More than salary...

David Shreck accurately recognizes that compensation is more than what gets deposited into the bank every two weeks. The true compensation increase is indeed 65% when factoring in the pension. Don't be surprised if the MLA's "generously" take only a 10 or 20% SALARY raise while keeping the most lucrative portion of the deal, the pension. The proposed pension is not only gold plated, it is a dinosaur extinct in the rest of the industrialized world ( e.g. RRSP's instead).

Almost a footnote in the report is seen on p. 1: "Commissioner Sandra Robinson disagrees with certain aspects of this report." That could be innocuous, or it could point out that one of the members had a backbone and stood up against two confidantes of the Premier. The term "majority report" isn't used throughout for nothing. Where's the "minority report?"

raise

Dear Sir ;
I hope you MLA's will have the decency to only give yourself a 3 percent raise at most. I am lucky to get a 2 percent raise. And leave the pension as RRSP's. No one recommends giving the disabled or poor such huge increases. I hope I don't have to throw my vote to the greens as I will now do federally. Thanks mcdull

Raise

As you can see I think this was a fait acompli exercise and that is why so few people took part in the discussion.

They should be paying us!

If anything, these folks deserve a cut in pay for selling BC to the highest bidder and generally screwing the province. Nice work (and raise!) if you can get it!

I am also certainly with mcdull about no one recommending a raise for the poor or disabled. As someone who has worked with the disabled for many years, I cannot tell you the misery this government has caused them. Funny how all of a sudden when there is a labor shortage and they can make the government a buck, Claude Richmond is now encouraging people to hire the disabled. Watch them get cut off their disability benefits to boot.

Some of my clients should be in the legislature and the politicians working at the Pan Pacific. I digress, but this whole thing just pisses me off.

MUCH MORE THAN 29%

Why not READ THE REPORT rather than just the press release, before reporting on it?

29% is not it. Look at all the other compensation for other jobs that most of them have! Look at the Premier's increase! Look at the 37% for the pension plan alone!

And why does the Globe and Mail say only 2 of the 3 commissioners agreed to the report?

Visionaries only please!

If these jobs become too lucrative, we will end up with legislators who are there only because they see it as a well-paying job!

For now, at least they are supposedly there because they have some sort of vision of what needs to be done for the betterment of us all.

Let the greedy job-seekers become lawyers!

Beam me up Scotty . No sign of intelligent life here.

Strategic Thoughts ,David Schreck, ex NDP MLA has a article showing the real numbers. Its pretty hard to fathom such amounts for a back bencher desk thumper.
I understand the NDP Caucus is putting out a news release this morning. I simply can't wait to hear the twist. My indexed pension will rise this year by less than one percent.Not in the same league and I only had to pay 7 percent of wage to qualify for 35 years. Different folks, different strokes.
What a great way to deflect us all from the goings on by this government. And by God it works.

$$$$

DAMN!! I wish i could make that kinda money sitting on my thumb...

expertise

I believe the distinction here is, that polticians are - or are at least still considered, to be some kind of volunteer amateurs, government of the people and all that. Many of them, however, consider themselves to be experts on something, and such people commandeer these kinds of salaries and better everywhere in the public servce. You will find it if you look.

Politicians, on the other hand, hire such experts and pay them the towering remunerations, while they themselves receive the 'decisison support' and just sign on the dotted line after having seen all the options, in areas where they would not know the wheat from the chaff without expert help.

Those few exceptions among the politicians, who in fact own expertise within their assigned portfolios or some such things must, in my opinion, simply grin and bear it, and if that's not good enough, become 'lawyers'.

How to get the stench off the front pages

With Gordon Campbell very much on the defensive re: Ken Dobell, and the Basi and Virk business back in the news, there's nothing like a headline to divert the attention: Massive pay-hike plan for MLAs (The Province - May 2)

Thing is, it has a stench all its own. A 29% raise for MLAs and 53% for Premier Campbell?

Regargless of party, all who vote to accept this, or anything close, should be thrown out on their ass. They all knew the remuneration, going in and all fought to get there.

solution = stop paying them all

tax revolt anyone?

I say let them take on all the bloated trough-feeding programs they want to, the day after the tax revolt is done those 'programs' will not be worth the paper they are written on.

Therefore (in order to get the attention of our fellow sheeple) the faster the $$$ is used up the better, in my view.

And $19000 for housing allowance

Imagine that. I guess they all want to spend their time in Victoria in the lap of luxury. You can get pretty good digs in Victoria for $1500 a month.

The salary was fine before and if they added a contributing modest pension plan like the 2 percent as for other public servants each year there would be a lot less outrage. Heavens they all knew what the deal was when they ran.

"I guess they all want to

"I guess they all want to spend their time in Victoria in the lap of luxury. You can get pretty good digs in Victoria for $1500 a month."

Rents in Victoria are high. Renting a furnished one-bedroom for $1,500 a month would be the norm for standard accommodation.

How do the proposed salaries compare to the incomes of some typical occupations, such as a head nurse, a prison guard (including overtime), a high school principal, a manager of a suburban bank branch, a construction superintendant?

Over Paid Snake Charmers!

Getting tired of this, MLA's are supossed to have sought office to better their constituency and the province, not their investment portfolios!

MLA's pay raises before raises in minumum wage and disability payments!@#%#%

Come on!

And the talk of the pension really irks me. Does the average BC citizen even have a pension plan (besides CPP)?

If they do decide to test the waters and give themselves a raise, the raise should only come into effect after the next provincial election and not before!!!!!!!

And to the argument that 'we' need to increase MLA salaries in order to attract more qualified people......

