I like it.

There are a few reports going to Council on Tuesday related to salaries and expenses, and electoral reform…here’s the first one…http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100323/documents/a3.pdf.

I quick review will reveal that some councillors do spend a little bit more than others, (or put their expenses in different columns)…but in any event, the key question for me is whether we should be paying councillors a salary commensurate with their responsibilities.

Edward de Bono once argued that politicians should be paid 10% more than what they earned in their last position…this would deter those lowly paid people who want to get elected just for the money…and encourage highly qualified, well paid people to run, noting they are currently discouraged due to the relatively poor pay.

I know this will never happen, but it does highlight a problem I think needs addressing….since many people who would make excellent councillors are deterred from seeking nomination since they simply can’t afford to do it.

The second report going to Council is more significant in many respects. It addresses campaign financing reform, whether to give the vote to corporations, and the frequency of elections…it can be found at http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100323/documents/a5.pdf

With respect to the latter point, the proposal is for elections every 4 years, rather than 3…I’m old enough to remember when they were every 2 years. While this would save money, I’m not sure I would favour the change.

The report recommends limits on both contributions and spending. If adopted, I hope it will clearly set out the rules, since during the last election I know that different parties and candidates reported their contributions and spendings in very different ways, making comparisons almost meaningless.

The proposal to give small business owners and corporations a vote is another topic worthy of a more complete discussion. While it would seem confusing to try and sort out, (do people get to vote twice, etc?) I do think that business owners who pay taxes should have the right to vote.

Check out this report. If you are reading Fabula’s site you are interested in civic issues. This report addresses some key questions.

“Edward de Bono once argued that politicians should be paid 10% more than what they earned in their last position…this would deter those lowly paid people who want to get elected just for the money…and encourage highly qualified, well paid people to run, noting they are currently discouraged due to the relatively poor pay.”

As a person with more brains than money what I think of this idea is unprintable. After America’s eight years of mismanagement under the hands of an idiot Ivy Leaguer, one would think the idea of governance by Upper-Class Twit might have lost favour. For this idea to make any sense at all, and for elections to be level playing fields, you’d have to abolish inheritances. Good luck with that

Does anyone still have any illusions about the integrity of politicians? The way members of Council vote tells you all you need to know about whose interests they serve.
Disclosure forms are great, but money still buys elections. Name three members of Council who put the public interest ahead of the wishes of their donors.
This is the 21st century. If you want real democracy use telecommunication tech (cell phones and Net terminals) to put all decisions to the electorate directly and dispense with politicians and parties altogether. Give tax credits to those who participate. Create a public database of who votes which way on every issue. Then draw your own conclusions as to their motives. Hucksters can continue to prostitute their communications skills to attempt to influence voting patterns. Hackers can continue to try to rig the outcomes, just as they do now.
At the very least we would be spared the tired spectacle of hypocritical puppets fronting for vested interests telling us yet again how much they care about us and how they stand for “change”.

You’re making a mistake by assuming that highly-qualified and previously well-paid means “has a rich daddy”.

I’m not assuming all qualified and well-paid people have a rich daddy (or mommy) but it’s not uncommon. I gave one example of why determining eligibility for office by bank balance is stupid. I can provide others if you like, but I assume it’s rather self-evident and it (posting on blogs) would take me away from making a living. 🙂

You’re making a mistake by assuming that highly-qualified and previously well-paid means “has a rich daddy”.

Both you and Mr. Geller are making the mistake that “well-paid” means “highly qualified”. Chris K. has pointed out one example how this isn’t necessarily the case. Another would be that certain groups are over-represented in the ranks of the poor, or are simply not as well compensated as other groups. For example, women continue to earn approx. 70% of what men make in the workforce. That would mean on average women in politics would earn the same ratio under your system.

Upon reflection I realize how much money we could save by getting priests, nuns, and monks to kick their habit (groan) and run for office and may have to rethink my opposition to this scheme!

Not to mention CEOs with symbolic salaries of $1 a year, stay-at-home parents, and ineffective salesman working on commission!

This idea may have more merit than I realized.

That clear?

Very. And re-reading Mr. Geller’s comment I’m not sure he was actually advocating one’s last paycheque + 10% as the basis for your political salary.

Michael seems to be implying that a councillor’s salary isn’t enough to live on

Not necessarily. I believe it may be more a comment on the high cost of campaigning as a deterrent (not simply in promotional material but in time commitment). But Michael can clarify what he meant.

Well this is fascinating, and I will foolishly try and respond!

First of all Chris Keam, I was surprised by your assumption that just because someone might earn more than the salary of a city councillor, they are a privileged upper upper class twit with an inheritance. The fact is, most of the managers and senior employees in this city, including those working at City Hall, earn more than $68,000. They are not all upper class twits with inheritances. They are people from lower and middle class backgrounds who have probably gone to university or a community college and expect to earn substantially more.

I am the first to admit that one cannot correlate intelligence and/or ability with income…but it often is a good indicator, (except for hockey players, stock brokers and bank presidents). However, I am aware of a lot of people who I think would make excellent city councillors, but are currently earning in excess of $100,000 and have become accustomed to a corresponding lifestyle. For them, it is out of the question to run for Council.

Should we be paying a Councillor $100,000 a year or more? I would say yes, on the understanding that it be a full-time position. Would this attract more intelligent, capable people?

I think the answer is obvious….not always, but why do we pay higher salaries to public and private sector managers and company directors?

In response to Spartikus, I would say a higher salary is necessary to allow politicians to devote more time to the position while enjoying a comfortable standard of living without having to depend on another job, or another wage-earner in the household.

While campaining was the most strenous and time consuming experience I have ever had, it only happens once every three years (at the moment).

However, as a result of this experience, and having followed Council more closely since the election, I am astounded at the time commitment required.

If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the weekly committee agendas and related Council packages. While Council only meets every other week, the dedicated politicians are constantly attending meetings and events, sitting through lengthy Public Hearings inthe evenings, and often spending their weekends at community events, forums, workshops, etc. I think it must be difficult to hold down another job, although I know many do.

Do they enjoy it? I am reminded of a scene in the movie Frost Nixon when Nixon asks Frost about his galavanting around and always going to parties. “Do you enjoy it?” he asks. “Yes, Frost answers, I love it.” Nixon responds…”I always hated it.. Perhaps you should have been the politician and I should have been the talk show host”.

A final comment about campaign expenses. I am totally in favour of limiting campaign contributions and expenses. If you check out the results of the 2008 election, you will see that I was second to Councillor Anton in terms of monies received and spent (over $80,000). (I obviously needed to spend a bit more, although I suspect some of you would suggest that no amount of money would have gotten me elected!)

However, I do worry that a politician (especially one who wants to run again) can become beholden to those who make significant contributions. The alternative is to spend your own money. (I’m told Bloomberg spent over $1 million of his own money to get elected.) Wealthy people can do this, but most others cannot, or do not want to.

I would prefer a system that does not allow wealthy people to try and buy public office. I would also like to see limits on campaign spending and contributions to minimize the potential of ‘being bought’.

Now as for the de Bono proposition of paying everyone 10% more than they earned in their last job. I am not proposing it, other than as a provocation. But as I said, I do think it highlights an important consideration…especially in a system where so often, the Mayor and City Councillors are expected to make very important, informed decisions, based on the advice of people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars more than them.

I’d like to add that I don’t think my remarks should be viewed as a criticism of well-paid public servants either. I’m all for fair recompense for work done… my opposition is to the idea that we should use the public purse to ensure the lifestyle of affluent people so they will enter political life.

“Name three members of Council who put the public interest ahead of the wishes of their donors.”

I don’t think many feel the need to expend any effort to disprove your presupposed conclusion.

When you level a charge – for example the charge less than 3 Vancouver City Councillors put the interest of the public ahead of their of their donor – you’re the one who is supposed to provide the supporting evidence.

You’ll need to identify the Councillors with their donors, various decisions made, and the public interest that allegedly wasn’t served.

You might be right, or wrong, or somewhere in between…but I’m certainly not going to do your work for you.

PS . . . and the Rattenbury masques Saint Arthur of Chunks’ chunk from Georgia view . . .

So award it the freedom of the city for valiant civic service . . .