ATHABASCA – An Athabasca County committee meeting featured raised voices and pointed fingers after yet another discussion on their remuneration policy turned sour.
During their Aug. 20 committee of the whole meeting, councillors voted 5-4 in favour of a proposed remuneration policy that would return the public officials to an honorarium — a base salary, with mileage — model nine months after they accidentally raised their pay more than intended.
All nine councillors agreed the pay raise needed to be rectified, but they couldn’t agree on how it should be done.
“This position is to serve our community — it wasn’t to create a wage to live on. This isn’t a living wage position, it’s a part time position,” said Coun. Tracy Holland. “We’re here to serve. We’re here to make sure we’re fiscally responsible doing it … We’re not employees and we’re not treated as employees.”
Critics of Holland’s position argued the honorarium model punishes anyone who wants to run for council but isn’t self-employed or retired. Proponents of a per diem model, including Coun. Natasha Kapitaniuk, said it would increase access to a council seat, and prevent the role from becoming something you had to be able to afford before you put your name forward.
Under the existing remuneration policy, councillors receive a base salary, and then receive extra cash for committee meetings, based on how long the meeting runs for.
“I don’t believe any of us were elected to sit here and judge each other or each other’s situations,” said Kapitaniuk. “A council should always be working on the remuneration policy for the future council, and I think our mistake was that we should have been doing this for the next council term, and not the next year.”
Frustrations spill over
Disagreements over pay have not been uncommon – councillors went over the policy numerous times before it was passed, tweaking the language and structure – but tensions spilled over after the two factions took umbrage at each other's tactics.
First, Holland and Coun. Gary Cromwell accused Reeve Brian Hall of “underhanded” tactics after he introduced a competing motion.
“I find this to be an act of bad faith, that you knew there was a councillor waiting to put up a motion and that you snuck in by whispering in your ear, and I call it out as non-proper conduct,” said Cromwell.
Holland, who said she also took offence at the reeve’s actions, went further, saying fairness hadn’t occurred around the table in a long time.
“It would also be proven to say that per diems have been used as threats, punishments, or intimidation. I am totally against per diems, completely and totally,” said Holland.
When asked to provide an example of her claim, Holland declined to.
Coun. Rob Minns and Natasha Kapitaniuk also got into a heated discussion that culminated with Minns saying he was fed up with the way the table had been acting.
“It’s the little one-liner that comes on all the time, and that’s another riff we’ve got going on here. It’s ridiculous … I didn’t run to do this. I ran here to better the county, to keep programs going the way they should, to be a voice for my constituents,” he said. “Here we are fighting over money? It’s ridiculous.”
Councillors will deal with the topic again during their Aug. 29 regular council meeting, where the recommended motion will be to direct administration to draft a new elected officials policy for remuneration and expenses. The draft will use the honorarium model, with compensation for mileage.
Under the draft, which will be formally voted on at a future council meeting, councillors would make $58,350, the deputy reeve would make $63,000, and the reeve would make $68,000. Under the current structure, councillor pay jumped to an average of almost $76,000 with per diems included.