I say, what does that say about the current MLA's ???? That they are less qualified!!!!

Based opn their actions maybe you could say that!

Its Pathetic!

While Rome burns (or melts from climate change!)they are padding their pockets!

let's not overestimate the MLA's

Exactly!
Besides according to Rafe backbenchers and even cabinetministers have no input anyway, all they are there for is to vote as the leader demands!

My guess is that anyone who can take an order at a fastfood place could also do what most MLA's do!
A public speaking course would help, but that could also be said for several of the sitting members!

Pay Raise for MLA'S

It's a recomendation. I say give them 3 percent and they have a day to sign or they get nothing.

Or give them the raise and reduce their work hours til their pay is the same as now.

They should be ashamed!!!

Dormitories?

Why must each MLA maintain a separate household in Victoria? Why don't we build an MLA dormitory (like a University residence) to house these public servants while they carry out the hard work of governance?

I'm serious. The communal kitchens and shared recreation areas (foosball, air hockey, etc) might even foster more civil relations between the Government and the Loyal Opposition.

Here's some extra spin to make it a slam-dunk: All of the light-bulbs will be compact flourescents, and the dorm shall be within walking distance of the Legislature so that our beloved MLAs can walk to "work" (zero emissions!).

If someone can find a fault with this proposal I'd like to hear it.

I have heard it said a

I have heard it said a number of times that you need to make the remuneration attractive to attract the "brightest and the best". My question then is, what is going to become of the current crop in Victoria when they are finally found?

And let's watch and see if Lorne Mayencourt really resigns if this raise goes through and when/ if St. Paul's is relocated

Sure Budd...

But what does an MLA need a one bedroom suite for. Do you really think they can't live in a studio suite which is a lot less? At this price for the 79 MLA's it would be cheaper for the government to buy an apartment block close to the legislature.

Also cheaper just to pay for the accommodation in one of the hotels nearby for all the time they spend down there.

All about the Pension

Albion's got it right. The proposed salary pales in comparison to the pension. The employer (e.g. you and me) have to pony up an extra 37% of the increased salary to fund a retirement plan that will guarantee a stream of payments starting at age 60 to 65. That's a de facto compensation increase of 37% on top of the 29% baseline salary increase. Wowsers.

I suspect one of the three commissioners had the good sense to come up with something less than this ridiculous package and was shut out. Too bad. By being greedy, the Liberals forced the NDP to back away from the trough.

Seems fair to me...

These people work tirelessly. They are subject to public scrutiny and heavily influence the province. $98K isn't that much money in terms of their responsibility.

They deserve it.

Spending

All the right wingnuts were espousing cutting the size of government; cutting civil servant wages and cutting services and/ or privatizing everything. All to save the taxpayer money, never mind it would cost us more in the long run; and here they are saying give the prem his Bonus for breaking promises and bonuses to the rest for not standing up to him. Oh yes it tooh nw til 11 pm last night to mention the Virk and bassi trials but this was featured all day. Plus bill boring when I heard a few minutes of his show tells us it is good the premier desvrves a big raise.

Where the Jolly Roger now flies....

Exactly...not to mention serious jail time for the treasonous pirates .

Brilliant idea....and in the cafeteria let them eat the same "privatized" food for meals that has recently been thrust on patients in hospital... and on our seniors in senior residences.

MAYBE THEY COULD SLEEP IN RVs?

"But what does an MLA need a one bedroom suite for. Do you really think they can't live in a studio suite which is a lot less? At this price for the 79 MLA's it would be cheaper for the government to buy an apartment block close to the legislature.

[i]Also cheaper just to pay for the accommodation in one of the hotels nearby for all the time they spend down there."

Comments like this are typical of why nothing ever get's done in the Province of British Columbia. There are simply too many populist cranks and outhouse philosophers opining on every issue. Take a look, for example, at the mixture of lunatic fringe followers and avaricious rippers who make up the anti-Port Mann/Hwy 1 cottage industry.

These comments on MLA accommodation are not much better. How would hotel rooms at $120 per nite, for 180 nites per year would come to $22,000, more than what is in this proposed allowance.

Bringing back the MLA pension plan only a decade or so after it was eliminated is a problem and I don't agree with that recommendation, nor do I necessarily support everything else this panel recommended. But I find the critique here to be patently silly.

Budd

You're incorrect about rental rates in Victoria. Very decent accommodation can be found in the Capital region for considerably less than $1000/ month without a lease and, as did the Premier and, I'm told, a couple of his colleagues during the Liberals’ first term, a larger suite could easily he shared by a convivial group for even greater savings. And think of the opportunities to discuss business long into the night when the House is not sitting.

The $19,000 allowance is absurd - as is the rest of the package. These people are more than entitled to a 3% raise per annum – they knew what the terms of employment were when they, as it were, applied for the job.

I was pleased to hear Ms James condemn the report on the radio this morning. But It's very interesting that I just heard that a Liberal member of the house say the Government would not be guided by the NDP's opinion.

Big Surprise!

hmmmmm.......

The present session is just about over ( it ends at the end of this month)....and the members of the legislature have only sat for 34 days.

The Fall session is a grand total of 47 days.

Actually it's worse... the

Actually it's worse... the Fall and final session this year is a grand total of 28 days.

Well lynn and Budd

They don't sit 185 days a year. I can't remember when they ever did. In the past an out of town MLA got $150 each day you were in Victoria and unless you were never in your riding and always in Victoria you had to be a little careful but you could still rent a place and many did. Didn't even have to share. Besides if you pay $19,000, they will sit less than they do now. Guaranteed!

