When Garfield Heights City Council Did the Right Thing: Rejecting Their Own Pay Raise
People say politicians only look out for themselves. In 2007, the Garfield Heights City Council proved that doesn’t have to be true.
When a new council was seated after the November 2007 election, the city was heading toward financial crisis. Sitting on the books was a pay raise for council members that had been approved by the previous council. The new council looked at that raise — and said no.
The Decision
Rather than accept a salary increase during a time of growing financial hardship, the newly elected council members voted to reverse the pay raise that had been approved before they took office. It was a decision that sent a clear message: if residents are sacrificing, their elected officials should be sacrificing too.
But council didn’t stop there. When the fiscal emergency hit, council cut the mayor’s pay too. The entire administration took pay cuts — the mayor, council members, department heads. Nobody was exempt. That’s what shared sacrifice looks like.
I was one of those council members. To take that seat, I resigned from my position at the Ohio Department of Transportation, where I earned approximately $31,000 a year with full benefits. The council position paid $14,000 — with no benefits.
I didn’t take that pay cut to turn around and vote myself a raise. None of us did.
What Came Next
The pay raise reversal was just the beginning. In 2008, the Ohio Auditor of State declared Garfield Heights in fiscal emergency under Ohio Revised Code §118.03 — one of the most serious financial designations a municipality can receive. A Financial Planning and Supervision Commission was established to oversee the city’s recovery.
What followed was years of difficult decisions:
- Administrative salaries were reduced — including those of council members
- City services were restructured to do more with less
- Strategic cost-cutting was implemented across every department
- Shared sacrifice became the guiding principle — officials, employees, and residents all bore the burden equitably
The council didn’t ask city employees to take cuts while padding their own compensation. The raise reversal established the standard: leadership starts at the top.
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| Nov 2007 | New council elected; Mike Dudley joins (ODOT $31K → Council $14K) |
| 2007–2008 | Council reverses previously approved pay raise |
| 2008 | Ohio Auditor declares Garfield Heights in fiscal emergency (ORC §118.03) |
| 2008–2013 | Administrative salary cuts, service restructuring, shared sacrifice |
| 2013 | Auditor Dave Yost releases city from fiscal emergency after 5 years |
Why It Worked
By 2013, Ohio Auditor of State Dave Yost officially released Garfield Heights from fiscal emergency — a status the city had held for five years. The Auditor’s office commended the city for its recovery. Since 1979, Ohio’s fiscal distress system has helped more than 50 local governments through this process — but not all of them made it out.
Garfield Heights did. And it started with a council that was willing to reject its own raise.
Then vs. Now — Why This Matters Today
The contrast between 2007 and 2026 could not be more stark.
| 2007-2008 (Fiscal Emergency) | 2026 (Today) | |
|---|---|---|
| Council Pay Raise | REJECTED | Accepted |
| Mayor’s Pay | CUT by Council | Increased |
| Administration | Pay cuts across the board | New positions created |
| City Positions | Eliminated to save money | Expanded payroll |
| Fiscal Direction | Sacrifice → Recovery | Spending → ? |
On top of the pay raises and new positions, Garfield Heights faces:
- $37.3 million/year in lost property tax from the county jail site
- Federal tariffs driving up city operating costs across the board
- State revenue sharing cut nearly in half over 20 years
- School district running a $2.9 million deficit
- Three years of missing city audits with no answers
In 2007, the city was in crisis — and leadership responded by cutting its own pay first. In 2026, the city is under even greater pressure — and leadership is doing the exact opposite. New positions. More spending. Pay raises across the board. And yet the city is not moving forward fiscally.
If the leaders of 2007 could sacrifice for the good of the city, why can’t the leaders of 2026?
The Lesson
The 2007 pay raise rejection wasn’t just about money. It was about trust. It told residents: We hear you. We see what you’re going through. And we’re not going to ask you to carry a burden we won’t carry ourselves.
The 2007 pay raise rejection wasn’t just about money. It was about trust.
Garfield Heights has done it before. We can do it again.
But only if we demand leaders who put the community ahead of themselves.
Sources: City of Garfield Heights public records, Ohio Auditor of State (fiscal emergency declaration 2008, release 2013 under Auditor Dave Yost), Ohio Revised Code §118.03 (Fiscal Emergency Conditions), MikeDudleySr.com.
Use your browser's "Save as PDF" option when the print dialog opens
