Archive:  Councillor Allowances and Roles

Last Updated  26/5/08

Minister For Local Government Announces 30% Increases In Councillor Allowances

(14/4/08 - C)  And that's not all...

The Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, announced last week that Councillor allowances will rise 30.46%, effective from the election of the next Council.  This means that after November, 2008, Macedon Ranges' ratepayers will have to find an additional $51,000 per year to pay its Mayor's and Councillors' and allowances (up from $166,500 to $217,500 total per year).  Note:  In our calculations, we've assumed (as you do) that our Councillors will pay themselves the highest amount available, as currently occurs.

That's not all though.  Councillors also win with superannuation, minimum support toolkits (e.g. mobile phones and personal computers, etc), and reimbursement of costs including travel and child/family care costs. 

Macedon Ranges has stayed in the Category 2 pay range but other places aren't so 'lucky'.  6 Councils have been elevated to a higher pay category, so their ratepayers cop a double whammy - higher allowances PLUS a higher pay category.  Those Councils are (from Cat 1 to Cat 2): Corangamite, Gannawarra and Surf Coast;  (from Cat 2 to Cat 3): Frankston, Glen Eira and Moonee Valley. 

Click here to see the Minister's 10/4/08 media release.  You can also go to http://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/ for access to documents surrounding the decision, including the Local Government (Councillor Remuneration Review) Panel Report, and the Government's response to the report's recommendations.

MRRA Says:

About the only thing Macedon Ranges can be grateful for is not being pushed into a higher paying category!  Our understanding is that the categories reflect population, so it seems Macedon Ranges doesn't have enough for Category 3... Yet.  

Well, well, this year's budget is going to be interesting.  In recent times there seems to have been a succession of costs cropping up and being referred to the budget - a bit here, a lump there, and it all adds up.  Then there's the big ticket items, and the 'sweeteners' to encourage people to vote one way or the other at the Council election in November (er, that new sports oval or that new pool may not be an accident!).  And now, having to find more money for Councillors can be added to the list as well. 

In the absence of Council having the ability to turn water into wine, the choices for Council seem fairly simple: either ratepayers will get it in the neck through higher rates to pay for all the staples, plus goodies, or something will have to go.  While on past performances it wouldn't be a surprise for something the community finds entirely useful (like mowing services) to be knocked on the head in the quest for "savings", MRRA can suggest a dead cert if cutting costs is a priority: get rid of the Kyneton pool. With additional payments to Councillors now another burden on ratepayers it is time, isn't it, for certain Councillors to forget about that white elephant, with its massive capital and operating costs that could sink Council financially, and take ratepayers with it?  It is time, isn't it, to stop looking at what we so very, very obviously can't afford?  Well, isn't it?

Now that they are to get so much more of our money, we the people are entitled to demand Councillors do a damn sight more work, are a damn sight more accessible and accountable, and do a damn sight better job deciding what to spend our rates on.  

Ratepayers didn't have much say in what Councillors are paid, but this November they get one hell of a big say in which Councillors will be around to make decisions about how to spend our money in future. 

So on your bikes, people.  Start watching who goes for what, including in this year's budget, and remember, it's our money and our future they are playing with.  There are plenty of things to spend rates on, some much more important though perhaps less splashy than others, so watch who does, and who doesn't, act responsibly.  By "responsibly", we mean getting most value and benefit for the most people for the money spent, making sure the most vulnerable aren't side-swiped, and the rest of us don't have to take out a loan to pay higher rates for what minorities want.  Yep, current Councillors have it all before them, don't they?  And we've got a feeling in our water that some just won't make the grade. 

Tip of the day:  In November, don't vote for any Councillor irresponsible enough to vote for the Kyneton pool.  Well, not unless you have a thing for double-digit rate increases, of course!!

Councillor Allowance Increases:  It's Taxation Without Representation - MRRA Says Let Ratepayers Decide 'How Much'

(3/3/08 - C)  The 'Big Boys' are treating ratepayers like mushrooms.   No wonder our Council has decided to 'go with the flow'...

