Tonight: Compensation cuts, city manager's housing, on Atherton council agenda
Original post made on Jan 16, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 10:23 AM
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.
on Jan 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm
SteveC is a registered user.
I don't believe that a city or town require employees to live where they work.
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?