Tonight: Compensation cuts, city manager's housing, on Atherton council agenda Atherton, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Jan 16, 2013 at 2:56 pm
The devilish details of how to shift more of the town's financial burden for employee benefits onto employees' shoulders will be discussed, again, by the Atherton City Council when it meets on Wednesday, Jan. 16.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 10:23 AM
Posted by mj, a resident of another community, on Jan 16, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Municipal employees in other Bay Area cities have had to pay their share of the pension equation for years, so it would seem fair for Atherton's employees to do the same.
As to subsidizing the housing costs of a non-resident City Manager, if the City Charter provides for that, it should be revised to eliminate that cost. If it is simply a term of his contract, the contract needs to be revised--no way does it cost $2500/month to commute that distance. Also, wouldn't a City Manager who was required to live in the city s/he serves be able to represent its residents more realistically? If residency were a requirement, the City Manager would be able to respond immediately and be on site when situations requiring his/her attention arose.
Posted by SteveC, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Jan 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm SteveC is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
I don't believe that a city or town require employees to live where they work.
Posted by Funny, a resident of another community, on Jan 16, 2013 at 4:05 pm
I say let this guy live where he wants. But in the article, he says he should get paid more for not living in Atherton, so he's not 24x7. Isn't it the other way around?
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