There has been a lot published lately about an imminent decision on increasing Councillor allowances.  There are positions being expressed on what the outcome should be, and interesting differences between positions. 

Here in Macedon Ranges we have had our Mayor seeming to say firstly that he favours significant increases, then announcing Council has argued the case for 'what the community can afford' before a panel hearing submissions on the matter.  Other Councillors have railed against the obscene increases being touted by the Victorian Local Governance Association [VLGA].

The fact of the matter is there will likely be an increase, the nub of it is, how much?  The Municipal Association of Victoria [MAV] seems to have put forward two similar positions, although oddly, when reiterating its support for increases to be matched to communities' capacity to pay (media release, 12/2/08), it recommends higher increases than it originally recommended, especially for Mayors. 

The MAV says: “Councillor allowances have been unchanged for seven years and the proposed increase equates to an overall rise of around $5.7million or an average $72,000 per council. This is less than half of one per cent of council revenue in even the smallest municipality."

Yet the table below shows the increase per year for Macedon Ranges (a Category 2 Council) is significantly higher than MAV's 'average'.

Here's an overview of what seems to be proposed at this time:

#  VLGA Submission, August 2007

*   Existing Macedon Ranges Shire Category - 8 Councillors and Mayor

**  No figure given by MAV - figure has been calculated using the same proportion (85% of Category 3) as MAV Category 2 at 12/2/08

*** Does not include additional costs to ratepayers of Councillor expenses, equipment and support services, or the Mayor's free car.

What the recommendations mean in terms of increased costs to ratepayers:

If proposed increases were approved by the State government, over a 4 year term (say, 2008 to 2012), compared with existing allowance costs of $666,000, costs to ratepayers (at Category 2 level) for 8 Councillors and Mayor would be $992,348 (MAV1), +$326,348; $1,040,420 (MAV2), +$374,420; and $1,350,160 (VLGA) +$684,160.  

BUT THERE'S MORE.  The push isn't only on to increase allowances, but to have them indexed annually as occurs for State and Federal MPs.  Last year, Victorian MPs' pay increased by 3.25%.  On that basis, an example of how indexation could affect ratepayers' costs over a 4 year Council term is as follows, using a 3.25% annual increase and the MAV2 figures for Category 2:

Councillors (each)

Starting yearly allowance:   $24,505  Ending yearly allowance:  $27,849 (+$3,344 over the 4 year term)

Mayor

Starting yearly allowance:   $64,065  Ending yearly allowance:  $72,808 (+$8,743 over the 4 year term)

BUT THERE'S MORE:  On top of all of this, there are recommendations being made for superannuation, child care, automatic travel allowances and so on.  The VLGA also wants an additional allowance paid to the Deputy Mayor.

BUT THERE'S MORE:  MRRA's understanding is that the three-tier 'categories' are based on population.  At present, Macedon Ranges falls into Category 2, but as we've said before, what an incentive these recommendations provide for increasing population. 

Link to VLGA Remunerations Tribunal submissions: http://www.vlga.org.au/news/#A%20Fair%20Deal%20for%20All%20Councillors

Link to MAV media releases August 2007 and February 2008

MRRA Says:

Could there be a plot afoot - for example, the VLGA comes in with (bad cop) figures that are laughably unacceptable, so the fall-back position becomes the (good cop) MAV figures which look soft in comparison?

The VLGA's position seems to be to turn Councillors into public servants or staff - full pay, and all the perks including superannuation, child care, automatic travel allowances, etc. etc. as well as removing the existing ability of Councillors to vote for lesser allowances than the maximums allowed under legislation.  Hello?  Which planet is VLGA on? 

Then there is MAV calling for increases to be kept within a community's capacity to pay.  Our Council, according to our Mayor, has also taken a position of 'what the community can pay'.  OK.  We've seen what those who stand to benefit think the community can pay, so when precisely is the local community going to be asked what it thinks it can pay?  Wouldn't local communities have the best handle on how their Councillors are performing - or not, and what they are worth?  Aren't these increases being proposed without regard to other existing or future financial burdens within each municipality?

