This isn’t about Rob Ford (although he’ll think this post is about him, about him). At least, not directly, it isn’t. It’s about how we’ve slipped into his skin, donned his way of thinking, his attitude toward government.
Following along yesterday to the monthly proceedings of the Executive Committee, the committee the mayor no longer chairs but remains part of only out of legislative necessity – everyone elected to city council must serve on one standing committee – it all felt so petty and small-minded. Bereft of heft. Lacking in rigour. These are the tiny men of a big institution.
It’s no surprise, really. They all were picked to be there by the mayor before his tumble from the seat of power. Not one to challenge his own preconceptions or belief systems, unLincolnian in assembling a team of rivals, the mayor sought nothing more than to surround himself with fellow boobs and yes-men. The worst and the dimmest.
During the debate over somehow commemorating the 1915 Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, Councillor Frank Di Giorgio presented a muddled view of history where the Holocaust was fact but South African apartheid was still contested. Or something. Councillor Peter Leon referred to the Armenian genocide as an ‘unfortunate mishap’ which he later upgraded to a ‘horrible atrocity’.
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti moaned about not being paid to have to deal with international issues like European history. He was elected to fill potholes and cut grass, he told the room. If only you would stick to that, Councillor Mammoliti. If only.
Councillor Anthony Perruzza mentioned prosciutto.
But where that item, tabled late in the afternoon when many members of the Executive Committee might’ve been passed their nap time, brought out the dumb, it was a couple matters earlier in the morning that really saw the collective sparkle fizzle.
A proposed council pay increase, council office budgets and city travel expenses, all the mayor’s bread and butter, led to not so much a healthy debate as regular opportunities to politically grandstand. Protestations of We Are Not Worthy (which is true for many in that room) mixed with talk of gravy and the need for more oversight and micromanaging. Apparently, our city councillors aren’t paid enough to sort out matters on an international scale but don’t make so much money that they can’t waste time looking through colour swatches to find just the right colour at the right price for their office walls.
Of course, there was no way this committee was going to push forward the 12.9% pay increase for council members recommended by the OCG Strategy and Organization Consulting company after surveying 16 Canadian municipalities. Despite the fact that, comparatively speaking, our mayor and city councillors are not in the upper echelon of renumeration in terms of their fellow municipal representatives, this is an election year. Nobody’s dumb enough or brazen enough to face the voting public after giving themselves a substantial pay hike.
OK. Maybe Giorgio Mammoliti is. And Frank Di Giorgio might push the wrong button when it came to casting his vote.
It would also be monumentally hypocritical for this group of men to give themselves a raise after nearly 4 years of preaching the gospel of austerity and penny-pinching. What’s good for the goose and all that. They kind of painted themselves into a fiscal corner on this one.
“We can all agree we are well compensated for the job we do,” declared the mayor, mindful I’m sure of his own financial situation as the scion of a wealthy family. In his case, it’s true. Given the job he does, the time he puts into it, I’d argue Mayor Rob Ford is amply compensated, as are many of his colleagues sitting on Executive Committee with him.
How much should the going rate be for bad representation at City Hall?
How much should the going rate be for good representation at City Hall?
I’ve seen how much work the diligent and dedicated city councillors put in on a daily basis. Forget your notions of any 40 hour work week. Double that. On call 7 days a week most weeks of the year. You break their 6 figure salaries down to an hourly rate and I think you’d find a much more modest pay rate.
But because we’ve assumed the anti-public sector stance that the mayor believes so passionately in, any amount is too much. It’s our taxes that pay their bills, we trumpet. Respect, we demand. Why should they be entitled to anything more that we are?
We’ve willing agreed to travel down the deceptive road of misconception, believing that somehow the taxes we pay at a local level don’t go toward paying for all the useful things we use on a daily basis. We hear that this councillor makes $100, 000 a year in salary, plus perks, and imagine, well, there goes all my money. Straight into the councillor’s already stuffed pocket, so they can jaunt off to some all-expenses trip to somewhere they have absolutely no need to be going to, somewhere I’ll never get to go.
In actual fact, the operations of city council costs us collectively around $20 million a year. Throw in the mayor’s office along with the city clerk, and I’ll generously round it up to $30 million. $30 million, in a $10 billion operating budget. Do that math. .003 Every municipal tax dollar you submit, .3% of that goes to our elected officials, and the general operations of their offices and meetings.
So, if you pay $5000 a year in property tax about $15 of that is used for your mayor and city councillor to do their respective jobs. Do that math. $1.25 a month. Less than a nickel a day.
So when the mayor goes on some outraged tirade about all that gravy, pointing to $150,000 in councillor travel expenses (.00000015 of the operating budget, I think) or the not quite $6 million in city staff travel expenses, reach into your pocket and pull out all the change. We no longer use the denomination small enough needed to pay for your portion of that. And then stop to think about how we’re paying someone $170+K a year to fussily focus on saving us that amount of next to nothing.
Then honestly tell me who exactly it is respecting the taxpayers?
— generously submitted by Cityslikr
It’s called optics. And in an election year, why give Ford Nation more gristle to chew on (re: pay raises)
The Nation is either jiggling their eyes at the balance sheets or trying to saw the table in half….
like the couple in
It’s probably a good thing that they are keeping the raise at inflation given 30 something councillors will be up for reelection and are tough to beat.
We are over paying Ford who comes in late and gets ANGRY at travel let say to Austin to promote the city OR travel to an FCM meeting to get more infrastructure money like he did.
P.S. Perruzza & prosciutto
Morally bankrupt and shameless.
Those that vote for regressionist policies are Morally Bankrupt.
And those that carry out those regressionist policies are Shamelessly so….
Let’s assume that every (good) councilor puts in the 4,000 hours you ascribe to them. Divide that by what we pay them, and you get $25.00 an hour, which works out to a decent middle class wage. Many highly skilled and competent workers take home considerably less money than this.
What do we want in a representative, and can we attract it with higher pay scales? Certainly, the city would have to up its pay massively to compete with Bay Street for “talent”; I don’t want the city to do that in any case. I would rather have someone who will work for a decent but modest wage out of a desire to serve. If you have a good argument that $25.00 an hour amounts to exploiting that desire, I will listen to it, But repeating this tired argument that this expense or that expense represents a tiny fraction of the larger city budget doesn’t do it. Tens of thousands of people work for the city; many of them do more difficult, unpleasant and dangerous jobs than councilors. If every one of these people got a 12% pay bump (and on what grounds do you suggest they should not), I seriously doubt the city, meaning us, could afford it.