Once again, at a time when fiscal belt-tightening remains the norm in both private and public sectors — and at kitchen tables across the nation — several Denver City Council members are rejecting the notion that they, too, should cut back.
Almost exactly a year ago, we decried the claim that council members shouldn’t be expected to make the cuts that other city departments were making. Those council members continue to argue that the city would be weakened by such reductions.
“I think this comes at a time when we have to protect the legislative arm of government,” Councilman Paul Lopez said, according to The Post’s Christopher N. Osher. “Another cut would harm our effort to serve our district.”
Mayor John Hickenlooper has instructed city departments to cut 8 percent from their budgets. And while such a reduction for the council would result in a savings of only $350,000, the unwillingness of some to join in the process could complicate matters if department heads begin to argue they are also too important to cut.
Cutting back is painful. Denver city employees know all too well what it is like to work in understaffed departments, forgo raises and endure unpaid furlough days.
And we understand that council members don’t wish to cut pay or positions at their small offices. Such cuts have real-world consequences.
But the same hard truth applies to other departments, which are, on the whole, doing as the mayor has asked and looking for savings.
District council members are allotted $246,000 a year to cover their $78,000 salaries, pay tiny staffs and keep up the rent on their office space. The three members who have offices at the City and County Building receive $232,400.
Only three members have said publicly that the cuts are acceptable: Charlie Brown, Jeanne Faatz and Michael Hancock.
Faatz even suggested a more extreme savings could be obtained by eliminating one of the council’s at-large positions.
Actually, it’s an interesting proposition. There are obvious downsides. A reduction would make it less convenient for members of the public to reach their representative.
And Denver benefits by having two citywide representatives who bring a broader view than the parochial interests of individual districts.
But Faatz’s reasoning is in line with the increasing view that government at all levels has grown too large to support.
And other cities Denver’s size, and larger, make do with fewer council members. (Certainly not all; some cities even have far more.)
San Diego, with a population of 1.25 million, recently adopted a strong- mayor system, like Denver’s, that is complemented by a council of eight. Seattle, slightly smaller than Denver, works with a council of just nine.
We’re not advocating for a smaller council, but if council members balk at volunteering their fair share of cuts, maybe it’s time to think about downsizing.
