Council, Burned on 10% Pay Boost, Settles for a 5% Hike

Los Angeles City Council members, whose earlier attempt to grant themselves a 10% pay raise was blocked by a court injunction, settled Friday for a smaller increase that would boost the salary of top city officials by 4.76% next July.

In a unanimous vote, the council voted to raise members’ current annual salary of $50,845 to $53,266 when the city’s new fiscal year begins. At the same time, they agreed to similar percentage hikes for Mayor Tom Bradley--from $84,743 a year to $88,778--and for City Atty. James K. Hahn and City Controller Rick Tuttle.

If Bradley signs the salary ordinance--and a spokeswoman in his office said he would--Hahn’s salary will increase from $72,030 to $75,460 and Tuttle’s will go from $50,845 to $53,266, the same as the council members.

The council action came a month after Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Raymond Cardenas overturned a June 5 vote by the council seeking to raise salaries of the city’s elected officials by 10%--or twice the maximum amount allowed by the City Charter.

A taxpayer suit challenged the council vote, and in voiding the ordinance Cardenas agreed that city officials were not entitled to more than 5% a year. The original pay ordinance in June--identified only as Item 53 when it appeared before the council--passed unanimously without debate and with little notice by the media.

Forced by the court to revise its ordinance, the council Friday voted 12 to 0 for the new salary increase without debate, with Councilmen Hal Bernson abstaining and Robert Farrell absent.

Afterward, Council President Pat Russell sought to persuade her colleagues to reconsider their vote because she had issued a press release alerting reporters that the final vote on the salary issue would not be held until next Friday.

Suggestion Rejected

But her fellow council members, already stung by the politically volatile issue, rejected her suggestion to hold off final action.

“Why do we have to continue it another week to torture ourselves or the people? I think it’s silly,” said Councilman John Ferraro.

Councilman David Cunningham added that his young daughter had “sent me down here to make certain that I vote yes on today’s pay increase (so that) nothing is done to disrupt the pay increase that her father was going to get. I plan to carry out Amber’s wishes.”

Bernson said he abstained because he thought it inappropriate for council members to vote on their own salary increase. He said the council should consider an alternative procedure, possibly following the county’s method of tying supervisors’ pay to the salary levels of Superior Court judges.

The City Charter permits salary increases of up to 5% a year for elected officials. But in his November ruling, Cardenas said the charter did not permit “compounding of salaries.” As a result, he said, the 5% increase would have to be calculated from the July, 1984, base, which for council members was $48,424, rather than their current higher salary.