities and towns with government structures that “did not correctly relate to Quincy,” according to Ward 5 Councilor Dan Minton
foregoing any opportunity for public comment, etc. etc.
City councilors acknowledged that the process was flawed and vowed to work out a system for instituting regular raises based on inflation and performance. But instead of doing that work first, on June 17 they voted to approve the huge pay jumps, bringing the mayor’s salary from $159,000 to $285,000 and the councilors’ salaries from $30,000 to $44,500 starting in 2025.
Politicians: 1, residents: 0, right? Not necessarily. If we can get enough in-person (termed “wet”) signatures, we can repeal the raises and force the council back to the drawing board.
How would this work? State law says that if 12% of registered voters sign a referendum petition protesting the raises within 20 days of their approval, one of two things will happen: (a) the city council would have to repeal the raises, or (b) the raises would be put to a vote by the public in either the next city election (in 2025) or in a special election.
How can we make that happen? There are about 66,000 registered voters in Quincy, and 12% of that is ~8,000. We have until July 8, 2024, to return the 8,000 signatures needed to repeal the raises.
Isn’t that impossible? Not impossible, but very, very hard. We are going to need all hands on deck to do it! We are asking everyone to (a) make a plan to sign the petition(s) they support and (b) help gather other signatures. If each of person who signed our poll got just a dozen signatures, we could repeal the raises!
What happens if we’re successful? We should have a big party to celebrate the power of the people! Then we should use that power to demand that the council FIRST work out an appropriate system for raises – with public input – and THEN give out raises. Doing it the other way around is just bad governance.
What if we fall short? Honestly, this is a strong possibility. But the trying is what’s important. In making the effort, we raise awareness about how our government is working (or not), and we build connections with our neighbors. We also put elected officials on notice: their actions will have political consequences. In short, we strengthen our democracy.
How can I get involved? Fill out this form if you can sign the petitions and/or help us collect more signatures! And keep checking ajustquincy.com/petition to see where and when volunteers (including, hopefully, you!) will be collecting signatures over the coming days.
Thanks for caring about our city and how it runs!
Thoughts from a Quincy resident
Ward One resident, Mike Cotter shares his thoughts on the Mayor and City Councilor raises.
Thoughts from a Concerned Citizen to City Councilors, the Mayor and All
June 7, 2024
First, I have great respect and appreciation for citizens like the Councilors and Mayor who beyond their personal and professional lives, choose to serve in elected public office. This service involves myriad, frequently overwhelming demands and responsibilities, a commitment to listen to, communicate with, and represent all constituents - and to resolve conflicts fairly. The City Council/Finance Committee meetings of 6/3/24 exposed numerous serious issues regarding salaries and raises for the Mayor and City Council; There should have been: *An absolute determination of the legal salary/raise process- whether per Quincy City Charter or G.L c. 39, s.6A, determined by the Attorney General or Mass Supreme Judicial Court. (This did not occur and out of frustration some citizens have suggested the desperate measure of suing the City to achieve the proper due process.)*Constituent input in the form of public hearings before a vote.*A reasonable resolution and schedule to the salary/raise process, so as not to repeat the current uproar and controversy. None of that happened. As I wrote to Mayor Koch after his January 2024 inauguration, I appreciate his hard work on behalf of and dedication to our City. He is a good man, very experienced, capable, politically astute and connected. With Quincy's current "Plan A" form of government, in my view, Mayor Koch is "too powerful" and the City Council is "too weak." Some comment that with rare exceptions, "If the Mayor wants something, it happens, and if he doesn't, it does not." Under his administration many very good improvements have occurred: the building of several overdue new schools, the public safety headquarters for police and fire, seawall and infrastructure repairs, the Hancock Adams Common, park upgrades, the promotion of arts, cultural and civic programs and events, etc. There have been significant "losses" as well, such as Quincy City Hospital, The Quincy Human Rights Commission, MBTA deterioration in Quincy, the loss of a master plan for the renewal of Quincy Center (as opposed to the current piecemeal development), the "preventable theft of $3.5 million in invested City pension funds, over-development, etc. I feel strongly that Mayor Koch should lead with much more commitment and effectiveness with regard to the environmental crisis, social justice, smart development, and affordability related to housing and property taxes. I look forward to and support such progress over his next, and perhaps his final 3 1/2 years. Yes, we absolutely must offer reasonable and competitive compensation to attract and keep good candidates for public service. However, there are serious concerns regarding the Mayor's raise.
There are questions about the validity and applicability of the $9500 Dorminson Consultants recommendations of $298- $370,000.
Should Quincy's elected Mayor reasonably make more than our Governor, US Senators, and the mayors of major cities in Massachusetts and throughout the U.S.?
