
Quincy residents say mayor's $285K salary is just too high
Perdios and Salvatore Balsamo are behind the community group, which must collect 6,000 signatures by Sept. 23 to possibly add a ballot question re-setting the mayor's salary at $183,000.
That figure would give Koch a 2 percent cost-of-living raise for each year since his last salary increase. Perdios said it's fairer than the 'egregious' $285,000 the Quincy mayor is scheduled to receive three years from now whether Koch or someone else is in the position.
'We really believe that people should have reasonable pay raises,' Perdios added. '[$183,000] is far more than the average person in Quincy makes.'
Koch has held the office since 2008, making him Quincy's longest-serving mayor. He has governed as an independent since he left the Democratic Party in 2018 due to his anti-abortion stance. Most recently, Koch has come under fire for planning to install 10-foot statues of Catholic saints on the city's new public safety building. Residents have sued to block the plan in
Advertisement
Koch defended the scheduled salary increase as reflective of the extraordinary work the role requires, including logging 80 hours a week and administering a city budget of nearly half a billion dollars.
'It's not somebody that just shows up and cuts a ribbon for a new business,' Koch said in a phone interview with the Globe on Thursday.
The mayor drew comparisons between his job and that of a private sector chief executive officer, both of whom he said have to manage personnel, negotiate investment deals, and generate wealth — in his example, for Quincy homeowners. He also pointed to his record across his 17-year tenure of constructing new housing and schools, as well as rebuilding parks and seawalls.
'I would do this job for free, because I love what I do. But in reality, I'm the CEO,' Koch said. 'If you looked at the CEO role of this job against the private sector, it'd be a half a million dollar salary and it'd be bonuses every year based on what you produce.'
He acknowledged that elected officials sign up to be paid less.
Koch has been criticized for taking a pay raise that will put the mayor of the seventh-largest city in Massachusetts high on
Advertisement
'I think the mayor of Boston is underpaid. I think every major city, if you look at the salary, they're all underpaid,' Koch said.
He added that the mayor of Boston's salary should be higher than that of the Quincy mayor, because she manages a larger staff and budget.
The compensation for most members of Congress is $174,000 and Vice President JD Vance will take home $289,400 this year — just a few thousand dollars more than the Quincy mayor will earn in 2028, data from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation shows.
Mayors are often among the few people who can initiate changes to their salaries. Quincy residents interviewed by the Globe said
on Monday that the solution to that dilemma is simple: leave the matter for constituents to decide.
'We're the boss, they work for us,' Perdios said. 'We, as their employer, should set their salary.'
Perdios's proposed ballot question would include a measure to give citizens the exclusive right to alter elected officials' salaries.
Rose Merry, a 33-year-old resident who works in the food industry, said it 'should be up to the people' to decide elected officials' salaries. She believes a modest cost-of-living increase is appropriate while the city still has roads it needs to fix.
'I just feel like the raise is taking away from the other things that Quincy needs,' Merry, who has lived in the city for 13 years, said.
She added that she is uncomfortable seeing Koch take a pay raise while local businesses close.
'Seeing a lot of these buildings with businesses that've been here for a long time getting torn down and not being able to open back up again is really sad,' Merry said.
Advertisement
Solomon Yilma, who has lived in Quincy for 23 years and owned a coffee shop there for seven more, expressed concern for what comes next for residents.
'They pay their raise, they ask people for more in taxes,' he said. 'It's a circle.'
The future of the petition to lower the Quincy mayor's pay raise is uncertain, however.
Perdios and Balsamo's effort falls into a legal hole for the Commonwealth. Even if the petitioners collect 6,000 signatures, the Quincy solicitor believes that under Massachusetts state law, the public
may not be allowed to change an elected official's salary, according to minutes of a Monday meeting of city officials and community organizers that was shared with the Globe.
That right is reserved for city councils, possibly setting up the community group for a future legal fight.
'We haven't seen anything clear, and he hasn't given us anything clear,' Perdios said. 'We'll address it as it comes up.'
A different community group, 'A Just Quincy,' attempted to cancel Koch's pay raise after it was passed last summer, but fell short of the 6,000-signature requirement to revoke the law within 20 days of passage.
The City Council ordinance also increased city councilors' salaries from about $30,000 to $47,500 and introduced annual salary adjustments, performance-based changes, and an independent committee that will review the mayor's salary every five years.
