Rhino's Ramblings - Council's Pay Increase
By Robert Thomas - Opinion/Commentary
It came in as a couple of questions regarding the review of Council’s remuneration and that is – Does Council have to accept any recommendations from the three member committee reviewing their pay and benefits?
And secondly, even if this Council does pass the recommendations and accept what is expected by many to to be recommendations to significantly increase Council's pay and benefits could a subsequent Council vote to reverse them?
The answer to the first question is a definite no.
Council does not have to accept any of the recommendations coming from the special three member council remuneration committee.
They can decide not to endorse any recommendations and leave their pay and benefits the way they are.
Council could for instance decide that since a motion was previously defeated to increase the Mayor's car allowance from $100 to $500 per month that they are not going to allow for any increase no matter what the committee may recommend.
Additionally if the recommendations come back endorsing significant increases in pay and benefits Council could, and may be wise to, opt for a lower package or scrap the entire exercise as too expensive given the state of the local economy which let's face it has been battered fairly heavily the past few years.
The economic boom is over and by all indicators it may not be returning in the near future either.
The provincial government has been running an austerity campaign and many local businesses as well as their employees are suffering. The question may well be asked is it wise for Council to look for increases given the poor economic times?
Given the poor economic times, a recession engulfing Moose Jaw and it’s trading region (a fact committee member Greg McIntyre admitted to during a budget presentation) is it truly wise to review let alone ask for increases in pay and benefits by Council at this present time?
But then again is there ever a perfect time for any elected official at any level of government to ask for a pay and benefits review?
One needs to understand where this committee is seemingly heading and that is given the workload of our elected officials they just might deserve a raise.
It all sounds really fine and dandy until a person goes out and takes a look at the history of Council in Moose Jaw.
This is a city where in the past its electorate has on two separate occasions told Council to make due with only seven members. Once it was the cut from 10 to six aldermen and later in a referendum the City was told under no circumstances is the number of aldermen going to be increased back up to eight.
It is six aldermen or later the more politically correct term of councillors you have to work with.
This is where we get to the heart of the matter being asked by the three member committee and that is does a smaller Council have more time commitments demanding more money?
If you go back to those great debates of the past – and yes I can remember them – the biggest arguments to cut the number of aldermen and truthfully the spirit of the whole debate was as a cost saving measure. It was in simple terms to limit the amount spent on council members. It was not suppose to give the survivors an increase in pay,
I think if you take a good look at the issue it really comes down to is our local City Council appreciated and as such do they not only deserve a raise?
Council is a lot of work and effort there is no mistake in that but at the same time everyone who is on Council or running for election should hopefully be aware of this. If they did not then are they really the ones you want on board making multi-million dollar decisions?
There is the additional fact that if Council were to give themselves a big fat raise how can they then go ahead and deny the same thing for Administration and City workers with their out-stretched hands asking for the same thing?
How can the Mayor see or ask for a five-fold increase in his vehicle allowance? With that said is $100 per month a reasonable car allowance? Remember though a move from $100 monthly to $500 monthly is a 400 percent increase.
In the end of it all it is you the taxpayer who is being asked to foot any increased bill for pay and benefits given to our elected officials.
Now for the second question and that is could anyone running for Council in November offer to run on a platform to turn any wage and benefit increases back to where they were?
The answer to this question is YES.
They could even go further and let’s say even set the limits for free alcohol at taxpayer's expense. It appears most of present Council has imbibed in at least once at taxpayer's expense. Limits many tell me should be set at none just like provincial and federal elected officials or better yet just like City employees.
Will they be so brash to add such an ammendment? My answer to it is no. They simply are not that bold.
Although it is not set in stone, but given the comments made during Council, with all likelihood Council is set to readily endorse any recommendations the three member committee makes about remuneration and benefits.
It is a means to give yourself a raise at a time when it may not be particularly politically popular – if it ever is.
Council voting on any pay or benefit increase may well argue it is the next Council who reaps the benefits and the present group is not voting to give themselves what is technically a raise if they so choose to run again.
No I am not saying those on Council presently are going to be shoe-ins when it comes to re-election but if you look at the political literature and studies out there name recognition is a driving factor to being elected.
An industrious challenger might well run on a platform to immediately put forth a motion to roll back any wage and benefits the present seven around the Council chamber might well approve.
Have I heard any potential political candidate make mention of this? The answer is I have – now whether they run with it as part of their political platform is yet to be seen.
With the potential for this to become an election issue when the final report comes in from the three member committee Council might be well adivised to speak very carefully as anything they say on this issue may well come back to haunt them on November 9th - election day.
For those of you who want to have your voice heard on this issue you may do so until February 28th through an online survey available by clicking the link.
As an added note to this week’s column and to dismiss any rumours out there MJ Independent may not have the largest readership out there but we hold our own.
A couple of the people who drop in and read this humble publication from time to time happen to be bigger fish in the eastern media and as such they have encouraged me to enter one of my investigative series for a national journalism award.
After a lot of thought and reflection I decided to do so and can proudly say I made it past the vetting stage - that yes MJ Independent is considered media by the bigger media players out there - and as such have made it to the judges.
I won't know if I am a finalist until mid April but with that said even to get asked and encouraged to enter for me is recognition enough.
I will keep you updated.