CRD Watch Homepage

We May be on to Something Here

More questions arise regarding Victoria Council’s surprise unilateral 25% salary hike for themselves.

Arthur McInnes
March 28, 2024

Some readers may have seen my writing mocking Council’s (the Coalition of Five) recent approval of an astounding 25% increase in their salary. This is attracting so much widespread public condemnation and dissatisfaction, as evidenced by the outpouring of letters and op-eds submitted by concerned citizens, that I wish to return to the issue, salute the critics and make the point “we may be onto something here”.

Just who are some of these outraged and outspoken critics. The Times Colonist alone has already published scathing letters from Steve Orcherton, James Kelly, John Day, Elizabeth Kozak, Dennis Bourne, Noreen Marshall, Sheila Hodgson and Marg Gardiner. Steve was a defeated Council candidate and one can only wonder what difference he might have made here. One common thread among these critical diverse viewpoints is clear: disappointment and disillusionment with a city Council that seems to prioritize self-enrichment over public service.

Let me bring out some of key points raised by our critics:

 Council members knew the job demands and compensation before they sought office. If the job has become too challenging or time-consuming, the correct course of action is to resign, allowing citizens to elect someone who can meet the job requirements.

 The city is facing numerous challenges, including homelessness, street disorder, and traffic congestion. How can their salary increase be prioritised over these problems.

 Many question whether the Council members’ performance justifies a salary increase.

 On a per capita basis, some argue that the proposed salary increases for the Mayor and Council members are disproportionately high compared to other western Canadian cities.

 Some constituents suggest that the Council members should have consulted the public before deciding on such a significant salary increase. They argue that the decision seems to disregard the financial struggles of many residents in one of Canada’s most expensive cities.

 Others have suggested that rather than increasing their pay, the Council members’
salaries should have been reduced, given the city’s current parlous financial state.

 Critics accuse the Council members of voting for their own pay increase without even public notice or the opportunity for public input. It was not an agenda item. This says much.

 Most commend Gardiner, Hammond and even Alto who voted against the increase
and now urge the Mayor to speak out against the motion.

What particularly incenses the public is the audacious claim by some Council members that this salary increase is justified due to the supposedly demanding nature of their roles. Interestingly, these claims come in a time when, according to many, the performance of the Council has been subpar. Again, some letters, such as James Kelly’s, question the Council’s effectiveness in grappling with the city’s pressing issues, such as homelessness or traffic congestion. Marg Gardiner sees some pursuing their own pet projects. Gardiner feels so strongly about the issue that she has said she will be donating her increase to local charities.

The public’s discontent is further fuelled by the perceived lack of transparency in the way the salary increase was approved. Noreen Marshall points out that the decision was not even on the Council agenda and was passed without any opportunity for public input. This of course is perfectly consistent with the direction that the Council is heading with the reduction of public input across the board. There is no question in my mind that this is a blatant disregard for the principles of good governance, fiscal prudence and likely in contravention of the
Council’s own Code of Conduct.

Furthermore, the letters underscore a sense of betrayal felt by the residents who entrusted these Councillors with the power to make decisions that serve Victoria’s best interests. The decision to increase salaries, especially in the absence of clear justifications and amidst a palpable decline in the City’s living conditions, shatters this trust.

In the face of such strong public opposition, it is imperative for the Victoria City Council to reconsider their stance. It is high time these Councillors remember that they were elected to serve the people, not their own personal interests.

This salary increase saga has highlighted the need for greater transparency, improved performance, and a stronger commitment to the principles of public service among our city’s elected officials. The Council members would do well to heed the voices of their constituents, act accordingly and reverse this move. While residents may be paying the bill for the next two years come election time its these Councillors who will pay.