Normally, St. Albert taxpayers should be pleased with council’s decision to put city hall’s compensation practices under the microscope of a third-party review. Residents would better understand the importance of retaining a quality workforce and strategies used to ensure St. Albertans receive fair value for their property tax dollars. Unfortunately, the process has barely started and council is already heading in the wrong direction.
This week council approved a roadmap that will guide the review of compensation practices for union and non-union city employees, as well as the mayor and councillors. A consultant will evaluate current practices, which for non-union staff and council involves biennial surveys comparing salaries and benefits here with other Alberta communities. There are inherent problems with salary surveys, an approach most municipalities use that all but guarantees a lucrative payday. Then there’s the optics issue of having an administration conduct a survey of its own salary grids and recommend raises for itself, or alternatively a council approving its own wages. The system completely fails the public good when all discussion happens behind closed doors, leaving taxpayers to wonder exactly who sets policy and who implements it.
On the surface we applaud council’s decision to take such a hands-on approach, however an outside perspective can provide no comfort unless transparency improves. So far that hasn’t been the case. The consultant, who could cost up to $100,000, will work with a small steering committee consisting of Mayor Nolan Crouse, Coun. Roger Lemieux and a still-to-be-named public citizen. The committee will receive support from staff, but no member of city administration will have a seat at the table. While that might be an acceptable model if the review only covered compensation for city employees, it’s light-years off the mark when council salaries and possibly the idea of a full- or part-time council are at stake.
We mean no disrespect to whoever does volunteer for the job, however one token member of the public is not a substitute for what is really needed — a full citizen committee. A five-person committee led a review of council pay and perks in 2003, providing a final report the following year with 18 recommendations that were debated in public. That would not be the case with this review, with the terms of reference clearly stating some sections of the final report could remain private. Other sections will be available for “public review,” which is much different than stating they will be debated in public. The November timeline for the recommendations is another concern, coming a month after the civic election. Any changes should be implemented before Oct. 18 so voters, who already have a high sensitivity to tax increases, have a clear understanding of how their tax dollars are being managed. This would also prevent the next council from having the unenviable task of approving raises for itself a month into the new term.
City administration several times used the Servus Credit Union Place citizens’ task force as a comparison for this compensation panel. Council does not need to be reminded that task force was an official committee of council with several citizen members that, more often than not, met in full view of the public. The structure approved this week offers no such guarantee and only puts the mayor and Lemieux in a politically awkward position of recommending self-serving policy. It also puts the citizen member under intense scrutiny especially, if like recent committees, that individual has either been a member of city administration or is on a first name basis with senior management.
Of course there are political challenges with a citizen review, as we saw between 2004 and 2006 when two successive councils failed to agree on the committee’s 18 recommendations. That put council members in an uncomfortable position with the same self-serving criticisms, however it was still the right approach to take. If council does not open the doors for a truly clear and transparent review, the only guarantee taxpayers can take to the bank is more of the same.
