From a purely budgetary standpoint, now might not be the best time for Squamish lawmakers to talk about increasing their own pay. Local ratepayers are, after all, most likely looking at significant hikes in both utility bills and property taxes this year to pay for infrastructure and municipal services.
However, in another sense, now is the perfect time. That's because, with a municipal election looming this fall, Squamish's leaders have a chance to increase the mayor's and councillors' salaries the right way -by mandating that any increase will only take effect after the next election.
Why only after the next election? Simply because no one should have the authority, when using public dollars, to raise his or her hand and put more money in his or her pocket next month. Ethics rules for elected leaders may not strictly define voting on one's own salary increase as a conflict of interest, but they should. It should, therefore, be the law of the land that no elected leader -federal, provincial, municipal or even school board - may vote to increase his or her own salary (or pension, or any other direct benefit derived from their service to the public) without first facing the voters.
The fact that those who represent us at all three levels of government can vote to increase their own pay simply by raising their hands is one reason it's always such a sensitive topic when it does come up. This week's little dance around the council table is a classic example. Councillors Race and Lonsdale were both quick to point out that the discussion was mostly about the mayor's salary, not their own - even though, under current policy, councillors' salaries are indexed to the mayor's (they receive 48 per cent of the mayor's total).
Coun. Bryan Raiser, who put forward the motion to raise the mayor's and councillors' salaries several times in 2010, seemed relieved that someone else had brought it up. He came the closest to tackling the issue head-on when he said, "I very much would like to thank Coun. Lonsdale for bringing up this very important issue that some find difficult to do."
This writer agrees with those who argue the meager pay relative to the hours worked is one reason we don't see more qualified people running for office, and that each incremental increase makes it more feasible financially for those interested in serving to put their names forward at election time. And when you think about it, $37,000 is not a lot to pay the mayor of a town of 16,000. Coun. Race alluded to that fact when he pointed out that Mayor Gardner's current salary "is very near the lower end of the range" for mayors of similar-sized communities.
An increase is probably in order. However, if new Premier-designate Christy Clark is looking for a first order of business, she or her caucus should table a bill to make it a law - not just a practice or a policy - that any salary increases adopted by legislative and municipal leaders during one term can only take effect after the next election.
- David Burke
