METHUEN—The last time the Methuen City Council had a raise was in 1988.
As Councilor D.J. Beauregard pointed out at the Jan. 17 meeting, that was a year before he was born.
The result is that the $4,800 that councilors make in Methuen is far less than the same positions earn in surrounding cities: $15,000 in Haverhill and Lawrence, more than $29,000 in Everett and Medford, $11,016 in Peabody and $8,775 in Weymouth.
In addition, Methuen’s mayor last had a raise in 2006 and makes $80,000. That contrasts with $110, 000 that the mayor of Haverhill makes, while in Everett the mayor is paid $185,000 and, in Peabody, $122,400.
Similar disparities can be found for members of Methuen’s School Committee, who get $2,500 compared to $8,250 for the same position in Haverhill, $14,700 in Medford, $5,200 in Peabody and $6,000 in Weymouth.
While councilors repeatedly stated at the meeting on Jan. 17 that no one seeks these jobs for the money, they also felt the low pay in Methuen serves to deter qualified people from seeking office.
That’s why they were voting on an ordinance that would raise compensation for councilors, the mayor and school committee members in increments over the next three years.
The mayor, for instance, would earn $90,000 next January, $102,500 in 2015 and $115,000 in 2026. Starting in 2028, the mayor’s salary would then increase 3% every other year.
City Councilors would make $7,500 starting in January 2024, $9,000 in 2025 and $11,000 in 2026, with 3% increases every other year starting in 2018. The chair and vice chair would make slightly more than other councilors.
But because a similar ordinance was defeated within the last 12 months, the council first had to vote to suspend a rule that forbids them from voting on a matter that has been turned down during the previous year. That passed 7 to 2, with councilors Beauregard and Finocchiaro voting no.
But when the matter was then opened for discussion, debate developed over the resolution’s timetable for increasing compensation.
Councilor Steve Saba said that he had voted against a previous proposal, and while he agreed that compensation should be increased, he said the proposed ordinance would benefit current councilors who are likely to be reelected.
“If we really want to do what’s best for the city, let’s make this effective in 2026, where we will have all new people sitting at the table,” Saba said.
But his proposal, which Saba said would have to be accepted for him to vote yes, wasn’t seconded.
“We are still stuck here in a self-serving situation where we’re going to give ourselves raises, or some of us raises, and I can’t support that,” he said.
At that point, Councilor James McCarty spoke up and seconded Saba’s motion, opening it up to discussion.
In the debate that ensued councilors challenged Saba’s assertion that incumbents who are in a position to do so would run again, and would be likely to win if they did.
Councilor Nicholas DiZoglio said that the increases could hardly be called pay raises, especially when they were compared to what councilors make in other cities.
“It has nothing to do with giving ourselves pay raises,” he said. “We are trying to set the city up for success in the long run. For us to say it’s a raise—it would be a raise if we voted for this to go into effect starting tomorrow.”
DiZoglio said that all the councilors still have to answer to voters at the next election, and voters wanted what members of the council want.
“We want elected officials that know what they’re talking about,” he said. “They want elected officials that aren’t going to be status quo.”
Councilor Allison Saffie said it would be self-serving not to agree to increases, because leaving compensation levels where they are would keep challengers from running for office.
Saffie offered a counter-proposal that would include increases that were offered in Saba’s proposal, which also included a longer term between automatic 3% increases, but would make them effective in 2024.
“The point of giving a raise is to get more people to run,” Saffie said.
That amendment passed with five in favor and four against, after councilor Beauregard asked City Solicitor Kenneth Rossetti to reconsider how many votes were needed for passage, after Rossetti first said that two-thirds were required.
After a proposal from Councilor Finocchiaro to delete the 3% increases was defeated, Councilor Saba then offered a proposal to table discussion until another meeting, which passed.
