There has been a lot of press lately about the $40,000 bonus for Seattle City Light Director Jorge Carrasco.  I share these concerns.  City Light faces a $90 million revenue shortfall, has frozen hiring and halved power line tree trimming, and plans for a large rate increase after the election.

The Nickels administration points to narrower contract provisions to defend the bonus, but the big picture is what troubles me.  City Light faces a financial crisis.  This is not the time to grant record discretionary bonuses.

But there’s something much more fundamentally troubling about Nickels’ relationship with city employees.

The single largest group of contributors to Mayor Nickels reelection campaign is City of Seattle employees  –  at latest count, $124,991. Compare that to less than $25,000 in city employee contributions to the 37 other campaigns this year for mayor and city council.

Nickels reliance on city employees is growing.  Less than 2 percent of his contributions came from city employees in his first two runs for mayor in 1997 and 2001.  But in 2005, he received over 16 percent of his contributions from city employees ($66,616).  And so far this year, city employees account for more than a quarter of Nickels’ contributions, and over a third of his contributions from individuals.  The numbers are even higher if you include contributions credited to the spouses and partners of city employees.

The vast majority of these contributors are political appointees.  Carrasco and his wife, for example, have contributed $1350 to the Nickels campaign, including $700 about a week after the $40,000 bonus was awarded.

Nickels has dramatically increased the number of employees who serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, and whose fate is tied to the Mayor’s reelection.  In 2002, there were 241 staff with the designation of “Strategic Advisor.”  By 2008, there were 431 such staff, an increase of 79 percent.  These advisors are paid about a third more, on average, than other city employees.

Here’s the problem — raising money from city employees and almost doubling the number of strategic advisors means that city government is increasingly dominated by political considerations. That’s not right.  The job of public servants is to serve the public, not form the core of a Mayor’s reelection campaign.

It’s also not fair to employees.  Imagine receiving a call from the Mayor, or one of his campaign staffers, asking for a political contribution.  And what effect do political contributions have on the Mayor’s management of employees.  For example,  do bigger donors get better treatment?

The proliferation of political appointees also sends a clear signal to city employees.  Keeping your job, or advancing, depends on the political fate of the Mayor.

It’s clear these practices have to stop if we want city employees to focus on making our city better, not just trying to make the politicians look better.

If elected Mayor, I will immediately work to stop the practice of city employees contributing to the campaigns of the elected officials who manage them or write their budgets.

And I will dramatically reduce the number of political appointees.

City employees need to focus on results, not reelection campaigns.

Michael McGinn