Premier deserves $135,000 raise, insists MLA pay report
bootlegga @ Tue May 08, 2012 1:35 pm
$1:
EDMONTON — Retired Supreme Court Justice Jack Major defended his MLA pay report Thursday, saying he was asked to recommend a fair salary and benefits package for politicians, and did so.
His critics include Premier Alison Redford, who refused to accept the suggested $335,000 premier’s salary, and opposition parties, who say a defined-benefit pension plan and tax breaks are too rich and too complex for Albertans to easily understand.
“I expected that,” Major told reporters Thursday, one day after his 327-page MLA Compensation Review report was made public. “I defy anyone to put a report before politicians and have agreement. It just doesn’t happen.”
Major recommended a $134,000 base salary that would make Alberta MLAs among the highest paid politicians in the country. Only Quebec, territorial and federal politicians would be paid more.
He also recommended the premier’s salary be increased to $335,000 over three years, putting it in line with salaries earned by Alberta’s Chief Justice and top civil servants. Currently, the premier earns about $200,000, which is less than her executive assistant, Major said.
“At present, the rate of compensation, in our opinion, is simply inadequate,” he said, noting the premier manages a $39 billion budget. “The job carries a tremendous amount of responsibility.”
Redford has refused to accept the salary, saying it isn’t what Albertans want.
The most controversial recommendations concern the severance pay and retirement money that politicians receive.
Under current rules, Alberta MLAs don’t get a pension but they do get about $11,000 every year to put toward their RRSPs. When they leave politics, they get a “transition allowance,” which is severance pay equal to three months salary for each year served, with no maximum.
“It could be called a disguise for a pension plan,” Major said, adding that “it doesn’t take a genius” to figure out how lucrative such severance payments can be.
Instead, Major proposed a reduced transition allowance — two months salary for each year served, to a maximum of 12 months — and a defined-benefit pension plan.
“It is a different pension plan than the one that was discontinued in 1993,” Major said, referring to former Premier Ralph Klein’s decision to scrap the plan at the time.
Liberal Leader Raj Sherman rejected the proposal, saying “we don’t want to replace golden handshakes with golden parachutes.”
Major also recommended the government continue to take advantage of a federal tax break that allows MLAs to receive a tax-free allowance.
The tax-free pay is hotly controversial because it means MLAs don’t pay taxes on part of their pay. Most other provinces have stopped applying the tax break because the political optics are so bad.
But Major says that if the province ignores the tax break and forces MLAs to pay the taxes, the government would just have to increase MLA salaries so their take-home pay stays the same.
In the end, he says Alberta taxpayers can save $1.9 million every year by taking advantage of the federal tax break.
Wildrose Deputy House Leader Shayne Saskiw and all of the other opposition leaders say $2 million is a small price to pay for increased transparency.
“We believe the salary should be fully taxable,” he said.
His critics include Premier Alison Redford, who refused to accept the suggested $335,000 premier’s salary, and opposition parties, who say a defined-benefit pension plan and tax breaks are too rich and too complex for Albertans to easily understand.
“I expected that,” Major told reporters Thursday, one day after his 327-page MLA Compensation Review report was made public. “I defy anyone to put a report before politicians and have agreement. It just doesn’t happen.”
Major recommended a $134,000 base salary that would make Alberta MLAs among the highest paid politicians in the country. Only Quebec, territorial and federal politicians would be paid more.
He also recommended the premier’s salary be increased to $335,000 over three years, putting it in line with salaries earned by Alberta’s Chief Justice and top civil servants. Currently, the premier earns about $200,000, which is less than her executive assistant, Major said.
“At present, the rate of compensation, in our opinion, is simply inadequate,” he said, noting the premier manages a $39 billion budget. “The job carries a tremendous amount of responsibility.”
Redford has refused to accept the salary, saying it isn’t what Albertans want.
The most controversial recommendations concern the severance pay and retirement money that politicians receive.
Under current rules, Alberta MLAs don’t get a pension but they do get about $11,000 every year to put toward their RRSPs. When they leave politics, they get a “transition allowance,” which is severance pay equal to three months salary for each year served, with no maximum.
“It could be called a disguise for a pension plan,” Major said, adding that “it doesn’t take a genius” to figure out how lucrative such severance payments can be.
Instead, Major proposed a reduced transition allowance — two months salary for each year served, to a maximum of 12 months — and a defined-benefit pension plan.
“It is a different pension plan than the one that was discontinued in 1993,” Major said, referring to former Premier Ralph Klein’s decision to scrap the plan at the time.
Liberal Leader Raj Sherman rejected the proposal, saying “we don’t want to replace golden handshakes with golden parachutes.”
Major also recommended the government continue to take advantage of a federal tax break that allows MLAs to receive a tax-free allowance.
The tax-free pay is hotly controversial because it means MLAs don’t pay taxes on part of their pay. Most other provinces have stopped applying the tax break because the political optics are so bad.