Oh lynn!

Sorry to include you in that last post.

One more thing.

The mortgage payment on my $400,000 house in Victoria does not come to $1500 a month taxes included and I bought it recently.

I guess they all buy houses or condos

If they buy a house or a condo, they can add to their retirement portfolio. Ten years of ownership on $300,000. $100,000 in paid equity plus whatever the market value increase will be at that time - easily another $100,000. Now, one can see it all as another 30% in wage benefits. A spouse can live in one principle residence, and MLA can claim the other - now they get the property tax grant on both as well.

Or if the one property is claimed as a business investment (because it is rented out in the off-season - the 300 days he or she is not sitting in Victoria) all the interest is written off, thereby reducing total tax burden and allowing greater personal use of taxpayer money.

Personally, they could build some time-share condos to house them and a government-owned property management company could rent them out at other times. Any profits made could go to the poor. The government could also work out some sort of housing deal with the university or Royal Roads. I'm sure a university could find a good way to house (and feed) these people for less than the $1.5 million a year that is proposed for their accomodation remuneration. Of course, they'd have to sweep for bugs all the time in any building that allows for other people to move in.

But all of this pales in the face of a $300,000,000 over-run in the convention centre and the sales of provincial assets to the wealthy.

And there is more...

"A spouse can live in one principle residence, and MLA can claim the other - now they get the property tax grant on both as well."

No corporate capital tax on either when they sell. Not too shabby eh? I see Carole says they will vote against and Gordon says he doesn't take direction from Carole so he may forge ahead. Should be interesting to see which MLA's don't follow Carole's orders.

Whis is in chnage here?

Gordo was just on TV and tells us the NDP can't decide the event results. Baldrey was on telling us that Gordo now can change the amounts and if the opposition refuses to go along make them sign a paper that they won't take the raise. One wonders if Baldrey is actually a reporter or a member of the back room staff of Gordo and Company. I do recall Gordon blasting the NDP years ago when the pension was removed. Suddenly he wants a pension. what he really wants is to be a CEO somehwere

DPL

I thought that too about Baldry. I hope, if it comes to that, that the Opposition has the jam to turn the deal down.

It would make an interesting election issue wouldn't it?

Sorry Keith...

Was anyone aware that Mr. Baldrey's wife is a parliamentary steno for Gordo's team?

That means there is a conflict and Baldrey's sorry butt shouldn't be there. A perceived conflict is the same as an actual one.

I already tagged him on this at one time in the past and he has promised to never interview me.

This is one time i wished I was there as a cabinet minister so that I could diss the bugger.

Mike Summers
Vanderhoof BC

Except that...

"if the opposition refuses to go along make them sign a paper that they won't take the raise. "

I think it is even easier for the opposition. Even they they vote against and the deal goes through and all liberals take their money and run, the opposition can say, "Why should we work for less than any others." Most people would cut them some slack then. Do you think Carole and her crew will reject her pension when they are out of politics. Not on your life. You don't have to apply till you are a private citizen. Then why would you care. Maybe I am a cynic after all.

Remember all those federal reformers that said they would not, well almost all of them did including Linda Gray.

You Get What you Pay For

At least is was, as Carol James said, an independent panel. Last thing we want are MLAs that aren't properly paid and especially since, on both sides of the House, they work long hours.

Any company knows that you have to pay good workers well.

dunno

I watched John Les during estimates today.

He may work long hours; he certainly doesn't know anything.

If raising the pay levels bring us more ceo government like we have now then the worst possible thing we could do is raise their salary any more.

Les seems to think that it's appropriate that ICBC should be advertising and participating as an Olympic sponsor. The next time that auto insurance rates increase I hope someone reminds him where that money went.

THese guys are well paid now, too well paid when all they're doing is playing yes-man to the ceo.

Funding Plunder

.

Not the ones who think just because they work at the company store the communal goods somehow now belong to them only and that "the goods" are thus both free for the stealing....and free for the eventual selling (el cheapo) to their "friends".

Good workers would never leave the company store stripped bare, nor would they sell stolen goods. ("Stolen" as in goods that do not belong to them alone but to all). Nor would good workers have the sleazy audacity to try to pass if off the dirty deal with the line "this is not a sale....we have merely let our friends borrow your stolen goods for 990 years."

Well, borrow this....

They are immoral twits, a sheer disgrace and more to the point....

They are simply pirates.

As Kurt Vonnegut wrote:

An "independent" panel?

Was this panel truly independent? Hand picked by Cambpell, all of them affluent, two of them lawyers and one a business specialist, or what not. I don't think there is anyone with half a brain that didn't see a recommendation of lots of dough and perks coming, including Campbell. Once again, he can download responsibility for a decision onto someone else. I saw him on Global news earlier and you could tell his spin doctors encouraged him to mention the word "independent" as many times as he could.

Anyone, including realisticman, who thinks this panel was truly "independent" and that the recommendations weren't a foregone conclusion may be interested in some swamp land I have for sale. As for getting what you pay for, most of these clowns aren't worth anywhere near what they're getting now, never mind a huge raise.