Jade Lozada can be reached at

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.


Politico
4 minutes ago
- Politico
The backstory fueling the Texas redistricting bitterness
BAD BLOOD — The bitterness that marks the Texas redistricting drama shouldn't come as a surprise — the fight that's gripping the country is nothing less than a proxy war between national Republicans and Democrats for control of Congress. But there's also a history between the two ambitious governors at the center of the conflict — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — that's fueling the acrimony. The backstory between Abbott, who is attempting to bulldoze the new congressional map through his state's legislature, and Pritzker, who's provided a safe haven for the Democratic lawmakers who have fled Texas and championed their prerogatives, dates back to 2022. At the time, Abbott rolled a political grenade into Pritzker's backyard by shipping hundreds of migrants to Chicago with little but the clothes on their backs — and with no prior warning to state and local officials. Since then, Abbott has sent nearly 120,000 migrants to blue states across the country, including more than 51,000 in total to Illinois. The move was part of a gambit to draw attention to the nation's porous borders and the burden it imposed on border states like Texas. But it was also designed to turn the tables on blue states with sanctuary laws — like Illinois — and call out blue state leaders for their 'hypocrisy' on the issue. 'Governor Pritzker was all too proud to call Illinois 'the most welcoming state in the nation' until Governor Abbott began transporting migrants to Chicago, ' an Abbott spokesman said last year. The firestorm surrounding the current proposal to redraw the Texas congressional map has enabled Pritzker to return the favor. Pritzker has welcomed the wayward Texas Democrats with open arms. He's strategized with them, and his team has even assisted in managing logistics for the out-of-state lawmakers in their efforts to prevent a quorum back home that would enable a vote on the proposed map. The Illinois governor — who, like Abbott, is considered a top 2028 presidential prospect — has also used the moment to rip into his Republican rival. When Abbott posted on X earlier this week that 'Texans don't run from a fight — they face it head on,' Pritzker offered a concise response. 'Greg Abbott is a coward,' he wrote. Pritzker appeared at a nationally televised news conference Tuesday, flanked by Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, U.S. Reps. Lizzie Fletcher and Al Green, and some of the nearly 30 Democratic state representatives who flew to Illinois to break the Texas quorum. There, the Illinois governor described Abbott and his Republican allies as yes-men to President Donald Trump. 'They say, 'Yes, sir. 'Right away, sir. Happy to lick your boot, sir,' Pritzker said. Pritzker later appeared on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,' poking again at Abbott. With Pritzker carrying the blue state banner and Abbott representing the red states, the two mega-state governors — both of whom were on their respective parties' VP short lists in 2024 — turn out to be perfect foils for each other. Their posturing in the redistricting fight elevates their profiles on the national stage in advance of 2028 and frames each as a smashmouth fighter at a time when both party bases are demanding confrontation with the other side. 'They have a positive use for each other, maybe Pritzker even more,' political consultant James Carville said. 'It doesn't seem like much of a loser for either one. Especially if Democrats are successful at this.' The real question, adds Carville, is 'what does it mean for 2028? It's going to be pretty significant. If the question is, 'are they both using it to enhance their political brand,' the answer is yes. But I think Pritzker will get more good out of it. It's too good to be true for him.' Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at skapos@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ShiaKapos. What'd I Miss? — Witkoff has 'highly productive' meeting with Putin ahead of Friday ceasefire deadline: President Donald Trump signaled 'great progress' in talks with Russia after Special Envoy Steve Witkoff held an eleventh-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Wednesday, amid Trump's looming Friday ceasefire ultimatum. 'My Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, just had a highly productive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin,' Trump wrote in a post to Truth Social. 'Great progress was made! Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come.' Trump's positive readout comes after a more noncommittal statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier Wednesday. — US to hike tariffs on India to 50 percent over Russian oil purchases: President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday imposing an additional 25 percent in tariffs on India over the country's purchases of Russian oil, following through on his threat to ramp up pressure on Moscow to end the war in Ukraine. The tariffs are set to go into force within 21 days, according to the executive order, and will go on top of the 25 percent penalty Trump unveiled on India this month. — 5 soldiers shot at Fort Stewart in Georgia: Five soldiers were shot at Fort Stewart Wednesday, prompting a short lockdown at one of the country's largest Army bases before a suspect was taken into custody, military officials said. Few details were immediately available about what led to the gunfire, but this latest act of violence on a U.S. military installation — sites that are supposed to be among the most secure in the country — again raised concerns about safety and security within the armed forces' own walls. The Army said it's investigating the shooting. There were still many unanswered questions, including the condition of the soldiers, the scope of their injuries, the identity of the shooter as well as any possible motive. — UCLA has more than half a billion dollars in funding suspended by Trump administration: UCLA is at risk of losing more than half a billion dollars in federal research funds as the Trump administration continues to pressure the school to address allegations of antisemitism on campus. The $584 million dollars in frozen funds that UCLA officials announced Wednesday is the first official tally of what is at stake for the school. The sum is far more than what was initially estimated when the Department of Justice announced last week it was investigating the school for violations of civil rights laws stemming from allegations it has failed to protect Jewish students and faculty from antisemitism. AROUND THE WORLD BUGGING MACRON — Even from his seaside holiday retreat at the Fort de Brégançon, President Emmanuel Macron will be closely watching a key court ruling on a controversial pesticide on Thursday. The question of whether French farmers will be allowed to protect their crops with a chemical called acetamiprid is far from being an obscure technical matter. In fact, it lays bare a major fault line in French politics between the powerful agricultural sector and more ecologically minded citizens worried about pesticides harming pollinators and human health. Macron's challenge is that he is being squeezed politically between green-minded voters — often concentrated in metropolitan areas — and influential farmers from rural heartlands, while his liberal centrists falter and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally eyes the presidency in 2027. France's top constitutional court is set to decide Thursday whether a bill that includes the reauthorization of acetamiprid — under scrutiny for its effects on the nervous systems of both bees and humans — is constitutionally sound. DEADLOCK AHEAD — Poland's new President Karol Nawrocki was sworn in Wednesday morning in what his chief political rival, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, called a 'sad day.' Nawrocki, backed by the populist Law and Justice (PiS) party that ruled Poland from 2015 to 2023, slammed Tusk's centrist government in his inaugural speech: 'It is impossible to continue governing in this manner, and Poland should not look like it does today.' Nawrocki is expected to stall Tusk's reform agenda until the next parliamentary election set for 2027, meaning the Poland is likely to see two years of political conflict and deadlock. Poland's president has a national mandate and can propose and veto legislation (which Tusk's coalition doesn't have the votes to override), but the country's domestic and foreign policies are largely under the control of the government run by the prime minister. PiS legislators clapped and chanted Nawrocki's name during the speech, while Tusk and members of his Cabinet looked on solemnly. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP RETURN TO CHILDCARE — Before the pandemic, women's labor-force participation rate had been dropping for decades. The era of remote work, ushered in by Covid-19, reversed that trend. But now, as a growing number of companies are requiring workers to return to the office, those numbers are falling again. Alana Semuels reports on why so many women are quitting in the post-pandemic world. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NC Democratic lawmakers could face primary challenges after veto override votes
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) – Some North Carolina Democrats are pushing back against lawmakers who voted in favor of Republican bills to override vetoes from Governor Josh Stein. Representatives Carla Cunningham, Naseef Majid, Shelly Willingham and Cecil Brockman are now under fire for those votes. 'I don't think it's representative of the future of the Democratic Party, quite frankly, in North Carolina,' Anderson Clayton, chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said. Since the votes, calls are popping up for the lawmakers to be primaried, meaning they would have a challenger in the primary election and potentially be voted out. Across the hall from the House floor in the General Assembly, top Democratic senators say they are not surprised. 'The bills that they overrode made us less safe, and that is on them, and if they want to put their head on the pillow tonight and say that that's what they decided to do for whatever reason they voted for that, that is literally a consequence they'll have to deal with if they get a primary,' Senator Sydney Batch said. But Republican House Speaker Destin Hall, who claimed the veto overrides as a win, says his caucus will stay out of primary challenges. 'Members have varying reasons for why they may take a vote at a given time; it ranges from just simply what their belief is, to how likely they think a bill is to pass, to other negotiations they're having on other matters,' he said. Clayton says now their job is to tell voters exactly who they are voting for. 'Representatives are elected by their districts, and we have to make sure we're educating their districts on how they're voting, whether that be Republicans or Democrats, because we want people that are going to stand up for the values that this party stands for,' she said. Representative Cunningham also got a lot of heat for a floor speech she gave about immigration. Other lawmakers have since said she should apologize. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword