Dear Editor:

Thank you for your intellectual honesty in supporting higher pay for city council members. I once had the privilege of dining with U.S. Senator John Glenn, a former Astronaut and the first American to orbit the earth. When asked his thoughts as his rocket was headed into the unknown he replied “I kept thinking, this thing was built by the low bidder.”

That’s not how I want to pick the people who make decisions about our police and fire departments, zoning and other environmental matters.

There is so much uninformed cynicism about public service. Many people – maybe most voters – want to elect people who will work for the lowest possible salary. Voters probably do not know that council members do not earn Social Security credits. They usually take pay cuts to run for office and often interrupt careers that would lead to better pay and more opportunity. They are governed by strict conflict of interest laws that prevent them from most business opportunities.

Like school teachers, they sacrifice much of their personal time, giving up their evenings and their weekends to meet the schedules of others. Your thoughtful editorial noted that council members earn less than 800 City employees. On an hourly basis, my guess is that they earn less than most career City employees and middle managers.

I don’t want to pay elected officials like royalty; but I do want to make it possible for more people to earn a decent wage if they run for office. The alternative is electing only the very rich or those for whom this will be the best-paying job they ever have. Neither appeals to me.

Bob Nelson

Dear Editor:

Your “You Get What You Pay For” editorial was overly-simplistic and unfair.

First, if the City in the midst of a financial crisis raises salaries for Council members while other City workers are terminated, it sends the message to city workers that their labor is not worth very much as compared to Council members. Is this what we want to communicate?

Second, you used the U-T’s smear term “negligent 5” to drag Donna Frye, who voted against the sorry pension deal after hearing Diane Shipione’s withering critique, into culpability along with the 4 council members who ignored Shipione and voted for the pension deal. Mike Aguirre astutely observed that the two experienced attorneys on the Council, Peters and Maienschein, were particularly culpable because they should have known better. Maybe we could call them the deficient duo? The smear of Donna Frye is particularly egregious. She has proven herself intelligent, prepared, engaged and humane during her time on the Council. One might disagree with Donna on ideology or specific positions, but it is truly ignorant to paint her as not worth the money. If only we had 8 Donna’s on the Council!

Third, it is unfair to imply that all members of the Council are not worth even their insufficient pay. Council members distinguish themselves in certain areas, while they may embarrass themselves in others. Do you dispute that Toni Atkins has always been there for the LGBT community? Toni and Donna have also been protectors and defenders of our precious canyons, while the boys-with-their-toys on the Council and amiable Mayor would sacrifice them to greedy developers. Your condescending label of “second-rate leaders” does no justice to the good work Toni and Donna have given us for admittedly insufficient remuneration.

Finally, I do not believe that upping Council salaries will solve our political problems. Like many others who work for the City, or who give time as volunteers, much of a Councilor’s motivation and satisfaction comes from serving. Cleaning up San Diego’s corrupt political culture will do much more to attract talented people to public service than boosting selected salaries.

Rather than trashing the City Council, or passively accepting cuts in services, why not take on the real problems? As comic strip character Pogo once so wisely observed “we have looked for the enemy and he is us.” We have been conditioned since Proposition 13 to expect great services and low taxes. And the electorate until recently has blithely accepted a political system fueled by the economic interests of a ruling elite. 2008 promises to be a year of change, and GLT can help to promote change but not with poorly thought out editorials.

Charlie Pratt

Dear Editor:

This is not how we’ll win the hearts of man and woman…

In a recent issue of the GLTimes, there was an article concerning the ‘victory’ of a same-sex couple who won against the wedding photographers who refused to photograph their commitment ceremony for religious reasons, (Apr 24, ‘Company refused to photograph same-sex couple, cites religious beliefs’, Issue 1061). Since I have but the best long-term interest for our community at heart, I question the wisdom of the couple’s action of submitting the legal claim, which has the potential to cause us future harm.

This is not a case where a large corporation had treated us unfairly, nor is it a doctor who refused to treat a patient because of his/her perceived sexuality. It wasn’t a dentist who refused to treat an AIDS victim. It’s not a major newspaper which refused to print a notice of commitment… All valid reasons to protest and to seek satisfaction. It wasn’t even a coffee shop which refused to serve a same sex couple or a hotel which refused to host the event.

What we have here are two people who run a mom and pop operation (I’m assuming, since that is what most photographic companies are) who for their own reason chose not to accept a job which required them to intimately participate in a ceremony they do not believe in.

And I think the intimacy is the key component. A wedding photographer must become intimately involved with the couple to do the job right. This clearly could not happen in this instance because of the photographer’s bigotry – which I recognize. Truth is, when I first read this article, I questioned why the happy couple would even want a homophobe to take the pictures. After more thought, it occurs to me Ms. Huguenin (the offending photographer) did the couple a favor by being honest.

We as a community are often accused of being in everyone’s face and trying to force our lifestyle down society’s throat. And certainly we must stand up for ourselves to protect our liberties and even our lives, but not in this case. Although Ms. Willock may have been technically correct in bringing this action, perhaps instead she should have rather expressed her disappointment, but thanked Ms. Huguenin for her candor and sought out a GLBT friendly photographer, or better yet, hired a LGBT photographer who certainly would have done a much better job in giving the loving couple what they wanted and deserved.

The New Mexican State Senate earlier this year tabled a proposed Domestic Partnership bill… I suspect when the issue comes before them again, those who would deny us our liberties because of who we are will no doubt refer back to this matter – to our ‘bullying’ of a small enterprise – to bolster their point…

That’s my $1.37 worth (adjusted for inflation…)

Ralph Denney

Dear Editor:

I just wanted to respond to Mr Trevor K. Bombards letter to the editor last week, which was in response to my previous letter about gay marriage on April 17, Issue 1060. Mr Bombard stated that I was spreading inaccuracies and lies on regards to a statement of Hate mongers ever being published in one of your previous issues! With out any research Mr Bombard let his EMOTIONS dictate a false attack on me stating a true fact! Well I wanted to remind Mr Bombard that in the issue 1054 of the GLT released on Mar 6 In the editorial, the term of “Hate” mongers was used twice! The term “Hate” mongers was used to describe those who were informing the public about gathering signatures to put marriage between a man and woman on the state ballet. My intent on the letter was in one way to defend the current status of marriage. But then to stand for domestic partnership which gives all gay couples the benefits they desire without the term marriage! Mr Bombard if you want to debate or challenge me on any of these issue’s I’m ready, but when you come to the table be “informed” first and leave your emotions and upset at home!

Paul Benson