Mayoral Salary Measure Halted

Township council members voted to temporarily put off passing an ordinance that would modify the mayor's compensation package.

After a lengthy public hearing on the plan, the council voted 5-2 Tuesday night to table the ordinance which would set two salaries for the mayor's position in Brick.

The ordinance, favored by Council President John Ducey, would have left the salary at the current rate of $52,000 if a mayor worked less than 35 hours per week in another job, but cut it to $15,000 if the mayor worked 35 hours or more at another job, public or private.

While the measure received some initial support from council members, questions from the public as to the ramifications of passing such an ordinance may have led to Tuesday night's vote. Some have argued that there was no mechanism in the ordinance to verify the hourly requirement, and a mayor could simply say he or she works 34 hours per week in order to collect the salary.

Ducey admitted that the mayor would certify his or her own hourly workload to determine the salary level.

"If you can't trust your mayor to tell the truth, why did you elect him?" said Ducey.

"I just think this whole thing is a political situation," said resident George Scott, urging the council to also consider adding clauses on taxpayer-funded health benefits to such a measure. "I feel that you really should avoid this vote tonight. This ordinance isn't structured right, and I really don't see the need."

Councilman Domenick Brando said he envisioned a "nightmare" resulting in campaign season if such an ordinance was in place.

"Whoever the mayor is, is someone going to be following the mayor to his other job and seeing how many hours he puts in? Hiring private investigators?" Brando said.

Mayor Stephen C. Acropolis, who has said he'll work for $1 per year for the remainder of his term, argued that the ordinance as proposed was not clear. He brought up a number of scenarios – self-employment, seasonal employment and temporary employment.

"The ordinance doesn't say who has the control to fix the salary. Does the council decide?" Acropolis asked. "In a rush to fulfill a campaign promise, the council will pass one of the worst pieces of legislation I've seen written in my 16 years in government."

"I think the next person who sits in this seat is going to find a way to collect that $52,000 you're leaving on the table," Acropolis added.

Acropolis, as well as Councilman Joseph Sangiovanni, both suggested placing a nonbinding question on next November's election ballot that would put up four plans and let residents decide which option was best.

But Ducey's ordinance had its supporters, including Councilman Jim Fozman.

"This gives everyone an opportunity," Fozman said, touting the options for full and part time compensation, which he said would allow any resident to run for mayor no matter their employment situation.

But it was Councilwoman Susan Lydecker who would eventally propose the immediate solution – tabling the measure.

"Frankly, in my opinion, I don't think it goes far enough," she said, requesting that additional language be placed in a future proposal that would specifically guard against a mayor receiving two pubic salaries simultaneously.

"If we're going to change, we should go all the way, including the 'double dipping,'" she said.

An initial ordinance suggested by Ducey limited reduced compensation to the mayor only if the mayor maintained a salaried public position.

In the 5-2 vote in favor of Lydecker's request to put off passage of the law, Fozman and Ducey cast the 'no' votes.