6th April
While the Council motion of March 14th caught a few Councillors and the public by surprise, my March 20 Comment in the Times Colonist, followed by submissions from other Councillors, clarified for the public where the 8 members of Council who voted on the March 14 motion stood. Lines were drawn.
The change brought forward through the postponement motion of last week was in response to you, and others who stood with the minority of Council.
At the April 4th Council meeting I spoke of this public response, saying: “First – thank you to the hundreds – perhaps a thousand – residents and business owners who responded to the Councillor remuneration motion which was carried forward on March 14. You spoke loud and clearly.”
The debate has not concluded, it will come forward in July. Following is the postponement motion as approved last week.
Motion to postpone as amended:
That consideration of Bylaw 24-027 be postponed until July 25th, and that the city manager be directed to strike an independent task force comprised of diverse community, non-profit, labour, government, and business leaders, using the UBCM councillor remuneration guide and its terms of reference, a report to be completed by July 1st and the work remunerated with a stipend for task force members, to:
- Review council’s decision on pay and benefits in light of the recommendations of the MNP Governance Review and the information in the remuneration consultant’s report;
- Conduct interviews with councillors to determine accurate time commitments for city-related work;
- Make a recommendation to council on any salary adjustments, benefits adjustments, per diems for committee appointments and conferences, and other compensatory options, and the effective date of any such adjustments;
- Task force to be overseen and facilitated by a senior member of City staff, as per recommendations of UBCM guidebook.
21st March
A week ago, acceptance of a consultant’s report was on the agenda of the Committee of the Whole. The report compared Councillor and Mayor remunerations for several cities. The report was very limited in its review considering only base values and benefits. It did not consider full remunerations where some cities are under dual layer of governance, such as Victoria and the Capital Regional District government bodies. The report was a presentation of information and did not offer any recommendations.
Rather than receive the report with the intent to allow councillors and the public adequate time to review it, a prewritten “motion arising” was forwarded and seconded by Councillors Caradonna and Dell. Parts of the motion were voted on separately, then as a collective. For the extraordinary increase in Councillor remuneration, Councillors Hammond and I were in opposition. Mayor Alto joined Councillor Hammond and me in opposition to the timing of the implementation of the increase, stating she was opposed to Council setting its own remuneration. With restricted time to speak to the motion, or consider implications, or even to calculate the intended increase, the final motion was carried with a vote of 5 to 3.
Those of you who have been subscribers to my newsletter for some time may recall the Newsletter forwarded in late October last year, giving a more fulsome review of City of Victoria Councillor remuneration. Given the motion approval last week and suggested remuneration values, I revised the data tables I used for the October 2023 newsletter.
My opinion piece which appeared in the Times Colonist yesterday has created a stir.
Below please find links to the Committee of the Whole discussion, my March 20th TC opinion piece, the link to my October 2023 Newsletter, and a slide providing a summary of projected remuneration. Please note that staff has been asked to provided recommendations for an enhanced benefit package.
