Pay Increases and People Who (Might) Need Them
Here’s a bit more politics, to file under ACCOUNTABILITY.
During the election I read a few things here and there but didn’t get involved as much as I wanted. But a Star-Phoenix article made me pause (Unfortunately, this article is no longer available on the web. Damn the web!). The article insinuated that city council had given themselves a 57% raise over the next three years. This got my Marx-influenced brain moving, and so I sent the following email off to every candidate with an email address:
I am a graduate student in university who has been keeping a keen eye on this civic election. I have a quick question that I’m hoping you can help me with. I just read a recent Star Phoenix article that states during this last term city council recently gave themselves a 57 per cent raise over three years. If you get re-elected, and during your next term or two city council votes on another pay increase, will you support it? Thanks.
Of the 16 mayoral and city councillor hopefuls that I emailed, all but one got back to me. A few I emailed back to get clarification, to which they responded. A couple even offered to talk on the phone, one of which I took up on. So is this a formal survey or sociological statistical analysis? No. But the results may interest you.
Firstly, the increase is not nearly as huge as the paper made it seem. The actual increase is 36% over the first three years of the new council session, meaning that in 3 years their salary will be about 40 thousand a year. That’s a number I can live with. For the most part, candidates who were already on council defended the pay raise. The pay scale is dependent on the Mayor’s wage, which is dependent on the MLAs, etc. So the fat-cat stuff starts at the top, of course. They also claimed that the job is a full-time position that is only being paid at a part-time salary, which is again something I can live with.
My comments? First, when council gives themselves a raise appropriate to their job, they should consider later on that other people should also be making a living wage. So I don’t care if you give yourself that pay wage, but don’t start bitching when nurses go on strike. If you’re going to give yourself a 36% increase, prepare to justify why others don’t deserve the same. Second, the new wages are supposed to reflect the fact that councillor positions are now considered a full-time job. However, no one was able to confirm that the positions would be altered on paper as becoming full-time positions. Instead, you end up with people usually work full-time, but don’t actually have to. So future councillors have the opportunity to opt out of work, claiming that it’s only a part-time job, but still make the money. Third, the pay increase takes into account what’s going on in other cities, but not actually what people in
The most thoughtful and honest letter was written by Robert Scheimser. Here’s the bulk, without the salutations and other letter formalities:
Thanks for your question. The simple truth is that I don't know what the answer is to your question. I did not see the article to which you refer. The last time I heard of an increase for councillors was a few years ago, I believe. I know that a 57% increase sounds like a huge increase, but it doesn't seem quite so bad when one considers that the pay of a city councillor was only about $20,000 per year at the time, and most councillors found that they were putting in somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 hours per week on city matters. This works out to 20K /12 Months / 4.3 Weeks / 45 Hours per week or $8.61 per hour. This was hardly very good pay at all for overseeing a corporation the size of the city of
I am saying all of this from memory, so I could be mistaken, but I believe that the councillor's salary was to increase until it reached 45% of whatever the Mayor's salary is. And I believe that the Mayor's salary is set as a function of an MLA's salary.
For these reasons, the question of an increase for city councillors should not be coming up at all at any time in the future. Once the councillor's salary has reached 45% of the mayor's, increases, if they come should only happen if MLA's increase their own salary and the amount goes up as a trickle down effect.
I believe that a councillor's present salary is around $28,000 per year (again from memory), and is scheduled to increase next month (as part of the increase referred to earlier). As far as salaries for elected politician go, these are definitely on the low side. Being a city councillor is no way to get wealthy.
Historically in
Frankly, I am not sure how I would react to the question of an increase. This would depend upon a lot of factors which I am not at present knowledgeable enough about to formulate an opinion on. For example, I am curious to know how city councillors are compensated in other jurisdictions, for example.
While it might be politically expedient to say that I would just simply be against a raise, I don't formulate a position without first doing proper research, and I did want to respond to you immediately. If you want to find out the details of the councillor's salary at present I believe it is available at the following link: http://www.saskatoon.ca/org/clerks_office/elections/responsibilities/index.asp
I just checked out the information from the city clerk's office available at the link above. After having read it, off hand, I don't at present see a need or justification for any further increases, so I suppose that is my answer to your question.
Schmeiser did not get elected. The most passionate letter has to go to Brian Grahame. Keep up that fire, Brian! I personally think we need more ‘people people’ running for office, and a heck of a lot less businessmen. Money isn’t everything…I’ve been told.
You can find the election results at the City of Saskatoon website. The pictures are the responses I received. I debated about posting this, but then decided that they were emails in response to election questions and should be treated as public property. I took out the numbers and such, though, so no pranking! Clicking on the picture twice should make it clear enough to read!
3 Comments:
I think it's great that the local politicians are willing to kiss hands and shake babies with the common folk. Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, I don't know about having more people-people in government. Charismatic people are great to vote for but they are harder to get rid of if they go mad with power and perhaps a more business-savy type would be able to find money to allocate to snow removal. The trick would be to find a business-savy type who wasn't crooked. Dare to dream I suppose. Anyway, that's some good being involved in the democratic process Kris!
-Cara
ps. I think he was going for remuneration not renumeration. Crazy politicians and their made up words, who ever heard of a politician doing that!? Ha.
yea, very good for you, Kris.
me, i just sit there worrying about the planet and all of us. *sigh*
k.
To counter your devil's words, Cara: I think my ideal candidate would be someone with an Anthropology degree and a minor in Economics. And they would have had to actually live in the real world instead of an ivory tower. I say 'think' because I'm not sure if a person like that would actually be able to get anything done, especially if all the other elected officials are businesspeople!
Post a Comment
<< Home