Prince rumor at work…someone said our mayor has had his salary increased…any truth???
I don’t know if the Mayor got a pay increase, but if he did, based on past performance, that would be decided in a closed meeting as a “personnel matter” without the public being present, the same as for labour negotiations and other employee issues.
The council sometimes reports at the public meeting what they decided in a closed meeting, but we really don’t know how much is reported and how much isn’t. I highly doubt that they will be reporting council member pay increases.
The last time that the council discussed their pay at a public meeting that I could find in the minutes was when Don Scott was Mayor. He came under fire for asking for an increase but I think that it speaks well of him that he asked for an increase in public rather than hiding away behind closed doors which is this council’s preference.
Eventually the information will come out. Every year by end of June, the council has to make available to the public a Statement of Financial Information that among other things lists how much each council member received in honouraria and expenses during the preceding year. All public bodies that receive provincial funding are required to make that information public.
Some public bodies, the School Board for example, publish their Statement of Financial Information online. Other municipalities do the same, but this City government buries that information in the agenda package and quickly approves the Statement at a public meeting without discussion of the details. This council’s approach is to do the bare minimum to comply with the law.
That seems to reflect a deeply ingrained habit of the council, much like their strongly felt need to send some of them to Ketchikan every 4th of July to wave at people or do whatever else they do. Curiously, I don’t recall the councillors waving at us during our annual Seafest parade. Anyway, I digress …
If you send the City a Freedom of Information request (an email to the CAO will do) the City would be obliged to disclose the Mayor’s current pay rate within 30 days.
Just to clear things up, no increase to the mayor’s or any member of council’s salary has ever been discussed, let alone approved, in either closed or open meetings by this council. While I do believe BTravenn is correct to state that it is possible that something like this could be done in a closed meeting( although I am not positive on that), it is my opinion that to do so would be wrong, and I believe that the rest of council feels the same as I do on this matter. Considering the current budget challenges in our city, salary increases for council is the last thing on our minds, as it should be. Hopefully that puts peoples minds at ease on this matter. Hope everyone has a great day. 
Your response to saltybear’s query about the Mayor’s pay is no doubt appreciated by many of us. It is also good to read that you do not feel that the council should increase its’ pay in closed meetings. I am sure that citizens overwhelming feel that any increases in council member pay should be approved in public meetings. I am not so sure, though, that things really work that way. Here is why:
At the public meeting on June 27, 2011 the council approved the 2010 Statement of Financial Information. A copy can be found in the agenda package for that meeting < princerupert.ca/images/edito … Agenda.pdf >. Scroll down to page 58.
The Mayor was paid $38,755 in 2010 while the councillors were each paid $12,026.
The 2012 Statement of Financial Information can be found in the agenda package for the June 24, 2013 meeting < princerupert.ca/images/edito … Agenda.pdf >. Scroll down to page 21.
The Mayor was paid $42,426 in 2012 while the councillors were each paid $13,165, with the exception of councillor Kinney who for reasons unknown was paid $13,729.
So it appears that sometime between 2010 and 2012 the Mayor and councillors received pay increases. What other explanation could there be for the change?
I have looked through the minutes for 2010 to 2012 but I have not found any reference to a resolution approving pay increases for council members. Increases in council member pay must have been approved in some manner. If they were not approved at a public meeting, they must have been approved at a closed meeting? How else could they be approved?
Perhaps I have overlooked something and you can shed some light on how the council members’ pay increased between 2010 and 2012.
I will do my best to shed some light on the increases. You are correct that pay has increased by a small amount each year.
This is something that has been in effect since before I started on council in 2008.
In answer to how these increases were originally approved, I am not sure when the bylaw was put in place, nor am I sure if it was originally voted on in an open or closed meeting, but it was instituted, and approved, by a previous council, before my time. I honestly do not know when, or which council passed the bylaw.
The bylaw provides a small % cost of living remuneration stipend each year. This would account for the increases you have noted.
I tried to find the bylaw on the city website but was unable to do so. I will look into why it isn’t on the website, and try to get it put up so that people are aware of how remuneration is calculated.
I hope that answers the questions that were raised.
The salary increase listed by BTravenn amounts to a little over a 4.5% pay increase per year for the Mayor (from 2010 to 2012). Around 9.5% for that two year period.
[quote=“AnnaA”]I will do my best to shed some light on the increases. You are correct that pay has increased by a small amount each year.
This is something that has been in effect since before I started on council in 2008.
