Arlington鈥檚 mayor and city council may ask residents to change the way they鈥檙e paid for the first time in nearly 45 years in next year鈥檚 charter amendment election.
, the city's charter has specified that council members make $200 a month and the mayor $250 a month.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $200 in 1980 had the today. The mayor's compensation of $250 in 1980 would have the same buying power today as nearly $1,000, according to the BLS.
Barbara Odom-Wesley, council member for District 8, said she doesn鈥檛 think now is the right time to ask voters to give them a raise, but they could ask voters to take council and mayor compensation out of the charter. She proposed giving the city council the ability to change their pay by ordinance.
鈥淚 feel like the temperature is not right now to look at increasing compensation for council members and you wouldn鈥檛 have another opportunity for two years, and I also think that it鈥檚 very specific to be included in the charter,鈥� Odom-Wesley said Tuesday afternoon during a city council work session.
Odom-Wesley said many cities don鈥檛 have compensation in their charter but decide by ordinance or have it as a budget line. Giving the council and mayor the ability to set compensation by ordinance would mean voters don't get a say each time but would also mean the council and mayor could lower their pay without voter approval in years when the budget is tight.
Changing the language in the charter would allow the council and mayor to set their own compensation without asking voter permission. That could mean setting it to nothing or giving themselves a raise.
Mayor Jim Ross said an amendment like that would simplify the process, but several members raised concerns during the work session about taking the decision away from taxpayers. Several feared that future councils might be 鈥渟elf-serving鈥� and give themselves inappropriate raises.
鈥淚 do have worry about just giving free reign to future councils,鈥� Bowie Hogg, the councilman for District 7, said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think this should ever be a full-time job, because the moment it becomes a full-time job you start meddling in stuff you shouldn鈥檛 meddle in.鈥�
Hogg asked City Attorney Molly Shortall if the council could put limitations in the charter, such as saying the compensation cannot exceed the average of a certain number of other cities.
That would be possible, he was told.
鈥淚t would mean that it would take it out of the voting process then,鈥� Rebecca Boxall, council member for District 5 said. 鈥淚 guess I wouldn鈥檛 have a preference, but it seems to me that the citizens might want it to be by ordinance rather than election.鈥�
Hogg said he thinks the council should be an unpaid position and even tried to decline taking the $200 a month pay when he was elected but was told he wasn't allowed to decline it because it was in the charter.
Odom-Wesley said she worries about access to the council without compensation. Working on the council can make it difficult, if not impossible, to have a regular full-time job.
That creates an economic barrier to running for office, something she said shouldn鈥檛 be the case, but she does agree that creating limitations would be wise.
She said changing the way council pay is set would mean it's "not a big hairy deal" any time the council wants to raise or lower that compensation.
She's nearing the end of her last term and looking for someone to encourage to run to replace her but has had difficulty because most people she's talked to in District 8 can't afford to lose out on pay from their current jobs.
"People who work full time, every day, they're almost eliminated from considering serving," Odom-Wesley said. "It limits your applicant pool and there are a lot of talented people, dedicated people who would be willing to serve but they can't afford to do so because they can't give up their full-time job, and you almost have to give it up."
Long Pham, council member for District 6, said he wouldn鈥檛 be opposed to asking voter permission to alter the way compensation is determined. Pham said he knew when he was running for office that he would have to give up his job to effectively serve on the council.
鈥淚 didn鈥檛 know the salary was $200 a month, but even it was $10 or $7, I would still be serving,鈥� Pham said. "If you don't want to run, don't run. If you want to run, that's the kind of sacrifice you have to do for the City of Arlington and the taxpayer."
Nikki Hunter, the council member who represents District 3, said she worries about taking the decision on council and mayor pay away from voters, but that the amendment should be sent to the people of Arlington for a vote anyway.
鈥淚 really feel we need to put it in the voters' hands, that鈥檚 just the right thing to do on there,鈥� Hunter said.
Odom-Wesley also asked council members to consider asking voters to amend the charter to remove gendered language. As it stands, the charter refers to the mayor and council member as males, including the title 鈥淐ouncilman.鈥�
While those pronouns and titles do not limit the ability of anybody to run for and hold office, Odom-Wesley said the charter鈥檚 language is outdated and would be a good chance to update that. She recommended changing gendered references to simply repeating the position and changing "councilman" to "councilor."
Ross said the proposed amendment would have to be carefully worded so it doesn鈥檛 seem like the council is wading into politicized discussions about gender and identity.
鈥淲e need to make sure we鈥檙e cautious,鈥� Ross told the council. "I want to make sure we're not painting a picture where people are like, 'oh, I'm not gonna be a part of that.' "
Mauricio Galante, District 1 council member, said the solution might be as simple as being blunt about the reason for the change: 鈥渇ixing the grammar in a charter written in 1912.鈥�
A charter amendment in 1980 said that references exclusively to men meant both men and women, but Odom-Wesley and Galante said they think updating the language throughout could make it clear that the city doesn't expect all mayors and council members to be male.
Mayor Jim Ross reminded the council that they don鈥檛 have to make a decision about any charter amendments until Jan. 28. That would be the last chance the council has to amend the charter for two years.