David Schreck - makes good sense to me

Campbell's Hand on Pay and Pensions

Carole James and her caucus distinguished themselves by quickly rejecting the recommendations for exorbitant hikes in pay and benefits. It wouldn't take most people more than a nanosecond to see that 28.8% is not on, and that a pension plan that is twice as rich as the defined benefit civil service plans is just too rich. Nevertheless, some folks in the media are spinning a line that James acted too quickly and for the sake of the families of her caucus she should have negotiated with Campbell, who now holds the cards. Who are they trying to kid? MLAs make $76,100 per year as base pay, many get extras on top of that, and they get an employer paid contribution of $6,849 per year to a registered retirement savings plan. They also get travel expenses, allowances for meals and living expenses while in Victoria, paid MSP premiums, an extended health plan and a dental plan. That's a better pay package than what is earned by 90% of British Columbians, yet some apologists argue that unless more is paid, BC won't attract the best and brightest to public life. Does that mean that Gordon Campbell and his cabinet are second rate because they were attracted by the current pay package? Everyone knew what the pay and working conditions were when they ran for election in May 2005. If the 79 who got elected don't like it, there were plenty more who wanted the job but didn't make the cut. What's relevant is how much they make relative to average British Columbians; they make more than 90% of the people they are elected to represent. If they wanted to make $250 an hour as content consultants, they could have stayed out of elected politics and hung out their shingles.
(snip)

________________________________________________

© 2007 David D. Schreck.

...

I happen to think the MLA's should get a raise, just not one so rich... and perhaps not until after the next election.

Somehow, through all this, much of the media seems to be hammering James because she would deny MLA "families" a pay raise... Palmer thinks James is being too hasty.

Can you imagine the s***t storm if James and her party accepted the 29% pay raise, especially after the last fiasco? The Premier stands to gain a 50%(!) pay increase and it's the NDP that has the media in a tizzy!

And that line, "if you pay peanuts you get chimps" doesn't exactly help the reputation of the buffoons we have there now running the place.

Unrealisticman

"Of the 39 who did respond, they uniformly reported working long hours — about 70 hours a week when the legislature is sitting and 62 hours a week when working in their constituencies."

Consider that a lot of their time is spent doing things that are only to stay in the job and for electioneering, it may be a case of working smarter not longer. Why would we be asked to pay for time spent to improve the person chances of staying in the job?

Then there is the matter of asking an individual how many hours they put on the job. That is not a reliable source. A cabinet minister may work 10 hours a day at busy times of the year but good grief, what does the opposition or backbench have to do. The backbench simply takes direction from Campbell whose traveling all over the province at taxpayers expense. And, the opposition can dump all responsibility for what happens in BC onto the government.

It would also be cheaper to give them more competent staff or maybe they should be required to hire competent staff instead of giving jobs to party functionaries or simply cheerleaders if they really worked that long.

COL and Maybe a bit more for travel

MLAs should be provided no more than a cost of Living increase and perhaps a minor lift in travel expenses.

They already have a bunch of perks that most of us do not get.

..... and I am a Liberal supporter.

Lifestyle/paycheque issues

Well, hair shirts and tonsures would go a long way to reminding them that they're not on their own business while in the House...

That's only half-serious. When all the little Grits paraded before the cameras when the payraise was featured on TV, there were one heck of a lot of shiny designer suits (not one or two grey sharkskins, but a sea of them - utterly tasteless; sharkskin should be a standout, not a uniform....). "But we have to dress appropriately to represent our constituents" maybe applies when your constituents also own $2000 suits, as with West Van or Oak Bay ridings.

What I'm getting at is the ostentatious show of sartorial wealth that's around these guys....is that what they need the pay raises for? So they can dress on equal terms with the lobbyists and bigshot investors they're in the habit of meeting with (on public time)?

trickling

quote: "$98K isn't that much money in terms of their responsibility." unquote.

I have more responsibility than they do. This can be seen by what happens if I fall down on the job. If I make a wrong turn in the day's work and kill somebody, not only will I be disciplined, lose my job most certainly, and could even face criminal negligence charges. If they make decisions that resiults in dead people, it takes a little crying in front of a mike, gee, I never thought it would go so bad, and who's to say there was a direct connection, after all these people were old and frail/ marginal in some other way, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

The BC electorate have not yet become nauseated enough to throw this sorry bunch out of office; wonder what it will take. I am constantly making bets with myself on that and still losing.

Meanwhile, good fellow citizens, be happy that the best and brightest will never show up in politics; they are out there on the frontline of real caring, working for just-adequate salaries and certainly putting in 'long hours' that would set these glorified clerks in their warm offices to shame - except that they don't know the meaning of the word.

Bon appetit!

the premier of our province

the premier of our province makes less than some high-school principals, and half as much as some of his advisors. how could anyone in their right mind believe that he shouldn't get a raise? this blather is at a fevered pitch ONLY because gordo is the subject of the debate. pavlov's dog has responded appropriately.

PRINCIPALS MAKE OVER $120K???

"the premier of our province makes less than some high-school principals, and half as much as some of his advisors."

Elliot, you're funny! Where do high school principals make over $120,000 per year?

But doesn't 29% make 15%

But doesn't 29% make 15% look really nice?

This was a trial balloon folks. Just like when gas prices go waaaaay up then back down a nickel makes everything all better.

(throat clearing noise here) Wouldn't it be wonderful if the citizens of the province were able to control the MLA's via binding initiative legislation?

Then we wouldn't be having such a discussion amongst people so hopelessly frustrated. But here we are again. Powerless. Hopeless. Bereft of options.

Isn't it just about time for folks to stop running like rats in a wheel, drop the rocks and unite just ONE TIME to make a real change?

Mike Summers
Vanderhoof BC

sdgreen says "I am a Liberal supporter"

I never would have guessed! ;D

freebc

You haven't been paying attention.

The ceo is going to push this thing through as is - using the Harris maneuver to try and snooker the Opposition - you need to pay more attention to the CanWest Bobsey twins of Baldry and Palmer my friend.

