Whether or not councillors once again will get their health benefits package paid for, in addition to their total salary, will be determined when council votes on the amended bylaw at its July 26 meeting.
But if Monday night’s council meeting was any indication, council seems to be divided as to whether they deserve what some councillors have called a raise—and others their rightful compensation.
Coun. Neil Kabel had requested the issue of remuneration be brought back to the table for reconsideration by the new council after the outgoing one changed the bylaw so that councillors who chose to participate in the town’s benefits package have to pay for it out of their salaries.
This would mean that in addition to their $10,000 salaries (the mayor’s salary is about $21,000), councillors would see their $3,600 health benefits plan paid for.
Currently, if they choose to have the benefits, they pay for it out of their salary.
Coun. Kabel said remuneration had been discussed “at length” by Mayor Dan Onichuk and some other councillors, and they felt it appropriate the matter now be addressed.
“We felt it fair that ‘remuneration’ is being paid for what we do. And ‘benefits’ is just that—something that we can take advantage of if so necessary,” he added.
“Based on some of my past experiences . . . we could do an investigation as to what other municipalities do. Is that fair?” asked CAO Mark McCaig.
“I don’t think that’s necessary,” said Mayor Onichuk. “There was a benefits package that was provided for many, many, many, many years until the previous outgoing council made this change.
“I don’t think we have to review it. This is something that was in the budget, it was budgeted for,” the mayor added. “As opposed to having a long debate about it, we should just move forward and do a vote to have the benefits’ cost covered, as with the previous council.”
Coun. Todd Hamilton said he’s had questions regarding whether councillors should be considered town employees or not, and thus eligible for the same benefits as other town employees.
He noted the matter perhaps should be sent to the Administration and Finance executive committee for further discussion.
“Why steer it back to a committee with three councillors on it when they’re all here tonight?” replied Mayor Onichuk.
Coun. Rick Wiedenhoeft stressed the benefits some councillors were asking for were not new at all.
“I did some investigation with the staff of the corporation, as far back as any of the staff can remember—that goes back to 17 years—the benefits package was part of the compensation given to councillors,” he said.
He disagreed with the way the previous council addressed remuneration as a “fairness issue.”
“The nature of benefits packages is they aren’t always fair. Members of a corporation or employees often pay the same premiums, but don’t use the benefits packages as equally as much as each other,” Coun. Wiedenhoeft said.
“Benefits packages, by their very nature, are unfair.”
He noted a husband and wife could work for the same employer and both pay premiums—despite the fact they both could “live quite happily” utilizing just one person’s benefits plan.
“But that’s not the way they [benefits] work,” added Coun. Wiedenhoeft.
“Past practice has dictated that councillors were given benefits as part of compensation for being a councillor for the Town of Fort Frances,” he continued. “I think it should be reinstated for this council because I think it’s unfair to take it away.”
Coun. Struchan Gilson, who was against the change in the remuneration bylaw when the previous council voted for it, said he still felt councillors should not have to pay for their benefits out of their salary.
“For me, it’s a very personal issue. Living on a pension, as I do, I found it [the benefits plan] very attractive. For six years, I accessed the benefits,” he remarked.
“I find it really strange that after six years on council, and I hope I’m a better councillor now than when I started on council, this year I got less,” added Coun. Gilson.
“I mean, I knew about it. I knew what the score was when I ran for council again. But I find it very unfair.”
Coun. Roy Avis, who pushed for the previous council to alter the bylaw last year, said the reason it was changed is that not all councillors benefited equally from it.
For instance, if a councillor already was part of a group plan with their place of employment, then went off that plan to be part of the town’s benefits package for their term on council, and became ill in meantime, they might not get back onto their old plan once their term is over.
He added this sets a difference for the individual councillors in remuneration, as those that opt not to go under the town’s benefit plan do not get paid anything more than those who do.
Coun. Gilson said as far as he knew, one could switch from group plan to group plan.
Mayor Onichuk noted he thought a person could have more than one plan, and combine them. For instance, if one benefits plan gave 80 percent coverage in one area, a second plan could “top up” the difference.
“Why do need to leave your other group?” the mayor asked.
“Oh, I don’t have to. But then does it become fair there’s a $3,600 difference in value?” replied Coun. Avis. “Where some councillors are going to vote for a 36 percent pay increase tonight and others aren’t going to receive anything?”
“Thirty-six percent salary increase? I suppose you could look at it that way, but I don’t look at it that way,” countered Coun. Gilson. “I had something for six years, same as Neil here, and then it was taken away by council.
“We’re just getting back what we had taken away. I don’t consider that a 36 percent increase.”
Coun. Avis recalled that the previous council had looked at what other municipalities, not only in the region but the rest of the province, were paying their councillors.
“There was nothing comparable to the salary and benefit package we’re getting in Fort Frances,” he remarked. “We’re one of the highest paid.”
“Whoa. That’s not the report I looked at,” said Mayor Onichuk.
“We’re paid a salary to do an elected official’s job for the Town of Fort Frances. I consider myself an employee,” said Coun. Kabel. “It’s a benefit package. If you need it, take it. It’s not remuneration.
“Yes, it’s an option and all the employees of the Town of Fort Frances have that option,” he added.
“I don’t know about that. I’d beg to differ,” said Coun. Avis.
“I do have a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t want the people of Fort Frances to consider this as us requesting a 36 percent pay increase,” remarked Coun. Wiedenhoeft.
“What we’re doing is reinstating the benefits that were always traditionally available and given to councillors of Fort Frances,” he argued. “And to put it that we’re requesting a 36 percent remuneration increase, I believe, is unfair.”
Mayor Onichuk, along with Couns. Kabel, Gilson, and Wiedenhoeft, voted in favour of amending the remuneration bylaw while Couns. Avis and Hamilton voted against it.
The bylaw will be voted on at the July 26 council meeting.
Coun. Tannis Drysdale, who was not at Monday night’s council meeting due to her involvement in newly-elected Thnder Bay-Rainy River MPP Ken Boshcoff’s campaign, said yesterday she definitely would not vote in favour of the bylaw at the July 26 meeting.
“If it passes, and I receive any benefits, I’ll write a cheque back to the town,” she vowed. “We’re not employees of the town of Fort Frances.”
She added that “given the financial position of the town,” councillors giving themselves a raise was “inappropriate.”
Fort Frances Times
Local News from Across the Rainy River District
