Heat continues as council defers horseshoe pay cheque decision

By Sharon Harrison
It was another messy, complicated and sometimes angry meeting at Tuesday night’s regular council as councillors attempted to make a decision about horseshoe pay cheques – but decided to essentially start again from scratch, at the next council meeting.

At the crux of deliberations was what council members think they are worth, what the job really entails and whether it should be considered a full-time role – with mixed views and many differing opinions.

Mayor Steve Ferguson stated it’s always been “a very awkward” conversation.

The review was also about establishing comparators and how the County compares itself to other municipalities and what other councillors and mayors are paid, where it has repeatedly been stated that comparisons are not an easy thing to find given the County is a single-tier municipality, not comparing well to larger single-tiers, nor two-tier governance. Population size and geography also factor.

“We are unique,” said councillor John Hirsch, “27,000 people, but a geography larger than the greater Toronto area, and every single service is under our responsibility.”

The conversation around what council members should or should not be paid is also timely as it pertains to how that decision may potentially help attract municipal election candidates, given the upcoming October election.

“I’ve had a real concern that going into this election, if we don’t make running for council an attractive proposition, we will find ourselves in the position where we will, maybe there will be a bunch of acclaimed candidates, maybe they will be under-qualified candidates, and they will be successful,” shared Ferguson.

“The number of people that have mentioned to me, virtually on a daily basis, ‘I don’t know why anyone would do this work, why anyone would be a councillor or the mayor’, and it is not necessarily the money, it’s a lot of the other things: it’s the workload, it’s the lack of benefits, it is the systematic abuse that occurs in all media and I will call it abuse, but let’s be polite and call it scrutiny, a lot of people aren’t prepared for that.”

One of the barriers to entry is the compensation, he said, “because ultimately, we will paint ourselves into a corner if we do not make running for council and a council position, representing the public, as a high value employment option.”

With many differing opinions voiced, some irate and angry, council members were at odds about which option to select when Option 4 (to maintain current pay level) and Option 2 (single-tier market average) both lost in 6-6 tied recorded votes (a tied vote loses).

Voting in favour of maintaining the status quo (Option 4) were councillors Roy Pennell, Brad Nieman, Phil Prinzen, David Harrison, Corey Engelsdorfer and Chris Braney.

Voting in favour of Option 2 (market average of single tiers) were councillors Phil St-Jean, Sam Grosso, John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard and mayor Steve Ferguson. There was no consideration (or vote) for Options 1 (broad municipal comparator group) and 3 (single-tier comparator group with living wage consideration).

With two of the 14 councillors absent, Hirsch suggested deferring the matter until all 14 councillors are in the room to make the decision. Councillor Braney didn’t agree.

“Everyone should be here,” Ferguson added.

Some councillors wanted the new council to make the decision about pay, others said it was a bad idea.

“Let the new council make that decision,” added Pennell, “to me, it’s stupid for us to make any decision when there are many variables, depending on how the election goes there may be a whole new realm of what they got to deal with.”

What if one of the councillors that are here this evening can’t be at that [next] meeting… “we are stocking the God-damn deck,” said an irate Braney. “If that’s what we are doing, we should just stand up and walk out because I am not comfortable with what’s happening here… if we are waiting for two people to come, that’s not right,” added councillor Brad Nieman.

Municipal clerk Catalina Blumenberg, suggested the whole matter be deferred. “Perhaps we can have this conversation with fresher minds, it’s been a long meeting, it’s almost 10 o’clock, and we are at a stalemate.”

At the end of the day, having come to the realization they were blocking themselves into a corner by voting down two of the four options, and leaving themselves deadlocked with
few solutions remaining, the clerk intervened, explaining what that meant and what options were remaining.

Two more recorded votes decided that council will re-consider the decisions they had just made, and defer the item to the June 23 council meeting.

A motion to re-consider the item carried in a 7-5 recorded vote, with councillors Phil St-Jean, Sam Grosso, Corey Engelsdorfer, John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard and mayor Ferguson in favour. A motion to defer the item to the next council meeting also carried in a 7-5 recorded vote, with the same councillors in favour.

The clerk confirmed these two motions essentially wipe the slate clean and they can start again from scratch at the next council meeting.

Hirsch said the revised report gives council far better and more complete information and options than the first version.

“What we really need to do as a council, is to decide what is our over-arching pay philosophy,” explained Hirsch. “The options you’ve laid out is, the top option (the higher price Option 3) says, if we have the philosophy that the job is largely full-time, then living wage is $47,000. If we instead say we are not going to worry about that and use single tiers as a comparator [Option 2], then it’s around $40,000. If you look at the 19 comparator [Option 1], it’s a lower number again.”

Nieman objected to council having sent the report back in the first place, where he indicated how he has never supported a raise in the 12 years he has been on council, saying he is happy with the pay he gets.

“Now we want to send it back to say, you better find something else because we don’t like what you told us,” he said. “You can be as busy as you want to be as a council member. When people say, I can’t have a full-time job and do council… there has been a number of people who sat on council who had full-time jobs and still did council work and did other things, went to school. What was provided is proof enough for me to maintain the current council framework.”

