The problem was, council members were wary of public backlash should they simply vote themselves raises of more than 20 percent per year. So they cooked up a complicated scheme in which some of the added compensation would be disguised as "car allowances" of $900 per month for the mayor and $600 per month for other council members. Then, in an even more devious effort to avoid the appearance of self-dealing, the 2002 plan called for tying City Council pay, then and forever, to the salaries of Clark County commissioners, whose wages are set by the Legislature.

The idea was that every time Carson City OK'd a pay hike for the county commissioners, City Council members would enjoy automatic pay hikes to 90 percent of the new county level. Then, should anyone ask why they were raising their own pay, council members could do their best Alfred E. Neuman impressions: "Me? I had nothing to do with it. It's all automatic!"

The scheme foundered. Five years passed. Now, a new proposal circulating at City Hall would boost City Council salaries by 52 percent and more than double the mayor's salary, while officially turning the mayoralty into a full-time job.

A slightly more modest "car allowance" provision has returned: $500 a month for council members and $600 a month for the mayor.

And that mechanism to tie City Council salaries to those of the County Commission, thus allowing council members to insist they're as shocked as anyone when they wake up to find those raises under their pillows every couple of years?

Why, lookee there. That's back, as well.

The increases would be staggered as council elections take place. By 2009, City Council pay (now $45,400) would climb to $69,247. In 2010 it would reach $72,007.

The mayor's salary, meanwhile, would be pegged at 180 percent of a City Council salary -- $124,644 in 2009, more than double the mayor's current base pay of $59,657.

Under the proposal, the mayor would be barred from seeking outside employment, though council members could still keep their day jobs.

An ordinance raising the salaries is on the council's Wednesday agenda. But the measure most likely will be referred to a subcommittee to wait out public reaction before scheduling a vote.

Council members deserve some credit for broaching the subject in the light of day. And the provision that would bar any current office holder from enjoying a raise till a new election had intervened is wise and necessary.

There's no doubt the city -- and the responsibilities of the council -- have grown. If council members can make a convincing case that salaries should be much higher, they might find voters more receptive than they expect.

The best option would be to put the proposed pay hikes to the voters -- though without the "automatic escalator" link to county salaries, which voters should reject out of hand.

Failing that, if the council members are convinced they deserve bigger paychecks, fine. Let them make the case to their constituents, vote accordingly, and take the heat.