ATHABASCA — As Athabasca County CAO Bob Beck pointed out during the latest county council meeting, discussions about councillor compensation can be controversial.
And debate between the elected officials around the table wasn’t immune to tension when a request to have the recently approved remuneration policy sent for third-party review was selected for discussion.
During the Feb. 13 meeting, county councillors narrowly approved a motion by Coun. Tracy Holland to send the remuneration policy for external review.
Councillors Kelly Chamzuk, Rob Minns, Gary Cromwell, Joe Gerlach, and Holland voted in favour, while councillors Ashtin Anderson, Camille Wallach, Natasha Kapitaniuk, and reeve Brian Hall voted against.
Differing opinions
“We have a responsibility to this policy that was adopted,” said Holland. “The responsibility now is to follow one of the points in this particular policy … which states that council shall — not may, we must — engage the services of a third party to review this policy,” she added.
The policy received final approval from council last October, and came into effect Jan. 1. As noted by Holland, a clause citing the need for external review sits in the responsibilities section of the document.
Another clause, in the subsection Remuneration Review, states the policy “is to be reviewed mid-term of each four-year council term.” The present county council passed the mid-point of its term slightly more than one month before the policy was officially adopted.
“The motion contradicts policy, it amounts to reopening the policy, and I think we need to remember it passed unanimously after seven open meetings,” said Hall, who deemed the agenda item as an attempt to revisit a prior resolution.
Under the county’s procedural bylaw, items that councillors deem a revisit to a resolution made by council need a two-thirds majority vote in order to re-open the discussion.
Holland challenged the chair’s decision, prompting a vote. Councillors Chamzuk, Minns, Cromwell, Gerlach and Holland voted against dubbing the motion as a reconsideration, while councillors Wallach, Anderson, Kapitaniuk, and Hall voted in favour.
Tense debate
Anderson said during the Aug. 10 committee of the whole meeting, interim CAO Pat Vincent had included the names of similar communities administration had looked at when drafting the new policy.
The counties of Barrhead, Westlock, Woodlands, and Thorhild were used for comparisons, and the policy states compensation for Athabasca County councillors falls around the 50th percentile of those municipalities. This means approximately half of councillors in the municipalities examined make more than Athabasca County councillors, and half make less.
“I believe a thorough review has already been done, and a third-party review would not be required until mid-term of the next council,” said Anderson.
“It seems a little bit (like) jumping the gun to me,” said Kapitaniuk. “I know that these things are valuable and worth the money, but I’m not willing to spend the money yet. We haven’t even really seen how this policy is going to play out.”
Minns added his voice to the debate in support of external review. “Because it is a very contentious issue, I want to make sure it’s done right,” he said. “It should go back for review just to cross our t’s and dot our i’s.”
Hall maintained his position on the motion, and expressed concern over the additional time and workload a review would place on admin, echoing Anderson’s sentiment the work had been done in the creation of the policy.
“This is nothing more than an attempt to reverse a decision that was unanimously approved,” said Hall. “I think we should reject this and get on with the more important things that we need to do — as we all know, there is no shortage of those.”
The exchange saw several points of order, along with remarks about "personal attacks" and “bullying,” by Hall and Holland.
In a Feb. 14 follow-up, CAO Beck said the cost for a review of the policy is unknown at this stage in the process.
Councillors are set to determine the terms of reference for the review at the Feb. 20 committee of the whole meeting.
