Councillors’ pay increase is wrong on many levels

Last week, by a vote of five to three, Victoria council passed a motion to increase the base remuneration of councillors by 25 per cent.

I am opposed to this salary increase and I was one of three council members to vote against it.

The issue of councillor compensation is a complicated one and requires a more detailed analysis than I am able to give here.

Questions that should be addressed before determining compensation levels include: What is the workload of councillors? Does compensation reflect the hours worked?

Are compensation levels sufficient to attract strong candidates?

Should councillors be allowed to have other sources of income?

Do compensation levels of Victoria councillors compare to their counterparts in similar sized cities in B.C.?

I will not delve into these questions here; rather, I will explain why this self-dealing salary increase is wrong on many levels.

First, I will describe what the 25 per cent increase means for councillor take-home pay and explain how this increase came about.

The new remuneration levels for councillors range from $65,525 to $99,227. Remuneration varies among councillors because of different committee and board appointments.

For example, membership on the Capital Regional District board brings an additional $30,262 to $33,702 to three councillors and the mayor.

The mayor’s taxpayer-funded remuneration of more than $170,000 includes payments from the city ($131,050), the CRD ($33,702), and B.C. Transit (estimated to be $8,000 to $10,000).

In my estimation, after being on council for 16 months, the standard council workload would be about 25 hours per week for 40-45 weeks. For CRD directors, the time commitment is greater. And for the mayor, significantly greater.

Members of council submit annual financial disclosure statements in January to comply with the B.C. Financial Disclosure Act. Review of these documents indicates that only two councillors, myself and Jeremy Caradonna, are not affiliated with a business or external organization from which we receive remuneration.

Is the increase in compensation justified? The rationale for the compensation increase was a consultant’s report commissioned in 2023. The consultant’s report did not provide an analysis that would suggest the need for a significant change to the basic remuneration for councillors.

The report did not consider the effect of additional remuneration for cities having a dual layer of governance. For example, three councillors receive a 50 per cent income boost over the base remuneration through appointments to the CRD.

In my opinion, an increase in councillor compensation in addition to the Consumer Price Index annual increase is not warranted. This increase comes on the heels of significant reductions to public input at council meetings, a change that reduces councillor workloads.

This council spends an inordinate amount of time on vanity projects that have little to do with safe streets, liveable neighbourhoods or wise use of taxpayer dollars.

If councillors abandoned their personal projects and focused on the real issues facing Victorians, we could make real progress on the many issues that bedevil our city.

The five councillors who supported this motion feel that they work long hours and should be paid for it. Too much of councillors’ time duplicates the work of city staff.

We have competent and hardworking staff at City Hall. They do not need micro managing by councillors.

How was this motion passed?

This motion was brought before council without the review and scrutiny normally given to other motions. There have been few motions in my time as a councillor where an issue comes before council without prior notice and without time for analysis and review.

I was unaware that a group of councillors was planning to bring this motion forward for a vote. This is wrong.

This motion and the tactics used to hurriedly approve it without respecting the need for other councillors or the public to have the opportunity for full consideration do not reflect the values of fiscal prudence, transparency or good governance.

Like many of the people I represent, I can always use the extra money. But this selfdealing salary increase is so outrageous in the face of the difficulties faced by Victorians that I cannot accept it.

I will be redirecting my salary increase to charitable organizations that are committed to improving the quality of life of Victorians.

And I urge Mayor Marianne Alto to stop the wink and nod to the five councillors behind this motion and join me in speaking out against it.