Questions are sure to be asked as Capital Regional District directors consider a report that recommends nearly doubling their pay. The first question should not be whether to double the pay, but what is fair compensation for the work required.
A consultant鈥檚 report recommends that the base pay for a director be raised to $17,000 a year from $8,940. The pay for the board chairman would jump to $42,000 a year from $29,400.
Expressed in terms of percentages, those seem like huge increases, but a substantial jump should be expected, given that the pay for directors and the chairman has not been changed in 20 years. That gives rise to another question 鈥� why has the CRD waited so long to review remuneration for its elected officials?
We can be grateful they are not like provincial and federal politicians, who are seldom shy about increasing their own salaries and benefits. Local politicians are generally more in tune with the public, and pay is a dicey issue. Councillors have to look a larger percentage of their voters in the eye and defend their decisions, so it鈥檚 understandable that they would be reluctant to venture into that minefield.
But the longer the pay issue is neglected, the greater the chance a large increase will be recommended. Even when the pay raise is merited, it doesn鈥檛 play well with the public if it comes in a large lump.
If higher pay is warranted, it is wiser to make smaller incremental increases than it is to play catch-up with one large hike. It鈥檚 also easier on the budgeting process.
Many municipal bodies have mechanisms in place that periodically review council remuneration. The process should be done at arm鈥檚 length, and that arm should be as long as possible. Tying council pay raises to staff increases, for example, could present the impression that councillors are approving higher pay for employees so their own pay will be increased. Having an independent body make recommendations seems a safer route.
Automatic reviews don鈥檛 necessarily mean automatic raises 鈥� a council still must vote on the matter and might decide, because of current conditions, that a raise isn鈥檛 warranted.
But leaving it too long, while noble, makes the problem that much more difficult for future councils.
A seat on a municipal council shouldn鈥檛 be a path to riches. (Council members in Bell, California, thought it was, and several of them, along with former city staff members, are serving prison terms for paying themselves exorbitant salaries.)
But neither should we be stingy in compensating the people we elect. Council and committee obligations and other public duties poke big holes in a person鈥檚 life, and they should be adequately paid. Some who are retired or of independent means can afford to work for little or nothing, but most can鈥檛.
As chairman Nils Jensen points out, the CRD has become significantly more complex in the past 20 years. Its responsibilities and services are far-reaching, geographically and philosophically. Guiding an entity with a $400-million annual budget requires strong people with good skills, and they should be paid what they are worth. It鈥檚 not unreasonable that they should get a raise after 20 years.
They just shouldn鈥檛 have waited so long.
