Two letters in your May 30 issue about the compensation of city of Edmonds elected officials have caused me to write these comments.
One letter opposes the increase to the mayor’s salary. (“Council caught up in ‘private sector’ thinking,” May 30) One of the reasons given by Ms. Buckshnis for her opposition is because median incomes in ZIP code 98020 are lower than the mayor’s salary. The median incomes she stated are for 2005. Even if her figures were current, I don’t know what the relevance of median income is to the mayor’s position. Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Surely the complexity and the responsibilities of the mayor’s position would not place the position in the group below the median of all of the jobs held by residents of Edmonds.
The second letter clarifies and corrects the May 23 coverage in the Enterprise about City Council compensation actions at its May 20 meeting. (“Article on council’s actions misleading,” May 30) The information that was provided by Ms. Speer is correct. The recommendation to reduce City Council medical benefits originated with the Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials; the council voted to implement their recommendation. The council action to increase the mayor’s salary differed from the recommendation of the compensation committee. The action was based upon relevant survey data provided by the compensation committee and was made totally independent of the action on City Council benefits — in other words, we did not lower council benefits to pay for the mayor’s pay increase.
Ron Wambolt
Edmonds City Councilmember
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
