HawthorneVillager.com

A few months ago a citizen's group was put together to study and determine what councillors in Milton should be paid (no politician was allowed in the committee). They came back with the recommendation today. Here's the full report:

http://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/C ... Review.pdf

They came back with a recommendation to increase councillor compensation to $32,120 / year, phased-in over three years.

Salaries achieve two purposes: 1) compensate people for performing a job and 2) attract people to the role since even if people aren’t motivated by money, they can be demotivated by lack thereof.

You can determine my opinion by searching around to see what I’ve written on it before, but right now I want to hear your opinion. What do you think? Council still has to vote on it so do you consider $32k/ year to be too high? Too low? Just right? What about timing? How do you recommend handling it? Who should set it: citizen committee (as is the case this time around), referendum, some self-sustaining policy that automatically determines a number based on some criterion?

What do you think?

_________________
Milton Councillor, Ward8.ca
zee@ward8.ca | Facebook | twitter | 416-823-6993

To not answer your question, I think they should just hire someone who knows how to actually throw a party. And fire Tony Lambert.

How the F did they arrive at such a precise number? I mean, $32k would make sense, even $32,100. But what's the extra twenty bucks for? A shitty hat and bubble-machine at the street "festival"?

who's on the citizens group?

who hired them?

how was the notice put out for people to join the citizens group?

_________________
Pics are up! http://www.miltonlifestyle.com/threads/ ... orth.1000/

The citizens group was compiled by the current audit committee. There wasnt a call to join the committee just the appointment of current audit committee members. If you read through the report it outlines the reasoning behind their recommendations and why they chose that amount.

Rick M and i are moving an amendment to this report stating that instead of phasing in the increase over three years, that the increase comes into effect the date the next council in December 2014.

I can accept the committee and its findings but have an issue with council, or any level of government being able to increase their pay.

_________________
Mike Cluett
Milton Town Councillor

Website | Email mike@mikecluett.ca | Cell (647) 888-9032 | Facebook Page | | Twitter @Mike_Cluett

Agreed. No sitting council should be able to vote on their own compensation. At the very least, it needs to be "pushed" to the next group. At best, it should be part of a seperate referendum. (Concurrent with the next election)

It should be a quarterly bonus system, you accomplish something, you get paid.
You accomplish nothing but rather try to claim someone else's bonus as working "with them" you get punched.

_________________
I have some rope up here, but I do not think you would accept my help, since I am only waiting around to kill you.

I agree with Mike. Phase it in post 2014 election.

_________________
Kim
Check out my blog!
http://miltonparksandtrails.com

The number seems about right based on what is in the report, in terms of what councillors in similar sized towns are earning.

One question though - the reference to professional development budget being left up to council members. Since you asked for our thoughts about all of this - why is that left up to council members? why isn't it at least capped? has that historically been a huge amount? only a nominal amount? do some councillors rack up huge amounts while others pay out of pocket for some things? Can a councillor shed any light on this?

A second question - I like RichardTNC's question, and while Mike Cluett answered it to a degree and I'm sure his answer is accurate, if the point of the question is "who are these people, and how did they get to be the ones who decided on this report", then I think a more fulsome answer is warranted. And if that wasn't the point of RichardTNC's question, then I'd like to know.

So there is an audit committee and somebody appointed some of them to decide on what is in the report. I still don't know who these audit committee people are and how some of them got appointed to this citizen's group. Is this just a whole bunch of people who work at town hall asking each other who feels like being on the next "citizen's group" or other committee? I mean if you are going to call something a citizen's group, there ought to be average citizens on it. And maybe they all are, I just don't know, and I don't know from that report. I'm sure there's a simple answer, can any of the councillors advise?

I think they should be paid a lot more and take on the job as full-time. Maybe by having these positions as full-time, you wouldn't need as many councillors. To me it looks like you need to have full focus on shaping the community, especially one that is growing so fast in so many ways. I think having it a part time gig, there is perhaps less time for these individuals to make thorough decisions.

That was not a knock on any councillors...I know that when I am overwhelmed with a full workload, I don't spend as much time and focus on items as I would normally like.

I think it would also attract a higher caliber of candidate (again, not a knock, for the most part)

so they can say a Milton councillor is paid higher than the average councillor ($32,119)

I actually prefer part time councillors. Once it becomes a full time job, it opens up the potential for corruption and corporations trying to get in their pockets. Right now theres no funny business and I like that about Milton.

_________________
Pics are up! http://www.miltonlifestyle.com/threads/ ... orth.1000/

Cough <Tony Lambert>, cough

I'm not sure where the connection between full time and succeptibility to corruption is, but one drawback I can see is that some quality candidates may not take the leap into public office if they know they may be out of a job in 4 years.

It just seems that managing a rapidly expanding town like ours needs a little more focus then a town that is relatively stable.

I agree with this. Or better put: Whatever it takes for you guys to make this a better place to live; be that a raise or a promotion to full time. Find more ways to make me want to stay living here.

I know a lot of people will want you to phase it in over time because of ethical reasons when it comes to voting on your own salary increase, but this town is already a vastly different place form the one you were voted in to run, so to me it's a raise that only makes sense.

Lastly, as mentioned in previous posts.... you need to put way more focus on parks and interconnecting paths that run throughout Milton, not just along main roads. I want more safe places to take the kids for rides away from cars, not riding alongside of them.

I really don't mind the raise. Seems in line with other municipalities. What really grinds my gears is the thought of Tony Lambert getting another cent from me.

Would it not just be easier to vote yes to the raise and have it take effect after the next election? You could even make it retroactive for the incumbents that may be successful.

So basically what some of you guys are saying these guys are holding back from being better councillors because they want more money than what was there when they campaigned?

I hope our boys in council arent doing that. ie I doubt that at all.

And I dont think having other career council type guys try to get elected when the money is better is going to make this a better town. We the people make this town what it is. All those guys there now are doing a great job. I dont want joe councillor to have his sights set on running only if the money is better. Thats not the type of guy I want reperesenting me.

_________________
Pics are up! http://www.miltonlifestyle.com/threads/ ... orth.1000/