An additional very relevant factor is the significant compensation for Mayor Koch upon his retirement with an annual pension of 80% for life. While almost all agree the Mayor (and Council ) are overdue for raises, the amounts and process are the issue. Did any "unbiased" citizens actually contact Councilors in support of these raises and this process? If, during his last campaign, Mayor Koch had proposed his salary be raised 79% to $285,000 with the resultant pension boost (and property taxes be raised up to 18% for many) would he have been re-elected, even by that slim margin of 1904 votes? Not likely. Six months into his current term, the timing, amount and approval of his raise caused me to raise a frustrated and angry sign at the June 3rd meeting which read, "Greed". It is difficult not to view this raise as a "money" grab,” to be rubber-stamped by a too weak and compliant City Council. Only new Councilor Minton had the integrity and political fortitude to refute the " consultant" and suggest a more reasonable raise for the Mayor to $230,000 and $38,000 for the Council. Councilor Minton also cast the only vote against this extreme Mayoral raise, while Councilor and Council President Cain was notably absent. Minton's compromise and any recourse, or further opportunity for public input was ruled out by the Council's sadly predictable vote. Citizens/taxpayers hoped that this controversy would be handled in an open, democratic, fiscally reasonable and fair manner - and it was not!
Moving forward: Typical raises for Police, Fire, and Teachers are 3% per year. It has been calculated that if the Mayor's salary had been raised annually by 3% (and why was it not?) it would now be approximately $213,000. This amount would still be more than that of Boston Mayor Wu at $207,000, serving a city of 650,000. The $285,000, unfortunately, is a "done deal", short of an unlikely, very expensive, and complex legal campaign to overturn the current ordinance, challenge or reform the City Charter or General Law.
At the June 17th City Council meeting-What if the Council, after voting themselves a raise to $38,000, as Councilor Minton suggested (rather than $47,000) then introduced an ordinance for a future 3% annual raise for themselves and the Mayor? Would this at least settle this matter equitably for the future? I, and many citizens /taxpayers genuinely have felt ignored, betrayed, and exploited in this latest municipal legislation. I am sure that is not the Council's intent. Perhaps this Council, with this one ordinance, could begin to "mend fences, build bridges" and move onward in partnership with Mayor Koch to resolve the many urgent priorities Quincy faces.
A Final Note-
The very controversial, conflict ridden and temporarily withdrawn Quarry Hills 99-year lease extension is looming in the wings...Citizens beware!
Councilors, as always, please act in the best interests of all Quincy citizens/taxpayers.
Sincerely and hopefully,
Mike Cotter
Surfing the waives.
June 17’s council meeting was as disappointing as expected, but it was also hard to follow.
by joe murphy
I had a dream.
The nine members of the city council were churning through the various budget items they had to vote on and they pause on one in particular. “2024-055 – Ordinance – Amending Municipal Code – Chapter 72 – Article 1 – Job Classifications and Salaries, Sec. 72-1 - Official Salary Schedule – Mayor”, The Council president, Ian Caine, announces loudly and clearly, “we are scheduled to vote on this as it cleared Finance at the last meeting. However, since then, we’ve seen vigorous opposition and I know a few of us in the body felt that it would be careless to continue without more discussion.”
Councilor Minton speaks up at this point, “Mr. President, can I speak to this?” The floor is given to Councilor Minton, who begins to unpack many of the concerns of the residents. “First, the Dorminson report recommended an unexpectedly large increase in pay for both the mayor and the council. Simple cost justification principles dictate that we need a second analysis to either confirm or dispute Dorminson’s findings. Not only was their recommended increase far larger than expected, but their methodology was also highly unorthodox. Instead of comparing Mayor Koch’s salary with mayors of similar cities, they chose to compare it with city managers. While these functions have overlap, they are entirely different types of jobs. It is unclear why Dorminson would choose to make this comparison when a robust data set from the thousands of mayors across the country already exists?”
Another city councilor speaks up, “A lot of my constituents are dismissing the Dorminson report as a report that started with a conclusion and worked backwards.”
At this point I start to feel lighter and proud as it seems like we have a city council who represent the concerns of those they are elected to represent. But then, the scene turns strange. Several of the councilors turn into FastFood mascots and I feel confused and a bit creeped out.
As it turns out, the Council’s sudden turn towards sensibility proved to be a product of my imagination, a figment of sensibility stored in the same place as a mishmash of fast-food marketing. What happened in real life made less sense and was more upsetting.
To no one’s surprise, despite hundreds of signatures and comments from residents asking for their elected representatives to pause on the 79% raise for the mayor and the 50-something % raise for themselves, both votes went through with nearly no questioning. The council did reduce their raise by about 5%, with no explanation as to where that number came from, but no one spoke up for the residents who have clearly expressed objection. It’s hard to believe that such a significant change, which will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the ensuing decades, had almost no one questioning it. Aside from Councilor Minton, who has come out against it and suggested lower numbers (though did not propose any changes), it seemed many were in lockstep with the same talking points. In fact, at the June 3rd meeting, there were a few jokes about how what they had to say was samesies.
