Less than a year ago, the City Council acted — or rather failed to act — to allow an outrageous 64% salary increase for itself, in a self-serving act that shocked the public. Once proposed by a Salary Commission whose members are appointed by the Mayor and City Council, a supermajority vote by seven out of nine Council members was required to reject the raise, but there was no vote, and only three came out against the money grab.

This year, the Honolulu Salary Commission recommended an additional 3% raise for City Council members. This time around, all nine members say they’ll vote to reject the recommendation — as they should, and as voters would expect. Additionally, a number of proposals have been offered to change procedures and set limits on salary changes. However, none are adequate.

Wage recommendations are made just once a year, and the only action the Council can take is to reject recommended wages outright. The fact that years can go by as proposed wage hikes are rejected, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, means that the Salary Commission may find itself faced with suggesting one big leap forward when the city’s budget looks stronger. But the hubbub over last year’s massive raises arose not only because of the egregious pay hike, but also because the Salary Commission used an inflated measure to identify appropriate salaries — it compared Council members’ wages to those of high-level city executives, rather than using a figure that should rightly approximate the median wage for Honolulu workers.

That is misguided. City Council members must grapple with difficult issues and guide the city, true; however, unlike high-level professional employees, City Council members are not typically expected to hold advanced degrees, to be proven, competent leaders or to have highly specialized experience. Rather, they are expected to be honest and dedicated, with an ability to consider complex problems and make common-sense decisions on city priorities.

Salary Commission Chair Malia Espinda says the body is “bound by ordinance” to compare positions to other city employees. If so, that’s the city law that needs to be changed or clarified, requiring the commission to use a more appropriate and reasonable salary comparison.

Seven resolutions have now been advanced to control future Salary Commission actions, but none of them gets to this base flaw in salary calculations.

>> Resolution 82 caps annual salary increases at 5%. Res. 85 sets the cap at 10%. Either would be better than nothing.

>> Resolutions 91, 105 and 193 all make Salary Commission decisions automatic, removing the Council entirely from the process — and should be rejected out of hand. Salaries of elected officials are rightfully subject to scrutiny from the electorate, and removing the Council from the process has not been justified. Res. 91 would also cap annual salary increases at 3.5%. Res. 105 establishes a formula for future wage increases tied to the city’s collective bargaining agreements with employees, changing the Salary Commission’s meeting schedule to every two years. Res. 193, advanced in 2023, specifies that salary increases take effect on the first day of subsequent fiscal year, and limits Salary Commission members to two five-year terms. All amount to gift wrapping for last year’s salary increase.

>> Res. 86 requires a public hearing on Salary Commission proposals. This would be a good step — but not without an included reset on salary comparisons.

>> Res. 87 allows the Council to reject all or a portion of the salary recommendations of the city’s Salary Commission by a simple majority vote, or 50% plus one. It’s an improvement, but would not have prevented last year’s Council salary jackpot.

With elections coming up, the City Council might take some action this year, but given the supermajority in favor of a wage windfall, reconsideration of salary standards likely won’t be part of it. For that to happen, the City Council’s composition must change — and voters still control that.