In answer to how these increases were originally approved, I am not sure when the bylaw was put in place, nor am I sure if it was originally voted on in an open or closed meeting, but it was instituted, and approved, by a previous council, before my time. I honestly do not know when, or which council passed the bylaw.
The bylaw provides a small % cost of living remuneration stipend each year. This would account for the increases you have noted.
I tried to find the bylaw on the city website but was unable to do so. I will look into why it isn’t on the website, and try to get it put up so that people are aware of how remuneration is calculated.
I hope that answers the questions that were raised.[/quote]
Now that you mention it, I recall seeing a passing reference in the minutes several years ago to an (if I recall correctly) ‘Elected Officials Remuneration & Expenses Bylaw’ but have not found it on the City’s bylaw page either. It would be good if you could bring that bylaw to light.
The Community Charter provides that bylaws can only be approved or repealed at a public meeting (“89(2) A council must not vote on the reading or adoption of a bylaw when its meeting is closed to the public”). There are no secret or confidential bylaws.
As mentioned, the Financial Information Act and Regulation require that public bodies that receive provincial funds make available to the public an annual Statement of Financial Information (SOFI) that, among other things, reports elected official honouraria and expenses. It would be good if the City would publish the SOFI online, rather than burying the information in lengthy council agenda packages where it can be hard to find.
I see that the SQCRD now publishes its’ annual SOFI online < sd52.bc.ca/sd52root/sites/defaul … mation.pdf >. That is common and best practice in the public sector and the City should do the same.
Just an update: The bylaw was written in 1994. Staff is going to be putting it up on the website but for those that would like to see it I am putting the wording of the bylaw below. I will ask staff about putting up the SOFI separately from the agenda so it is easy to access. I’m sure it is something that can easily be done. Hopefully this gives people the information they are looking for.
CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT
BYLAW NO. 2892
A BYLAW TO FIX THE ANNUAL INDEMNITIES PAID TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT
WHEREAS Section 267, subsection (1) of the Municipal Act RSBC 1979, Chapter 290 allows the Council to pay out of the annual revenue an annual indemnity to the Mayor and Councillors;
AND WHEREAS subsection (2) of Section 267 of the Municipal Act RSBC 1979, Chapter 290 provides that the indemnity for the Mayor may be greater than for other members of council, and that a portion of the remuneration paid to the Mayor and Councillors shall be paid as an allowance for expenses incidental to the discharge of the duties of their offices;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of City of Prince Rupert, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
-
That Mayor and Council Indemnity Bylaw No. 2866, 1993 as amended is hereby repealed.
-
That the indemnity payable to each Councillor for 1993 shall be $7,477.08.
-
That the indemnity payable to the Mayor for 1994 shall be $28,456.56, for 1995 the indemnity payable shall be $30,456.56 and for 1996 the indemnity payable shall be $32,456.56.
-
That one-third of the above mentioned remunerations paid to the Mayor and Councillors shall be paid as an allowance for expenses incidental to the discharge of the duties of their offices.
-
The annual indemnity referred to in this Bylaw for each Councillor shall, effective January 1st, 1994, and thereafter effective January 1st in each succeeding year, be increased or decreased for that year by the amount obtained by multiplying the annual indemnity paid during the previous year by the adjustment factor.
Adjustment factor shall mean for the year commencing January 1st, 1994, 100% of the percentage rate by which the average weekly wage in British Columbia for the year 1994 increased or decreased in comparison with the average weekly wage in British Columbia for the year 1993 and in each succeeding year, 100% of the percentage rate by which the average weekly wage in British Columbia in the preceding year increased or decreased in comparison with such average weekly wage in the year previous to that year.
-
For the purposes of this Bylaw the average weekly wage in British Columbia means, in respect of a year, the average weekly earnings of wage earners and salaried employees in the Industrial Composite for British Columbia for that year, published by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act (Canada) as amended from time to time.
-
That this Bylaw be cited for all purposes as “MAYOR AND COUNCIL INDEMNITY BYLAW NO. 2892, 1994”.
READ THE FIRST TIME THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH A.D. 1994.
READ THE SECOND TIME THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH A.D. 1994.
READ THE THIRD TIME THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH A.D. 1994.
RECONSIDERED, FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH A.D. 1994.
Thanks very much. It’s good to see some concrete action on your part to improve transparency.
Councillor remuneration is very clear. An amount was set in 1993 in section 2 of the bylaw and it has been increased every January 1 since then under section 5 to reflect the average increases in wages in BC.
