No wonder the city’s finances are a debacle.

As Richard Ottilie, a member of the Salary Setting Commission, points out this week (page 11), 746 firefighters, 31 lifeguards and 16 librarians are making more in salary than the members of the San Diego City Council.

While, to some degree, there is logic to that (firefighters and lifeguards are faced with immediate life-threatening situations), it seems a bit backwards that a number of city employees out-earn the council members, who set policy and manage the city’s finances.

With the current council – five of whom were dubbed the “negligent five” for their under funding of the city’s pension system (among other misdeeds) – it could be argued we got what we paid for. The council members’ $75,386 salary is below the average salary for council members in the top 10 largest cities in the nation.

Last week’s vote, however, to raise salary for council members’ positions from $75,386 to $93,485, came at an inconvenient time.

Taxpayers are angry, dammit. At the local level, Mayor Jerry Sanders presented the $3.3 billion fiscal plan for 2009, with spending projected to increase 13 percent, and funding for parks and library programs to decrease. Statewide, education cuts have spurred protests and angry residents are lashing out at local school districts.

The public outcry, which, ultimately led to the defeat of the council’s vote to raise its salary, is missing a bit of perspective, though.

First, the city requires qualified leaders to fill the posts. In order to recruit qualified leaders, the city must offer competitive pay. Council members work around the clock – when they “punch out” of their offices for the day, the job is far from over, particularly in a city this size. Currently, for the task at hand, the members of the City Council are grossly underpaid. Until salary is competitive, we’re left with second-rate leaders, i.e. the “negligent five,” who, in fact, we believe, owe San Diego residents a refund.

Which brings us to our second point: four of the current council members, three who initially voted in support of the raise, would not qualify for the pay increase. Toni Atkins, Jim Madaffer and Scott Peters, who supported the pay hike, along with Brian Maienschein, who did not, term out of office in November.

Only Donna Frye and Kevin Faulconer, who voted against the increase, and Ben Hueso and Tony Young, who voted for the increase, along with four newly elected council members, would be eligible in January 2009.

By and large, the proposed increase would not benefit the current council – if anything, those council members, the “negligent five,” should be writing taxpayers a check. The raise would impact future council members and attract a more qualified field of candidates.

The public outcry regarding the council increasing its own pay was based on an emotional response in light of the mayor’s proposed cuts last week, and the eroding education budget statewide.

Instead, however, of constructively looking at the situation, residents have taken to the streets … or their Web browsers. Peters and Hueso were inundated with e-mails criticizing their support of the salary increase. This week, Peters and Hueso changed course and voted against raising council members’ pay.

There may be some confusion, though. The education cuts, which seem to have the majority of people riled up, are not dictated by local government. The City Council isn’t cutting education’s lifeline to fund its own raise. Yes, cuts will be made to parks and library programs, but if those are temporary sacrifices to recruit qualified candidates for the City Council and remedy the city’s finances, it is well worth it.

Likewise, local school districts aren’t cutting their own funding. Angry protesters, though, have attacked the San Diego Board of Education, board president Katherine Nakamura and local school officials. The cuts, though, while significant and wrong, are mandatory. Concerned administrators, teachers and parents must direct their comments to state legislators, who have the final say in the matter, more so than our local board, which is simply operating under unfortunate circumstances.

Certainly, we’re faced with tough times. Taxpayers may not like what is happening at the local or state levels. Cuts will be made, if not in one department, another. Statewide, legislators need to be made aware education shouldn’t be shortchanged. Locally, leadership can’t be shortchanged – and while it may not be the best of times, it will only get worse if we don’t compensate our leaders to get us through the worst of times.