Councillor Kate MacNaughton was in favour of Option 2, stating it was a small impact to the levy and it is something that offers an opportunity to a lot more people to potentially consider running for office.

“Right now, we do have conditions that limit who can and cannot even consider running for council. Voters need the best choices possible, and that’s a pretty low-cost way to encourage people to consider running for council.”

Councillor Phil St-Jean said “the expectations of this job deserve a better and higher remuneration, without a doubt”. And speaking to trying to encourage a younger, educated, broader demographic to join council, and in particular, equity to access and barriers to participations, he said, “everyone has an opportunity, but they don’t all have the same ability and that’s where equity of access comes in. We need to make this space open to everyone and as equitable as we can for everyone.”

He reminded there are currently seven (nine as of Wednesday) nominees for council positions, including two for mayor, for the October municipal election, with three (now two ward) vacancies.

“My biggest worry is, if we keep this at under $30,000, we are going to eliminate all these people the opportunity for them to step-up and put their names on a ballot,” expressed St-Jean. “Wouldn’t it be awful if there were vacancies left in August? Wouldn’t it be awful if half of the people were acclaimed? That’s not healthy democracy.”

Preferring Option 2, Hirsch said he shared the same fear.

“There are no new names there, that frightens me that we are not attracting people,” he said. “Perhaps the money just isn’t good enough to make it worth their while. We have to attract new people to these spots, otherwise we will end up with vacant spots or a fully acclaimed council.”

In favour of going with Option 4, councillor Phil Prinzen said, “The last thing we want to do is strap future councils to budget items and this is exactly what we will do here with a pay increase. I don’t believe we should be making budget restrictions or budget item spends for the next council.”

While there was some suggestion raised that the matter be brought up at the 2027 budget process (by the new council), St-Jean explained that part of the reason for doing it now is to take the politics out of the decision-making, “and the bad perception of politicians giving themselves raises”.

The results of a consultant’s remuneration review were initially revealed to council at the May 14 committee of the whole meeting, which turned into a long debate, and at times a heated discussion about council pay. See that story here:

Heated discussion over pay; council rejects review report

Staff had at that time, in conjunction with the consultant’s report, recommended that no changes be made to council pay, something that didn’t go down well around the horseshoe. Council ended up voting to send the report back to staff to be re-worked, to not only look again at the compensation component of the review, but also the barriers to council member participation and potential approaches to addressing those barriers.

It was noted that consultants, the Stratford Group, have also provided a supplemental review (to their original review) which includes additional comparator municipalities, a separate analysis of single-tier municipalities, information related to living wage considerations, and compensation scenarios for council’s consideration.

The Stratford Group supplemental report expands on the original review by increasing the comparator group from 13 to 19 municipalities and providing a separate analysis of single-tier municipalities, stated Arryn McNichol, Director of Finance and Information Technology. The report also includes information related to living wage considerations and presents three potential compensation options for council’s consideration intended to provide council with a range of approaches.

“The supplemental report shows that results vary depending on the comparator group and approach used. Under the broader 19-municipality comparator group, current council remuneration is generally aligned with the median of comparable municipalities,” stated McNichol. “However, when only single-tier municipalities are considered, current remuneration levels fall below the average of the comparator group.”

He said, the report also notes that some members of council expressed the view that remuneration should be considered through an equity-of-access lens, including consideration of a living wage.”

The staff report and related documentation on the council remuneration review discussed at the June 9 council meeting can be found on the corresponding agenda item on the County’s website, along the meeting recording.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Options 1-4
The four different compensation approaches (salary figures are approximate), of which council must select one, are as follows, with notes from Stratford Group:

Option 1 (broad municipal comparator group)
Set council remuneration at the market average of the broad 19-organization comparator group:
Rationale: this group represents the broad market of municipalities of reasonably similar population size and within reasonable geographic proximity to Prince Edward County.
Mayor: Salary $68,000 (13% increase from current level)
Councillor: Salary $32,000 (7.5% increase from current level).

Option 2 (single-tier municipal comparator group)
Set council remuneration at the market average of the six single-tier municipality comparator group:
Rationale: this group represents single-tier municipalities of reasonably similar population size and within reasonable geographic proximity to Prince Edward County. This reflects the differing requirements that come with being a single-tier municipality.
Mayor: Salary $96,500 (39% increase from current level)
Councillor: Salary $40,422 (27% increase from current level).

Option 3 (single-tier comparator group with living wage consideration)
Set council remuneration at the market average of the six single-tier municipality comparator group or Ontario Living Wage standard, whichever is higher:
Similar to Option 2, but it incorporates the philosophy of providing a living wage and ensures that is the threshold level that will be provided.
Mayor: Salary $96,500 (39% increase from current level)
Councillor: Salary $47,000 (37% increase from current level).

Option 4: Maintain the current council remuneration framework.

The increased pay for council members (including the mayor) for each of the options, as well as the financial impact, are outlined below.