That thud you heard was the sound of city councillors walking into a wall at St. Albert Place. They’re not the easiest corridors to navigate, with the sweeping Doug Cardinal-designed curves, but it’s even harder to get around with blinders on.
Such was the case — again — when council appointed five citizens at large to a committee that will review council pay and perks. On the surface, all the appointees sound like reasonable candidates to walk into the politically sticky web that is council remuneration. But a closer look at the names and, more specifically, their friendly histories with city council and administration shows this council doesn’t seem to understand that optics are everything on the remuneration file.
The committee consists of Rick Sloan, Ken MacKay, Nancy Bochard, Neil Korotash and Bruce Garriock, whose respective professional backgrounds include experience in the public sector, police service, human resources, education and legal system. In other words, this is a quality group of individuals who are quite capable of grasping the subtleties of a job like mayor and city councillor. But when three of the five have either sat on and even chaired a committee of council or even city council itself, the perception of the selections are poor at best. Council has opened the door to criticism that it appointed friends and colleagues to a committee tasked with doling out raises.
That’s not to say any of the five would act in anything but an impartial manner, especially when we’re talking about someone like a judge (Garriock). All five should be commended for putting their names forward in the name of public service. As a former city councillor, Korotash certainly knows the job, but he also sat alongside two of the people whose salaries he’s being asked to review, and worked on the political campaigns to elect Mayor Nolan Crouse and Coun. Cathy Heron. I covered city council during two of Korotash’s three terms and think he did a pretty darned good job; he always did his homework, made logical, well reasoned arguments and wasn’t overly reactionary like some of his present-day colleagues. Were I a city councillor, I wouldn’t hesitate to seek his political advice. But I would not ask him to review my salary. The same goes for Garriock, who sat on the former municipal planning commission and affordable housing advisory board, or MacKay, the former chair of both the community services advisory board and the Servus Place citizen task force. Both are more than capable, but they’re also too close to council and call too many senior city administrators by their first names.
Appointing a group that could almost be called the Society of Friends of City Council proves this bunch of elected officials doesn’t get it on the pay and perks file. It started last term, when councillors tried to include their pay as part of a wider review of remuneration at city hall — with minimal public involvement — a move that showed spectacularly poor understanding of the importance of transparency. Council reacted by calling for a public committee, but balked at the idea of members with backgrounds in organized labour or the chamber on grounds that both lobby government for money. Fair point, but by cutting out people with private sector backgrounds in favour of friendly public servants and those with direct knowledge of council business, don’t be surprised when people criticize council for counting the cards. If councillors took the blinders off they too would see just how bad it looks.
Bryan Alary is a former city hall reporter and editor.
