Chris Hollins should question Whitmire Fire Department deal.

If there’s one lesson Houstonians have learned from their years of financial mismanagement at City Hall, it’s that skepticism is a virtue.

Former Mayor Lee Brown learned this the hard way. In 2001, Brown supported state legislation that would increase benefits for municipal workers. The pension boards assured Brown that the investments would generate a considerable return on investment to pay for benefits, provided the city contributed about 15 to 20 percent of its payroll each year.

If only it was true. It turns out that an actuarial firm hired by the pension funds was extremely optimistic in its cost estimates. By the time Sylvester Turner became mayor in 2016, taxpayers were saddled with nearly $8 billion in unfunded pension obligations and the city faced bankruptcy if it didn’t find a solution. Mayor Turner led pension reform through the Legislature in 2017, which, combined with earlier renegotiation of police and municipal benefits, put Houston and its pensions on a stable path to recovery .

Houston should avoid such mistakes at all costs. That’s why, as we find ourselves faced with another complex deal with profound financial implications – Mayor John Whitmire’s $650 million deal with the fire department for back pay and raises – we are pleased that there is a voice within city government that reviews the deal and asks nagging questions until they get an answer.

It’s Comptroller Chris Hollins’ job to act as a watchdog over the city’s finances. In our opinion, this is his obligation even in situations where his technical responsibilities are rather limited.

Hollins, who must certify part of the collective agreement before the council voted to approve it, Whitmire urged last week to pump the brakes. He sent the mayor a 10-page letter containing 44 questions about the deal.

Whitmire, a longtime union ally as a state senator, campaigned to end the impasse over firefighters’ compensation and he quickly delivered on his promise. Firefighters have been working without a contract for too long and deserve adequate pay, benefits and stability for their families.

The only problem is that we still don’t know how we’re going to pay for it. Even if the bond agreed to by both parties – which the City Council approved last week by a 14-3 vote – spreads the financial hardship over 25 to 30 years, the sum will likely exceed $1 billion with interest.

Whitmire asks us to trust that he will understand this. We’d certainly like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the city is already facing a $187 million deficit, a deficit that will only grow after Council approves a $6.6 billion budget. The city is considering dipping into its cash reserves to make them deficit for the next fiscal year, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

Enter Hollins, a first-term comptroller whose political ambitions, including a brief run for mayor, might lead some to look askance at his delay in signing the agreement.

Whitmire told us both sides were working Thursday evening to allay the comptroller’s concerns and answer his questions. Yet Whitmire maintains that Hollins’ only legal obligation in this process is to certify that the city has the funds to pay the $6.5 million the fire union owes for legal fees.

“The only area he can really speak to is the $6.5 million,” Whitmire told the editorial board Friday. “He has to certify that we have it, which we do.”

As of Friday evening, it was unclear where Whitmire and Hollins stood in their own conversations. They couldn’t even agree on whether they agreed or not.

Friday afternoon, Dylan McGuinness of the Chronicle reported that Whitmire informed the city council that Hollins planned to certify the contract by the agreed-upon deadline of June 19. In a press release published To the media Friday evening, Hollins denied this, saying “the mayor does not speak for me or my office,” and that he has not yet made a decision.

Reasonable jurists may disagree about Hollins’ specific role in certifying the deal — the comptroller told us he was seeking his own legal counsel on that front — but it appears to us that he is simply his job trying to police Houston’s taxpayers.

Hollins pesters city for clarification on specific provisions of agreement will only help inform Council members’ decision to approve it. Hollins told us he was trying to get to the bottom of a deal negotiated behind closed doors.

“It’s my job to provide transparency and the city council’s job to vote on the merits of the deal,” Hollins told us Thursday. “But they have to understand it first. The information has to be made available.”

Hollins’ main sticking point with the deal is what’s called an “escalator clause,” which states the city will give firefighters a 10 percent raise in the next fiscal year, with additional increases planned over the next four years. Depending on how much additional revenue the city can generate in coming years, those future increases could range from 24 percent to 34 percent — a difference that Hollins said amounts to about $120 million. As the June 19 deadline approaches, Hollins believes both parties should add specific conditions — such as an exact figure for how much revenue the city would need in its general fund — that would trigger higher increases. We believe this is a reasonable concern and should in no way derail the deal.

The mayor may have gotten the best possible deal for taxpayers – he argues that taxpayers could have paid much more if both sides had gone to trial. But forgive us if we don’t take his word for it. The mayor, too, should be grateful for the extra pair of eyes. It’s usually better to spell out the fine print of a good deal than to endorse a bad one.