This is a done deal.

And a bad one.

budd campbell; centennial

budd campbell; centennial secondary in coquitlam for one. 1800 students = somewhere around $125k/year, although they may be able to defer some of it for tax purposes, which is what most of the superintendents etc. do. some of them, by the way, make over $150. no bullshit budd. check it out sometime.

Ya, ya, Elliot poor, poor

Ya, ya, Elliot poor, poor Gordo. The avaerage canadian makes about half of what the backbenchers make or about 1/3 of Gordo, so if the poor things can't get by on it...
As for him/ them getting a raise, sure, after, say LESS 15% for their vicious and unnecessary first term, then just because I'm a nice person, 4% or COL and as sdgreen said a small increase for transportation 'cause BCDL's have doubled in cost, insurance and gas/gastaxes as well. No increase in housing, no pension increases, no increases to or for STD OR ANYTHING ELSE THIS ELITE GROUP put in there. Nobody in the public or private sector (average income) has gotten anything near that type of raise or additional perks. Try walking around a middle class neighborhood safeway/ mall/ restaurant or take a bus/skytrain and listen to what the people there think of this. SHEESH. Maybe when this trickle down theory stops feeling like a golden shower to us average or less folks then there might be room for such improvements. Until then I say SUCK IT UP!

This is a diversion

and an attempt to make the prophecy self fulfill that the Campelgate has no legs.

Someone already mentioned this but it warrants being mentioned a few hundred more times. (Note: that number may be a tad high, but based on the number of times the experts repeat the big lies on the msm it might be a tad low.)

noting above posts: like i

noting above posts: like i said before, pavlov's dog has responded appropriately. this issue isn't about the office of the premier to the lefties, rather it's about the same old tired and worn out rhetoric. i wonder sometimes how long it will take you people to realize that most british columbians are very happy with the performance of this gov't. of course that's because canwest tells them to be happy, right?

Wrong

More accurate to say that CanWest doesn't tell them the news that would cause them to rise up in outrage.

but the lefties are always

but the lefties are always in an outrage. what a grim way to live.

You're absolutely right,

You're absolutely right, Elliot, that the tail is wagging the dog -a minority is benefitting from the actions while the majority is scratching from fleas.

As for the actual office of the Premeir if GC/party acted with the ethics that office is supposed to carry he and his party would not have done the things that makes me and others react against the idea.

A grim way to live is to

A grim way to live is to have to count dollars and other such "assets" to find fulfillment, purpose or happiness out of your life.

How fortunate for politicians that most people....

Quote: "of course that's because CanWest tells them to be happy, right?"

Many a true word was said in jest (or, in this case, sarcasm). The sad part is that many people in this province either actually believe what they read in the Sun/ Province or are not critical enough to delve into what they don't read. They are either ignorant or they just don't care, or both. It's actually quite scary that a lot of these people then determine, at voting time, who runs the show. Its also amusing to see how some of them so adamantly defend this government. As a German politician once said, "How fortunate for politicians that men don't think".

Campbell and the Aspers must laugh their asses off.

dunno el

seems to me, looking back at what you've written, that you're the only one spouting the same old tiresome rhetoric.

The lefties have already said their piece. This settlement is too rich for their blood. And you know something, when the polls start to hit the street, I'll bet you that the majority of British Columbians agree with them.

As for the premier, if the stuff coming out of Courtroom 54 sticks he's not going to be worrying about his salary - he's going to have to resign: As he should have done already. He and this government have besmirched the good name of this province with their partisan antics far more comprehensively than any other government in this place since about 1920.

I'm sure Skookum1, if he sees this, will be able to tell you exactly when this kind of possible corruption swept through the legislature before. Suffice to say, not within living memory.

PERCENTAGES CAN LIE.

Let's do some math.

According to David Shreck, there was a $3 average hourly increase in BC in the last 10 years, which amounts to about $6000 per year for the average worker.

HOWEVER, for the exact same period of time, MLAs got also about $6000 more per year. Sure, it was a 10% decrease (because they make more), but it is the same real dollar increase that counts, so ... MLAs and the Liberals do not have a leg to stand on.

So, MLAs could ask for 2.5% per year increases (to cover cost of living increases). To ask for 30% and 60% or so is HIGHWAY ROBBERY. And, let's not forget that 2.5% of $100,000 (about the median wage of MLAs and the Premier) is half of 2.5% of $50,000 (the median wage in BC).

PERCENTAGES CAN LIE.

Nevertheless, a 10% over 4 years would not be be reasonable, but no one knows if they will be back and what will be done in 3 years, 4 years,.... In the final analysis, they should index MLAs salaries to the cost of living.

erratum (PERCENTAGES CAN LIE)

Nevertheless, a 10% over 4 years would not be be UNreasonable,...

well.....

I've actually been giving this some thought and am having a hard time coming up with even a parallel - even before 1903, when "partisan" doesn't really work as there were no political parties, only shifting factions. I'll do some more head-scratching, but I'm pretty sure you'd have to reach into the pre-party days, or into the history of the colonies, to find anything remotely similar.

MLA pay not reflective of BC society

Besides the income study from StatCan today, mainly on family income (2, 1+3/4 incomes etc.
The Daily, Thursday, May 3, 2007. Income of Canadians
2. http://statcan.ca/Daily/English/070503/td070503.htm

BC Stats can also show you the status of individual British Columbians income in their study of Tax Filers.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/income.asp

From BC Stats web site "British Columbia Taxation Statistics 2002, Income groups and sources of income & Taxes paid" published July 2006, (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/handout/02txhand.pdf ) we get the deciles of BC taxfilers.

