Should/Could Commissioners Receive Benefits?

UPDATE 5/9/08: Corpus NBC affiliate, KRIS-TV, reports:

Results Of Texas City Charter Survey Show Large Differences

CORPUS CHRISTI-A charter review committee recently conducted a survey comparing Corpus Christi's city charter to dozens of other Texas cities. The purpose of the survey was to determine if any changes need to be made as far as how much the mayor is paid and whether or not council members should get health insurance.

Here is the link to the spreadsheet info they compiled. I took the liberty of adding Brownsville data to it for the sake of comparison and contrast.



--.--.--

So, as all have no doubt read, a literal interpretation of the City's Charter with regards to compensation and benefits won out.

And at the end of the day, that's a good and correct thing. The City's attorney(s) even concurs:

Mark Sossi, the attorney representing city officials said, "I think the public wins when there is clarity on the issue."

What's disappointing is that it took this long for clarity to settle in. Again.

Aside from the benefits imbroglio, City Charter (mis)interpretation has been a recurring theme with this city commission for a while. To wit:

• July 3, 2007 - the commission "passes" a mandatory $2 PUB tax for all customers by MINORITY vote, when they clearly needed a majority to get it through.
• October 2, 2007 - the Mayor attempts to have the commission acknowledge him as PUB's appointment to the CIAC, when according to city charter & resolution, PUB has no appointing authority.
• October 18, 2007 - PUB board insurgents willfully ignore the term limits of its members, limits established by city charter, and proceed with an ILLEGAL meeting without a quorum.
• April 1, 2008 - a sitting commissioner appoints his brother to serve on the Charter Review Committee, violating the nepotism clause of the very same charter.

But back to commission benefits: Now that supplemental benefits have been ruled as not provided for in the Charter, can an honest discussion on their merits & faults begin?

JUST WHAT IF the newly-formed Charter Review Committee deliberated on supplemental compensation or even (gasp!) salaries for commissioners? There exists the gripe that more-qualified (a relative term) folks don't run for these spots. Would salaries for these spots draw out better candidates, and thusly better leaders? If salaries are put in place, would the level of compensation preclude commissioners from holding second jobs? Should there even EXIST a preclusion of second jobs (e.g. the County Commissioners).

These are tough questions, but I see the Charter Review Committee as capable of deliberating and promoting answers to them.

Votes? Thoughts? Comments?

Here's a poll for starters: