Collecting in-person signatures

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.

• More info here and here.

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

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

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.

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.

Some hard to follow moments from the last meeting.

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.

The Real State of the City og

Blog post by AJQ executive committee member Spencer Henderson

Given the immaterial State of the City address and the recent city council meeting that was canceled due to ‘no business’, you’d be forgiven for thinking there were no pressing issues facing our city. 

Sure, the roads are in horrible shape, but I’m sure we'll be getting freshly paved roads any day now. Sure, the mayor and city council were forced to delay taking their 79% and 50% raises in response to the state's ethics investigation, but they decided to leave the raises on the books and in the budget, so there must be no problems there. Also, that guy who stole all that city money from Quincy Elder Services? He was caught. Yes, he is a close friend of the mayor, who also happened to be a leader in the same local men’s-only prayer group, but you never really know who you can trust nowadays. Sure that prayer group (the Men of Divine Mercy) has special guests such as Father Tom Hoar, who posts and reposts pro-Trump and anti-climate change messages repeatedly on X/Twitter and who seems to believe quite literally that we are in a spiritual war between God and the devil. But surely the prayer group’s leaders – the mayor, his media director, the commissioner of public works (you know, the guy in charge of the roads), the commissioner of natural resources, the chief financial officer, a city lawyer, and the former director of plant facilities – don’t actually believe that, right?

Most recently, we got a glimpse of the very affordable $850,000, 10-foot tall bronze statues that will flank the entrance to the new public safety building. Saint Michael the Archangel (representing the angel of death and the model of spiritual warfare in the Catholic tradition) and Saint Florian (patron saint of chimney sweeps, soapmakers and firefighters) are beloved figures in Quincy’s history, apparently. Never mind that most of the city council was totally unaware of these sculptural features. The designs evolved after the building’s plans were presented to the council, the mayor explained. “It seemed natural to do those images.” 

Speaking of things that have evolved over time, check out this chart of the city’s net financial position that I made using the city’s audited financial statements. “Net position” means just what you’d think – it’s the value of the city’s assets minus the value of its debts. 

Data from the City of Quincy’s audited financial statements (Image: Spencer Henderson/AJQ)

When Koch won his first mayoral election in 2007, we were running a net positive $152 million balance sheet – we were “up” by $152 million. That climbed to a $175 million surplus in 2013 before dropping down to a deficit of $762 million in 2023 – a loss of almost $1 billion in a decade. 

That is quite a feat, and the mayor’s unilateral decision to add ~$1 million of religious statuary to a $175 million public safety building (which, with interest payments, will ultimately cost taxpayers $320 million) is just the latest example of the kind of leadership that got us here. Amazing work!

Mayor Wu of Boston showed a better way

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!

#quincyma #quincymassachusetts #mayoralraise #mapoli

2022 CBS News

This post was adapted from a Facebook post from Maggie McKee

Joe Murphy 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