Councillor Schmidt-Rempel may have made a good case for a work expectation review
By Lethbridge Herald on August 2, 2024.
LEAVE IT TO BEEBER
Al Beeber – managing editor
She may not have won her colleagues’ support at their final meeting until Sept. 17 but councillor Jenn Schmidt-Rempel may in the long run have the support of future council hopefuls in her efforts to have a discussion about workload and expectations. The work of council is considered part-time, a job for which they cannot collect employment insurance benefits after they leave office willingly or by the choice of voters.
As we who followed the last council meeting heard, prospective council members are told when running that they should expect to put in about 20 hours of a week for their work, which includes not only meetings of council but the standing policy committees and boards to which they’re appointed.
But as we also heard, and surely realize, some councillors put in many more hours than 20 every week. Not only do meetings take time – the most recent which started in public at 12:30 p.m. and concluded in the evening – but so does preparation.
I know how much the latter takes because I read in advance every agenda item thoroughly for every meeting – council and SPC – and regularly search for previous stories – if items are reappearing – for background.
This takes time and I’m already working 11 hours daily most days so this is time I’ll spend in the early evening or on weekends.
And I’m not even on council. So if elected officials are doing their jobs with competence and are coming prepared to meetings, the number of hours mayor and council work could very well amount to the equivalent – if not more – of a full-time job.
Schmidt-Rempel had a good point with her resolution, especially for enlightening future potential candidates about the demands of city governance.
And demands can be different than expectations, at least as far as the Municipal Government Act is concerned, that Act which does not spell out any specific required numbers of hours for elected officials to work in a week. It simply and vaguely states demands on their time can be heavy. It does spell out what can cause disqualification – specifically a number of absences in a set period of time.
But otherwise councillors are on their own to determine what they feel their workload merits.
While Schmidt-Rempel repeatedly said her motion wasn’t about compensation or transitioning council to full-time work, those matters definitely should be considered, which I suspect is going to be a highly unpopular opinion among readers and perhaps even with some of her fellow council members.
But while elected officials in smaller centres may be able to do their work part-time, Lethbridge is now the third largest city in Alberta and it’s growing. Council members have a lot on their plates.
And while so-called “ceremonial functions” aren’t a required part of their jobs, many elected officials make a point of being seen at events on weekends and at night when they could easily be sitting in front of a TV watching Netflix.
These public appearances, it could be argued, are extremely valuable for politicians to connect with residents, some of whom have expressed their frustration with us about the inability to directly contact their elected officials.
Since their contact information was removed from the City website, it hasn’t been the most convenient for even we in media either because we have to go through the Communications department at City Hall – unless we happen to have the mayor’s or councillor’s cell number. Which not everyone has. And I definitely don’t have all of them.
I’m not sure any of us have the cell numbers of anybody in any City department. I know I don’t.
I certainly understand from my personal experiences as a journalist why councillors perhaps may want or need a bit of barrier between them and the public. But access and visibility are important for voters.
And seeing the mayor and councillors attend events throughout the year gives the perception they are taking an active interest in their community.
Not everyone watches council meetings – or reads the City website – so those public appearances are important. Perception matters, it really does.
Those ceremonial matters – whether it be checking out a farmers market or a festival or a sporting event – are valuable hours and to my floater-filled eyes, they could be rightfully considered part of our elected officials’ jobs.
So Schmidt-Rempel does make valid points about expectations and demands on time.
The fly in the ointment – and it’s a big fly – is the compensation issue. It was brought up at council that a couple of people have expressed concerns about the pay for a part-time job.
Being a journalist now for more than 44 years, and knowing many reporters and blue-collar workers who toil at many difficult and low-paying jobs, I can’t see how the present compensation for a theoretically part-time council job would be a detriment to seeking office.
Many might feel our elected municipal officials make decent coin even for a full-time job, never mind a part-time one.
I’ve put in 50 or 60 hours a week for $14,000 a year. And even less. And I did it because those were the hours I needed to put in to get my work done.
How many people make less than $64,708.83 for a full-time job – not a part-time one – and still make ends meet?
The mayor’s salary, according to the 2024 elected official disclosure list, is $159,245.86 and his is a full-time position – unlike councillors.
So the money aspect to me doesn’t hold water unless these jobs are considered actually full-time.
I think an argument could be made that perhaps they should be. If that happens, then given that councillors and mayor are going to be putting in 37.5 or 40 hours or more per month, then a discussion should be held on what fair compensation actually is.
This is something that perhaps the $90,000 cost of Schmidt-Rempel’s proposed third party review could look into – what do full-time elected municipal officials in Canada make in communities of a similar size as Lethbridge?
It would be interesting to learn because then the public would have some proverbial meat – or kale if that’s your thing – to sink our teeth into while debating whether council jobs should be full-time. And what that full-time compensation would amount to, a debate that at some point needs to be held at the council level, as well.
