The letter of the law was followed, but not the spirit of the law.
Taxpayers are asking whether it’s good governance for city council in Victoria to all of a sudden hike their own pay by 25 percent.
It would appear the ‘letter of the law, not the spirit of the law’ was followed, even though it caught some council members, the public and the media unaware.
It was passed without the presence of Coun. Chris Coleman, who as the longest standing member of a council is knowledgeable about procedure and governance.
The issue of conflict of interest is addressed in Division 6, one of the largest sections of the Community Charter in BC, which speaks to gifts, financial benefit, disclosure of contracts, insider information, and so on.
But the Charter makes a few exceptions to the conflict restrictions including, “….the matter as it relates to remuneration, expenses or benefits payable to one or more council members in relation to their duties as council members.” In other words, councils are free to set their own pay.
There are also no restrictions as to when or how often any remuneration, expenses or benefits may be increased.
There’s guidance though in the Council and Board Remuneration Guide (2019) provided by the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and done to address the constant controversies about local government officials’ pay.
The City of Victoria, although members of the UBCM, chose to ignore two best practices made by their own lobby group.
Its’ first recommendation says local governments should consider establishing an independent task force to conduct reviews of elected official remuneration. This was meant to address the unseemly practice of public officials setting their own wages.
It also recommended that any changes to base levels of pay, determined through remuneration reviews, take effect at the beginning of the following term.
Following this recommendation was complicated by the furor over the previous council wanting limitations on their duties and a pay hike of more than 50 percent. An online survey by the city found 86 percent of 5,100 respondents disagreed with the idea. A pay increase never materialized but an annual cost of living increase continued.
Which brings us to March 14 when Coun. Jeremy Caradonna and Matt Dell introduced a last-second motion to increase their own pay by 25 percent.
The motion was not included in the agenda published March 8 as is customary, the following week, or added as a new item to the agenda at the start of the March 14 meeting.
Mayor Marianne Alto ruled the motion was allowed, but cautioned Couns. Dell and Caradonna “I find it inadvisable to provide such a detailed motion without notice….” Subsequently Alto also “strongly suggested” twice that a notice of motion be given instead of proceeding to allow everyone to examine the motion.
The decision by Alto though was not challenged by anyone on council. Again, Coun. Coleman was in Sri Lanka at the time and absent.
According to City Clerk Curt Kingsley, “The principles in procedure that underpin notice of motion are that Council members have the right to have time to consider a matter before having to vote on it. Notice of motion most often applies to a new matter that has not been published on the agenda of the meeting in which it is raised.”
In this instance a report on remuneration was previously made available to council and so “the motion was sufficiently related to the topic that had been published on the agenda.”
As a result of the procedural tactic, the council, the public and media were caught unaware. Once again, good governance was shortchanged.
-30-
Taxpayers are asking whether it’s good governance for city council in Victoria to all of a sudden hike their own pay by 25 percent.
It would appear the ‘letter of the law, not the spirit of the law’ was followed, even though it caught some council members, the public and the media unaware.
It was passed without the presence of Coun. Chris Coleman, who as the longest standing member of a council is knowledgeable about procedure and governance.
The issue of conflict of interest is addressed in Division 6, one of the largest sections of the Community Charter in BC, which speaks to gifts, financial benefit, disclosure of contracts, insider information, and so on.
But the Charter makes a few exceptions to the conflict restrictions including, “….the matter as it relates to remuneration, expenses or benefits payable to one or more council members in relation to their duties as council members.” In other words, councils are free to set their own pay.
There are also no restrictions as to when or how often any remuneration, expenses or benefits may be increased.
There’s guidance though in the Council and Board Remuneration Guide (2019) provided by the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and done to address the constant controversies about local government officials’ pay.
The City of Victoria, although members of the UBCM, chose to ignore two best practices made by their own lobby group.
Its’ first recommendation says local governments should consider establishing an independent task force to conduct reviews of elected official remuneration. This was meant to address the unseemly practice of public officials setting their own wages.
It also recommended that any changes to base levels of pay, determined through remuneration reviews, take effect at the beginning of the following term.
Following this recommendation was complicated by the furor over the previous council wanting limitations on their duties and a pay hike of more than 50 percent. An online survey by the city found 86 percent of 5,100 respondents disagreed with the idea. A pay increase never materialized but an annual cost of living increase continued.
Which brings us to March 14 when Coun. Jeremy Caradonna and Matt Dell introduced a last-second motion to increase their own pay by 25 percent.
The motion was not included in the agenda published March 8 as is customary, the following week, or added as a new item to the agenda at the start of the March 14 meeting.
Mayor Marianne Alto ruled the motion was allowed, but cautioned Couns. Dell and Caradonna “I find it inadvisable to provide such a detailed motion without notice….” Subsequently Alto also “strongly suggested” twice that a notice of motion be given instead of proceeding to allow everyone to examine the motion.
The decision by Alto though was not challenged by anyone on council. Again, Coun. Coleman was in Sri Lanka at the time and absent.
According to City Clerk Curt Kingsley, “The principles in procedure that underpin notice of motion are that Council members have the right to have time to consider a matter before having to vote on it. Notice of motion most often applies to a new matter that has not been published on the agenda of the meeting in which it is raised.”
In this instance a report on remuneration was previously made available to council and so “the motion was sufficiently related to the topic that had been published on the agenda.”
As a result of the procedural tactic, the council, the public and media were caught unaware. Once again, good governance was shortchanged.
-30-