Better councillors would merit bigger bucks
A growing chorus of observers has accused those members of Toronto City Council who refuse to forego their 2.4 per cent raise of being hypocrites. The argument is that in the face of the current civic strike, it would be hypocritical to demand striking unions to accept pay cuts unless councillors do the same.
(Incidentally, the question of union salaries has yet to be brought to the table.)
However satisfying that reasoning may seem, it is, of course, hypocritical in the extreme.
How many of these critics, editorial writers, columnists and commentators would themselves be willing to take a pay cut to be on the right side of hypocrisy?
It's a safe bet there are none. Not that that has stopped them from making the case. Somehow, hypocrisy only ever applies to others.
The truth is that Toronto councillors are overworked and underpaid. This is not to deny that council isn't woefully dysfunctional and that most members actually do harm to the city. Indeed, most have no interest or concern in Toronto, only their small part thereof.
Few would disagree that we need a better system of civic governance, and with it better councillors. One way to attract more capable candidates might well be to pay them more. That's right, perhaps they should be paid more, not less.
This flies in the face of received wisdom, but the latter tends to be based oxymoronically on emotion rather than rational thought. Does the fact that Etobicoke's lamentable Rob Ford or North Toronto's tiresome Karen Stintz both signed a petition demanding lower salaries make them more effective representatives of the civic interest?
Clearly the answer is no. They remain prime examples of everything that's wrong with Toronto's city council.
But in a city where local politics has been reduced to endless sound and fury signifying nothing, it's not surprising that the discussion is so often focused on issues that have high symbolic content but are largely irrelevant. Toronto, let's not forget, is a nuclear-free zone. It also has a pedestrian charter and no doubt endorses fair-trade coffee beans. Who could forget the endless hours council spent debating whether "Support the Troops" bumper stickers should decorate the city fleet, and for how long?
It's precisely these sorts of highly charged but meaningless issues that are loved by municipal politicians and the pundits who cover them. They grab the headlines and allow endless opportunities for grandstanding on both sides.
Which brings us back to the proposed pay cut. The fact that councillors receive less than $100,000 annually would suggest their salaries are not wildly generous. Compared with what corporate executives pay themselves, councillors' salaries are paltry.
And compared with other politicians, Toronto's are the very embodiment of modesty. Vaughan councillors take home more than $102,00, Markham and Richmond Hill are about the same, but in Mississauga, it's over $113,000. Ontario's MPPs, mostly ciphers, pocket upwards of $115,000.
Little wonder the calibre of many politicians, municipal and otherwise, leaves much to be desired. Who would disagree we need smarter, better informed candidates, able to see beyond the borders of their own fiefdom, make that, ward?
The rush to expose hypocrisy in all its forms means that the most troubling issues – those that threaten the continued vitality of Toronto – can't be heard above the cacophony.
The question isn't what councillors earn but what they do to earn it. It's all very well to fall back on Churchill's truisms about the messiness of democracy, but governance can be improved. That would be something worth paying for.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment