Battle Ground resident Brian Munson provides a look at the cost of representation
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
When we think about where our tax dollars go, we often picture roads, schools, and emergency services. But a portion also goes toward paying our elected officials — including the salaries and benefits of Battle Ground City Council members. And for what’s considered a part-time role, the numbers might surprise you.
The cost of representation
According to the city of Battle Ground’s 2024 Benefit Statement Report, the total cost for council member salaries, benefits, and taxes amounted to $172,279.31. If divided equally among council members and meetings, that’s approximately $1,025.47 per member per meeting. With some meetings lasting just a few hours, the hourly rate can exceed $250.
While some council members opt for the minimum authorized monthly wage, others take full advantage of available benefits — including medical, dental, and optical insurance. It’s worth noting that council members can choose to decline benefits or accept only partial coverage. In fact, one former council member even donated half of their salary back to the city.
Salary Growth and Oversight
Over the past decade, some council positions have seen salary increases of up to 650%, depending on the individual and their tenure. These increases can be approved in two ways:
- By council vote, which only takes effect after the next election for each position.
- Through a Salary Commission, made up of appointed community members who review and recommend compensation changes.
This system is designed to provide checks and balances, but it also raises questions about accountability and transparency.
Transparency matters
A recent social media post by Councilwoman Cherish Desrochers attempted to clarify her compensation:
“My pay while serving as a council member is $1,000 per month and I receive an additional $350 for opting out of health insurance. I receive a grand total of $1,350 per month.”
While this statement is mostly accurate, it omits the fact that she also receives dental insurance, which increases her total compensation. Meanwhile, other council members reportedly receive over $3,500 per month in salary and benefits. Each council member’s salary and benefit breakdown is available in the Benefit Statement Report annually.
What Should Public Service Look Like?
During past council discussions, some members advocated for pay increases based on what other similarly sized cities offer. But should elected officials be benchmarking their compensation against others — or focusing on the unique needs of their own community?
Public service should be about serving the people, not maximizing personal gain. When compensation begins to outpace the value delivered to citizens, it’s time to ask hard questions.
What Can You Do?
- Attend council meetings and stay informed.
- Request public records to understand how your tax dollars are spent.
- Engage with council members and ask for transparency.
Brian Munson
Battle Ground
- Camas School District Legislative Advocacy Committee to host Candidate Forum
Six candidates from two federal and state districts will answer education questions at Discovery High School on Oct. 5. - Opinion: Why lawmakers are going after your pension
Ryan Frost argues lawmakers included public pensions in the income tax law in preparation for lowering the $1 million deduction. - Opinion: Washington has an income tax – why won’t the media call it one?
Cargill argues the media is using supporters’ preferred label “millionaires tax” instead of the legally accurate term “income tax.” - POLL: How do you think higher impact fees for school districts affect housing affordability in Clark County?
Clark County Council raised impact fees for La Center, Hockinson, and Woodland school districts, drawing pushback from the Building Industry Association. - WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters
The WA Supreme Court struck down I-2066 in a 6-3 ruling, finding it covered four distinct subjects in violation of the single-subject rule.
