Don’t rush changes to city council

Brandon city council is considering a complicated, controversial plan to dramatically increase the compensation levels for our mayor, deputy mayor and councillors. It’s a three-part, inter-connected scheme that rests primarily on the argument that they are vastly underpaid.

The plan seeks to solve that issue by reducing the number of councillors and using the savings (the money that would otherwise be paid for those two eliminated council positions) to offset a portion of the higher salaries.

Reducing the number of councillors would eliminate the city’s current ward system that elects representatives of ten distinct areas of the city, each with roughly equal populations. Instead of replacing those ten wards with eight wards with slightly higher populations, however, city administration is recommending the city-wide election of eight councillors, who would each be assigned nominal responsibility for one quadrant of the city — two councillors for each of the four “city districts.” The specific boundaries of those districts are not specified in the report.

A copy of the plan can be found on the city website (brandon.ca) by searching the phrase “council compensation review report” and clicking the link for the top search result. I suggest you read the document because it has huge implications for the quality of representation Brandonites would receive at the city council table for years into the future.

After reading the report, the first question that comes to mind is “why is our city council doing this now, just months before the next election?” The answer is that council passed a resolution last November that instructed city administration to provide a report “reviewing the current compensation structure, market analysis on comparable municipalities, size and structure of council, whether designating council members as full-time is warranted, and any proposed changes to the pay, benefits, and expenses for council members.”

The report released on Monday is the administration’s response to those instructions, but the document appears to go far beyond what council asked for. Councillors were focused on the question of whether they were being fairly compensated relative to what councillors receive in other comparable municipalities. They didn’t specifically ask administration for a scheme to dismantle the current ward system that has served the city well for decades — something Brandonites are not calling for.

That’s a big problem, but so is the fact that the plan assumes you can cut the number of councillors without increasing the workload of the eight councillors who remain. As a matter of math, however, the demands on those councillors could increase by up to 30 per cent. They would be earning more money, but working even longer hours, which undermines the objective of the proposed pay raise.

An even greater concern is the tight timing of the plan. It calls for the changes to the ward boundaries (which would presumably include the reduction in the number of councillors) to be passed by council by no later than the April 20 council meeting — less than a month from now. That’s because city bylaws require that any changes to the ward boundaries and number of councillors must be passed by council at least 180 days before the next election.

That exposes the greatest flaw in the plan — the implicit assumption that council and city administrators have a mandate to implement such sweeping changes without giving Brandonites a genuine opportunity to consider and comment on the proposed changes.

The prospect of huge wage increases, fewer city councillors and eliminating the ward system of electing councillors was never discussed during the last election campaign. Nobody currently sitting at the council table was given explicit (or even implicit) authority by voters to make those changes. None of them can say “I ran on this issue, I told you I would do this and you voted for it.”

In reports earlier this week in the Sun, some of our city councillors said they are opposed to changes to the city’s ward system, and to the proposed “at large” scheme. That’s good, but those changes to the ward system are linked to the planned wage increases. If council doesn’t reduce the number of councillors, they can’t pay for part of the wage increases without a big, permanent tax increase.

With all of those factors in mind, what should council do? They should slow down and not rush something of such importance.

They should acknowledge they asked for a comparison of salaries paid to mayors and councillors in other comparable cities, and they have received that information. They also should recognize, however, that there isn’t enough time remaining in their mandate to conduct meaningful consultations with the public regarding the changes that city staff have recommended. The proposed changes can’t be adopted before May 1 without steamrolling Brandonites.

Given that fact, our current councillors should regard the report as useful information for the next council to consider and, should that council so choose, act upon. By doing that, the issues of compensation, ward boundaries and the number of city councillors can be fully discussed and debated during the upcoming election. They could even be the subject of a plebiscite, which would likely increase voter interest and turnout.

Such an approach would give voters a legitimate opportunity to consider various proposals, ultimately resulting in a voter-endorsed mandate for the next council to follow. It’s the better, more democratic way to go.