Wyatt shows true colours

JT Estoban wrote:So if the mayor, and his hand picked yes men could conceivably reject anything that the mayor doesn't like/approve of and it would never get to council for a full vote.

I'm under the impression that a Councillor can bring issues to the floor of Council, sort of a "private members" bill as it were. Does anyone have a quick answer to that question?

Likewise, any proposals brought to Council can still be amended or outright rejected by a simple majority of the voting members.

Freeman wrote:

umcrouc0 wrote:

Freeman wrote:I guess a downside with that is that an individual could push a personal or local agenda while chairing a certain standing committee. Would all the streets in the North End suddenly get fixed if Harry was to chair the public works committee?

So the current system doesn't allow anyone to push a personal agenda?

DId I say that? But at least under the current system, the Mayor has the authority to give someone the boot rather than just waiting for his turn to expire.

Council should have that ability, not the mayor.

Freeman wrote:Likewise, any proposals brought to Council can still be amended or outright rejected by a simple majority of the voting members.

That may be the case but I think EPC can stop a lot of things from getting that far. I thought that a number of issues needed to go through EPC before being approved to go to a full council vote. But maybe not.

umcrouc0 wrote:

Freeman wrote:

umcrouc0 wrote:

Freeman wrote:I guess a downside with that is that an individual could push a personal or local agenda while chairing a certain standing committee. Would all the streets in the North End suddenly get fixed if Harry was to chair the public works committee?

So the current system doesn't allow anyone to push a personal agenda?

DId I say that? But at least under the current system, the Mayor has the authority to give someone the boot rather than just waiting for his turn to expire.

Council should have that ability, not the mayor.

Would that not be leaning towards a party type system?

Freeman wrote:

JT Estoban wrote:So if the mayor, and his hand picked yes men could conceivably reject anything that the mayor doesn't like/approve of and it would never get to council for a full vote.

I'm under the impression that a Councillor can bring issues to the floor of Council, sort of a "private members" bill as it were. Does anyone have a quick answer to that question?

yes

Freeman wrote:Likewise, any proposals brought to Council can still be amended or outright rejected by a simple majority of the voting members.

yes

Councillors should get ZERO extra money for chairing or sitting on any committees. That would help a bit.

I don't know about that. I think that one of our problems is that we don't make public office inviting enough to attract the right people. If you're successful at whatever it is you're doing, should you take a substantial cut in pay to hold public office. I'm not saying match big $$, but being elected Councillor should not represent a substantial increase in your gross earnings.

councillors get paid quite well to begin with... AND 30% of their pay is tax free. They should not also be getting substanial bonuses to be on extra committees. That should be part of their job duties.

$61,429.01 before "bonuses" and up to 76,051.23 with bonuses.
dont forget... 30% tax free.

AND... depending on where you got your start.. Notably some of the unions... you are gaurenteed your job back when you are done being a councillor through resignation or being not voted in the next time.

That is NOT "good" money. I think there is sufficient evidence that we are getting what we are paying for.

how is that NOT good money? you have to remember the 30% tax free GOM makes a hell of a difference for the amount of work they "need" to perform.

"IMO"

Lets say its not enough.. why should they be getting "bonuses" to do work that should already be part of being a councillor?

Ahh, Deank. So what? If one serves on a committee ostensibly they are offering greater value and should be compensated accordingly. It also rewards those that get more involved.

Assume everybody get's paid the "minimum" and is "topped up" for offering greater value. I see that as reasonable and fair.

how about instead making the minimum serving on 4 committees?

15K in bonuses is pretty damn unreasonable. ESPECIALLY when citizen members of those same committees get paid ZERO dollars

Deank wrote:how about instead making the minimum serving on 4 committees?

15K in bonuses is pretty damn unreasonable. ESPECIALLY when citizen members of those same committees get paid ZERO dollars

Agreed

Is there extra pay for "serving" on Committees, or is it for "chairing" the Committees? And is it all Committtes, or just the Standing Policy Committees? Just to sit as a member probably isn't worth more, but being the chair certainly is?

Even when you factor in the tax free deal on 30% of the earnings, it still isn't great. You get what you pay for.

yup extra for serving

I'd have to agree that $75K is not great money to attract the best..even with the 30% tax free portion your only adding something like an additional $8-10K in take home pay. So your looking at a real world equivalent of around $90-95K.

That may be inviting to some, but I dont think it's a huge incentive to throw away your private life and be open to public scrutiny for most people. I know for a fact at my workplace that probably 50% of the workforce earns those kind of wages or more by putting in some overtime when it's available.

Where's the incentive for me to run for office and put up with you guys criticizing my every move, when I can earn just as much by putting in an extra 10-15/hrs a week? Not worth it IMHO.

This is not the 1980's anymore, I'd consider $75K to be just above a decent living wage. It is certainly not "BIG" money.

Are you talking about individual income or family income?
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a-eng.htm

grumpyrom wrote:I'd have to agree that $75K is not great money to attract the best..even with the 30% tax free portion your only adding something like an additional $8-10K in take home pay. So your looking at a real world equivalent of around $90-95K.

That may be inviting to some, but I dont think it's a huge incentive to throw away your private life and be open to public scrutiny for most people. I know for a fact at my workplace that probably 50% of the workforce earns those kind of wages or more by putting in some overtime when it's available.

Where's the incentive for me to run for office and put up with you guys criticizing my every move, when I can earn just as much by putting in an extra 10-15/hrs a week? Not worth it IMHO.

This is not the 1980's anymore, I'd consider $75K to be just above a decent living wage. It is certainly not "BIG" money.

Maybe the Councillors could form a union and demand better pay and benefits.

JTF wrote:Are you talking about individual income or family income?
[url=http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a-eng.htm

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a-eng.htm[/quote[/url]]

Individual....looking at your link the average family income AFTER tax for a family of four is $82K...so around $120k before taxes. Roughly $60K per income earner. This is the minimum of what I would consider a "decent" wage that allows one to own a "decent" home, a "decent" newer car, and maybe a family vacation once a year. I don't consider these things to be luxurious, but rather normal for a middle class lifesyle. But I'm getting off track.....

Therefore paying someone $15k more than a decent wage is not exactly what I'd consider a "big" money job.