Regional Council: Benefits for Life

(or, perhaps 'Regional Friends with Benefits')

Earlier this month, Regional Council was in the news for a controversial decision that would provide all Regional Councillors who served at least one full term to receive lifetime benefits (free dental benefits, life insurance, supplementary health-care costs, and out-of-province health insurance) from the age of 55 until death. Those premiums are currently $2,400 a year for a single person and $6,720 for a family. Judging by the number of ‘letters to the editor’ on the topic, this vote hit a nerve with many. So let’s take a closer look at what happened and consider what could or should be the next steps for council on this issue. 

The issue of benefits for life for Regional Councillors was put forth by outgoing Regional Councillor Sean Strickland at the November 8th Administration and Finance Committee meeting. This is significant for several reasons. First, that was the last meeting of this council term. Also, nine councillors at that meeting would not be returning for another term of council (meaning they would not need to justify their decision to the electorate). And lastly, there are rules that exist around what an outgoing council can and can not make decisions on, often referred to as ‘lame duck’ rules. Before I dig into some of the issues outlined here, let's take a closer look at the meeting (which you can watch here). Or you can click here to watch the CTV segment on this issue.

Staff began the discussion with a short presentation outlining some of the options for benefits coverage, as well as a very brief overview of what other Ontario municipalities offer for coverage to their elected officials. Basically there were three main options for coverage: full coverage (where the Region pays for full benefits), a 50/50 split between councillors and the region, and a benefits package available at full cost to each councillor (and no cost to taxpayers). 

Councillor Sean Strickland moved a motion for staff to develop a benefits plan available to councillors who have served for a minimum of 6 years and beginning at 55 years of age. Councillor Les Armstrong seconded the motion. It’s worth noting that normally a committee of citizens examines the issue of pay for councillors, and makes recommendations before any decision is reached. However, in his comments, Councillor Strickland stated that, “For whatever reason, in the hurly burly, it was missed to strike up the citizen’s committee.”

Strickland continued, claiming that this “is not precedent-setting as many municipalities offer post-service benefits.” He also referenced how MPs and MPPs receive benefits for life after serving six years. In a report to councillors, regional human resources staff said the City of Toronto has retiree benefits for life. Some municipalities have retirement benefits until age 65, while others have opt-in options where the employee can pay for retiree benefits. Municipalities such as London, Niagara Region, Kingston, Sudbury and Chatham-Kent do not offer post-service free benefits.

Strickland also discussed ‘lame duck’ rules. He stated, “Some might say we can’t do this due to lame duck rules but the Act is not overly clear. I don’t think we’re overstepping our jurisdiction here.”

Fortunately, several councillors (most of whom are returning this term) spoke out against the proposed benefits motion. Councillor Sue Foxton noted that this was a tough decision. “This is an ongoing hit to the taxpayer forever. I have to ask if I want to support it because I want to take care of me. How do I justify this for us when I can’t for the public?” Councillor Jim Erb raised an important issue, asking how “staff are treated in this regard”. Staff replied that benefits end at age 65 for regional staff. This is one of the main concerns I have about this whole process. Why do some on council seem to feel that they are deserving more than staff? At a minimum, if council felt that lifetime benefits are a good thing (I’d say they are!), then why weren’t they advocating for such benefits for staff?

Chair Redman doesn’t think the timing is right for this and notes that there has been no community input or rigorous discussion on this issue so she doesn’t support it at this time. Councillor Vrbanovic shared similar concerns and believes, unlike Councillor Strickland, that the lame duck rules do prevail in this situation. (I am curious as to why no one asked staff for clarification on the lame duck rules and how they apply [or don’t] in this situation). Councillor Tom Galloway said he “doesn’t have a horse in this race” as he already receives benefits from his previous employer. However, he seems supportive of an option where councillors could, if they choose, extend their benefits package by purchasing it themselves, after they’re no longer serving as a councillor.

Voting in favour of free lifelong benefits were: Strickland, Jaworsky, Kiefer, McGarry, Jowett, Nowak, Armstrong, Harris and Lorentz. Voting against it were: Redman, Vrbanovic, Erb, Foxton, Clarke, Galloway, and Shantz.

As I mentioned in my opening, this decision angered many people. Judging by the posts I saw on social media and the letters to the editor in The Record, most people thought it was unfair for Regional Council to receive something that so many others don’t. And, while I understand that concern, I also want us to be very careful that we’re not advocating for a race to the bottom on what is expected from our employers.

Government is often well positioned to model what should be considered fair and appropriate wages and employee standards. For several years, I was employed by the Region as a child care teacher and was paid well. It was well-known in the child care industry that a regional child care position was a good one as it came with decent wages, benefits, and stability (until the Region voted to shut down its five centres). In addition, because the Region paid its employees well, due to a wage enhancement system, other child care staff at non-Regional centres received a boost in their pay to lessen the gap between the highest and lowest wage earners in child care locally. I believe this is an example of government demonstrating what’s possible in regards to fair and decent employee wages and conditions.

However, the decision made at council earlier this month was not an example of government leading the way, for several reasons. First, the decision was made without the usual process and debate. Usually, each term there is a citizen’s committee that looks at council remuneration. That did not happen this term (due to the ‘hurly burly’ of the pandemic, as Strickland identified). Right off the bat we have a problem of not following the regular process and seeking outside input (Of course, community input has its own issues, which I started to explore in last week’s post). That process also allows for, what Chair Redman referred to as ‘rigorous discussion’. So, we have council not following the usual process nor engaging in much needed discussion on this issue. Add to that, the concerns that this decision may be in contravention of ‘lame duck’ rules that prevent municipal councils from making certain monetary decisions at the end of a term, and it seems clear that this motion should not have come to council in this manner.

Several newly elected councillors agreed and announced on social media that they would be looking into this and seeing if it could be reviewed. Newly elected Waterloo Mayor Dorothy McCabe said, “There is a process in place for remuneration review of elected officials. The pandemic interrupted the review but this wasn’t the way to address it on the way out the door.” Kitchener Regional Councillor Rob Deutschmann also weighed in, “I will be following up with the regional chair and CAO to ensure that no steps are taken with respect to the benefits decision until the new council has had an opportunity to reconsider."

Fortunately, two returning councillors, Michael Harris and Joe Nowak had a change of heart (likely after hearing from many frustrated residents). They announced that they will “bring forward a motion at the new council’s first finance committee next month to stop the free benefits plan and to strike a citizens’ committee to study and provide recommendations for councillors’ compensation.”

So, for now, it looks like council will reconsider this decision which seems like the most appropriate response. Unfortunately, the way this entire decision played out has been frustrating and disappointing. Former Waterloo Councillor Karen Coviello summed it up well: “You have done a serious disservice to the people who are taking your seats. With one bold move, you have set the new Regional Council back, creating a trust deficit in the public re: local government.” The work of rebuilding the public’s trust falls to this new council and the first test of it will come next month when this decision is revisited. No doubt I won’t be the only one watching to see how that plays out.