By Brad Hodge
Published: Oct 11, 2014
Recently Coun. Raiser argued in a recent interview with the Reporter that councillors should probably take home close to $34,000 a year for their work, the idea being that increasing pay attracts more and better candidates. But does it work that way? I’ve spent three years thinking about this and increasingly I feel like the answer is probably not. In principle, the concept of increasing council pay is fairly reasonable. Politics at any level is a brutal business, but especially in a small town where the consequences can be very personal.
A person in the prime of their life working a decent job or running a business runs the risk of huge financial losses, especially if they alienate customers or business partners with their decisions.
And that’s to say nothing of the general stress of being under the withering scrutiny of the public eye, weathering the mudslinging and riding out controversy, all impacting the family you are now missing. Best of all, you get to beg for your seat every few years, publicly.
You could understand why any sane person would avoid the job. Thus, pay boosters argue, we need to increase the incentive, otherwise what we end up with are fewer and/or lesser quality candidates, or an overrepresentation of the wealthy and (semi) retired and an underrepresentation of young, working class/working age folk who are the majority.
Fair enough, but is more money the answer? Coun. Raiser says $30-34,000 a year would help, but remember: $34,000 is considerably less than the gross pay of an average Canadian. Would that be enough to motivate a top quality candidate in the prime of their career to give up that career and enter the no-holds-barred, uncertain world of politics? I doubt it.
Likely we’d need to be into six figures to make a dent. Could we really afford that? Let’s remember: this is, officially, a part time job. Further, high pay could also backfire and attract people out to line their pockets rather than serve their community. We’ve seen enough of that in Victoria and Ottawa.
And anyway, look at the present Council. Are we saying our seven men and women aren’t quality candidates? The cheekier among us might say yes, but I honestly don’t think so. Certainly I doubt some of their policies… but not their acumen. As to representation, there are a few wealthier than average councillors, and some that are to some degree retired. But nearly half aren’t. At any rate, pay wasn’t a detractor for Coun. Raiser’s several council runs, nor for the twenty-five other candidates (including myself) who ran in 2011.
In the end, perhaps keeping pay lower does the opposite of drive talent away: rather it may encourage only the most dedicated to step up.
Douglas R. Day says
Councillor Raiser has spent a significant amount
of his time on Council agitating for higher pay for himself
His wish is out of sync with the wishes of the people
Perhaps Councillor Raiser should put his feelings
to a Vote and make the main plank of
his Re-Election campaign, higher pay for himself and higher
Taxes on the good people of Squamish
to pay for his raise!?
DRD
Jon S. says
Agreed.
Corinne Lonsdale says
You are bang on Brad. It should be about serving your community….never about money. Serving as Mayor is pretty much full time but being a Councillor is not. You will not find an occupation classed as “Mayor” , “Councillor”, or any other term referencing an elected official. If it were an occupation Council members would pay employment insurance. Council members do not get a salary…they get a stipend. And as far as that goes, for a town our size, our Councillors are better compensated than most others. Do not forget that on top of the stipend that is 1/3 tax free that Councillors also have other benefits …full medical coverage and insurance.
I believe that cost is roughly $5000.00 per year. That along with the stipend is pretty good compensation in my opinion. I realize some members put in 20 plus hours per week but some only a few. Some don’t even read their packages before the Council meeting. I have seen some play computer games during the Council meetings , book personal holidays, take care of their own email. So the time spent on Council business is up to the individual. In the business world if you screw up you are let go immediately. Members of Council now will collect full remuneration for 4 years before the community can send the packing.
I have always felt that serving the community should be a labour of love. The compensation …the thank you’s and warm, good feelings one has when they feel they have made a positive contribution to the betterment of the community. It should never be about money.
larry mclennan says
I have to wonder if this will even be discussed in the public forum (all candidate meetings-etc). When one considers that there is a provision for automatic percentage increases ; I think that most elected individuals will look the other way when those increases kick in. Maybe we should have a referendum (just joking- maybe).
larry mclennan says
How about a performance based remuneration. ie if Council LOWERS spending by a certain amount (based on the prior year) they get a performance bonus based on the savings. If spending goes up- they get a reduction in remuneration. Automatic remuneration increases to be abolished. Certain provisions to address uncontrollable ( & thus unpunished) increases must be adjudicated by an independant taxpayer body. Any councillor who does not bring forward at least one practical proposal to lower costs and encourage Municipal efficiency has their remuneration frozen (or reduced).
Richard Tripp says
Keeping taxes/spending low isn’t necessarily reflective of good governance or decision making. A case in point being the fiscal challenges currently being faced by previous councils neglect of infrastructure. Had better decisions been made in the past, which presumably would have incurred significant cost at the time, Squamish would be better positioned today.
The combined cost of mayor and council remuneration is but a tiny portion of the annual operating budget. Performance based incentives would be more beneficial if directed towards staff rather than elected officials. Good luck opening that conversation with CUPE.
To the point of Brad’s article I think that while higher pay could open up a broader field of candidates it wouldn’t have an impact on the “quality” of those putting themselves out there.
Rick says
Here’s an idea to ponder. No cash compensation for elected officials. Now don’t jump all over me for this. Hear me out. How about a ” Non refundable tax credit” to offset personal taxes from other earned income. Yes, the elected could still have direct expenses covered so there is no out of pocket costs. Whats that you say? “People have to be compensated for time away from work and family.” If you can’t afford time away from work or family, then maybe you should re think your priorities. Being an elected official should not be about making money, or forcing individual ideals on the tax payer or a popularity contest. It’s about doing the right thing for all. As Brad said above, “In the end, perhaps keeping pay lower does the opposite of drive talent away: rather it may encourage only the most dedicated to step up.” I couldn’t agree more. After all, just look at what higher compensation has done to Provincial or Federal politics. What kind of candidates you ask would come forward? I honestly think the best. Oh I’m sure the less desired will show up as well, but maybe it would bring out the people that really care. I think it would also encourage people to come out and vote. I believe a lot of people today think that it is money or personal agenda’s over community commitment that makes candidates run for local office. Just think if there is no direct wage, we wouldn’t have to listen to all the “Promises” that most of us know can not be delivered.
Anyway, just an idea.