EA-EA-Dough

By Richard RolkeFeb 28 2007 http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/

There are such huge holes in the proposed pay hikes at the North Okanagan Regional District that I’m revving up my truck. Case in point, is providing $400 a month to each of the five electoral area directors for a vehicle allowance. Obviously there should be some reimbursement for elected officials for wear and tear on their private vehicles as well as for gas. And some of the rural areas are larger than entire European nations so jetting between Mara Lake and Kingfisher can become extremely onerous. But $400 seems excessive, even when you consider the soaring price of fuel these days. Apparently the fee is based on what senior NORD administration receives. I’m sorry, but instead of just being copy-cats, perhaps the rural directors should have questioned what the bureaucrats are paid.

Of course the electoral area directors will say the jump to $400 doesn’t cost the overall regional district anything because it comes out of the budget of the Electoral Area Services Committee. But having your own committee structure should bring responsibility with it, and ultimately it is rural taxpayers paying the tab. Are the politicians being financially responsible to those who put them in office? Another part of the remuneration issue that’s raising eyebrows is why some politicians are getting paid and others aren’t. Under the plan, EASC members would be paid a base rate of $4,000 a year, up from $1,495.

But their counterparts at the Greater Vernon Services Committee would have their stipend chopped from $1,495 to nothing. And there would be squat for the GVSC chairman and vice-chairman although those duties at the EASC would come with extra bucks. Why were the electoral area directors allowed to decide if they get paid for their committee meetings, but the issue was never taken to the GVSC board? This move leaves one wondering if Greater Vernon is a second-class citizen in the wonderful world of NORD? And while the electoral directors claim their duties are significant, so are those from the GVSC. They are making multi-million-dollar decisions on water and parks and recreation. Also keep in mind, that they must abandon their careers and families to deal with GVSC issues, so why shouldn’t they get some financial acknowledgment?

When I asked why there was a difference between the electoral area directors and those from Greater Vernon, I was told that the EAs see their committee as their council and the municipal directors have city halls to turn to for resources. Except that when directors sit at NORD or GVSC, they are supposed to represent those interests and put their municipal duties aside. And when it comes to support, the electoral area directors have the entire bureaucracy of the regional district at their finger tips. It’s not a case of the EAs making decisions in isolation. It should be pointed out that municipal representatives to NORD could see their base pay climb from $1,495 to $6,000. The sum is up for debate, but at least it would be the same as that being proposed for electoral directors who attend regional board meetings. So if they can be equal here, why not at the committee level?

In the end, the entire proposal for remuneration should be put on hold until some of these irregularities can be sorted out. If the politicians were truly interested in a transparent process, they would take such matters out of their own hands and allow an independent panel to make recommendations. And why stop there? The rural directors should consult directly with their constituents to see if taxpayers are willing to fork out $400 a month for vehicle expenses and $4,000 to perform duties other politicians don’t pocket a dime for.