TABLE
less_1K 1_5K 5_10K 10_15K 15_20K

20_25K 25_30K 30_40K 40_50K 50kover

Total_taxfilers

203690 199150 356400 366560 282950 221120 197070 351370 263610 537970
2,979,890

Percent of total
6.8% 6.7% 12.0% 12.3% 9.5% 7.4% 6.6% 11.8% 8.8% 18.1% 100.0%

Cumulative Percent
6.8% 13.5% 25.5% 37.8% 47.3% 54.7% 61.3% 73.1% 81.9% 100.0%

So MLAs are already making more than 80 percent of the public they "represent"
( [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 66 18(3) )

Reality?

There will always be people like Budd and Elliot who will vote for fence post as long as Campbell tells them it is a candidate. Campbell could steal their children an they would still vote for him because they now have a few extra dollars in their pockets. All those politicians are banking that the rest of us have short memories. It remains to be seen. The Opposition may all vote against it and claim righteousness but after the dust settles, are they really going to agree to work for less than the liberals? Should we expect them to if there is no way to claw back the paid out benefits to all the liberals who will leave politics after 2009 willingly or otherwise. Particularly if their is a more honest government next time.

How much more does six bucks suck than $100,000 a year?

'There will always be people

'There will always be people like Budd and Elliot who will vote for fence post as long as Campbell tells them it is a candidate.' you lefties sure do love to assume eh sky? guess what? i voted for the ndp in 1991 and have been regretting it ever since. i also voted for the federal liberals in '88. oh to be young, foolish and naive. isn't reality a kick in the ass sometimes? you may want to get in touch with it anyway.

From Campbell's own mouth:

"In order for us to change the public image of MLAs as self-serving, it's going to require MLAs to stop being self-serving. Being an MLA should be a public service, not a career. We cannot ask others to tighten their belts if we're not willing to tighten our own. Politicians have been quick to tell others what to do but have been unwilling to do the same themselves.

[2:15]

This bill eliminates all pension benefits granted to MLAs, effective before the last election. If the bill is passed, MLAs first elected in 1991 and MLAs recently qualifying for a pension would not be eligible. For those MLAs who qualified before October 16, 1991, the value of their pension as at

[ Page 16600 ]

October 16, 1991, would be transferred to the superannuation fund. Retired MLAs who are already receiving their pension would not be affected by this legislation. This bill makes it very clear that there will be no special pensions for MLAs. MLAs will have the same opportunities to provide for their retirement as do the taxpaying British Columbians who pay the bills."

Looks like Campbell has turned into what he hated the most. He is certainly a hypocrite now.

historical influence peddling in BC....

Well, there's been quite a lot of it, at a rather venal level and because of the half-propriety of oldtime politicians, who would resign before any investigations went too far, it's hard to say which or what, and as I said before 1903 there were no political parties at the provincial level (and BC politicians were notorious weathervanes, and federal politics and provincial politics were often fairly much kept separate e.g. being allies in our Ledge while enemies in the Commons, or vice versa). So to find any organized behaviour of this kind, although no shortage of individual finagling....hard to come up with any real parallel also because there were no real Crown assets such as crown corps of the scale of BC Rail until WAC came along; although certainly BC has had a yellow press willing to cover up as much as trump up non sequiatur issues and red herrings ver since Amor de Cosmos and John Robson set up shop and started manufacturing issues from day one. There was lots of graft, questionable pork-barreling and kickbacks and so on, but if there was dirt on the scale that we're finding out about now no one in the political or legal establishment so much as let it get anywhere near the courtroom, much less the newspapers....

In recent memory the Sommers scandal stands out as a major sale of benefits affair (aka influence peddling) and there were never-answered questions about Bonner's and other cabinet ministers' participation in a cover-up/shuffle aside; and Fantasy Gardens had, among its many heads, sale of benefits/influence, though again not involving a Crown asset (although a Crown licence - for banking - was apparently at stake). I don't have Rayner's book on scandals in BC but from what I remember many had to do with conflicts of interest of some kind of other; any bribery per se went on completely outside any paper trail (no email or phone records in those days....).

I'll give this some more thought although it makes me wish I'd read Rayner and a few other books I had a while ago a bit more closely.

Hilarious to hear the capitalist set justify higher wages for the bunch that takes more and more in taxes and fees and user charges and rate increases every single time.

Why don't we look at what Adam Smith says on politicians' wages. How much should they be paid?

Let’s apply Adam Smith’s theory of compensating advantages. There are, he said, “five... principal circumstances which…make up for a small pecuniary gain in some employments, and counterbalance a great one in others.” (Chapter X). Do these justify MPs getting big wages?

1. “the easiness and cheapness, or the difficulty and expense of learning them.”

Any knob can be a politician, so this doesn’t apply. Van Dongen, Polak and Lali are all the proof anyone needs.

2. “the constancy or inconstancy of employment in them.”

You’ve got a secure job for four years. And at the 2005 election, only 1 in 4 seats changed hands. So the job’s pretty safe, especially if you're in a safe seat.

3. “the small or great trust which must be reposed in those who exercise them.”

This, says Smith, explains the wages of doctors and goldsmiths; these have to be high to encourage good behaviour. But this applies only slightly to politicians. Most do as the whips tell them. And their behaviour is easily scrutinized. On the other hand, though, we want to deter them from taking too many bribes, so some wage premium is probably necessary to encourage some measure of that aforementioned trust.

4. “the probability or improbability of success.”

