One year ago, our mayor got schooled.

It happened during closed session of a City Council meeting last September, as Anthony Foxx and council members were discussing compensation for City Manager Curt Walton and City Attorney Mac McCarley. Foxx had publicly frowned on giving Walton a raise or bonus in a difficult budget year, but about halfway through the discussion, he was surprised to learn that he wouldn't get to vote on the matter.

That news came from McCarley, who told Foxx the city charter said the mayor's official responsibilities didn't include voting on those salaries. Problem was, the previous mayor, Pat McCrory, had voted on the city manager's pay at least twice.

Foxx was understandably peeved. He growled that "rules can't be interpreted depending on who is mayor." He protested that "It smells funny" and warned of a "penalty to pay" if his exclusion from the vote was unwarranted. But ultimately, Foxx chose the non-confrontational path that has marked his tenure, saying he would need to gather facts before, ultimately, letting the pay increases pass.

Now, the mayor is sending a message that he won't get schooled again. He called a public meeting Monday to discuss how Walton's evaluation would be handled this year. Usually, such meetings about performance are held in closed session, with the vote on compensation being held in public. On Monday, no decisions were made, but a message was sent: Foxx plans on having a voice.

That's good on a couple of levels. Foxx was right last year in opposing raises during a budget crisis. The city had cut pay raises and bonuses for all city employees in the previous fiscal year, and although Walton argued that he was underpaid compared with other city managers, a harsh budget climate is not the time to seek remedies. The mayor should remind the council of that when it considers Walton's compensation in the weeks ahead.

We're also encouraged that Foxx appears more ready to stand behind his words. When taken by surprise last year, Foxx should've done what his predecessor did - vote on the raise. Then he could let everyone sort out whether he was supposed to. Or, if he felt as strongly as he said he did, he could have used his veto.

In Charlotte's "weak mayor" system, the mayor doesn't hire or fire anyone or run city departments, and he doesn't vote on most council issues. That means most of a mayor's power comes from a bully pulpit, and even that loses some oomph if the mayor doesn't reach for the other big tool in the toolbox: the veto.

How often has this mayor done so? Foxx has threatened vetos, but the first also happened to come Monday, when Foxx briefly vetoed a City Council vote allowing developers to keep fewer trees when building single-family-home subdivisions.

Foxx rightly agreed with the Stormwater Advisory Committee and others who feel loosening those rules gives in to the kind of cut-first mentality that threatens stream waters and the buffering and filtering capacity of trees. To developers who argued that rolling back the rules affects a small fraction of city land, Foxx said he didn't know why the rules needed to be changed if they had so little impact.

Political cynics and the pander-weary will note that Foxx's newfound boldness happens to coincide with the approach of the biennial Charlotte mayoral election. Perhaps, or it could be a sign of a maturing officeholder who is growing comfortable with the role. There will be times we disagree with the stands he takes, but Charlotte elected its mayor to have a voice. It's good that Foxx seems to be finding his.