For a number of years, it has been Council policy to pay the travel expenses of Council members' spouses to as many as three Council-related conferences per year. One of those would be here in Texas, the annual meeting of the Texas Municipal League, and two to the National League of Cities, which would be Washington, DC, in the spring and elsewhere in the fall.
 
That policy is currently under Council review and the Administrative Services Committee, until recently chaired by Council member Barbara Chick, has recommended that the city no longer pay for spousal travel. The new policy will be considered at the August 18 Regular Meeting and I expect it will be approved without comment or fanfare.

 
The city paying for spouses is the type of item that can get the immediate attention of citizens. At first blush it sounds like the abuse of taxpayer monies that has occurred in other cities.
 
When I first heard of the practice many years ago, I could not believe it. I didn't feel any better when I learned of one occasion in 2001 when it was sorely abused. A council member and his spouse essentially attempted to take a vacation at city expense. They traveled to the conference city but attended no meetings and reported local tour fees amounting to hundreds of dollars (I still have a copy of the expense report). Mayor Jim Spence would not approve it.
 
That one incident is the only one like it of which I'm aware. Within time and long before I was elected to the Council, I actually changed my mind and became supportive of the policy if kept within reason. I felt that Council members accompanied by their spouses were less likely to get in trouble and embarrass the city. Even one spouse can in effect chaperon several Council members. For all of us, Council or not, our spouses play important roles in our networking and socializing with others. Also, spouses are the ones that take the calls from constituents and write messages, give of themselves and their families when their partner is off at meetings and other functions, and generally do this and much more without any recognition or appreciation. Few cities do anything to recognize the contribution of the Council member's family. I doubt that most citizens would argue with those points and, if expenses were reasonable, would necessarily object.
 
The current policy allows reimbursement for airfare and meals. The city doesn't pay for children or extra rooms or anything else. Here is how much has been spent in recent years on spousal travel:
 

 
There has been $1,436 reimbursed this fiscal year and the year is drawing to a close. These are tough times but those aren't numbers that will close any budget gaps. It was estimated by the committee that if nine spouses attended two conferences each then the total for the year would be a maximum of about $13,000.
 
For me personally, I've come to be comfortable with the policy. I should also say that my wife has accompanied me to one conference; the expense for her airfare was less than $300. Whether the policy exists or not has no impact on our family finances. The existence of the policy would not be a factor deciding whether my wife would travel with me to a conference. There may be Council members in the future that won't have such options.
 
I assume I'll vote for the policy change, more than anything to close that door to abuse that has happened at least once here in Garland and being mindful of the travel abuse that has happened in other cities. But I can't help but wonder if the reason we've not had one of the scandals that regularly make headlines of politicians in faraway hotel rooms was because we've been much more sane about supporting involvement of the family.