Metro directors pay raises, retirement benefits debated
Board says it decided properly, West Van mayor says process ‘totally out of bounds’
Metro Vancouver’s board is facing criticism, both from the public and from within, for the process by which it introduced pay raises and retirement benefits for directors.
The controversial changes to the remuneration bylaw were voted on at a March 23 board of directors meeting and, following public outcry, will be reconsidered at the next meeting, at the end of April.
“The public’s business has to be done in public,” said West Vancouver Mayor Michael Smith, a Metro director who wasn’t present for the vote. “This whole way that the chair and the vice-chair have handled this thing is absolutely, totally out of bounds.”
The 15 per cent pay raise was done to offset tax changes to elected official salaries that will come into effect on Jan. 1. The adjustment will result in a one-time budget increase of $131,333.
The retirement allowance will see directors receive a lump-sum payment when they cease to be an elected official. The allowance will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007, and cost Metro $498,000 in retroactive retirement earnings, and $62,500 per year going forward.
Last week, board chair Greg Moore confirmed that the initial remuneration discussions took place in an in camera meeting of the finance and intergovernmental committee — which is made up of the chairs of all of Metro’s committees — on March 16.
Don Bradley, a spokesman for Metro, said the appropriate public process took place, and discussions about remuneration took place in camera because they qualified as labour or employee relations under the Community Charter.
“From our perspective, the very foundation for an effective democracy is being open and transparent, and that’s why the majority of our meetings and business deliberations are conducted in open,” Bradley said. “However, there are certain topics that absolutely cannot be deliberated in open … and that includes matters related to employee and labour relations.”
Even though elected officials aren’t actual employees of Metro, they’re treated as such in certain situations, including when it comes to payroll and remuneration, Bradley said.
“What is the legislative authority for that? Where do they get the power to pick and choose and say for the purpose of deciding what council members are going to get in terms of remuneration, that they get to go in camera and treat them like an employee for that purpose?” asked Nathalie Baker, a Vancouver lawyer who specializes in municipal law. “I don’t think they ’re an employee under the legislation. They ’re elected officials.”
Smith said that because they’re elected officials, “there’s absolutely no justification for doing this in a closed meeting — zero.”
In the past, board remuneration has been debated in a closed committee meeting and then made public for decision at a board meeting. The procedure with the pay raise and retirement allowance was no different.
Bradley said the decision to move into a closed meeting at committee level is done based on a majority vote, and the committee can vote to remove items from a closed agenda, but to do so in this case would have been inconsistent with past practices.
“It’s permissive, it’s not mandatory. Even where you have the power to go in camera, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should go in camera,” Baker said. “I don’t see how you could justify shielding from public scrutiny elected officials’ decision to give themselves more money.”
Whether remuneration for elected officials can or should be discussed in camera are separate matters, said Gordon Price, former Vancouver city councillor and current fellow at Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue.
While it appears to be allowed under the Community Charter, the optics can be problematic, Price said. What’s most important, however, is that the final decision is not made in camera.
“So long as the report itself goes public, I don’t think there’s a real problem there,” he said. “The substance of it is going to be public.”
Smith has also taken issue with the fact that the remuneration bylaw amendments were a late addition to the meeting. Although the agenda is released about a week before the board meeting, the bylaw amendments weren’t added until March 21, two days before the meeting.
Bradley said it’s not unusual for changes or additions to be made to council and committee agendas before or even during meetings. The remuneration bylaw amendment was one of several items added to the meeting agendas.
Price said, however, “I think when you have something that you have a pretty reasonable expectation is going to be contentious and you bring in anything of real substance at the last moment, you shouldn’t be surprised that it’s going to look off, it’s going to look bad.”