The bylaw treats the Mayor’s pay differently in that section 3 fixes the amount for 1994, 1995, and 1996, but an annual adjustment does not apply to the Mayor’s remuneration; only the Councillors’.
The Mayor’s pay (“indemnity”) was set at $32,456.56 in 1996, and in 2012 the Mayor was paid $42,426. So how were the increases authorized?
At the July 24, 2000 public meeting the council by resolution increased the Mayor’s pay to $60,000 < princerupert.ca/images/edito … 202000.pdf >. See item 9. The pay was obviously cut sometime later, probably after the mill closed.
In 2007 the Mayor’s ‘indemnity’ was set in the 5 Year Financial Plan bylaw as amended < princerupert.ca/images/edito … ndment.pdf >. Scroll to page 5. Perhaps that authorized pay increases for the Mayor up to $40,851 in 2011, which is less than the $42,426 he was paid in 2012.
The Financial Plan bylaws no longer specify what the Mayor is to be paid. So that still leaves open the question of how his pay 2012 pay increase was authorized.
The answer to the original question appears to be that the council has not approved a pay increase for the Mayor so far this year (at least knowingly) but how the Mayor’s increases are authorized is shrouded in mystery. The ‘indemnity’ bylaw does not authorize annual increases for the Mayor based on provincial wage increases as it does for the councillors. That we now know.
The annual statements of council member remuneration in the SOFIs show that the Mayor has been getting annual pay increases.
Whether those increases are authorized by the council from time to time, or are authorized by some other mechanism, is unclear or unknown at this time. The increases may have been authorized in the annual updates of the 5 Year Financial Plan bylaw, but that no longer appears to be the case. The Mayor’s pay is no longer a line item in the Plan.
Hopefully further information will become available in due course, in the fullness of time, sometime before the Mayor’s term of office ends.
Thank you Ms. Ashley for posting on this forum, and for researching the topic, “Councillor and Mayor Salaries”.
Maybe now Anna can chime in on the secret budget deal with CUPE?
I see that the Mayor and Council Indemnity Bylaw 1994 as amended has now been posted on the City’s bylaw page under “Administrative Bylaws” < princerupert.ca/page.php?id_ … _section=4 >.
It’s still not clear how the Mayor has been getting pay increases since his pay was set at $32,456 in 1996.
Hopefully the City will also get around to publishing online the annual Statements of Financial Information which in addition to council member remuneration show who received contracts from the City. Some local businesses may wish to scrutinize the City’s procurements.
As for the “secret budget deal with CUPE”, it is shown in the 2013 Financial Plan Bylaw on page 13 as “Expenditures Identified by CUPE Union and approved by City Council” with $150,000 a year of credits, ie cost cutting measures, for the next five years. That’s not very informative. Also unusual is that it is highlighted in bold, which seems to suggest that it is a bit of a clanger.
< princerupert.ca/images/edito … 20Plan.pdf >
The council was free to negotiate with the Union in a closed meeting - excluding the public to discuss labour relations is permissible - but if the media or anyone else filed an FOI asking for some details there can be little or no doubt that the City would have to provide some information. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides that the following types of information are not invasions of privacy:
22(4)(e) the information is about the third party’s position, functions or remuneration as an officer, employee or member of a public body …,
(f) the disclosure reveals financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body,
bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws … #section22
Hopefully providing some information about how the City plans to save $750,000 over the next five years would not excessively burdensome.
The councillor that really should be chiming in on the $150,000 a year budget deal with CUPE, the details of which have yet to be released, is councillor Thorkselson, who at the last council meeting stated:
“I certainly am in favour, that we do as much of the budget planning in public meetings, but also if there is something difficult to understand sit down and workshop on some decisions” … “I was concerned that we not be as black and white as we were last year. We’ve never made any decisions in private. All of those decisions are made in public meeting, but I want to make sure that we have a chance to workshop on some issues.” northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … -into.html
Got that, “We’ve never made any decisions in private.” The council constantly makes decisions in private.
As for wanting to “sit down and workshop on some decisions”, turning the noun “workshop” into a verb is just doublespeak for making decisions in private and announcing or ratifying them in public to perpetuate the myth that city governance is always transparent, which it’s not.
There is no reason why the budget process cannot be public. That is after all where taxes, user fees, levels of service, grants to community organizations and tax exemptions are considered, all of which are matters of public interest.