Vox mayor in small Spanish town raises salary to €45,000

Sole Vox mayor in Valencian Community raises salary to €45,000

A town of 7,700 inhabitants and a mayor moving from part-time pay to full-time dedication. The raise, worth about €13,000 annually, was approved ten days after inauguration, leaving the first citizen with a gross annual remuneration of €45,000, according to municipal data. In a municipality of this size, the figure has sparked debate: less about the absolute amount than the jump and its timing.

The official defense is technical. The previous mayor had part-time dedication and combined the role with other work, hence the lower salary. The new mayor moves to full-time dedication, implying renouncing any other paid activity and devoting the entire day to the city hall. With that argument, the resulting salary would be equivalent to what the former mayor earned when also working exclusively, according to the municipal version.

How much does a mayor of a town of 7,700 earn?

Comparison is key to the whole issue. Mayors' pay scales are set based on population, placing 7,700 residents in an intermediate tier. Some argue €45,000 gross annually for managing such a city hall is reasonable if exclusivity is required; against it weighs the argument that a €13,000 jump in ten days, with little time to assess performance, creates a hard-to-defend image.

Often overlooked detail: full-time dedication isn't just a label. Those who assume it cannot invoice for other activities, teach, or run a practice. This makes the remuneration the officeholder's only income. The nuance matters because it completely changes how the figure is read.

The Durango case used as contrast

Another example serving as a mirror has appeared in public discourse. A Basque mayor reportedly raised her remuneration to €77,929, an increase of about €30,000, arguing she maintained the same salary she received as director of the Basque Government. The contrast is inevitable: higher figures, less media noise.

From this comes the accusation of unequal treatment. It is argued that focus falls on a mayor from a specific party while larger increases in city halls governed by other formations go unnoticed. The objection has merit, though it excuses no one: if the criterion is consistency, the bar should be the same for all.

Coherence argument against public spending

Here lies the most uncomfortable point. A party that built much of its discourse on containing public spending and officials' allowances now faces the test of its own criteria. Some summarize bluntly: if you criticize others' spending, raising your own salary upon taking office is exactly what you censured.

The response from the other side is that this isn't a raise but a change in dedication regime, and the final salary equals that of an exclusive-duty mayor. Ultimately, the discussion isn't about the specific figure but about timing and form.

What happens to mayors' salaries every four years?

The issue reappears with each electoral cycle. After city councils are constituted, plenary sessions approve dedication regimes and officials' remuneration, bringing headlines back. In small municipalities, details are easy to verify: simply check if the mayor spends the day at city hall or keeps their previous job.

The proposal hovering over the matter is merging city halls. With 7,700 residents, sustaining a complete municipal structure with full-time dedication for the mayor is expensive per inhabitant. The alternative—pooling services or reducing the number of councils—always clashes with local resistance.

With these elements, the question isn't whether €45,000 is too much or too little. It's why the same debate ignites only when the protagonist carries a particular party acronym.