We can relate to those critics who argue it’s a little unorthodox to be switching the mayor’s job description from part-time to full-time in mid-term.

After all, current Mayor Lary Coppola — like all of Port Orchard’s previous mayors — knew what the job entailed when he ran for it, and we’re very big on personal responsibility.

On the other hand, anyone who sincerely wants to hold him to that standard is either expecting the city will continue to receive full-time service in return for part-time compensation or simply doesn’t care.

But since we subscribe to neither of those views, we’re taking the practical position that recalculating the package is worth doing even it means doing so on the fly.

What we do take issue with are the excuses offered up by the relatively few dissenters to the latest formula proposed to fund the mayor’s increased compensation.

Voting against a plan to draw the money from a combination of street, water-sewer and stormwater budgets, City Councilman Fred Chang, for example, argued the public should be allowed more input on the matter.

We’re all for public input, and we routinely support anything that puts tax increases or other major expenditures to a vote.

But in this case, the mayor’s raise requires neither. It simply shifts money from some other area of the city’s budget, and presumably those are the sorts of decisions city council members are elected to make.

As for more input, every council meeting sets aside time for public comment. How much more palavering do we need?

Ironically, even Chang and fellow Councilman Fred Olin, the other consistent dissenter, agree Port Orchard needs a full-time mayor — and a salary to match. They just take issue with how it’s being handled.

And we agree the details in this case are little inconvenience. But just this once, couldn’t we be a little less obsessed with the process and a little more so with the actual results?