For example, how much more in rates would Macedon Ranges' residents be prepared to pay for increased Councillor allowances, on top of anticipated rate increases for the Kyneton Pool (possibly up to a 5% rise in rates), the $120,000 Council has generously agreed to cough up to fix the mess left behind by a developer, the $1 million or so loan needed to sign off on the Kyneton Bowling Club venture at the Kyneton Mechanics Institute, extra costs for services and who knows what else.  Doesn't leave much scope for spending rates on things that really matter to, and benefit, most of the community, does it?   Not unless rates go up even more...

One wryly amusing aspect of Council's recent assertion that it supports increases 'within community capacity' is that with the MAV and VLGA submissions on the table, Council in fact won't have to do anything to collect what we suspect will be an increase at least as high as that put forward by the MAV which, while no doubt sparking loud protestations and stern condemnation that Council couldn't do anything about it, will be accepted if not welcomed all the same. 

There's also the issue of acting responsibly in times of need.  Our Federal politicians, bless their cotton socks, have agreed not to have an pay increase this year in order to avoid inflaming inflationary pressures.  Our State pollies are considering doing the same thing (their socks will be blessed when they do it).  But in the middle of all of this 'right direction' stuff, at local government level, up bob last year's proposals prepared at a time when we were being told there wasn't an inflation problem.  We now know there is.  Will local government stand up and be counted by likewise acting responsibly and shelving these grandiose, inflationary plans?

MRRA says "no taxation without representation".   And as we recall, the last time it was tried the response had far-reaching effects.

We are repeating ourselves here but MRRA believes there should be a plebiscite or other means of gauging community views on this important issue before any decisions are made.  Further, if being an elected representative isn't good enough for Councillors, if they want the role to be that of a job that diverts rates to themselves at the expense of community well-being, then the community needs a definitive way to make sure it's getting best value for dollars spent.  MRRA is firmly of the view that if it turns out that Councillors are to be reimbursed as if they are paid employees instead of elected representatives, then there must be immediate introduction of a legislative mechanism which allows public assessment of Councillor performances annually (a local government AGM?), and also provides a means for ratepayers to sack Councillors - at any time - if they under-perform.   See also earlier MRRA story on this subject.

Local Government Proposals To Give Councillors A Massive Pay Rise - You Just Can't Be Serious!

(28/8/07 - C)  Big push to tie Councillor remuneration to State pollies' pay will see ratepayers well out of pocket - again

The Municipal Association of Victoria [MAV] and the Victorian Local Governance Association [VLGA] are putting their weight behind a push to increase remuneration to Councillors.  The MAV has put forward a model that will see Councillors receive between 16% and 22% of State politicians' base pay - and be indexed annually.  MAV recommends an average $9,000 increase or an average increase of $72,000 per Council (it's not clear if this is annually, or over the elected term of a Council).  Under the MAV model, the starting amount to be paid to Councillors would be almost $20,000; over $24,000;or $28,500 per year, depending upon a Council's population size and rate income.  

MAV also says clear expense guidelines were needed, and that transparent and accountable expense processes were paramount.

Click here to see MAV's media release.

MRRA Says:

Well, well, well.  What an exemplary hand-wringing performance from those who stand to benefit.  They even remembered to toss in a line about being transparent and accountable on expenses.  Novel thought - when MRRA last year asked Macedon Ranges' Council for more information on Councillors' expenses, we were basically told to go away.

So they want to be more like State pollies... Can we suggest that if Councillors aspire to State government conditions, they run for State government positions?  How much more "local" can be taken out of local government before it ceases to exist?  Council amalgamations have already disempowered the community, particularly in rural areas where you might need to take a packed lunch to visit Council headquarters.  Local communities have been forced to accept Councils that run more as boards of directors than local representatives; State-like electoral processes (and what a good idea Senate-style proportional voting is in a local government context); and at the next Council elections Councillors will have the same 4 year terms as State politicians (without holding a referendum on it).  And did you catch the fine print - under this proposal, Councillors' allowances would be indexed annually.  At the moment, they are set once for the life of a Council term. 

