Dealing with heat over council pay

By Medicine Hat News Opinon on December 20, 2018.

There’s hardly a topic that attracts more heat than the pay level of politicians, or one which cannot be reasonably discussed on short notice.

It’s ironic considering that — while nominal — there is no issue that probably deserves study, reflection and change.

Medicine Hat council and the city at large finds itself in a flurry this week after changes to how council members are paid were brought up and passed Monday night.

They approved a measure to increase their gross pay to negate the effect of new federal tax provisions that previously exempted one-third of their civic salaries.

Council members themselves say there is no change in their take-home pay.

Without knowing the particulars of their income tax exposure, they are probably correct. Though their paycheques may not change, the cost increase to the city is $130,000. Many in the general public see that added expense alone, not a game of fair is fair.

In an example of very bad timing, the changes came the same night a new city budget plan laid out four-per-cent tax increases in each of the next four years.

It’s easy to imagine taxpayers simply throwing up their hands, or wondering why they aren’t similarly allowed to raise their own pay to make up the difference.

Coming back, council members speaking in support on Monday night squarely hung the blame on the federal government and the uproar on misconceptions caused by the media.

Mayor Ted Clugston has been most vocal that he should not be punished by the changes, and that making less at the end of the day for doing the same job is unfair. He’s not gaining financially because of the new pay schedule, he says, and any complaints should be directed to Ottawa.

That might be case-closed, except that isn’t.

As part of the resolution council also approved a full pay review in 2020, for which they should be commended, excepting the fact such a study of changes — which were part of the 2017 federal budget — should have arrived at council on Monday instead on an interim measure.

Such a study will review pay and make comparisons, and likely suggest an apolitical formula for annual changes based on cost of living.

Such a system has governed elected official pay in Medicine Hat since 1999, but for 19 years has been an untouchable subject.

Political heat is somewhat unavoidable when politicians’ pay is discussed, and municipalities across Canada are contemplating or have long passed remuneration policies in light of tax changes.

The idea of full-time councillors has long sat in the background. In 2013 there was a string group of candidates putting out the vibe that the city’s oil interest were too important to be left to amateurs.

However, the public seems to dislike the notion of “career politicians” but also grumble about current part-timers padding their bank accounts by moonlighting on council.

It’s nearly impossible for anyone to suggest a fair review of duties or compensation without a backlash.

Today, councillors make slightly less than a full-time News reporter.

Comparing the mayor’s pay to management position in the private sector produces similar results.

In an honest view the pay is probably passable, but not great, and despite a strongly held belief to the contrary, council members have private RRSPs, not a public pension.

Medicine Hat’s mayoral salary, $129,650 in 2019, is pretty much right in the middle of the range for mid-sized municipalities in Alberta, according to a study presented to Grand Prairie council for 2017. Council pay of $43,150 is at the bottom.

Of course, each has specific localized requirements. In Medicine Hat those uniquely include oil and gas production, a directly controlled power plant, and more recently an investment program unique to smaller cities.

Few Hatters would suggest such expertise should be provided free of charge, but there is growing resentment against public figures and public servants.

No matter whose fault that is, Ottawa’s, the media’s or council’s, it’s the latter’s responsibility to guide the city through difficult, controversial issues.