Smith says this explains the high wages of lawyers: The counselor at law who, perhaps, at hear 40 years of age, begins to make something of his profession, out to receive the retribution, not only of his own so tedious and expensive education, but that of more than 20 others who are never likely to make anything by it.

Well, this applies only slightly to politicians. Many people fail to become politicians, but they invest little money in the pursuit of the job, and much less time than junior lawyers do. As they've invested little in the effort to become an one, therefore the pay-off to a successful investment must be small.

So far, we’re struggling to justify MPs’ pay. Only two of four of Smith’s principles apply, and that only marginally. But here’s the fifth:

“the agreeableness or disagreeableness of the employments themselves.”

Ahhh, yuppers. This explains their demands for good pay. Being a politician is a shit job. Travel, rubber chicken, the hotel circuit, getting up at 5 am to talk to Rafe Mair, listening to psychos at party meetings, having to appear to agree with party leaders, and being held in contempt by all right-thinking people. And – worst of all – just look at the company they keep.

You’d have to pay me a fortune to do it.

GUFFAWWW!!

Wish I could remember who wrote that. I've had it for years - waiting for the moment to use it. I sure as hell didn't write all that.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. . .

Here's a question to separate the reasonable people from the unreasonable ones: do people think that $98K/yr is too much for ANY occupation, or just too much for MLA's?

$98K/yr is not a huge salary - lots of people make more for doing less important jobs. An MLA should play an important role in our government and society - the fact that most believe (incl. myself) that the current crop do not necessarily live-up to their responsibilities, is no grounds to oppose a pay raise, as long as it's done the right way.

We need to separate the issue between rewarding incompetence, and providing our lawmakers with remuneration commensurate to their roles in society.

Rewarding incompetent MLA's in the legislature with a pay raise is wrong. But the challenge is how do you determine incompetence? The sad truth is that most of the electorate's concepts of competenence and incompetence of their elected officials cleave along partisan lines - or at least based on issues, eg. I believe same-sex marriage is fine, but my MLA does not, therefore she is incompetent and does not deserve a pay raise.

In business, it's generally much easier to judge who is competent or incompetent, after all the end-goals of most business are objective and measureable, make profit, increase shareholder value, etc. In politics, though, the end goals are not necessarily the same - sure everyone wants a better BC, but the definition of such differs depending on who you ask.

Someone further up the thread suggested that we do not allow the pay raise to go through until AFTER the next election, removing some of the conflict of interest. I agree. It ain't perfect, but it's the best thing I can think of. The only other way I can think of to measure competence or incompetence is to institute a raft of performance metrics to ensure that MLA's meet their electoral obligations, eg. meetings with their constituents, % of sessions attended, # of committees sat upon, # of bills proposed, etc. In the business world, we call these measure MBO's, KRA's, etc. They're used to ensure that employees live-up to their minimal job requirements by tracking such responsibilities. Maybe a way to go? Don't know.

In the end though, I think paying our MLA's more money is a good thing as long as we get ROI. Heck, I would support paying them double their current salaries or more if we could ensure they were doing their jobs and we were attracting the best and most capable.

as long as we get ROI

Sorry, case not made. This bunch especially have tried to use the business case to manage government and look where it's got us.

Raising their pay will only encourage them.

And none of them appear to wish to be held accountable anyway.

It's not simply enough to change the rolls every four years, there needs to be a whole new system of public accountability. The BC Rail thing, among others, ought to convince the public that, if nothing else, this bunch deserves a firing - not a raise.

They can't even fashion an agreement with former appointees to keep their fingers out of the till for at least a year after they leave their sinecures.

Have a quick look through yesterday's Hansard if you don't believe me.

Earth calling incredulous!

Good Grief! "$98K/yr is not a huge salary". What isolated world do you live in. If the average BC wage earner makes about 37,000 a year

Re: If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. . .

Well, sorry but 98k/annum ain't peanuts for one thing. And for another, we've already got the monkeys, and they're the ones wanting the higher paycheques.

How much does all this bump up the total cost of the House, anyway? Where are all Campbell's promises to make the Ledge more efficient and reduce costs? Oh yeah, where all his other promises are - in the wastebin.

Hmmm

Skywalker - I don't know if it's valid to compare an MLA's salary to that of the BC average and expect that they should be paid the provincial average, or close to it.

It's okay that people make more than average - unless you have a problem with that and feel that everyone should be paid the same salary regardless of education, qualifications, requirements, etc.

If you do feel that it's okay for people to be paid differently for doing different work, then I don't know if you agree, but the job of an MLA is pretty darn important - and merits the higher end of the pay scale. I guess the only the only where we disagree is how high the scale goes.

My statement of $98K is not a huge salary is something I stick by. There are quite a few occupations, professions and jobs that command a higher salary that could be argued are more or less important that workin' in the ledge. When taken into proper context - $98K ain't that much.

Sure it's important but...

They don't get the job because they are the best and the brightest. I could give you all kinds of examples of real duds in the business on both sides but it might not be posted. The system is based on who gets the most votes first at nomination and then at general election. Nominations can be bought, secured by the leadership and given to party hacks. The competition is based on who can get the most votes from party members who are often signed up by the would be MLA's for the specific purpose of voting them. For most of them, even at the current pay rate, it is the best and easiest job they ever had.

As well they knew what the salary was and still wanted the job so let them open up the competition and compete at the next election. None of them work harder than the average person trying to provide for his/her family. Many of them even cause more suffering among average citizens because they are so inept at their jobs. For some they never worked out in the real world and all they know is how to perpetuate their sinecures. Sorry I don't buy the $100,000 until the average Joe has a decent income for a day of hard labour and the six bucks minimum wage is gone and there are no working poor.

