ATHABASCA – Politicians discussing their own pay is always a touchy subject, but after Athabasca County’s interim CAO Pat Vincent noticed some irregularities with the current policy, councillors had no choice but to revisit it.
During the Aug. 10 committee of the whole meeting, councillors voted 7-1 to instruct administration to bring the document back to the next committee of the whole meeting with changes to language around hotel booking, travel companions, convention attendance and more.
However, the motion also called for the policy to return to the next committee of the whole meeting, as councillors were unable to reach a consensus on a variety of topics, including milage, hotel rooms, and mandatory conventions.
“You want to attract leaders in the community, and most of them have other occupations,” said Vincent, referencing an idea from civics guru George Cuff. “If you look at our council, our reeve is giving up a fair amount of his time and his income for the greater public good; you have to compensate people reasonably for that reason.”
Currently, the county’s councillors are paying tax on their mileage, since it’s included in their base salary.
In an attempt to take some of the work away from councillors, Vincent had proposed a system for mileage that essentially drew rings around the office, with councillors receiving milage rates depending on the zone they lived in.
Councillors who live less than 40 kilometers away would receive $75 a month, while anyone living between 40 to 80 kilometres away would receive $150 per month. Finally, anyone living over 80 kilometres away, as well as the reeve and deputy reeve, would receive $200 to compensate for the increased travel.
“I would really like to see the mileage changed to a per kilometre scale instead. It adds more transparency if people move or whatever, and it’s easier in the long run,” said Coun. Kelly Chamzuk. “Right now we could have someone who lives 39 kilometres away and someone that lives 41 kilometres away and it doesn’t seem fair (that one receives twice as much).”
Councillors voted 5-3 to change the proposed approach to mileage, telling administration to bring it back with a clause that mileage would be paid at the CRA rate “as per County Policy 2135 for County Council, Budget & Finance, Committee of the Whole, Policy Review and Special County Council meetings; no mileage to be paid for any other travel within the County.”
Sub: Problematic language
While the document was in front of them, councillors took the opportunity to voice their opinions on other language within the policy, including a clause that council book the most economical rooms when they attend conferences.
“As it is, safety needs to factor in, travel back and forth needs to factor in; there have been situations where Chamzuk and I were worried about going outside for a smoke by ourselves,” said Coun. Natasha Kapitaniuk. “We don’t need that flexibility because we want to be in the fanciest place, it’s because we want to be in a location that makes sense.”
The sentiment was echoed by other councillors, including reeve Brian Hall and Coun. Rob Minns. Both men touched on the idea that a little flexibility wouldn’t hurt, and that all the councillors were adults who should understand the consequences of their actions.
“To me, you’ve got to be able to justify it (your spending); if you get called out and you can’t, you’ve now got that problem,” said Minns.
Likewise, Hall referenced the accountability side of things, noting that “if you choose to spend a crazy amount of money, you’re accountable to the public, and you’re going to be accountable to the table afterwards.”
Kapitaniuk also brought up the idea that the county shouldn’t be dictating who councillors travel with; the draft policy had included a clause that read “Athabasca County will pay for the accommodations of a councillor’s spouse/partner staying in the councillor’s room while in attendance at conventions or other municipal business where overnight lodging is required.” The next draft will change spouse/partner to “travelling companion.”
“It’s no one’s business who you travel with, and if the hotel isn’t going to charge more for the extra person, it doesn’t matter,” said Kapitaniuk. “If we’re saying that it has to be a person you sleep in the same bad as, that’s just silly. What if in the future we have a councillor who has a disability that requires an aide, or someone’s mother comes as their companion instead of a spouse?”
