10% Pay Hike for Mayor, City Council Thrown Out

The 10% pay raise that the Los Angeles City Council gave itself, the mayor and other officials last June, in what a taxpayer suit called a “secret vote,” was overturned Monday by a Superior Court judge, who found it in violation of the City Charter.

Outside the courtroom, Dorothy Green, the citizen-activist who brought the suit, said she was “marginally” satisfied with the ruling that officials may not get more than 5% a year as specified in the Charter language.

However, Green said she was disappointed that the judge did not enjoin the city “from acting like that in the future.”

Judge Raymond Cardenas did not concur with Green’s contention that the council’s seemingly surreptitious ordinance adoption without public posting, discussion or prior reading was a violation of the Brown Act, the state law that bans closed-door meetings by local public agencies, except when personnel matters or pending litigation are being discussed.

Missed the ‘Spirit’

Although Cardenas concluded that the council’s action in adopting the motion, which was introduced only as “Item 53,” met the “minimum requirements of the letter of the law,” he added that “it nonetheless failed to comply with the spirit of the law.”

Green said she brought her suit because she was concerned about secrecy in government.

“I personally believe our public officials deserve to be adequately paid. It is the manner in which they did it (that prompted the suit),” she said.

Cardenas voided the ordinance, which was unanimously adopted by the 12 members present June 5, and enjoined the city from disbursing the raises authorized by it.

Council’s Rationale

Frederick Merkin, a senior assistant city attorney, argued in court that the council’s rationale for voting the 10% raise to cover two years was based on the Charter provision that a pay raise of 5% a year is permissible. Since the council may only vote on increases every other year and the last operative year was 1983, the feeling was that council members were entitled to 5% for each of two years and they voted the whole 10% at once.

In his ruling, Cardenas declared that “compounding of salaries is not provided for in the Charter section as it is presently constituted.”

Although the Charter provision is capable of interpretation, Cardenas said, “the court adopts a common sense interpretation consistent with what the voters had before them (when they voted on it).”

He noted that according to several reports filed in the case, “city officials are underpaid and should be paid more than they currently receive.”

“If that is so,” Cardenas said, “the answer to the problem is the submission of a new proposition that will amend the Charter . . . rather than strained interpretations of the present Charter provision in an attempt to obtain a salary that was not voted by the electorate.”

Council members professed little surprise at Cardenas’ ruling and indicated that they would be reluctant to urge an appeal.

“It’s not unexpected,” Councilwoman Joy Picus said. “I do not believe the city will pursue it further.”

Times staff writer Cathleen Decker contributed to this story.