I spoke with a local official at a fest this past summer, and invariably the conversation drifted around local government. I told him point blank that he (and another official for whose judgment, sense, and intelligence I also have a lot of respect) should run for mayor of Hobart next year, and I asked why they have two jamokes on their Democrat side, while he and the other sit it out.
He told me point blank that in both of their cases, a move to mayor would cause a steep income loss, and the financial punch to their families would be too great to consider. It's not that the mayorship is under them; they built a certain level of living for their wives and children with their success, and this would pull the rug out from under them.
This makes some sense to me, and raises the question of whether we pay our major officials enough to attract the talent who we'd like to see step up for the job. Does the pay level only attract retirees, people whose lives don't require maintaining a certain income level (i.e. those with no families or dependents who can make drastic moves without worrying about others), career politicians, or those who figure they'd augment their pay either honestly (teaching politics at a local university), or dishonestly (the home improvement misadventures of Mayor Pabey)? In this age of tiny budgets and the inviolable sacrament of cutting costs, are we cutting too far and driving off the successful class? It's one thing for someone to sacrifice some time and money for community service, and it's another to expect a four year financial fast and lifestyle sea change for one's family in order to succeed at the mayoral office, plus also maintaining family life, especially if we expect our elected officials to serve a term or two, then go back to their previous lives with the modesty and virtue of a Cincinnatus, and not dig in since the old life is now gone.
