The Stockton City Council has delayed a decision on a proposal to increase compensation for Civil Service Commission members from $25 to $150 per meeting, directing staff to review compensation for all city commissions and committees.
The council voted unanimously Tuesday to continue the item to a future meeting after councilmembers questioned the size of the proposed increase, the lack of a monthly payment cap and whether members of other city commissions and committees should receive compensation.
Commission seeks higher pay after 35 years
The proposal originated with the Civil Service Commission, whose members asked the council to increase their compensation while preserving a structure that allows payment for meetings without a monthly cap. The city’s staff report recommended approving the increase, but City Manager Johnny Ford told councilmembers that staff was not making a recommendation and was asking them to consider the proposal.
Under the proposal, the city estimates an additional $5,000 in compensation costs for the remaining regularly scheduled commission meetings in the 2026-27 fiscal year. The expense would be incorporated into the Human Resources Department’s annual budget for fiscal year 2027-28, according to the staff report.
Civil Service Commission Chair Michele J. Sherman presented the compensation proposal for the commission’s consideration in September, citing the responsibilities of commissioners, the frequency of meetings and the need for additional special meetings.
The commission’s proposal said the $25-per-meeting rate has remained unchanged for 35 years.
In September 1991, the City Council adopted a resolution maintaining compensation at $25 per meeting while eliminating a $150 monthly cap. Although the cap was eliminated, the per-meeting rate remained unchanged. The commission’s proposal would increase compensation to $150 per meeting while retaining the no-cap structure.
The five-member commission oversees aspects of the city’s civil service and equal employment systems. Its responsibilities include reviewing hiring and promotional eligibility lists, hearing certain employee appeals and grievances and monitoring equal employment efforts across city departments.
Councilmembers question fairness and payment limits
During discussion of the item, District 6 Councilmember Jason Lee asked city staff why the Civil Service Commission received compensation while other city commissions and committees did not.
City staff said they did not know why Civil Service Commission members were paid and acknowledged that commission positions are typically unpaid and filled by volunteers.
Lee said that when he worked for a union, he was taught to be careful about offering food and other incentives at meetings because people might attend for reasons other than the meeting itself.
“We heard from the public when this council voted to give itself a raise. I was against that,” Lee said. “I don’t know that it serves the public any interest to increase paying for public service and for the volunteers.”
In response to Lee’s remarks, Ford said staff could review all city commissions and committees and return with recommendations on potential compensation and next steps.
Lee said the suggestion would be helpful and pointed to the Planning Commission, whose members also receive $25 per meeting. He said the City Council must take fairness and equity into consideration.
Ford suggested the City Council could include language in the legislation establishing a monthly compensation cap.
Mayor Christina Fugazi added that both the Civil Service Commission and the Planning Commission were established in 1974 with compensation set at $25 per meeting, but the Planning Commission’s compensation was capped at $150 per month.
“I agree that the Planning Commission should absolutely be discussed as well with this item,” Fugazi said.
District 1 Councilmember Michele Padilla said she recognized the time commitment and responsibilities that come with serving on a commission, though she had concerns about the lack of a monthly cap.
“I understand the commission meets once a month, but if there’s a special meeting or additional meetings that should be called, I don’t think there should be an automatic $150 for every additional meeting without a limit,” Padilla said. “I would like to consider either a monthly cap or a reduced rate for a special meeting.”
District 4 Councilmember Mario Enríquez said he had researched compensation practices in other cities and found that some pay commissioners per meeting while others impose monthly limits or provide no compensation.
“I think it does open the floodgates,” Enríquez said, expressing concern that increasing compensation for one commission could lead to similar requests from other city commissions and committees.
Councilmembers also raised concerns about the process through which the request reached the council, saying they would have benefited from receiving the information earlier to allow time for research and questions.
Residents urge broader review of commission pay
During public comment, Planning Commission member Yolanda Amen said commissioners contribute significant time to their work, including visiting project sites outside regular meeting hours to evaluate potential impacts.
She questioned why only some commissions receive compensation and urged the council to review attendance and canceled meetings before deciding whether to increase payments.
“Half of the people that are on these commissions don’t even show up, and there’s not even a quorum to have a meeting,” Amen said.
She also said the proposed jump from $25 to $150 per meeting was substantial and argued that the city should consider compensation for all city commissions and committees.
Cynthia Gail Boyd, who said she serves on the Cultural Heritage Board without compensation, questioned whether commissioners should receive payments when they miss meetings. She also emphasized the value of volunteer service on city boards.
“I think every single meeting is very significant,” Boyd said. “We have important things to decide, and I don’t get paid nothing for it.”
The council voted unanimously to continue the item to a future meeting. Staff will review compensation across commissions and committees, examine practices in other cities and consider issues raised during the discussion, including monthly payment limits and meeting attendance.
The proposed increase remains undecided as the city conducts its review.