Duane Hicks
FORT FRANCES—How much councillors are paid to attend meetings, and which meetings qualify as out-of-town ones and which don’t, are subjects that will be reviewed in the next few months in a new subcommittee headed by Mayor Roy Avis.
During a special committee of the whole meeting Monday, the mayor brought forward policies of council travel and remuneration to discuss as there’s been some confusion among councillors about mileage rates, when to submit expense claims and when not to, and similar topics.
Mayor Avis said he would like to see a definition as to the intent of a per diem rate and when a per diem rate should be paid out.
For example, councillors currently get paid a $120 per diem (which is $30 lower than the average municipal per diem) to attend meetings out of town, but this applies equally to meetings at Couchiching and Sunny Cove Camp as it does to destinations farther away.
While council perhaps should look at narrowing the definition of “out of town” to destinations 15 km away or further, the mayor added, there always will be exceptions to the rule, such as when a major meeting like the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association conference is held here.
Councillors may not have to travel far to get there, but literally have to spend days attending it.
Mayor Avis stressed he’s not looking to give himself or other members of the current council a raise, but is taking a broad view at the best interests of the municipality and town councils of the future.
Noting the average age of current members of council is probably 60, and many are retired, the mayor stressed if the town wants to attract younger councillors, it has to realistic and fair in its compensation.
“I know that being a councillor, there is a tremendous amount of sacrifice, and if you’re in this job for the money, you’re in the wrong job,” said Mayor Avis. “It is a tremendous commitment of time.
“That being said, I do believe we should make a consideration of the amount of money on the remuneration side as far as per diems are concerned.”
Another topic to be reviewed by the subcommittee will include when councillors should use their own vehicles to travel and when they should use town ones.
Coun. Rick Wiedenhoeft pointed out Monday there hasn’t been an adjustment to councillor remuneration since 1994. But while it may be a good idea to increase pay for future councillors, he said it shouldn’t happen in this tight budget year.
“I don’t think it’s the right time to adjust the remuneration of councillors,” said Coun. Wiedenhoeft. “I agree with Roy on the per diem, but maybe we should wait and do that at the end of our term so that it starts with the next term of councillors.”
Both Couns. Andrew Hallikas and John Albanese agreed now is not the time for any pay increase, but noted there is a need to clarify when a per diem can be claimed.
Coun. Ken Perry said he
supported a restriction on getting paid to travel to meetings within the district, but added per diems may have to be adjusted in order to attract potential future councillors—citing how many people can afford to take days off work to attend meetings and travel?
Coun. Wiedenhoeft noted the time demands on the current council have increased 20-30 percent over the previous council due to the increased number of committees, and that also could be taken into any consideration of increased remuneration for future councils.
Coun. Paul Ryan mentioned that perhaps the definition of “out of town” to destinations could be adjusted at this time, but any other changes should wait until the end of the term.
Coun. Sharon Tibbs agreed the “out of town” perimeter should be expanded since councillors currently can be paid for travelling to the airport and landfill site.
