Before you raise pay for councils, mayors in cities like Arlington, consider this
Recent media attention has raised the question of how community volunteers, elected to the office of mayor or the City Council, should be compensated.
While I have no objection to a level of pay needed to cover their public service expenses, the debate over paying them as full-time city employees should come with the realization that they are not the ones operating city facilities and delivering services for the citizenry.
City charters adopted by voters in a council-manager form of government – the structure of most of the urban cities in Texas – clearly separate the roles of the elected body from those of the professional management team.
Arlington’s charter, for example, prohibits the mayor and council members from interfering with the management of the city. Here’s what it says:
“Except for the purpose of inquiry, the governing body and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager and neither the governing body nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately.” (Emphasis added.)
What that means is that it is not the job of the mayor or council members to “run the city.”
Their role is something else. Their powers are limited and spelled out in the charter. The result is that the elected body’s duties are to interpret the will of the people of the community and direct the city manager to develop plans to meet those wants and needs.
Councils do that all the time in public work sessions, in formal and special meetings and through the boards and commissions they create and to which they appoint citizens to advise them.
Beyond ceremonial duties and participating in community events and activities where they engage citizens, there’s nothing more actually required of any council member.
In fact, deliberating or even discussing the public’s business anywhere but a public meeting of the council is prohibited by state law.
The mayor and council members can determine for themselves how much time, beyond those meetings, they wish to spend on the job. Looking back at actual practice over the years, that varies considerably, depending on what individual members decide for themselves.
That also sets up perfectly for people to serve the public while pursuing their own full-time private sector careers and jobs. It’s a good idea for candidates to first have the support of their families and business associates or employers. Or maybe they are self-employed or retired. In any event, they can arrange their schedules as they wish.
Paying these part-time politicians enough for that to be the reason they seek the office risks departing from the system and structure of local government that has worked so well among successful Texas cities.
Another peril that would surely come with high compensation is entirely predictable: Some would decide that they were indeed running the city and create conflicts with the professional managers who actually know what they are doing.
Remember, there are no qualifications for any experience required to get elected. With very few exceptions over history, people who win their races take seats at City Hall with almost no idea of how the daily work of the city is accomplished.
Considering the great number of candidates for the upcoming May elections in Arlington and Fort Worth, the current level of compensation doesn’t seem to be any kind of barrier to attracting those who would like to be mayor or members of the city councils.
Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor, served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency and lectures at UT Arlington.
