questioned

Staff Writer

Union City Council's finance committee will propose an ordinance cutting the mayor's salary nearly in half, according to chairman Fran Bailey.

The committee met Wednesday to hear public comments on the proposed reduction of the mayor's annual salary from $103,545 to $56,000. The proposed package includes the actual salary ($48,000), a car allowance ($5,400) and a phone allowance ($1,800) as well as the other benefits received by city personnel.

The change was recommended by the committee and approved by council in August. Before it can become law, however, it must be approved by council in the form of an ordinance. Mrs. Bailey said Wednesday's meeting was to allow the public to comment on the change before the committee presents the ordinance to council.

Three people spoke Wednesday, including mayoral candidates Zari Rice and Torance Inman. Rice asked how the committee arrived at the $56,000 figure. Mrs. Bailey replied the salary was designed to allow the mayor to work full-time for the city. She said that in seeking to determine what a livable salary would be, the committee looked at salaries around the state and came up with the figure.

While he favors reducing the mayor's salary, Rice expressed concerns about the possible reason for the reduction. He raised the possibility that it was being cut in reaction to the activities of ex-mayor Bruce Morgan. He said that Morgan's actions should have no bearing on what his successor's salary will be.

Morgan resigned on July 17 just hours before he and city building and zoning director Jeff Lawson were indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiring to accept kickbacks from contractors seeking to do business with the city. The two pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy on Sept. 16 and are awaiting sentencing.

David Fant asked if there had been any crisis in the running of the city recently. He pointed out that even though Acting Mayor Harold Thompson is only working part-time and there is no administrator, the city seems to be running smoothly. He said that in light of this he felt there was no need for the city to have either a full-time mayor or administrator.

Fant noted that there are five cities with populations ranging from 7,000 to 10,000 like Union. He said Laurens and Georgetown have part-time mayors earning salaries of $7,200 and $7,500, and budgets of $5.8 million and $30.5 million, respectively.

Given that Union is running as smoothly as it is with a part-time mayor, Fant said he felt the mayor's salary could be reduced to $7,200-$7,500. He added that with the utility director and department heads doing such a great job he doesn't know why the city would need an administrator.

Inman said that comparisons with other cities could be made all day long but that in the final analysis Union is unique. He pointed out that four years ago the people of Union voted for a strong mayor and the elimination of the administrator's position. The current system has worked well since then, Inman said, and he urged the committee to proceed with establishing a salary commensurate with the mayor's duties.

Mrs. Bailey said that based on the comments presented at Wednesday's hearing, the committee stands by its recommendation of a $56,000 a year salary for mayor and will present it to council for approval on Tuesday. If council approves it, a special meeting for second and final reading will be held on Oct. 28.

The change of salary will take effect after the election of a new mayor on Nov. 4.

The committee did not meet or hold a public hearing on the proposal before presenting it to council in August. Mrs. Bailey said she and fellow committee member Ricky Harris did not meet or vote on the matter because council members determined it through a series of one-on-one conversations.

Their actions 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 “this spirit” of the law “to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.”

Mrs. Bailey denied this in August, saying she believed it only applies to a quorum of council and there was no quorum until council met when she offered her opinion on the salary in the form of a motion which was seconded and approved unanimously by council. On Wednesday, Mrs. Bailey reiterated her belief that no violation of the law had occurred.