 |
| Councillor Nick Adey opened the door to a discussion on upcoming council salary increases on Monday night |
They're not there just yet, but within weeks and with one final vote on an amendment, Prince Rupert City Council will seemingly be voting to accept the recommendations of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Select panel on council compensation.
The telegraphing of Council's apparent positive inclinations coming as part of Monday's City Council session which for the most part was dedicated towards Budget issues.
The discussion on the salary increases came following its introduction by Councillor Nick Adey who wanted to hear some of the thoughts on the issue from those around the Council chamber, unleashing a fourteen minute review of some of the frustrations of some of the council members as they work on our behalf and how their civic duties have impacted on their quality of life.
The conversation around the Council chamber also provided for many different views towards supporting the theme that the salary increases will help to attract a wider cross section of talented candidates to office and to offer support for the preservation of democracy.
Part of the focus for the discussion came from Councillor Cunningham who spoke at length on the work requirements of the Mayor and how he's not paid extra for his out of town work, as well as how the per Diem's do not cover the kind of expenses that come from that level of travel.
Mr. Cunningham also observed as to how the Mayor was in effect running a city with a budget of 35 to 40 million dollars and suggested that people look at what managers of companies with similar budgets make and how they will find that the corporate executives make significantly more than the Mayor does.
Towards the theme of the proposed salary increases, Mr. Cunningham observed:
"Anyone that says that he doesn't deserve his wage, or we don't deserve ours, I'll gladly let them walk in my shoes for a week and see, but I have not problem with what's been proposed"
To frame the debate, it should be noted that the City's Chief Financial Officer noted that while the salary increases were included as part of the Budget that Council discussed on Monday evening, there will be the need for an amendment at a future council session before the increases will be formally approved.
 |
| The Mayor's Select Committee on salary compensation delivered their findings and recommendations in February |
As we noted last month, the Mayor's committee had recommended the following for action from City Council when it comes to salary increases and addressing a lost Tax break from Revenue Canada.
Retain the Mayor's position as full time, though no full review was conducted related to the position, as it was beyond the scope of the committees terms of reference.
Update the Mayor and Council salary structure to include annual salary adjustments as per the bylaw of 1994. As well, with Council not having taken a wage increase since 2014, they recommended that no wage freezes be taken by council going forward.
Address the lost tax exemption change from the Canada Revenue Agency, by increasing the adjusted salaries to result in the same after tax net income as would have been found under the previous taxation rules.
Set a Gross salary level of $75,000 for the Mayors position and set a Gross Salary level for Council at 25 percent of the Mayor's salary listed as $18,750. The effect to the budget for those changes will be $55,600.
Create a two tier Per Diem schedule dependent on travel destinations
Tier One -- Vancouver, Lower Mainland, Whistler and Victoria with a $100 Per Diem for full day of travel, $50 for half day
Tier Two -- All other areas in British Columbia with an $80 dollar Per Diem for full day of travel and $40 dollars per day for half days .
For the majority of the Council membership, the theme was one of those findings being considered a fair review of the situation, with many noting the sacrifices that they as a Council make towards their duties as elected representatives.
You can explore some of the range of their opinions from our Council Timeline here, some of the key takeaways from the Council membership when it comes to the salary issues included the following observations:
"People have said to me, that the reason they don't mind the notion that we would implement increased salaries, is that's how they see attracting competition for elections, for elected positions which is good, that's what democracy is all about and that it will result in opening that up to more people being interested in it" -- Councillor Nick Adey
"The increase we're getting, it's going to help some people, but in most cases it's not going to become a full time job for anyone. If anyone is young and wants to make a career out of politics then I suggest they go to a higher level than municipal politics, because you're not going to get rich doing it, it's a good stepping stone to get up there ... you spend a lot of time doing it and in some cases you're working seven days a week, you know we're on the job wherever we are" -- Councillor Barry Cunningham
"People of all walks of life should be able to represent their community ... it doesn't make it for a fair democracy for our community so for me I'd like to see more young candidates and more of those who have the great ideas that might be able to solve the futures problems and kind of change the shape of our community" -- Councillor Reid Skelton-Morven
"It's a small increase, some people may not feel its small but I do, I do feel that its small and I feel that the committee has put forward some good numbers, and I do feel that Mr. Thompson was right when he said that if people are able to do it financially then you will maybe get a better group of people that are willing to run because they don't want to just sacrifice for themselves" -- Councillor Wade Niesh
For his part, Councillor Randhawa chose to await the final vote on the amendment before he will share his thoughts on the topic, while Mayor Brain and Councillor Mirau offered no contributions to the discussion on the night.