It's strange that there was so much repetitive agreement over such a contentious issue.
Perhaps most upsetting is the actual conduct of the meeting. I have been attending meetings for seven years and, if I’m being honest, I can attest to the fact that the meetings are very hard to follow at times. Mass.Gov defines Robert’s Rules of Order, the Parliamentary Procedure used by most cities and towns (including Quincy), as 'rules for conduct at meetings that allow everyone to be heard and to make decisions without confusion.' Reading over these rules, it’s clear that they are meant to prevent a system where meeting attendees shout at and over each other. While RRoR does seem to prevent a cacophony of shouting and opinions, it is not easy for the uninitiated to decipher. The Councilors, perhaps in an attempt to be efficient with time and to get home at a reasonable hour, often rush through sections.
They speak quickly, move their faces away from the microphones, and mumble when engaged in the parliamentary parts of the meeting (motions, seconds, votes). In contrast, they speak slowly and elegantly when thanking or praising one another, city staff, or guests. They waive readings of ordinances without regard for the people in the audience who are there to understand what is happening. I think it would be very hard for a visually or hearing-impaired person to follow along.
This past Monday was confusing enough that at least one city councilor did not understand what they were voting for. Kudos to that councilor for being honest about it the next day. It was brave and refreshing to see a Quincy City Councilor explain that they misunderstood something that was happening. I wonder how many votes over the years went one way or another because a councilor (or five) got lost in the parliamentary bog.
On the off chance that any of the Councilors read this, I am sure we agree that the meetings should not be confusing. The people of Quincy, elected officials included, should be able to follow and understand what is happening.
I’ve compiled a best-of reel from Monday’s meeting to catch you up on the salary issues and to illustrate how difficult these meetings can be to follow, even to the initiated.
I am not accusing the City Council of using mumbling and waiving as a way to deflect criticism, although some may. I do think they want to get through the meetings, which have been known to stretch into the wee hours. I just wish they’d reduce the time by perhaps praising each other less and keeping thank yous shorter, etc. It would be beneficial to take a moment to explain what is happening beyond niceties and keep people informed, even if they oppose your position. True professionalism is shown by serving those who disagree with you.
Finally, this might be comforting or terrifying, but it seems local governments work the same wherever you are. Here’s comedian, Brian Regan, talking about his experience with his city’s council.
Monday’s City Council VOTE
A lot of concerned citizens have shared their opinions in anticipation of Monday’s City Council meeting and final vote on the proposed raises.. In case you aren’t aware, the City Council will be meeting for the last time before Summer break on Monday June 17. This will also be the last time the raise for the Mayor will be voted on.
One citizen wanted to say this to those who want to stand with us on Monday night,
“Like many Quincy residents, I oppose the proposed 79% salary increase for the mayor and proposed 58% salary increase for the city council. That DOES NOT mean that I oppose a raise for them. It means I oppose such large raises.
I realize that they haven’t received a raise in nearly a decade. Still, raises need to be reasonable and proportionate. To put the proposed increases in perspective, the mayor’s 79% raise is equivalent to a 6% compounded increase over 10 years. The council's 58% raise is akin to a 4.6% compounded increase.
It’s disappointing that no citizen input on the proposed raises is allowed during the City Council meeting. BUT we can voice our opinions in different way. Join us on Monday outside City Hall starting at 5:30 PM and at the City Council meeting at 6:30. Our presence and our signs will speak volumes.Thank you for standing with us.Another person familiar to “A Just Quincy” had this to say:
”We have a government out of touch with the tax paying public. We have told the mayor and the city council repeatedly that we are against a 79% raise. We are already paying for a salary and numerous benefits-pension, health, dental, life insurance, car allowance, longevity bonus, the use of an SUV. How many Quincy taxpayers have that level of benefits? How many have a $285,000 salary?Quincy is in debt over $1.1 billion. Quincy has a level of nepotism never seen before. Quincy has an Elder Services department being investigated by federal authorities. Quincy buys real estate high and sells low. Quincy loses millions in pension funds. Quincy mayor’s nephew detective is accused of sexting an intellectually challenged girl and is initially protected. Quincy gives favored developers tax breaks and million dollar breaks. Quincy pays a consultant to generate a study of anything but mayors to justify a 79% increase in the Quincy mayor’s salary.
How much more will the Quincy taxpayers be asked to give? Is Quincy willing to give the mayor a 79% raise to make him the highest paid mayor in Massachusetts?”
And a final thought from one resident with strong feelings on the mayor’s proposed raise:
Like many Quincy residents, we oppose the proposed 79% salary increase for the office of the mayor and the proposed 58% salary increase for the city council salaries. To be clear, that DOES NOT mean that we oppose a raise for those positions.
