After two federal convictions of City Councilmembers in the last few years, the time may at last be ripe for some important changes at City Hall.

According to recent polling data, the voters of Dallas support a proposed City ethics commission, but may also finally be ready to back a more rational system of compensating those we elect to help govern our city. The idea that service on the City Council is a part-time avocation, analogous to sitting on a corporate board of directors with a minimal per-meeting stipend to match, has been obsolete for decades now.

Sign up for our newsletter

* indicates required

In the 21st century, in a city of over a million people and of enormous complexity and diversity, we ask our fellow citizens to manage city government effectively, and with scrupulous honesty, for 50 dollars a meeting. Anyone who takes on this job and does it the way it should be done will tell you it’s a 40- to 60-hour weekly commitment, under constant scrutiny and criticism. Sure, they asked for the job, but it’s a very important one that someone (hopefully, someone intelligent and honest) has to do. If the old adage that you get what you pay for is true, we’re lucky to get as dedicated a group as we have at City Hall right now.

Many of us have believed for years that a city this big and complicated needs to pay its Councilmembers at least enough to live modestly on — either that, or maybe we should get real and lower our expectations of them, but I’ll bet not many of us would want to do that. It sounds righteously civic-minded to say that Councilmembers should serve essentially for free, out of a sense of civic duty, but the way things are now, the pool of people able to serve is severely limited by the need to run a business or otherwise make a living.

Just about every other city in the same size range as Dallas pays its councilmembers to take on this heavy responsibility, and it’s about time we did, too. The flip side of this, it’s fair to say, is that the same citizens in the poll who voiced support for Council pay also wanted to see the City beef up its ethics rules. A majority of the Council now appears to be supportive of a City ethics commission in some form, along with more detailed financial disclosure statements.

There is some concern, probably legitimate, that the ethics commission could turn into another forum for a few cranks to make wild personal accusations about legitimate policy disagreements. However, a commission would be worth having, not just in and of itself, but also to strengthen what John Locke called the “social contract” between the people and their elected representatives.

In other words, fair is fair — most people appear to realize that service on the Council is a difficult job with a lot of responsibility and, inevitably, criticism, calling for a lot of time away from your family and your business, and it should be compensated fairly. At the same time, the same citizens appear to believe that, in return, City government should have a more formal and open ethics and disclosure system.

All in all, that’s probably a fair and sensible stance. Next time the City puts a Charter amendment package together, the hope here is that, with a stronger ethics and disclosure system in place, reasonable Council pay will be on the ballot and the voters will support it.