Submitted by boba79 t3_ylk8or in WorcesterMA
SmartSherbet t1_iv10fnt wrote
Reply to comment by CoolAbdul in Public Hearing re: Charter / Spectrum TV Services - Weds. Nov. 9 at 6 PM City Hall by boba79
I am not a fan of most of our city council members, but yeah, it is almost certain that they grease their palms on the side because they're way underpaid for the demands of the job. City Council member in Worcester is considered a part time job, even though doing the job well takes more than full time hours, and their pay is not high enough to reflect the demands of the work. Until they have a full time paycheck that's enough to replace what they would otherwise earn as full time professionals in the private sector, they will seek bribes.
If you want clean government, you have to remove the temptation to seek money on the side. That starts with paying officials enough to make corruption unnecessary.
Seekay2022 t1_iv1s6xm wrote
This is incorrect in many ways. I am sorry. Not trying to be rude. I speak from direct knowledge and experience. None of them have EVER worked a "well over" 40-hour week as a councilor. This is not true. Maybe Janice Nadeau did, (district councilor prior to Sarai Rivera and Barbara Haller) but she was retired. Maybe Thu Nyguen puts in a lot of hours, seems like that would be the case.
Most of the current councilors have full-time jobs. Khrystian King is a social worker for DCF. Sean Rose runs a nonprofit for kids with needs in Marlborough. Petty works for one of the state employee union pension funds out of Boston. Etel works for Central Mass Housing Alliance. Etc. etc etc. These folks are not working 45+ hours a week on their council jobs. I can assure you that. It doesn't take that long anyway unless you really want to put in the hours just for the sake of it.
Bottom line it can be a 15 hour a week gig at most and maybe a little more if they need to hit a few extra ribbon cuttings and rubber chicken dinners to get more campaign contributions so they can run again next time.
The council USED to be a low-paying gig at about $15K, but now it pays nearly $35,000. Plus they and their family get on the city's health plan if they want or need it (ever notice how many lawyers with their own shingle run for council? They need the health coverage). It's a gold-plated plan last I knew.
Also:
People on the council accrue time according to the amazing state law that allows public employees to get 80 percent of their best-earning three years as a fixed pension. You need at least 20 years of "public service" to get a good pension, so what you see is many people starting out on part-time public boards, maybe get on the council if they can, and then shoot for a department head job or anything that pays decently to get those 'best three years' in. Boom, nice pension that pays out alongside whatever 401K and such they developed on their own through their regular job. It's a good system for those who can work it. Like Ray Mariano did, to name just one.
MAYBE some councilors run for the purest reasons. But for most it's a hybrid of wanting power and influence, along with potential for financial reward over time.
I'm not going to even talk about your bribe allegations. Lol. Worcester is a lot of things but it's not Tammany Hall.
CoolAbdul t1_iv2g2mr wrote
But you can't claim corruption without any evidence of it. That's damned irresponsible.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments