Previous
It's all in the timing
?A few weeks ago, we discussed the fact that certain segments of our society - entertainers, professional athletes, corporate CEOs - are obscenely overpaid in comparison to the median wage. We would argue very strongly, however, that politicians are not among those being grossly over-compensated for the work they do. Even high-profile office-holders like the U.S. President receive peanuts in salary and benefits compared to many of the people they govern.
But hold it, we hear you saying. In order to even get elected, these people have to be pretty wealthy to begin with. Perhaps that used to be true, even a few decades ago, but we have the feeling - and it would be interesting to see the stats on this - that it’s not true any more. Political parties have become so expert at fundraising that a candidate probably doesn’t have to contribute a lot of his or her money these days. Rich people tend to be more high profile, which gives them an edge at the polls, but if the right person comes along, she can get elected without having a huge bank account of her own.
This is particularly true at the municipal level, and doubly true in the case of a small rural township like our own. We don’t pretend to know very much about the financial well-being of any of the current members of Council, but from all indications, we would be surprised if any of them are rolling in dough. And it certainly doesn’t take a huge war chest to run for office, particularly in the wards.
Our point is that in most if not all cases, the salary being paid to Uxbridge’s mayor and councillors, as modest as it might be (ranging from about 30 to 50,000 dollars), is not just a drop in the bucket of those people’s household income. It is probably a very welcome compensation for the hundreds of hours they put in annually to run the business of the Township. Each of them is a very conscientious councillor, doing the homework necessary to make themselves thoroughly familiar with the issues, and in most cases, they are heavily involved in the community beyond the council chamber as well. We have no argument whatsoever with what they are currently being paid; each of them is well deserving of every penny.
And they probably deserve a pay hike as well, particularly something as nominal as a cost-of-living increase, such as is being proposed in the preliminary budget round for 2010 (see page 1). But not this year, folks. Considering how many of your constituents are employed in recession-sensitive sectors of the economy, it’s absolutely not the right time to even consider asking those constituents to essentially take money from their wallets and put it in yours.
We think budget chair Herrema was correct in saying that the appropriate behaviour as leaders in this situation is to hold the line on salaries, and we applaud councillors Ballinger and Northeast for backing him. We’re surprised that others, such as Mr. Eng, who’s ordinarily a bit stingy with taxpayers’ money, didn’t agree.
But it’s early days yet when it comes to the budget. We’re reasonably confident that once councillors hear from the voters as to where the budget priorities should be, any proposed salary increase, no matter how small, will become one of the first items to feel the ax. There’s always next year.
