CBRM council embraces a new math system

Plenty of ‘doublespeak’ when it comes to pay raises

Let’s face it. Talking about the pay and benefits provided politicians has a familiar ring. Elected officials are described as ether receiving too much or doing next to nothing for what they get. They are an easy target for assaults of this sort. Yet, the fact remains that politicians, like everyone else, deserve an income commensurate with their roles and responsibilities.

The problem comes when they covertly attempt to deal with the issue, as has our CBRM council. It is now revealed that on four separate occasions since the last municipal election they met secretly to discuss their pay. So much for the calls of “transparency and accountability” we hear from some councillors. Apparently, that doctrine applies only to others and not themselves.

In this area a political career is quite often a career choice. For most the pay and benefits exceed anything they could earn in the private sector.

Our CBRM council has recently given itself a pay raise, ostensibly in response to the fact that its present tax-exempt status for one-third of a councillor’s income is being removed. The federal government has decided that this perk is no longer appropriate and municipal politicians should be taxed like everyone else.

Our councillors tell us, however, that they have not received any increase and all they have done is make themselves whole by making certain that they take home the same amount of money. So, while the taxpayer pays more, it is, according to these councillors, not more at all. The truth of it is they can’t bear to give up their tax-free perk and want it now delivered through the back door.

Do you remember when our education system many years ago introduced what was called the ‘new math.’ Well, council has now introduced its own version of the new math, municipal pay style. In basic terms, it means that while the taxpayer pays more to councillors, the new council formula says what costs you more is not more provided they say so.

What it is at its core is a statement that you paying more is irrelevant if it means councillors receive the same take-home pay. In other words, their attitude is one of it being all about them and not about you. Sound familiar?

What is more interesting than the pay raise, excuse me, pay equalizer, was the squirming and contrived musings of some councillors as to what brought it about.

Councillor Kendra Coombs, for example, knowing full well the specifics of the new policy, was at pains to state to Jennifer Campbell, CBRM’S Chief Financial Planner, “we’re (meaning councillors) going to get the same … the taxes we are going to pay are going back into the Canadian coffers.” As much as she wants the increase, she just cannot bring herself to saying so and therefore she disguises her intent.

In the same vein, next came Councillor Amanda McDougall who, in an even more confusing ramble, said “This is not something that we want to increase the budget for salaries – it’s a federally mandated change and unfortunately it comes out of our bank.”

This is a sort of devil-made-usdo-it response. The problem is the devil did no such thing. The councillors simply could have not raised their own pay. They were not mandated to do so. What the so-called mandate said was that you must pay taxes like everyone else and your perk ends now. As to the coming “out of our bank” line, what is that all about? McDougall and her colleagues decided on the raise; not the federal government. For her to say they had to give such a raise is simply misleading.

Their questions and comments before council were styled as if to suggest the subject was all new to them. What of the fact they and their colleagues had secretly met those four times in the past two years?

For these two and others, the message they spun was to the effect, we really don’t want this hike, but we have no choice but to take it. Now, there’s political courage in action, coming from, of all persons, the very councillors who supposedly lead the reform movement on council.

If councillors want a pay hike come out and say so and tell us why. Maybe they deserve one. Simply be up front about it. In this respect the attitude of Councillor Earlene MacMullin was as refreshing as it was genuine. Unlike some others she openly provided an opinion without guile in support of the hike. She demonstrated herself to be the type of straightshooter we need in a politician as opposed to those who prefer doublespeak.

“What is more interesting than the pay raise, excuse me, pay equalizer, was the squirming and contrived musings of some councillors as to what brought it about.”