In government, as in life, you get what you pay for. That’s why all the attention being paid to Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s plan …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
If you made a voluntary contribution in 2022-2023 of $50 or more, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access includes access to all websites and online content.
In government, as in life, you get what you pay for.
That’s why all the attention being paid to Colorado Secretary of
State Scott Gessler’s plan to supplement his $68,500 government
salary is a welcome discussion.
Setting aside what seems to be the core issue in this specific
instance, which is the nature of Gessler’s moonlighting gig and how
it poses conflicts with the position he was elected to do, it
highlights a broader issue that has bugged me for some time: the
hypocritical way many people see compensation for people in the
public sector versus the private sector.
For me, the hypocrisy shows up in the general tone of reader
comments I perused at the end of a Denver Post article about
Gessler. The gist of the discussion was that Gessler knew what the
salary was and if he couldn’t afford it, he shouldn’t have run.
That’s a tough compromise. Do we want the best people working
for us in government or do we want the best people who can afford
to do that work? The latter is a big limitation.
I wonder how many people who criticize Gessler or complain about
a lack of talent in government bother to look further upstream of
the problem and ask themselves why weren’t there better
If they did, they’d probably settle on the money issue.
Government work has never been (nor should it be) a place to get
rich, but it doesn’t have to be a place where the financial
sacrifice is so great that it’s a deterrent for people who could
bring the best thinking and dedication to the job.
On the local level, there are a lot of expectations tied to a
seat on city council or on a school board. But often, these people
are paid only a token amount if at all. We want great solutions to
tough, time-consuming problems yet we’re only appealing to people’s
sense of civic responsibility to come up with those solutions.
Government employees sometimes find themselves at the other end
of the spectrum — having some of the same great expectations placed
upon them while also being criticized for making too much
Annually, the City of Littleton publishes the salaries for all
of its employees. Every so often we get calls from people looking
for a copy of this list, usually to look at it with an eye toward
the wasteful spending of government. They quickly find the big
numbers and say something along the lines of, “See. Look how much
So-And-So is making. I told you this city spends too much.”
Douglas County Schools recently hired a new superintendent and
at the time, there was a great deal of criticism about the
$280,000-plus salary paid to Dr. Elizabeth Fagen.
I think a fair amount of this criticism comes from people who
also think government should run more like a private business,
which is ironic because a cornerstone of private business is that
high wages will bring in the best talent. Think of a private
organization the size of Douglas County Schools and ask yourself
whether that kind of salary seems out of line for its CEO.
I think that’s what we should be doing with government: Paying
for the best talent whether it is an elected official or a
top-performer on staff. We can have efficient government if we
attract the best people to figure out how to make it efficient.
Jeremy Bangs is the managing editor of Colorado Community
Other items that may interest you
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.