The appropriate compensation for city and county managers is a seriously debated topic in communities and in news articles here and elsewhere, and it should be, like any other significant commitment of taxpayer resources. Such conversations are most useful, however, when they include all relevant factors in determining compensation level, including acquiring the services of a manager whose skills are a good match for the challenges a particular community faces.

Individuals serving in city and county manager positions are entrusted with the daily supervision of often complex local governments. Under the policy direction of the city council or board of supervisors, they are responsible to those elected officials and the community as a whole for the effective and efficient delivery of important public services, often including critical public safety services.

City and county managers are held accountable for the performance of organizations that can include hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of employees and the administration of budgets that can range from a few million dollars to hundreds of millions. They perform at the discretion of their elected board with little or no job security. Like private sector CEOs, they are held accountable to the financial bottom line, and they must work in a very public environment respecting the principles of local government democracy.

The skills, or lack thereof, that they bring to their roles can fundamentally impact the quality of life for the residents of the city or county that they serve.

Within this context, the compensation for these managers needs to be determined by their governing boards in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. While a community's population can be one factor, appropriate criteria often encompasses many other factors, including organizational size and complexity, the type and severity of the challenges facing a community, the level of political and organizational stability, the community's ability to pay, and the competitive environment for skilled professionals.

With the large number and diversity of local governments and communities in the Bay Area, and the variety of governing boards making these decisions, there can be significant variations and, real or perceived, anomalies, as recent Bay Area News Group reports have shown.

The International City/County Management Association encourages elected officials to consider the compensation of their chief executive officers by weighing a variety of factors, including the skills and attributes required by their communities; their ability to attract viable candidates with those skills and attributes; comparable compensation for positions in their region, and the organization's financial capabilities.

Governing boards should undertake compensation decisions with care. And they always should be open and transparent regarding how they arrived at the decision on appropriate compensation.

While the compensation of a local government CEO is often a significant financial investment, it can pale in comparison to the savings that can be achieved through effective management or the resources gained by helping create a community in which the local economy thrives.

The compensation of public employees, including public sector CEOs, is an important topic of public consideration. But it needs to include the responsibilities of city and county managers and the impact they can bring to a community.

Robert J. O'Neill Jr. is executive director of ICMA, the International City/County Management Association. He wrote this commentary expressly for inclusion in the San Jose Mercury News, in response to the recent article, "Bay Area City Managers Highly Paid Regardless of City Size, Raising Questions."