Could City coffers afford to bear the brunt of higher pay for mayor and council? Well, the City bankroll can afford to spend $1.25 million on a hockey championship and it can afford to fund a women’s national curling championship.
If we can spend money on matters like these – both of which are admittedly prized events for Lethbridge – then perhaps a talk about spending money to ensure long-term effective and quality governance needs to be had.
I know Jenn sort of lost the battle at council – without the $90,000 review, the motion is going to return to the Governance SPC in the fall – but she has spurred an important and much-needed discussion in the community.
And sometime in the future, she may be seen as a winner by beneficiaries of any change to role and compensation.
36-35
So what happens when you spend money uselessly ie Agra-Food Center and daily watch the bldg sit empty knowing Councillor Dodic’s calculation of $19000 a day in losses are occuring everytime you drive by?
If, and I say if, these positions become full time then the “farcical we listen to the people” has to be changed. At this point if there are contentious issues on the table, you get 5 minutes. They “say” that 5 minutes is to give everyone a chance to speak. Its actually a great way of getting 5 minutes of nothing of value said, and can be quickly dismissed. Councillors , at least this council, seem to delay decisions to other meetings to give the impression they have not already made a decision. Its also a great way to not have to come to a decision that people oppose right away. So its a great way to stall and then slip the decision through later.
SPC’s are a great way for one councillor to vet anything he does not like before it gets to Council. So if you are bleeding heart and want all the drug addicts to remain in downtown and support the idea of foot washing, then any objections can be squashed at the SPC level and the Council never hears from the public.
You will note that everything we do to combat a previous decision of Addicts Downtown, now costs more and more taxpayer money. So who/whom is responsible for those decisions and how do we get our money back?
People always insist that if a councillor does poorly just don’t vote them in next time, Too late in many cases, the damage is done, taxes are affected for years to come and you paid the guy/gal to screw the city over.
Compensation goes both ways. If you use our money and make it so you continually need more and more of it, and things don’t get better then maybe we should get a refund.
Every major decision made by this Council so far affecting quality of life, seems to be making the quality of life in Lethbridge drop at the sametime the cost to be here has risen. Now that may seem unfair but if you measure quality of life with money paid out and, security and safety, then this has been a complete failure.
Retired now. Not once have I been employed, with a workload expectation let alone a “job description” that the employer or any of their supervisory/management team respected same. Even in union positions. Give a title to someone and they will immediately start to pee on posts to mark their perceived territory and few of these people will respect many boundaries. The result is that pretty much every one of us has been required to do more, “put up with more”, than we were hired to do. FACT. LIFE. The reality simply is that these municipal politicians are HIGHLY compensated compared to the majority of employees in our city. Moreover, unless they are rather obtuse, they should have recognized what they were getting themselves into. FACT. LIFE.
Yep the old service to the community, time give something back has given way to the “overworked”. If you don’t like it, resign and don’t run again.
Bremner, ReallyReally and Buckwheat all good comments. Is Schmidt- Rempel fooling anyone? Well maybe at least one?
Look it up on the city’s website, I think parttime councilors who get mayor pay when they get their turn to be acting mayor, make about $86,000 per year.
Obviously many of the other councilors don’t agree with her. Could it be that they would prefer NOT to bring attention to their wages?
Many responsibilities council has dumped on admin. The committees save time per councilor, as there is less homework. Although some councilors wisely do their own homework on issues . Those that are capable anyway?
Full-time for the untouchable council? I wonder what would be in this for us (the public)? More hidden agendas/decisions made Before public hearings are even heard? Decisions made not for the people of Lethbridge but because “we’d have to be crazy not to take the funds” (from the Liberal/NDP government). Is this the only reason we’re doing these ludicrous ideas (ie playground in Galt Garden, bike lanes, FASD facility $10 million+++ for 30 people (which will include a rooftop patio so they won’t want to go down to their dealers… can’t make this sh__ up lol) & ‘resource’ center now by the Shelter which is going to bring in even More addicts) is because the money is free? Well, it’s not free! We, the tax payers still pay for all of this through our Fed taxes. Never mind paying for our loss of peace of mind… Council who likes us to believe they are trying to help downtown, yet are putting more and more facilities in still walking distance? They say one thing, yet do the complete opposite. Insanity – doing something over and over again, and expecting a different outcome. Hasn’t BC taught them anything?? Personally, I think part-time is far more than enough for the public to endure.
Full time will just increase more ribbon cutting time for a councilor’s own benefit and popularity efforts. More show instead of more substance is what would actually happen . And councilors getting well over a $100,000 a year so they can parade more. No thanks, especially not with most of this lot. Various cults ,religious and otherwise would still be calling the shots.