Question of the day
Thursday, Oct 1, 2026 - Posted by Isabel Miller
* Daily Herald…
Elk Grove Village’s mayor and trustees are in line for raises — some, more than others — following local elections next year. […]
The current pay schedule has gone unchanged since 2008, when village board members agreed to replace a blanket annual salary for the mayor with a sliding scale based on longevity. […]
Annual escalators of 3% are built in, so a newly elected trustee would make $8,000 and top out at $25,000 after 40 years. […]
Johnson defended the pay raises amid increasing inflation and expenses, noting that Elk Grove Village officials don’t get car allowances, mileage reimbursements, or extra per-meeting pay, as some other municipal leaders do. […]
As to the longevity scale, Johnson contends, “Experience matters.”
* The Question: Should Illinois tie legislators’ base pay to their years in office, as Elk Grove Village is doing? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Levois - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:12 am:
Base pay should not be tied to years in office. Public service should reward effectiveness not exactly years in office.
- NIU Grad - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:16 am:
No, this is ridiculous. The role is the role and the salary should be tied to it, not on who has been around the longest. Longevity might matter, but it does not influence the actual workload of the elected official. Also, it creates an unnecessary incentive for elected officials to continue to seek reelection because it’s tied to a salary increase.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:29 am:
No, because Madigan.
- Colors of Fall - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:37 am:
Yes but opposite. Pay should be reduced every term.
- Annon'in - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:38 am:
We voted no cause we believe in local control so let each governmental unit do their own thing. Electeds’ pay always a silly hot button issue and raises start a fury. In most cases folks don’t seek elected office for the $$$. Some pay helps cover expenses which might help.
- City Zen - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:46 am:
Only if legislature salaries are also non-pensionable.
Elected officials shouldn’t be accruing any time in any pension system period. If they want a pension, they can go work for that agency.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:47 am:
Absolutely not. They do not leave now why incentive them to stay longer? I agree with Colors if Fall doc them 10 percent every year they stay in
- hmmm - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:52 am:
No, but 8000 a year is the WORST salary I’ve seen for any job!
- just because - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:54 am:
i voted no. More experienced law makers get stipends for committee chairmanship or leadership posts. Also many of the longer serving GA members do not work as hard as the newer members both in their districts or in Springfield.
- NIU Grad - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 11:59 am:
I disagree with the comments regarding eliminating or reducing salaries over time. I think we should stop demonizing compensation for public service. If we didn’t compensate people for public service at all, this would be a rich person’s game (more than it is already). Real people in elected positions should be compensated for the time they spend on it, especially if it’s at the expense of money they could be making int he private sector.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 12:04 pm:
No. If anything, tie pay to the median income for the state.
- Save Ferris - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 12:31 pm:
Gas money and reimbursement for travel. Pay them all nothing for the work. Public service is service, not profit.
- Captain Obvious - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 12:43 pm:
Ah, no. Why would we want them to have even more reason to stick around past their prime. Supremely stupid idea.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 12:43 pm:
No. Number of years should not matter. It should be the same without regard to longevity.
“I think we should stop demonizing compensation for public service.”
I understand the way you feel. But my experience working with several downstate small communities is that public service does not exist for 80-90% of those entrusted. They are there to grind an axe into anything they darn well please without regard to the law and their oath of office, or they are checked out and generally uninformed and uncaring. And I love being proved wrong about that take. Unfortunately, I rarely am.
- Been There - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 12:49 pm:
No. Maybe have a couple year apprenticeship pay like the trade unions do. After a few years at that level all the journeymen and journeywomen make the same.
- Joseph M - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 12:58 pm:
No. I would add that I was surprised by how low Johnson’s pay was. I think that across the board, government salaries should be reasonably high for a few justifications:
1. to lessen the appeal to accept bribes
2. to increase the amount of candidates from lower-income backgrounds
3. to attract driven, highly skilled people who would otherwise only consider working in the private sector.
- Duck Duck Goose - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 2:19 pm:
No. The job of a city council member is essentially the same in the first term as it is in the 10th. It’s not like there’s extra responsibility if you stay longer. If anything, the learning curve on things like zoning, procurement, and budgets makes the job more labor intensive early on. The job gets easier the longer one stays.
That said, the compensation for most local legislators is laughably small, usually just enough to cover the annual Christmas shopping, so this is probably not a big issue either way.
- Mike Sorensen - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 3:20 pm:
I can get behind base pay being tied to years in office if the more years in leads to less pay.
This is exactly the opposite of what we needed. While most polls show the general public supports some form of term limits, this pay-policy is the exact opposite, creating a breeding ground for career politicians.
- Frida's Boss - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 3:32 pm:
No, in reality, legislators’ pay should follow the same rules as those of local and smaller government units. They should have to vote themselves a pay raise, not through a budget line item that follows a state statute. Also, they should have to vote on this raise separately, and it doesn’t take effect until the next term after the election, so it may impact their election chances.
Plus, they’re still working a part-time job.
- NorthSideNoMore - Thursday, Oct 1, 26 @ 3:39 pm:
Nope GA members already get automatic increases, Per Diem and other allowances (milage) as well as additional $$ for leadership and committee chairs. Oh and pensions and health care. Not bad for a 60 or so days of session. Most village board folks get none of that, just a month or by the meeting pay. It’s called Public Service for a reason.