I never expect equal pay but the spread between the average and those who are to represent them with the new raise makes any identification with the masses just a game.

This commission was a Campbell set up to a predetermined outcome. Anyone could see that. Why would it specifically recommend that the Premier Campbell get a 50 percent income? You really think he works that much harder or is so much more capable given the spin he peddles.

Sorry Lynn can't get myself around all those realities. Still looking for dedicated people with real integrity.

My MLA

My MLA, Daniel Jarvis, is routinely made fun of by his colleagues. When he challenges decisions or policy, his fellow MLAs smile and say that poor old Jarvis doesn't understand. He has been known to play the "country bumpkin" role in the committees he's on. Why he should receive a pay raise is beyond me. He didn't even know the details of legislation he voted for when I asked him a question. Unfortunately, a monkey could run in this riding and win as long as they were the BC Liberal candidate. No matter what we pay, we'll still get a monkey.

Correction.

In my earlier post I don't know why I mentioned Lynn it should have been Incredulous. Further to getting the best and the brightest I remember the last election. The Liberal candidate was in favour of giving away the stores, the Green was a student not yet out of university and the NDP candidate was more of a small "l" liberal than anything else. Who to vote for?

The whole concept about attracting the best by paying out massive salaries is a myth. Those with the means will do it more as a hobby i.e. Belinda Stronach and they would do it for free because of the business contacts they can make. The rest, well if they have never held a job which requires a higher level of intelligence, we should pay them $100,000? Makes no sense to me.

I'll second Skywalker's

The best is subjective and the brightest are a two edged sword. I think integrity is the key here.

I'd like to see an open information data base that would enable anybody to have the same free access to our government information that an MLA does. Then we could work on alternatives to how the vast majority of MLA type labour could be done as volunteer work, which would free up the MLA to be a moderator for the public voice. The public couldn't be represented worse off than it is by our present system.

It's no big deal

Even if Premier Campbell, who runs the fourth largest economy in Canada, were to receive the raise he'd still be making less than Jack Layton.

Geez. You don't run an economy.

Campbell has been the beneficiary of high world commodity prices and more federal transfers. Neither of which he had anything to do with. The notion that a premier influences the price of metals or lumber is just bizarre. No one person runs an econmy. Com'on give us a break!

SNEAKY!

Didn't anyone notice that Gordo wants the raise and that the NDP said no?

What should be the topic now is Gordo's plan to snare the NDP into signing away any future raises!

That move is so obvious!
How can we expect anyone to sign away the right to keep up with inflation, on a forever basis?

This is designed to try to make the NDP vote for the package or suffer forever!

If the voters bothered to read, that sort of proposal would never even be considered, but Gordo counts on his media to make him look decisive and imply that he is worth the money!

The voters weigh in

Here's an Ipsos Poll on what BC folks think about increasing the wages of this corrupt bunch - http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3474

The fact is that the people of BC sense very clearly that:
a) this hand picked panel was not representative of their feelings, and;
b) people who spend most of their time telling us what sacrifices they're making for the public good when the major beneficiaries of their activities are a small circle of friends, just aren't very convincing.

Campbell ought to resign in disgrace. He is without doubt the worst and probably the most corrupt and manipulative Premier we have ever had.

If the NDP has any sense it will call Campbell's bluff and allow these characters to have their golden raises while refusing it themselves.

I can't think of a better way to demonstrate what the BC Liberals are now, and have always been about.

I'm too slow on the kewy board

Darn it. G.West I was about to steer folks to the poll and David Shrecks site for his analysis of the poll. (Stategic Thoughts)
I sure would be one of the 67 percent mentioned in the poll. Seems nobody ever finds our number for polling. Sure would have loved to be one of those negative folks that don't think Gordon the spandex kid is so great. He is so busy he is now taken to riding a bike so he can get a phot op when Lance armstrong shows up for a charity on blood cancers.

DPL

Funny you should mention Lance.

I think I posted something about Gord the spandex kid and Lance on one of these other threads too.

Great minds think alike I guess.

gw

MLA raises

I am dead against a raise for MLAs. In fact, I'd like them to get a wage cut--like the amount they forced onto hospital workers. Big cuts!

Or, better yet, let them have minimum wage--the $6 so-called "training wage":)) After 500 sittings in the Leg, they get fired and have to start all over again in a new riding with another stint at the Training Wage!

They all should have to take the ferry--no flying across the Strait. They need to experience travel in remote BC,too. Whistler has to be off-limits to them all while they are in office.

Maybe next time, they won't be so mean-hearted to the poor, the pensioned, the abused, the disabled, single moms, the mentally ill, etc., etc.

Gordo's raise

This is oh so clever of the NDP to which although I do dislike many things about the NDP, one really cannot call the NDP MLA's dumb.

Gordo will have his raise. He wanted 15%. His independants said 29%. He will have something nearer to that original 15%.

The NDP are about to score high on the brownie point scale by taking the high road gift that Gordo handed them.

However, these NDP members are also going to share in the wage increase because it goes to all MLA's whether you voted for it or not.

So in my mind, the NDP score points for high road and also are net beneficiaries of the arrogance of Campbell and his over priced minions.

It is a clever stance that the NDP have taken, and as such deserve to take a small bow.

However, I still hope the MLA's choke on the wage increase they are about to share.

I wonder if there will be any recall attempts over this issue? I suspect not.

freebc

I don't think so.

Have a look at this:

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/05/liberal-mlas-want-pay-pension-raise.html