CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 16, 2011 01:41 AM UTC

Hancock, Linkhart Wave Goodbye to Mayoral Hopes

  • 56 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

(Originally posted at Denver Pols)

We’re having a hard time trying to think of a more baffling decision by a politician running for higher office in recent years. Last night, Denver City Council members Michael Hancock and Doug Linkhart voted for a pay increase for City Council members while they are in the midst of running campaigns for Denver Mayor.

Yes, you read that correctly. Two candidates who are running for Mayor in a city faced with a $100 million budget deficit voted to increase salaries for City Council members by 6.6 percent. Currently, City Council members earn $78,173 per year, with an additional $30,000 in benefits. The attack ads write themselves, if they are even necessary at this point.

Linkhart tried to explain his vote by saying that he has always favored a pay raise and that he wasn’t going to change his mind just because this is an election year. His position would be mildly admirable if it wasn’t so mind-bogglingly stupid politically. Linkhart was already a longshot to be elected Mayor, but there’s no way he gets elected now.

But the biggest whiff from last night’s vote came from Hancock, who voted in favor of the pay increase despite his statements during a Feb. 28 city council meeting that the increase should not be approved.

Apparently Hancock no longer wants to be Mayor. It’s bad enough to vote for a pay increase when you’re running for Mayor and the city is $100 million in debt. It’s Titanic-esque to cast that vote after you’ve already been on record opposing the idea.

Among candidates running for Mayor, only Carol Boigon had the good sense to oppose the pay increase.  

Comments

56 thoughts on “Hancock, Linkhart Wave Goodbye to Mayoral Hopes

  1. It’s grossly fiscally irresponsible, considering the $100+ million Denver is in the hole.

    Shame on all ten of these folks that voted for this. Boo to Hancock and Linkhart–neither deserves to be the next mayor of Denver if this is their idea of how to balance a budget.  

  2. It’s disappointing to see these votes from Hancock and Linkhart, political or not.  Paul Lopez, who is not running for mayor, said he voted for the raise so that a working person with a family can afford to be a councilman.  I’d love to be making $78,000 a year right now, with benefits.

    Worse, you know damn well they’ll be asking police, fire and others for pay decreases any minute now.

    1. They are each making close to $110,000 all things included.

      But according to Linkhart, the salaries they currently have are based on a survey done 8 years ago so apparently, he’s feeling cheated.

      All said and done, it’s an additional $84,600 total increase for the city council alone. That’s two teachers salaries for a year. Forget the increases to the mayor, the clerk, the auditor and the recorder, which is another $40K.

      I agree it’s not a huge increase. That’s not the point. When unemployment is over 9% in this state, when Denver is a $100 million in debt and some folks are hanging on by a thread, giving yourself a raise seems more than tone deaf. It seems out of touch with reality.

      Way to add another $125K to the city’s debt.

      1. They’ve flatlined.  If the basis for the raise is that it’s 8 years old and a middle class person should be able to take the job, well – let me tell you, I’m making almost the same today as I was 8 years ago, and I’m paying more for my health insurance.

        1. Most people I know up here are just grateful to be employed right now. The ones that aren’t would be mighty happy with making what they did 8 years ago and they’d be downright delighted with making nearly $110K with full bennies included in that number.

        2. Basically, the middle is no better off than in the 70s. Still not trickling as promised except maybe as in “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.

          You’d think the whole Gessler I-can’t-afford-this-job-I’ve-been-asking-you-to-give-me dust up would have registered, especially since Council members make more than Gessler to start with. Not to mention the Lopez remark.  How many Denver families  would love to have the problem of having to “afford’ a $78K salary with 30K in benefits? Don’t think it’s an unreasonable salary but it’s down right offensive to be crying poor over it.

  3. I was wondering where the political gurus who had advised Dan Maes had gone.

    It will be interesting to see how they rationalize that vote – couldn’t they have been smart enough to abstain?

    Pols should have done a quick poll to find out how quickly Romer capitalizes on the vote.

    But it is also an indication of how insulated and outside the political norm Denver city government really is.

  4. Regardless of who’s running for mayor, who in their right mind votes themselves a pay increase when they already make decent money and there’s a $100 million deficit to tackle?  Every single person on the council who voted for this increase should be summarily voted out of office when next they come up for election.

    In the meantime, I have to agree with everyone else: Hancock and Linkhart, if they had any chance of being elected Mayor in the first place, can pretty much kiss that chance good bye.

    1. but I think it should be pointed out again that six of the ten are running unopposed. Frankly, had I known how much it pays, I would’ve run. Curiously the vote was after the ballot deadline. I believe Council terms are four years. So six people really voted for their own raises.

  5. But for the few positions that actually already make decent money? Um, no. Try a raise for the Senators working harder, campaigning harder, and making $29,000.

  6. And it’s worth working your ass off.

    Sometimes you get a shitty candidate and there’s nothing you can do to protect them from themselves.

    When the latter happens, all you can do is let themselves show through.

