"I agree with the rationale for the motion," Cortese said, "but the fact of the matter is all employees have been working very hard for the last five years, and other employees are not receiving these pay increases."

The city attorney, city auditor, independent police auditor and the redevelopment agency's executive director will see the increases. Their current salaries are between $100,000 and $200,000, and the pay increases will cost the city a total of $53,306.

The city justified the raises by the fact that council appointees had not received a merit-based raise since fiscal year 2002-03.

City Manager Les White said one reason they were necessary was to stay competitive with the private sector.

"There is competition for highly qualified people in the private sector," White said. "I'm not saying salaries should be set at the same level, but when you have positions out there where persons can make double or triple the salaries, you have to look at reasonable adjustments."

Councilwoman Madison Nguyen agreed. "I think it's important that we have competitive salaries to retain qualified employees," she said. "We need to respect the work force not only from the bottom up but also from the top down."

However, the city labor alliance and the municipal employees federation of San Jose both spoke out against the raises.

"Giving a raise to council appointees during a time of budget cuts sends a bad message," said Erik Larsen, president of the municipal employees federation.

Tom Brim, from the city labor alliance, was also concerned with the message it would send to other city employees.

"I have a hard time supporting this when all my employees got a 1.5 percent raise, which we felt was fair at the time. But now they are finding out that council appointees will be getting a 5.25 percent raise."

This fiscal year, all city employees received a 1.5 per cent raise. The 5.25 percent raise approved for the appointees included that 1.5 percent.

Reed supported a lower raise.

"I think by all accounts our appointees deserve a raise," he said. "But I think the 1.5 percent is what is appropriate. We're into year No. 5 of budget shortfalls, and it's clear that we're going to be looking at shortfalls in year No. 6. Our council appointees are part of the group that has to take the hit."