Each Council member also gets health benefits.

"We're not doing it for the money. We do it because we care," says Greg Tananka.

"Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims estimated that if a council member spends 20 hours per week on their city duties, the pay comes out to about $10 per hour. With such compensation, she argued, the Palo Alto council will continue to primarily consist of members who are retired and who don't have to worry about where their income comes from."

It's delusional and/or self-serving to imagine that a $600 monthly raise will change the composition while ignoring the huge disparities in campaign contributions between those supported by deep-pocketed organized backers and those supported by individual community members WHILE trying to limit contributions by individuals but not those from organizations.

Monday's meetings usually run 5 hours and the remaining 15 hours isn't much time for performing their city duties -- researching the issues, helping constituents. JHL has even tried repeatedly to get those 5 hours reduced so CC could have a longer dinner break AND so the meetings could end earlier.

Spending more -- not less time -- on PA issues would be a plus, especially for freshman council members already testing the waters for a run for higher office.

I support this pay increase. Council members, if they do the job right, spend a lot of time serving on the Council. Weekly packets for council meetings typically run in excess of a hundred pages, and sometimes way in excess of this. They deal with a lot of complicated issues. They also serve as liaisons to various commissions like finance, transportation and planning, etc. Unlike the top City executives, they are way underpaid and deserve this token raise in appreciation for their efforts. Unlike Tanaka, I am not wild about someone serving on the Council as 'hobby' -- like putting together airplane kits? I think it is well known that Tanaka is one of the least prepared members of the Council. Maybe it is because he treats it as a hobby.