A few of the themes expressed by Council members do raise a few questions however, the first comes from the observation from Councillor Skelton-Morven how this issue happened while this council was put in office, which is not quite correct.
The members of the previous Council were more than aware of the twin issues of the Revenue Canada decision to remove the benefit and the end of the Mayor's full time pay provision for more than a year.
And it really was an issue that should have been addressed by the last Council before the October civic election.
A more engaged approach for the public would have been to have the Blue Ribbon committee consult the residents of the community on the themes of the salary proposals last summer, then provide for a list of recommendations that the public could have voted on during the election period of October.
The three options could have included a remain where we are option, as well as two or three other options of a varying increase to salary structure, as well a public vote would have put the decision to make the Mayor's position and salary that of a full time job in the hands of the public.
As it is, council should they approve the recommendations will have now decided to make the Mayor's job a full time career on two occasions, in both instances without consulting the public to offer endorsement of that decision that the position should be one of full time duties, with full time pay.
Most importantly had they tackled this last year, the salary question would have been addressed before those seeking a seat for council in October stood for election, giving them the guidance they would need to decide if the financial options for the job were indeed going to meet their expectations.
By addressing the issue as they have with a review following the election, the recommendations now will go into place at the start of their new four year mandate and with them all safely in their seats for the full length of that term if they wish.
Towards the travel issues, the decision to attend the range of meetings that civic officials choose to attend is up to the Council membership, a process that at one time had Council have to hold a public vote to approve such kind of travel to see if it was warranted.
It should also be noted that unlike many other communities across Canada, Prince Rupert does not post any kind of comprehensive listing of their travels, let alone their spending on out of town trips, leaving those journeys very much an unexplored element of their work and something that honestly could use a little more transparency.
The idea that just adding to the salary deposits every two weeks will generate better candidates is also somewhat of an unknown, and some may point to events at both the provincial and federal levels of government of late as evidence to the contrary.
Forums where the pay is as Mr. Cunningham noted much better, but as we've seen at times, is perhaps not the best example to showcase how more money brings out the best candidates for the job.
And while we can understand the frustration of a loss of quality of life and time spent on civic duties, it's not really clear how any increase in compensation would address that sense of lost time with family or the constant approaches of those who elected the council members.
Most residents probably have no concerns over addressing some of the elements that the Blue Ribbon Panel outlined in its report, though they probably also would have liked to have been better consulted on the issue prior to the final results which seem to be on the cusp of being accepted by Council.
It was not indicated by the City's Financial Officer on Monday evening when that final vote on the salary issue will take place, but when it does we will hear from Councillor Randhawa who deferred his comments until the final vote. It will also provide Mayor Brain and Councillor Mirau one final opportunity to provide for their thoughts on the topic if they wish.
And of course, it will provide those who participated in Monday's discussion one more chance to share some more comments on the theme as well.
As for any potential public push back, considering the somewhat tepid response of the Budget process itself where only four residents spoke to any budget concerns, as well as a voter turnout in October where only 30 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot; there seems little indication that any issue is going to catch the attention of the public.
Something which is more of an issue for the public to reflect on and how the growing lack of interest in municipal affairs can have an impact that many may not have even given much thought about.
The twenty minute review of the salary debate is well worth watching and you can do so from the City's Video Archive starting at the thirty four minute mark.
You can also travel back through the last few months to review the Council approach to the salary increase from our archive page here.
Further notes related to Monday's Council session can be found on our Council Timeline, while a wider overview of Council discussion themes is available here.
Cross posted from the North Coast Review
No comments:
Post a Comment