    Sorry for all of you hard-working people who are working for candidates who are now unelectable.  Shit happens.  It’s not your fault.

    1. I hate to break it to anyone, but Hancock wasn’t ever really one of the front runners. Linkhart… yeah.

      Something happened, and will happen on Monday, but it by no means changes the sealed-ness of the election.

        1. “but it by no means changes” No credit where it’s not due though.

          Honestly, I think the time in between his primary win and now he may have killed his brand. Especially among the younger voters who didn’t know (or worship) his daddy. I connect his name with “idiot” automatically at this point. My non-pol friends do, too.

          Isn’t that the pot guy (he gets hit twice for that; for his attitude before and after)? Isn’t that the toll guy?

          I wouldn’t “bet my house” on any of them right now. The biggest challenge, from my already known standpoint, is picking one of the legitimate candidates to throw everything behind. We may have to wait for the run-off, which I lean just so to saying, without undue wishing, that he may not win. There has to be some kind of punishment for repeated stupidity. Denver went for Kerry! 🙂

          1. I had a feeling that’s who you thought. Ick. That’s all I have to say. I’m not a fan. I’m in the Anybody But ***** camp.  

              1. So, let me say loudly and clearly for all to hear, “I wholeheartedly, enthusiastically, and 100%(ly), endorse Chris Romer for Mayor of Denver”!!

        2. As of today: Mejia. Just received former Mayor Pena’s very enthusiastic endorsement. That’s going to turn a lot of Denver’ progressive voters’ heads his direction. He doesn’t have any money, but he’s definitely got the qualifications as a can-doer.

          1. A PeГ±a endorsement? PeГ±a is remembered fondly in certain circles, but he hasn’t been in office for two decades. No, GL, what it does is it says it’s OK for the business and investment folks to get behind Mejia. But you’re way inflating the value of this endorsement (or any endorsement but Hickenlooper’s).

    1. make more than $83k w/ benefits? Wow.

      I think that argument can be made for state legislators, but given the budget situation this is hardly the time for ANY elected official to be asking for a raise.

      Not only is it incredibly stupid politically, it shows a lack of conviction and sacrifice in solving the city’s budget woes.

      So. Stupid.

    2. I think every person able and willing to work should have a job. Just a fucking job with a decent paycheck and the human dignity that comes with it. City council members and school board members aren’t visiting food banks. When we get regular people working again, then let’s talk about raises for the governing class. And then let’s talk about raises for the working class.

      Do you know what their pay seems like to someone who can’t even find a job? A blessing. Where’s their fucking gratitude?

    1. I like a lot of the people who voted for this, but (hand to face). How are city employees supposed to accept furlough days, lowered benefits and reduced pay while council members are flippantly voting for pay increases?

  7. or does the pay raise just apply to next term?

    Article XX, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution says (emphasis mine):

    …If any officer of said city and county of Denver shall receive any compensation whatever, he or she shall receive the same as a stated salary, the amount of which shall be fixed by the charter, or, in the case of officers not in the classified civil service, by ordinance within limits fixed by the charter; provided, however, no elected officer shall receive any increase or decrease in compensation under any ordinance passed during the term for which he was elected.

    1. and takes effect during the next term. That’s one reason there’s some attention paid to all the council members running for reelection unopposed.

  8. I’m not surprised about Linkhart.  He’s a guy who will stick to his principles even as the realities change, even if it’s politically stupid.  

    Hancock surprised me.  I thought he was more politically adept.  

    Boigon should pick up some points for this.  Guess I’ll have to check out D-Pols and the Big Line more often.

  9. http://blogs.denverpost.com/th

    However, I believe very strongly that we can’t let public service or politics become a playground for only the rich. Serving on the Denver City Council is a full-time job, and we need to ensure that working-class, diverse groups of people have the opportunity to lead Denver in the future.

    “We’re already seeing some of this separation in the mayor’s race. We’ve got candidates loaning themselves as much as $100,000 and tapping into their wealthy networks to finance their campaigns. This is about allowing everyday Denver residents to serve in elective office.

    Politicans have fed us crap for so long this actually sounds right to them. Politics is now, has always been and will be a game of the elite class.

    Our only hope is that people began to read this crap and say, “wait a minute… school budgets are being cut to the point where parents will have to pay for text books, but my city council should get a raise so that poor people can afford to run for office! WTF!”

    How can poor people run for an elected office that pays a lot, if they don’t have the money before they run for the office?  Did I miss something?

    1. and therefore automatically suspect.

      I use quotes because she’s thrown in $100K +/- to her own campaign. More than most people have hanging around I suppose.

      OTOH, I’m fully capable of living decently on about $20K/year. … How long has Hancock been on the Council? Eight years (some as President of the Council – that position makes more, but we aren’t using that here) x (78,173 – $50, 000 (average in district 11, Hancock’s)) = $225,384 he could’ve saved to toss into his own campaign.

      The man’s poor! You’re just an insensitive jerk who’s clearly missed the point. Or Hancock is a fucking pandering moron. I’m sure it’s one of the two.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

197 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!