Salary Limits for County Executive & Legislature Sought

By Holly Crocco

A local law to limit and restrain the ability of local government to increase salaries for county legislators and the county executive has been proposed by Legislator Dan Birmingham, R-Southeast.

Currently, each of the nine legislators make about $48,000 a year for what is considered a part-time position.

“We have almost 50 employees who, whether they pave our streets or answer the phones or deal with public on a full-time basis, we have almost 50 of them making less than we do as part-time people,” said Birmingham at the county’s Aug. 2 Rules Committee meeting.

While the job duties of lawmakers is admittedly vastly different from that of other employees, Birmingham said, “It’s important that we, as elected officials, set the tone as far as husbanding our taxpayer dollars.”

In addition to the base pay, the Legislature chairperson is also eligible for a 25 percent stipend. However, many of the appointed chairperson have turned down the added pay.

“I don’t accept the legislative chair stipend. I know many of my predecessors as chairs did not accept the legislative chair stipend,” said Birmingham. “I know I’m not the only one at this table that doesn’t accept an annual raise (either), even though we budget for it.”

He is proposing that, starting in 2027, the annual salary of legislators can only increase once in a four-year period, and that such increase may not exceed the average annual consumer price index for the preceding four-year period.

Birmingham is also proposing to remove part of the current requirement that states the county executive shall be the highest paid salaried county employee with the exception of those who must be duly licensed to practice medicine in New York State, the district attorney, or any other employees whose salary is fully or partially set by state law.

“I think having that in there kind of presents a recruitment issue with some of our highest paid employees,” said Birmingham. “I think that by having an artificial ceiling, that no county employee can make more than the county executive, we could run into retention issues with some of our longest serving employees.”

A clause that the county executive’s salary may only be increased once every four years is also proposed, but without the requirement to meet CPI – since that gig is a full-time one.

Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, called the proposal a great idea, noting that a few years ago the Legislature voted itself a 14 percent raise after more than 10 years went by without any increase, and it became a political football.

Since then, she’s always voted to increase compensation incrementally every year via a Cost of Living Adjustment.

“So that’s what I stuck to,” she said. “But I think this is probably a better way to go because I’ve seen it increase since I’ve been here. If management gets an increase, the Legislature gets an increase… I do think Legislator Birmingham is right in calling this out, and it would be fair every four years.”

However, she would like to see the 25 percent additional stipend for the chairperson added back in, noting that the individual can always turn it down. “It’s a lot of work, a lot of time away from family,” she said.

Birmingham said COLA purposely wasn’t factored into his proposal, saying people like to hide behind the word “adjustment.”

“COLA is just the French word for raise,” he said. “The word ‘increase’ is precise. COLA is not.”

Legislator Tommy Regan, R-Brewster, brought up concern that when the four-year term is up, the body that is tasked with voting on an increase is going to take heat. “When those four years come up, you’re subjecting future colleagues to the lion’s den,” he said.

In addition, Regan said the chairperson’s stipend is earned.

“While this is deemed a part-time job, it turns out to be a lot more work than people might have anticipated coming into it,” he said. “But the chairmanship clearly has a lot more responsibility in hours and time that have to be spent doing the job.”

Birmingham explained that the proposal doesn’t prohibit the stipend being granted to the chairperson, it just doesn’t require it.

Legislator Jake D’Angelo, R-Camel, said he would support the local law.

“The work we do is rooted in public service, and while being compensated something isn’t horrible, to sacrifice our time and add more work to our plates on top of our already busy lives, we knew that going into this,” he said. “We do this because we want to serve the public, because we want to make change. Not because we want to get paid.”

Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, admitted that the job requires a lot more time and focus than most other part-time jobs, but said she still “appreciates the sentiment” of the proposed local law.

“I don’t know where I’m going to go with this,” she said of her future vote. “I was shocked and appalled to hear there are almost 50 (full-time) employees making less than us.”

District Attorney Robert Tendy – who has some of the higher-paid staff in county government – has initiated prior discussions with the Legislature about needing to offer competitive salaries to retrain and attract qualified assistant district attorneys.

He called the current law which states that the county executive have the highest salary arbitrary. “Somebody could run for county executive and be 35 years old and immediately be the highest paid person in the county, when somebody could have been here 37 years,” he said.

Tendy called that “salary cap” a retention issue, explaining that if he loses one of his more experienced ADAs, he’s not going to be able to replace them when they hear “you can’t ever make more than this.”

Likewise, skilled doctors with much experience and training should be able to demand a higher salary in the health department, as should higher-level officers in the sheriff’s department, he suggested. “It makes no sense to say, ‘That’s the law and that’s the way it is. If you don’t like it you can go somewhere else,’” said Tendy.

While the topic was only up for discussion last week, the proposal is expected to be placed on the agenda for the September Rules Committee meeting as an actionable item.