THE B.C. Community Charter, is straightforward: If a member of council stands to gain from a discussion or decision of that council, then she or he must absent themselves from both the discussion and the vote.
Paraphrasing Chapter 26, Part 4, Division 6 (101-102): If a council member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the outcome of an agenda item, s/he must not be present at any part of the meeting while the matter is under consideration; participate in the discussion; vote on a question in respect of the matter, or attempt in any way before, during or after such a meeting, to influence the voting.
Furthermore, the charter takes this obligation so seriously that, together, Sections 103(2) and 110 (2) state that a person who contravenes the legislation is disqualified from holding office until the next municipal election.
Unfortunately, Section 104: 1 (c) immediately relieves members of their need to leave the room if "the matter relates to remuneration, expenses or benefits payable to one or more council members in relation to their duties. . . ."
It was that section of the charter that, on March 26, gave members of District of West Vancouver council little option but to consider and vote themselves salary increases - or not.
No one should be placed in that distasteful position.
All members spoke to the embarrassment of the situation and, given the current economic climate, handled the discussion as sensitively as taxpayers could expect.
The end result was that, as reported in the March 28 edition of the North Shore News, "council voted unanimously . . . to give themselves their first pay hike in nearly a decade."
But that is not the story; nor is the three-year phase-in proposed in the motion tabled by Coun. Bill Soprovich.
The story is two-fold: a flawed system that cries out for immediate changes to the charter, and some of the comments made during the discussion.
The matter of politicians deciding their own salary increases has embarrassed North Shore councils as far back as the late 1990s.
The anachronism should have been remedied when the Community Charter came into force on Jan. 1, 2004 but it was not.
So pending development of a formula by which salary guidelines for mayors and councillors could be established for all B.C. municipalities, perhaps councils could ask the province to add this clause to the charter wording:
"If any council votes to increase its remuneration, such increase will come into effect after the next scheduled municipal election."
Not only would such wording relieve council members of their conflict of interest, but voters would be able to query candidates about proposed increases prior to casting their ballots.
With respect to a formula: a system must be designed, complex or not, that does not politically embarrass a council into accepting less than it deserves or, conversely, allow a spendthrift council to help itself to an unfair share of the kitty.
So how about this idea to begin the discussion: Working in conjunction with the suggested change to charter wording, could a salary/ benefit formula be designed to serve as a baseline for all B.C. municipalities, against which councils would then apply the variances applicable to any given community?
The formula would recognize all of the following factors and more: size of the annual municipal budget; population; the percentage breakdown as to single-family, multi-family, commercial and industrial "citizens"; the Consumer Price Index; the geographic area and the extent of infrastructure and transportation networks to be provided and maintained.
Now for some comments made during the West Vancouver meeting:
Although everyone expressed embarrassment at their predicament, the reaction of the three new members of the team left me perplexed.
One would expect that someone considering a run for council would first review the duties and time involved relative to the salary package available and then decide whether they wanted to take on the commitment.
To wait until after the election to discover that the salary for 25 hours/ week equates to, variously, the hourly rate of a "supermarket" employee or about "a dollar more than a school trustee" doesn't seem like a good idea.
Were deputy-mayor allowances, Metro committee payments, car allowances and the tax-free one-third of the council salary factored into the equation?
Agreed, it cannot be easy for a family man or woman to sacrifice the equivalent of one day a week of paid and pensionable employment to free up time for council; but candidates need to weigh that before, not after the election.
All in all, if sitting as a councillor has evolved from part-time to a full-time equivalent, taxpayers can look forward to underwriting a much higher bill for their elected officials than has traditionally been the case.
Either that or they will need to seek out more candidates like Mayor Michael Smith who provided the one unexpected, and much appreciated spot in the discussion by committing his increase of $9,000/year to the West Vancouver Foundation - to pay for the operation of a seniors' shuttle-bus service in the community.
