If Mansfield (or any city) starts paying council members, voters deserve a clear heads-up

Voters tend to be suspicious when it comes to elected officials and their pay.

So, when Mansfield quietly started paying City Council members, it was likely to cause a stir. Add in that the city manager directed the pay to his bosses, relying on a decades-old part of the city charter. And the staff didn’t make the payments clear in budget documents. Mansfield residents have reason to question what’s going on at City Hall.

It’s not that $1,000 a month per council member is an extravagant salary. And it’s not that it represents a significant part of the city’s $87.5 million budget for the current fiscal year. It’s the appearance, accurate or not, of possible underhanded dealing to pay someone without the public realizing it.

Some of the confusion stems from the city’s charter. In 1975, voters approved a change that allowed the City Council to set a salary for members. It was further amended in 1979, apparently to clarify that the mayor qualified, too. It appears that the council never set a pay rate or took a salary, and in recent years, City Manager Joe Smolinski urged them to adopt the $1,000 per month stipend.

So, the payments are perfectly legal. The problem is that voters should always have a say in — or at least be clearly made aware of — new or changed payments to elected officials. The charter amendments were approved at a time when Mansfield was a community of about 8,000 people. The population is now estimated at 77,000. It’s safe to say that few of those people were around for any discussion or vote on paying their council members.

It’s problematic, too, for the city manager to determine his bosses’ pay. Council members should have at least discussed the issue in an open forum.

Smolinski told Editorial Board member Bud Kennedy in an email that he pushed the council to accept the pay because of increasing demands of the job that add up to “thousands of hours, collectively” to govern the city.

“Over the past few years, the amount of time spent away from their families and careers has increased dramatically,” Smolinski wrote, noting the addition of “subcommittee meetings, training opportunities and educational tours.”

The city manager is right about this: Public servants deserve some compensation for their time and efforts. Their legitimate job expenses should be covered. It’s not a full-time job, and it should not be paid as such. After all, council members are supposed to defer much of the city’s governance to the professional manager and his or her staff. But a decent salary can help enable more people to serve.

Is $1,000 a month right? Neighboring Arlington pays council members $2,400 a year and the mayor $3,000, and it’s five times Mansfield’s size. Smaller cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area offer no pay at all.

It’s ultimately for voters to decide. Consider Fort Worth, where council members have tried twice in six years to win voter approval for a handsome full-time salary and twice, voters have said no.

Smolinski is right, too, when he says that accusations of criminal behavior on the council’s behalf are way overblown. But some will reach that conclusion when new compensation is slipped in without much notice or discussion.

The charter issue doesn’t leave voters much recompense, unless they want to demand a new election. Smolinksi has promised in future budget presentations to make the salaries clear. Perhaps the council should schedule a discussion so that they, not the city manager, make the decision on the amount.

And then, voters can decide how and whether to hold them accountable, as it always should have been.