The campaign to streamline local government in the capital region is gaining momentum. Two weeks ago, municipalities in the area released their annual salary and expense statements. The reports laid bare a mountain of waste and duplication.
There are 13 municipalities in the capital district, each with its own mayor and council. That adds up to 91 elected officials 鈥� more than the total number of MLAs in the provincial legislature.
And last year they took home a whopping $2 million in salary and expenses.
By contrast, Vancouver鈥檚 mayor and council earn just one-third that amount, and they are responsible for a population twice as large.
But the real evidence of featherbedding can be seen at the upper-management level. Each of our municipalities maintains a separate bureaucracy.
Hence, there are 13 chief administrators, each making between $112,000 and $240,000 (the average is around $165,000). There are also multiple fire chiefs, police chiefs, city solicitors, head planners and senior inspectors, all making six figures.
For a geographically compact area like the Saanich Peninsula, this is a clear case of overkill. It should be possible to eliminate some of these redundant layers without harming quality of service. Victoria鈥檚 Mayor Dean Fortin has said he is willing to consider a referendum on amalgamation during next year鈥檚 municipal elections.
The question, therefore, is not whether restructuring is feasible, but rather, how to go about it. There are two obvious pitfalls to avoid.
The first is salary creep. When public bodies are amalgamated, the common result is a rapid increase in management compensation.
Examples are not hard to come by. After health-care agencies were merged to form regional authorities in sa国际传媒, the top pay grade went from around $140,000 to half a million dollars. The same thing took place all the way down the corporate ladder.
Overnight, massive salary inflation ate away the savings that amalgamation was supposed to bring. The government of Alberta recently sacked that province鈥檚 entire network of regional health boards and CEOs over concerns that compensation had reached outrageous levels.
It is a reasonable expectation that the same pressures will be felt here. The chant will be: 鈥淚f you want to play with the big boys, you have to pay like the big boys.鈥�
The second pitfall to avoid is a reduction in service quality. When government agencies are forced to downsize, the first casualty is often the customer.
Front-line staff disappear behind impenetrable barriers of recorded messages and voicemail. Response times lengthen as managers are distracted by turmoil.
Neither of these concerns 鈥� salary creep or reduced service quality 鈥� is inevitable. But they are a definite threat if steps are not taken up front to prevent them.
If a referendum is held next year, of necessity the question will be simple: 鈥淎re you in favour of amalgamation?鈥� or some such. But to guard against a pig in a poke, some precautions are needed.
The Capital Regional District should publish, well in advance, a statement of the principles that will guide decision-making. This should include a citizen charter guaranteeing continuity of service, turnaround times and accessibility.
Promises, of course, are cheap. So we also need a means of redress in the event quality declines. An automatic reduction in property taxes, if defined levels of service are not maintained, might do the trick.
And for its own sake, the CRD should establish a compensation framework for management that sets a reasonable and enforceable ceiling.
None of this will be easy. Indeed, it is the biggest challenge that ever faced local government in our region.
Yet done right, there are major benefits to be gained. The planning and discussion should start now.
