There have been several posts made recently about the possibility of the Peru City Council reducing the number of times they meet per month. At present they meet every week and each meeting is a cost of $760.00 if all are present. They do not get paid for committee meetings. The Mayor and City Clerk are salaried and I question whether the City Atty. gets paid per hour for each meeting he attends and how much.
All this came to mind today when I read an editorial in the News Trib today that was from an AP reporting from the Freeport Journal Standard titled "Legislature should meet less often, do more" You will find the full story in the News Trib or the archives of the Journal Standard for March 9, 2010. There is an amendment being proposed by Senator Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) to reduce the number of times state lawmakers gather in Springfield.
A few comments from that article are:
"Those familiar with the workings of Springfield will tell you that the number of times state legislators meet has absolutely nothing to do with what is accomplished"
"No, we cannot measure what lawmakers accomplish by the frequency of their meetings."
"Bivens plan would allow some of the these elected officials to get closer to constituents or actually work at something other than getting re-elected"
"Let's give our legislators more to do and less time to do it. Much like the rest of us face in today's hard driving economy"
Could we apply some of the same considerations to our present Council and save the city of Peru money in the process?
The web sites of other local cities indicate they meet twice a month with the exception of "Special meetings" called by the Mayor.
4 comments:
Ninety five dollars a meetings is way too much. They should cut that in half and pay them forty five for one monthly meeting and forty five for their committee meeting. Lois do you know how we compare to the surrounding towns? It would be nice to know. Also when was the last time they voted themselves a raise? And did they all vote in favor of the raise? Inquiring minds want to know.
Its entirely too much money. Also too many meetings per month, maybe more would get accomplished, if you only had two meetings.
Of course they could save their (and our) city money by implementing several easy steps. First of all instead of having a meeting every week they could easily accomplish just as much by having a meeting every other week.
During the off weeks they could go to City Hall and PICK UP their packets and information for the next meeting and study it and find answers to questions, explore alternatives, question heads of committees. In other words - be prepared for the next meeting. We'd save on postage, meeting pay, and quite possibly more might get accomplished at the meetings because they'd be more prepared.
3:31.....You have the right idea, prepare on their own time and cut down on postage. We need to trim expenses wherever we can. Aldermen cannot be in this for the money.
A bi-monthly meeting is all that is needed, "more to do and less time to do it" should be their new motto.
Post a Comment