Is Serving on a City Council Still Community Service if You Are Getting Paid?
Serving on a city council is considered a form of public service, a way to contribute to the well-being of one’s community through decision-making, policy implementation, and ensuring that local government meets the needs of its residents.
Traditionally, community service is understood as voluntary work that benefits others, typically without monetary compensation. This raises a pertinent question: Is serving on a city council still considered community service if the council members are being paid?
To answer this, we must explore the nature of both "community service" and the role of city council members, and examine how compensation may or may not alter the essence of the service provided.
Nature of Community Service
Community service is generally defined as work performed for the benefit of others, usually on a voluntary basis, and often without financial reward. It is an altruistic activity, carried out with the intention of improving the well-being of others or the community. Volunteering is often associated with sacrifice and selflessness, as individuals forgo personal gain to contribute to the common good. However, the fact that an activity is compensated does not necessarily negate its potential value as a service to the community.
In many cases, compensated work in the public sector is seen as a way to ensure that individuals dedicate enough time and effort to the responsibilities of the role, and it reflects the importance of the work being done. A city council, being an essential body in local governance, makes crucial decisions about urban planning, budget allocation, infrastructure, public safety, and social services. It is a responsibility that requires significant time and expertise, which is often beyond the capacity of unpaid volunteers.
Role of City Council Members
City council members are elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents. Their work involves deliberating on complex issues, drafting legislation, reviewing budgets, and overseeing city departments. For many city councils, especially in larger municipalities, the volume and complexity of the tasks demand that members dedicate significant amounts of time, often attending numerous meetings, studying policies, and engaging with the public.
Given the scope of responsibilities and the knowledge required, it may be unreasonable to expect city council members to serve without compensation. Many of these individuals would otherwise have to balance council duties with other jobs or obligations, making it difficult to commit the necessary time and energy. As such, receiving a wage ensures that those in the role are sufficiently supported and able to dedicate themselves to the important work of local governance.
However, just because city council members are paid does not necessarily diminish the altruistic nature of their work. While compensation helps support the professional aspect of their service, the core motivation for many council members remains rooted in a desire to improve the lives of their constituents. The public often elects city council members because they trust them to act in the community's best interests, and many council members enter office with the intent to make a positive impact.
Special Note Specific to Republic, Missouri
The city council in my city of residence recently increased what had been a "token payment" paid to council members and the Mayor. In the past, this fee was basically to pay for the gas money council members to get to and from meetings. But at the end of 2024, (it goes into effect in April of 2025), the Mayor will receive $800 per month plus $100 per meeting (and there are 2-3 meetings per month).
And for understanding, there is a difference between a city that is run by a mayor and council versus a city that has a city administrator and a charter. Those are two different approaches. Republic is the second kind with a city manager and staff and a charter that gives them the power to run the city. The mayor and council set policy, vote on zoning, etc., they do not run day to day operations of the city.
Compensation and Its Impact on Service
One of the key arguments against viewing a paid position as community service is that it introduces the element of personal financial gain, which could, theoretically, affect the level of selflessness in the work performed. In contrast to purely voluntary community service, where the volunteer's time is given without the expectation of reward, paid positions may be viewed as more transactional in nature. The assumption here is that financial compensation might shift the motivation of a council member from civic-mindedness to career advancement or personal gain.
Yet, it is important to acknowledge that a wage does not necessarily equate to greed or a lack of dedication to the community. Many public servants, including city council members, see their roles as a vocation, driven by a genuine desire to contribute to society, regardless of financial remuneration. Moreover, offering compensation helps to ensure that city councils remain diverse, attracting individuals from various socio-economic backgrounds who might otherwise be unable to afford to serve if the role were unpaid.
In this sense, the payment can be seen not as a reward for "service" in the traditional sense but as compensation for the time, expertise, and labor invested. The salary does not alter the fact that these individuals are performing duties that benefit the community, but rather acknowledges the professional nature of their work and ensures that they can do so effectively.
What does the research say?
There is not a lot of direct research specifically linking compensation for people to serve on city councils to a greater number of people running for office. However, the general principle of compensating elected officials has been studied, and there are relevant insights from those studies.
1. Financial Incentives and Political Participation: Research does show that compensation for public office can increase the pool of candidates. In local governance, where city council positions are often part-time or volunteer roles, offering compensation can make the position more accessible to people who might not otherwise be able to afford the time commitment. It can help attract a more diverse range of candidates, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds, who might otherwise be excluded from running due to financial constraints.
2. Barriers to Entry: For many people, especially in lower-income or working-class communities, running for city council can be financially daunting due to the unpaid or underpaid nature of the role, the time commitment, and the costs of campaigning. Research in political science often indicates that when candidates have to finance their own campaigns or manage the opportunity cost of unpaid work, this can act as a barrier to political participation.
3. Compensation and Candidate Diversity: Some studies have looked at how paying city council members increases political engagement, especially among underrepresented groups. For example, compensation may reduce the barriers faced by women, minorities, or younger individuals, who are often underrepresented in politics due to time and financial constraints.
4. Examples and Case Studies: Some U.S. cities and states have experimented with offering increased stipends or salaries for local positions in order to attract more candidates. In cities like San Francisco, the increase in compensation for board members led to a broader spectrum of candidates running for office, including more middle-class professionals and people from different socio-economic backgrounds.
5. Driving up Campaign Costs: As elected positions receive more pay for serving, there is a correlation to candidates getting more campaign donations (a different debate about this) and driving up the cost of a campaign to get elected, which puts you back into the cycle of creating barriers to entry.
The broader understanding from political participation studies suggests that making positions financially viable does tend to lead to more people running, or at least making it more feasible for a broader range of candidates.
Conclusion
While the distinction between paid and unpaid service is important to consider, it should not overshadow the fact that serving on a city council is fundamentally an act of service to the community, driven by a commitment to the common good. Just beware of enacting policies that drive up campaign costs, thus creating new barriers to serving.
Written by David L. Burton
MORE INFORMATION
Take the Engaged Neighbor pledge and become part of a movement! The pledge outlines five categories and 20 principles to guide you toward becoming an engaged neighbor. Sign the pledge at https://nomoregoodneighbors.com. Individuals who take the pledge do get special invitations to future events online and in person. Contact the blog author, David L. Burton via emal at dburton541@yahoo.com.
Comments
Post a Comment