We recognize that the last mayoral salary increase took effect in 2015. Looking at the cost-of-living index (CPI), a salary of $159,216 in 2015 is the equivalent to a salary of $231,964 in 2024. The requested $280,000 salary is well beyond these measures and even higher than the salaries of the mayors of Boston ($207k), Chicago ($221k) and even New York City ($258k) and those city populations are in the millions!
We need a reasonable and proportionate approach. Some say that these objections are politically charged, but to quote members of the city council when addressing this question, “It is not about the person, it’s about the position.” And we couldn’t agree more. Whether it’s Koch, Phelan or whatever last name may be in that position in the future, we need accountability for the tax paying citizens of Quincy.The city council is the finance committee and the finance committee is the city council. Do you see the ripe potential for conflicts of interest here? The only thing between the salaries of our elected representatives and their votes is themselves. This is a classic example of the foxes running the hen house and we demand accountability!
If the proposed raises are approved, it could set a challenging precedent. We need to prevent the proposed raises from being approved and demand a more fair approach towards increasing salaries in the future. .It’s disappointing that no citizen input on the proposed raises is allowed during the City Council meeting. BUT we can voice our opinions in different way. Join us on Monday outside City Hall starting at 5:30 PM and at the City Council meeting at 6:30. Our presence and our signs will speak volumes.Thank you for standing with us.
Mayor Wu of Boston showed a better way
Adjust Quincy, for A Just Quincy
Check out what Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said in 2022 when she argued against raises for herself and city councilors (https://www.cbsnews.com/.../boston-mayor-michelle-wu.../).
Councilors later overrode her veto but delayed Wu's salary boost til 2026 and made their boosts take effect gradually over three years (https://www.boston.com/.../tweaking-approach-boston-city.../).
Still, what a difference from Quincy, where the mayor proposed a 79% raise for himself and 58% raises for councilors to start in January. The council voted once to approve the mayor's raise and will make a final vote on that, along with discussing and voting on their own raises, on Monday, June 17.
I'll be at City Hall that day to protest the process and the size of the raise starting at 5:30 pm. Join me! And fill out the poll at bit.ly/quincyraise if you also oppose this raise!
2022 CBS News
This post was adapted from a Facebook post from Maggie McKee
Joe Murphy Letter to the Quincy Sun
Joe Murphy’s letter to the Quincy Sun
Dear Editorial Department, The Quincy Sun,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the mayor’s request for an 80% raise in salary. As an elected public servant, the mayor surely knows that it is essential to strike a balance between fair compensation and responsible stewardship of public funds. Elected public servants should be compensated adequately, but we must avoid creating a financial burden for taxpayers. Allow me to elaborate on my concerns.
While I acknowledge the need to attract qualified candidates, the proposed raise is excessive for an elected official, especially one currently in office. It turns out the Quincy Charter’s Section 17A addresses this: “No increase or reduction in the salaries of mayor or city councillors shall take effect during the term in which such increase or reduction is voted.” Similarly, the Constitution prohibits the chief executive’s salary from being increased or diminished during the affected president’s term in office.
Alexander Hamilton wisely noted in Federalist Paper 73 that adjustments to elected officials’ salaries should “neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice.” Simply put, the salary should not be used to push someone out or keep them in office. Adjusting the salary to keep pace with inflation is prudent, but an 80% increase damages the integrity of the office. A raise like this will also impact Quincy’s budget, which the mayor has already said will need to be cut.
Quincy’s ability to attract qualified mayoral candidates is not hindered by low salaries. For example, the mayor’s most recent opponent was qualified enough to be named a town administrator in a nearby municipality. A greater concern lies in overcoming the tyranny of incumbency, which discourages others from running for office. Despite Quincy’s historical trend of long-serving elected officials, we must recognize that public office is meant to be a temporary role, not a lifelong career. An overly generous salary could easily keep an entrenched mayor in power beyond what is best for Quincy.
Furthermore, intertwining the mayor’s salary request with the proposed 58% raise for the city council creates a conflict of interest. As Benjamin Franklin stated at the Federal Convention, “Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations. And there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them.” Obviously, matters of mayoral and city councilor salaries should not be dealt with simultaneously.
Having said this, I support a modest increase in the mayoral salary. But this is not an area in which I want Quincy to set new precedents. We are the city of presidents, not the city of highly paid elected officials. We do not want to be notable for paying our mayor better than other, larger cities.
Finally, in February, the mayor said we should be prepared for a lean fiscal year with no new programs or positions. An 80% salary increase for anyone does not seem in line with a lean fiscal year. We should be putting taxpayer money into areas that better the lives of Quincy’s residents and protect its future.
Respectfully,
Joe Murphy