Staff Writer

Union City Council did not follow state law Thursday when it voted to reduce the mayor's salary.

Council voted to reduce the mayor's salary from $103,545 to $56,000. The package, which will not take effect until a new mayor is sworn in after the November election, includes the actual salary ($48,800), a car allowance ($5,400) and a phone allowance ($1,800) as well as the other benefits received by city personnel.

According to state law, the salaries and expenses of mayor and council members are determined by council through ordinance. Thursday's vote was not to approve an ordinance but to approve a motion from council member Fran Bailey. City attorney Billy Whitney said this morning that the vote “probably should have been done by ordinance. I will tell council this so they'll have time to correct it before the November election.”

The change must be approved before the election to take effect when the new mayor is sworn in. The law states that an ordinance setting the salary for mayor and council will not take effect until after the start of the terms of two or more members of council elected at the next general election.

Mrs. Bailey said this morning that she and the other members of council knew that the change had to be made by ordinance and they fully intend to come back to do so. She said Thursday's vote was to let the public and the candidates running for mayor know what the salary will be when the new mayor takes office.

She said getting word out about the salary before an ordinance is passed gives the public a chance to consider it and give council feedback on whether it is acceptable. She said that once the council knows this it can go forward with the ordinance process.

Council must hold and approve two readings of an ordinance before it becomes law.

Finance Committee

The salary reduction was recommended by council's finance committee, comprised of Mrs. Bailey and councilman Rickey Harris. Questions have been raised, however, about how the committee arrived at its recommendation. Mrs. Bailey has been quoted as saying she and Harris did not meet or vote on the matter because council members determined it through a series of one-on-one conversations.

If so, their actions may have violated the Freedom Of Information Act. The section of the act governing meetings closed to the public states that “no chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication” may be used to circumvent “the spirit” of the law “to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.”

Mrs. Bailey rejected this, saying she believes the law applies only to a quorum of council and there was no quorum of council until Thursday morning when she offered her opinion on the salary in the form of a motion which was seconded and approved unanimously by council.

Council met on Monday in special session to discuss the possible hiring of an administrator. During the meeting, Mrs. Bailey said council went into executive session to discuss personnel and contractual matters.

During the executive session, Mrs. Bailey said council asked finance director Walker Gallman for information on the previous mayor's salary and the salary of the previous administrator. She said the purpose was to get information council would need to make a decision at a later date.

Mrs. Bailey said council did not discuss or vote on the mayor's salary during the executive session or when it returned to open session. Council did, however, advise her to come up with a number she felt was an appropriate salary for the mayor. No formal meeting of the finance committee were held, but Mrs. Bailey said council members speak with each other on a daily basis about a variety of topics and during those conversations, a consensus emerged as to what the salary should be. She said the converersations were both in person and over telephone. She said she also received input from the public about whether or not there should be an administrator and what the mayor's salary should be.

Based on that input, she said, she made her recommendation to council Thursday morning.

Harris said Mrs. Bailey asked his opinion and he gave it to her. He said he had spoken with some people in his district who had given him a wide range of salary options and he averaged them. He did not remember when Mrs. Bailey asked him his opinion but said the figure he gave her was over $50,000.

Harris said that in his opinion he feels no violation of the law occurred when he gave Mrs. Bailey the opinions of himself and his constituents.