Ever had your pay doubled 9 months into a job? Fort Worth council’s request boggles the mind

Picture it: You’ve been on the job for less than a year. You march into the boss’ office and request that he or she more than double your salary.

And you do so knowing that a few years ago, the boss said no to a smaller increase for the same position.

That’s essentially what the Fort Worth City Council did last week. Give council members points for boldness, we suppose. But they have a heckuva sales job ahead with the voters.

The underlying concern is not misplaced. The mayor makes $29,000 a year, council members $25,000. With a city manager and his staff running government, City Council positions shouldn’t be a full-time job. But between meetings and constituent concerns, they essentially are.

This proposal is flawed for several reasons, though. Most prominently, the requested increases are so large that they appear extravagant, especially amid so much economic uncertainty. The mayor’s pay would jump to nearly $100,000, an increase of 244%. Council members would make nearly $77,000, more than double the current pay.

The cost to the city would be around half a million dollars annually, factoring in two new council seats to be added in redistricting. The city spends hundreds of millions every year, so it’s not about affordability. It’s about propriety.

The ballot measure that voters will consider in May also includes a mechanism for ongoing raises. Salaries would be indexed to half of what certain department leaders make.

That’s no way to do the public’s business. Council members should have to go on record about increasing their pay. If indexing really makes sense, tie pay to the median city employee’s wages, not top leadership.

The timing is also bad for this council to recommend such dramatic increases. Two-thirds of members are new to the job after last year’s elections. The pay increase request is one of the most visible things they’ve done so far.

At last week’s meeting, Mayor Mattie Parker said: “I think we’re worth it.” Maybe so, but it’ll take more than nine months in office to prove it.

A council-manager form of government presumes that council members will be like corporate directors, executing the responsibility to oversee the CEO without working full-time at it. In modern big cities, that’s no longer realistic. When constituents are hoppin’ mad about a street or garbage collection, guess who they often call?

And good council members spend a lot of time collecting input for projects, such as the city’s latest bond proposal. The passion over the Forest Park Pool is a prime example; it surely took plenty of time-consuming conversations for District 9 council member Elizabeth Beck to help craft an outcome that satisfies residents.

Low salaries mean that only council members with other means of income can serve. It limits the pool of potential members to the independently wealthy, business owners with staff to run their companies, or those whose spouses earn enough to compensate for low council pay. It’s not unreasonable for an elected position to include a realistic livable wage.

It’s also worth examining whether council members need more help addressing their districts’ needs. Each has a district director, but perhaps a second staffer would reduce the burden of serving.

In 2016, Fort Worth voters soundly rejected raises to $45,000 for council members and $60,000 for the mayor. What are the chances that enough feel differently after years of wage stagnation and a pandemic that killed so many jobs and businesses?

If the council can persuade voters to go for even bigger raises now, it’ll be a salary negotiation coup for the ages.