In 2014, I suggested the Pensacola City Council considered a charter amendment that would tie the mayor’s salary to that of the county’s constitutional officers, such as the clerk of court, property appraiser and tax collector.
While we believed it made sense to take politics out of the mayor’s compensation, the suggestion received no support from the council or mayor’s office.
The current recommendation by Council President Gerald Wingate to raise the mayor’s pay from $100,000 to $125,000 doesn’t have much support with the city’s voters, according the March 1 poll conducted by The Political Matrix.
District 5, which is represented by Wingate, only has 17.6 percent in favor of his proposal.
| District 1, Responses: 71 | |||
| 1. Yes | 12 | 16.90% | |
| 2. No | 55 | 77.50% | |
| 3. Undecided | 4 | 5.60% | |
| District 2, Responses: 68 | |||
| 1. Yes | 15 | 22.10% | |
| 2. No | 48 | 70.60% | |
| 3. Undecided | 5 | 7.40% | |
| District 3, Responses: 76 | |||
| 1. Yes | 15 | 19.70% | |
| 2. No | 53 | 69.70% | |
| 3. Undecided | 8 | 10.50% | |
| District 4, Responses: 75 | |||
| 1. Yes | 24 | 32.00% | |
| 2. No | 47 | 62.70% | |
| 3. Undecided | 4 | 5.30% | |
| District 5, Responses: 68 | |||
| 1. Yes | 12 | 17.60% | |
| 2. No | 45 | 66.20% | |
| 3. Undecided | 11 | 16.20% | |
| District 6, Responses: 69 | |||
| 1. Yes | 15 | 21.70% | |
| 2. No | 43 | 62.30% | |
| 3. Undecided | 11 | 15.90% | |
| District 7, Responses: 58 | |||
| 1. Yes | 9 | 15.50% | |
| 2. No | 41 | 70.70% | |
| 3. Undecided | 8 | 13.80% | |
I like the idea, 300,000 county residents. 50,000 City residents …. 1/6th the pay!
Unfortunately for the mail, this is an elevation of the popularity of his administration. I wonder how Ashton will spin this. The city Council should be able to understand these pull numbers and hopefully make it wise decision.
By the way, if they want to cite the salaries of other Mayors as justification there should be a carefully analysis of the duties of each Mayor. In most Mayor-Council forms of government, the Mayor is in charge of the daily operations of the city. Pensacola’s Charter is different and unusual in expressly assigning that power to the City Administrator, a decision that I believe undercuts the authority of the Mayor. Article 4 about the Mayor in Pensacola’s Charter is modeled in part after the same part in Hialeah’s Charter with the exception that there was a deliberate intent to weaken the City Council. As example, in Hialeah the Council confirms both the appointment and the termination of department heads who the Mayor cannot dismiss except with just cause. In Hialeah, the Council determines the organizational structure of the city government just as Congress determinates the organization of the federal government and the Governor determines the organization of the state government. A very confused consultant from the Florida League of Cities who had never before reviewed a Mayor-Council told the Council that this was an “executive function.” It is not. To date, this one error has doomed the Charter because Hayward asserts that he can do whatever he wants to include claiming that a department is no longer a department so that the Council has no power to confirm the appointment of its head. On top of all of the problems described above, Hayward refuses to “attend all meetings of the City Council” as required by the Charter approved by voters. That fact alone is proof that he refuses to serve in a “full-time” capacity and should be removed by the Governor (perhaps the next one if a Democrat) or voters on the grounds of “Neglect of Duty.” It gets worse. Hayward asserts that he can engage in private employment on the side to include work as a real estate agent as he has done while Mayor both work a company he co-owned and another company that listed him as one of their agents. At present, state records show that Hayward has an active real estate license. As for the Charter Amendment idea, the Council wrongly believes that voters are forbidden to propose one that relates to salaries. This is not true. The Florida Attorney General has even issued an Advisory Legal Opinion on this point – AGO 2002-79.