Is the fix in on council pay?

FILE UPDATED JUNE 29, 2024

City taxpayers are wondering if it’s just a matter of time before councillors get their outrageous 25 percent pay hike this year.

To date, since the Task Force to Review Council Remuneration was struck April 4, appointees have been working quietly behind the scenes developing terms of reference, reviewing reports and conducting interviews with councillors.

The task force – so far there are just three members – See Item F3 on June 26 Committee of the Whole  – reports to the June 27 committee of the whole meeting. The remuneration bylaw will be reconsidered by council on July 25, and so far it’s not promising for taxpayers.

A major concern is the limited representation.

Council told the task force to follow the recommendations developed by the Union of BC Municipalities in its Guide on Council and Board Remuneration (2019). It points out in its ‘success factors’ that “To the extent possible, diversity in the membership of the task force is important.

From our perspective the current membership is too narrow and would benefit from additional voices and points of view.

• Perhaps someone that wasn’t previously involved with the city as a councillor and city-paid advisor to take a fresh look at the facts from a human resource perspective?

• Perhaps a citizen-at-large/taxpayer should be appointed, someone who lives in the municipality or pays city property taxes who is sensitive to the local tax burden?

• Perhaps a representative from the chamber of commerce board, or someone with a legal background? There’s expertise at the Gustavson School of Business at the University of Victoria.

The task force size is too limited.

The City of Victoria is a relatively large and unique jurisdiction. It often sets a standard for the region and province as a whole.

Most communities our size go with five or seven appointees, according to the UBCM guide. Kamloops, a much smaller city, appointed seven members.

Are there residential requirements?

Are current and future appointees required to be a direct property taxpayer, either a residential property or commercial property owner in the City of Victoria?

If not, why should someone else without a direct interest decide the employment terms of a council? Will this be stipulated as part of the terms of reference being developed?

Why such a strong union representation?

Union representation, particularly with one appointee representing a third of the task force, seems completely wrong. For goodness sake, it’s a union workplace with a council that’s sympathetic to unions and approves their contracts.

Appointing a long-time member of the union movement and a former president of the very large BCGEU, gives the appearance of conflict of interest, bias and potential future quid pro quo.

Lastly, another major concern is any appearance of conflict of interest whatsoever between the appointees and the City of Victoria.

The 2023 Statement of Financial Information (SOFI) reports the Victoria Friendship Centre received $42,178 in permissive tax property exemptions from the City of Victoria. The properties are on Fernwood, Balmoral and Gorge Roads.

In the eyes of the public, with all due respect to the appointees, all these issues seriously risk impacting the credibility of any task force recommendations.

The cart is before the horse.

Until a decision is made on whether councillors are a part or full-time position, this task force can’t make a decision or recommendation on compensation. It’s clearly not set up or equipped to do that.

For taxpayers, it looks like the fix is in.

READ MORE

Is there any evidence justifying full-time councillors? : Parkinson’s Law says that “work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion.” Times Colonist Commentary, June 10, 2024.