But Major says that if the province ignores the tax break and forces MLAs to pay the taxes, the government would just have to increase MLA salaries so their take-home pay stays the same.
In the end, he says Alberta taxpayers can save $1.9 million every year by taking advantage of the federal tax break.
Wildrose Deputy House Leader Shayne Saskiw and all of the other opposition leaders say $2 million is a small price to pay for increased transparency.
“We believe the salary should be fully taxable,” he said.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business ... story.html
Glad to see she is smart enough to turn it down - way to take away the Wildrose's sharpest sword!
OnTheIce @ Tue May 08, 2012 4:03 pm
In this case, I have no problem with the raise. It's silly when you have civil servants making more than the guy running the Province.
Benn @ Tue May 08, 2012 9:51 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
In this case, I have no problem with the raise. It's silly when you have civil servants making more than the guy running the Province.
Maybe the civil servants are the ones overpaid. Let her keep her $200K and knock down the others' pay. Executive assistant making more than her? I'm sure she can find someone good for under $200.
Thanos @ Wed May 09, 2012 12:37 am
I'd give them all a quarter-million to $300K per year if it were accompanied by term limits (two four-year terms maximum for all of them) and the elimination of any pension altogether. I have no big deal with them getting paid well while on the job but there's no way it should be a lifelong gravy train after they retire or lose their riding to an opponent.
Regina @ Wed May 09, 2012 6:08 am
Benn Benn:
Maybe the civil servants are the ones overpaid. Let her keep her $200K and knock down the others' pay. Executive assistant making more than her? I'm sure she can find someone good for under $200.
That's illegal and by doing so you are applying constructive dismissal, which means you are changing their terms of employment. If they accept it fine, if they don't don't you've fired them and they have a reason for legal action.
Lemmy @ Wed May 09, 2012 6:30 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
In this case, I have no problem with the raise. It's silly when you have civil servants making more than the guy running the Province.
Politicians are incompetent boobs and, therefore, SHOULD make less than the people working in the various ministries that actually know what they're doing. I say make politicians' jobs seconded positions. Make it just like jury duty. You limit politicians to one term and their "real" employers continue to pay their salaries while they're seconded to the government. That way the politician continues to make whatever he would have made as a lawyer, plumber, whatever, while serving in government. Put the costs of goverment on businesses rather than taxpayers.
OnTheIce @ Wed May 09, 2012 7:21 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
In this case, I have no problem with the raise. It's silly when you have civil servants making more than the guy running the Province.
Politicians are incompetent boobs and, therefore, SHOULD make less than the people working in the various ministries that actually know what they're doing. I say make politicians' jobs seconded positions. Make it just like jury duty. You limit politicians to one term and their "real" employers continue to pay their salaries while they're seconded to the government. That way the politician continues to make whatever he would have made as a lawyer, plumber, whatever, while serving in government. Put the costs of goverment on businesses rather than taxpayers.
Sorry but that's a stupid idea.
Nobody would give up their family privacy, take on all that extra responsibility and work for the same money they get at their current job.
bootlegga @ Wed May 09, 2012 7:26 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
In this case, I have no problem with the raise. It's silly when you have civil servants making more than the guy running the Province.
I don't have a problem with politicians making less than the bureaucrats under them, because the bureaucrats are educated and trained with their jobs, whereas politicians come from all sorts of fields. Some bureaucrats have decades of experience in their field, and they are the one who knows how to get the job done.
After all, what did Ron Liepert, a guy with no post-secondary education bring to the Ministry of Advanced Education? Same goes for the farmers from the rural ridings who run departments like Intergovernmental/International Affairs. And no, I'm not saying rural MLAs are lacking in education/intelligence, just they are much less likely to be familiar with their department. Same goes for urban MLAs - I wouldn't want one of them running Agriculture either, because they are far less likely to understand the industry.
Honestly, I see politicians just like officers in the military - they set the objectives and give orders, and the more experienced NCOs (bureaucrats in this case) do the minutiae necessary to make it happen.
Lemmy @ Wed May 09, 2012 7:29 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Sorry but that's a stupid idea.
Nobody would give up their family privacy, take on all that extra responsibility and work for the same money they get at their current job.
Nobody would give up their family privacy, take on all that extra responsibility and work for the same money they get at their current job.
Or maybe you'd get people going into government because they want to contribute rather than going into it for money. Clearly the system we have now isn't attracting the candidates we deserve.
bootlegga @ Wed May 09, 2012 7:32 am
Thanos Thanos:
I'd give them all a quarter-million to $300K per year if it were accompanied by term limits (two four-year terms maximum for all of them) and the elimination of any pension altogether. I have no big deal with them getting paid well while on the job but there's no way it should be a lifelong gravy train after they retire or lose their riding to an opponent.
I agree that we need to end this lifelong gravy train for politicians - if they want to earn scads of money after leaving office, they can become public speakers like Clinton, Dubya and lots of others.
