A4

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

Council has voted to increase the salaries of Saint John's city managers. The decision sets a poor precedent in several ways.

The raise was not approved as part of the regular budget process. The pay increase is not tied to performance, though council has committed in principle to an independent performance review process and a value-for-money audit.

The raise is not connected to changes in the economy, either, although council has customarily based salary increases upon the consumer price index.

This is the sort of vote taxpayers want councillors to avoid - an example of off-the-cuff spending that will increase the city's budget obligations in coming years.

Managerial pay should be fair, but without any objective grounds for comparison to establish what is fair, councillors have voted for an increase based on personal assumptions. This is reckless spending. The whole point of initiating performance reviews is to get an independent opinion of whether taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

Those who voted in favour of the raise might protest that the dollar value doesn't amount to much, but it's a self-deceiving argument. Once a council steps off the clear path of agreed-upon procedure and fiscal responsibility, it doesn't take long for small expenditures to add up, taking a big bite out of the budget.

Every unscheduled salary increase councillors approve reduces the city's spending capacity while increasing its pension obligations and the burden on taxpayers. A raise in managerial pay also sparks new demands for a corresponding increase from the city's unions. How will councillors deal with those requests?

Councillors seem committed to the principle of seeking value for money. They should be guided by its logic, and insist that pay increases be scheduled, approved as part of the annual budget, and tied to an independent assessment of managerial performance.