I don't like the idea of term limits, because otherwise you wind up with a situation like Vietnam, just as the guy starts to know how to do his job well, he gets sent packing.
If we were going to adopt term limits, I would want it set to a number of years instead of terms (after X years, you have to retire at the next election), otherwise if you have any sort of political instability (like a the federal level until last spring), they might only spend a few years in office, and no one is going to give up a lucrative career for that kind of instability - at least not anyone really great.
Dragon-Dancer @ Wed May 09, 2012 8:52 am
Honestly I like the idea of government being a form of public service required of citizens in some way but I would propose that those jobs be filled specifically by people in the respective fields associated to the department they are to run. That way at least you would get people who know the subject matter running the department.
Compensation should be adequate but not excessive since it's a public service not a lifelong job.
OnTheIce @ Wed May 09, 2012 8:54 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
I don't have a problem with politicians making less than the bureaucrats under them, because the bureaucrats are educated and trained with their jobs, whereas politicians come from all sorts of fields. Some bureaucrats have decades of experience in their field, and they are the one who knows how to get the job done.
Not all bureaucrats are educated within their respective departments. Many get dropped into various departments with general college or university education. I'd hope that most at the top of their respective departments are experts in their field, but that's not always the case.
Lemmy Lemmy:
Or maybe you'd get people going into government because they want to contribute rather than going into it for money. Clearly the system we have now isn't attracting the candidates we deserve.
Yea, let's get a bunch of people in office part-time while they manage their other jobs. That'll work well.
In fact, many politicans do get into it because they want to. Many are quite sucessful in their respective careers and don't need the money (in fact, some
The system gives us what we put into it. We don't show up to vote like we should, we don't get involved at a grass-roots level so how can we bitch with a select few deciding who runs in certain ridings?
Why do we reward politicians with an extra term when they turn their back on things they said to get your vote?
bootlegga @ Wed May 09, 2012 9:41 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
I don't have a problem with politicians making less than the bureaucrats under them, because the bureaucrats are educated and trained with their jobs, whereas politicians come from all sorts of fields. Some bureaucrats have decades of experience in their field, and they are the one who knows how to get the job done.
Not all bureaucrats are educated within their respective departments. Many get dropped into various departments with general college or university education. I'd hope that most at the top of their respective departments are experts in their field, but that's not always the case.
Maybe that's the case in Ontario, but the public competitions for top jobs in the Alberta civil service are stacked with very well-qualified candidates.
Seriously, the Ministers are politicians while the DMs/ADMs (Deputy Minister / Assistant Deputy Minister) are almost always highly skilled in their fields, be it law, medicine, engineering, accounting, whatever.
I'm sure you're right and there are a few patronage appointments here or there, but far and away, employees in the Alberta civil service are highly qualified for their jobs.
Thanos @ Wed May 09, 2012 9:46 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Why do we reward politicians with an extra term when they turn their back on things they said to get your vote?
Most voters are mature enough to realize that campaign promises really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, especially the ones that have zero chance of ever being implemented because they're too goofy or too expensive. We sort of keep voting more for half-decent maintainance men to run the place than we do for revolutionaries because there really isn't all that much to get upset about, at least there isn't in Canada most of the time. I'm really not that big a fan of the Alberta PC's, for example, but I don't see the need here to toss them out just yet only to replace them with the Wildrose and all that pseudo-libertarian, social conservative, Americanized Ayn-Randroid bullshit that the WRA has currently got itself all wrapped up in.
Give me a good crime or scandal (e.g. the types of which seemed to occur just about every day that Jean Chretien was in office) and my blood'll be boiling until the bastards are finally thrown out. But a few bureaucratic fuck-ups and inconveniences, which is all that usually happens in a place like Alberta, isn't enough for me to support massive changes to a system that usually functions quite well. Revolutions are too destructive and are really not worth even a fraction of the bother that accompanies them.
Yours truly,
Mr. Mellow
OnTheIce @ Wed May 09, 2012 10:47 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Maybe that's the case in Ontario, but the public competitions for top jobs in the Alberta civil service are stacked with very well-qualified candidates.
Seriously, the Ministers are politicians while the DMs/ADMs (Deputy Minister / Assistant Deputy Minister) are almost always highly skilled in their fields, be it law, medicine, engineering, accounting, whatever.
Seriously, the Ministers are politicians while the DMs/ADMs (Deputy Minister / Assistant Deputy Minister) are almost always highly skilled in their fields, be it law, medicine, engineering, accounting, whatever.
I'm not so sure...the top two portfolios in your Province are run by people with no experience in their field.
Your Deputy Minister of Health has no medical background, spent 14 years in various departments in Ontario. No experience within that setting nor an education in that field. She has a Master of Arts Degree in Public Policy and Administration and a BA in Sociology.
Your Deputy Minister of Education is an accountant with a Bachelor’s Degree in Commerce and PA.