As for the amount of Councillor allowances being dependent upon a Council's population and rate income, well, where's that rubber stamp...  If you have heard of a better incentive for Councillors to approve even more development - and increase rates - we'd like to hear it. 

In MRRA's view, it's a fallacy to suggest that paying Councillors more would get a higher standard of Councillor and encourage more people to run for Council.  And would we really want anyone who runs just because the job pays well?

Isn't there a saying about paying peanuts and getting monkeys?  Let's see. In the beginning, Councillors worked for nothing, back in the days when perhaps people had a higher sense of public service than now.  Then Councillors accepted small reimbursements for expenses incurred.  Then they went to set allowances and reimbursement of expenses, and then they went to set allowances, reimbursement of expenses and being provided with 'free' equipment.  Now they want to be like State pollies - or at least get a slice of what State pollies are paid - in any event, more than they get now.  Has anyone noticed commensurate improvements in how the 'monkies' perform as remuneration and perks have grown? 

Someone might want to consider that the size of electorates is a deterrent to people running for Council, before handing over more dough.  It's a bigger problem in rural areas than smaller metropolitan municipalities, but then 'rural' is outside most metro Councils' experience, and us common folks didn't get much say in the size of our electorates, the State government and political party interests made that decision for us.  Another deterrent to running can be the fairly off-putting reputation of some Councils, as in Macedon Ranges.  Who in their right mind would want to get elected into a minority on the 'cowboy' Councils Macedon Ranges is famous for?

The bottom line is, paying more isn't going to buy a better democracy.  Yes, some Councillors are worth their weight in gold.  The trick is, not ALL Councillors are.  In our experience, the good ones are usually the ones who are reluctant to take more money.  Paying more could in fact encourage more people to use Council as a better-paid stepping stone to State or Federal parliament, or encourage more political has-beens who never managed to crack it for a seat in State parliament and are prepared to take Council as second prize. 

If ratepayers are fated to suffer higher rates so more money can be swallowed up by Councillors enriching themselves instead of going into improving services and performances, then the absolute minimum requirement has to be that this question be put at a referendum at the next Council elections in 2008, along with a proposal for a legal means by which ratepayers can sack Councillors who under-perform.  It is after all ratepayers' money, so it should be a decision made by the people who would foot the bill.

"Pinball Wizard" Performances As Councillors Go With Top Dollar For Councillor Allowances

(10/6/06 - C)   Silence reigns during MRRA's presentation and the decision

MRRA president Neil Manning and secretary Christine Pruneau appeared before Council at its Finance and Operations committee meeting last Wednesday putting a case for a reduction in the Mayoral allowance, for more information on 'other benefits', and for definition of and community consultation on a Mayor's role.  It was the first time residents in Macedon Ranges had been invited to comment on Councillor allowances, and MRRA's was the only submission.  Council's decision to go with the highest allowances available for Councillors and Mayor sets the scene for the next 3 years (previously Councillors reviewed allowances annually).  So residents are now stuck with top dollar payments until a new Council is elected in 2008.

MRRA Says:

No Councillors had any questions for MRRA at the conclusion of its presentation (note: Cr. Gyorffy was absent).  In fact, it seems no-one was interested in saying anything at all because there was no debate and no objection, with the motion (moved Cr. Harvey, seconded Cr. Letchford) going through unopposed. 

We are left to wonder if the decision had been made elsewhere or earlier, and simply played out in stony silence in chamber (although after the vote, Cr. Neil made some suggestion that perhaps people aren't aware of a Mayor's workload and perhaps it should be defined, and Cr. Letchford seemed to suggest Council charge members of the press for meals and drinks to help offset costs of 'other benefits' provided to Councillors). 

MRRA didn't get the feeling that our comments were being taken on board as constructive.  Hey, they didn't even want to talk about it.  And Council wonders why people don't bother making submissions... Wonder no more. 

The Letchford Comments

Cr. Letchford's comments about the press riled Mr. Don Gunn of the Midland Express and Kyneton Guardian, who made his feelings clear in last Friday's Guardian:

Cr. Letchford then took the opportunity to launch an extraordinary attack on members of the press who cover Council.  He pointed out that Council provided food in the form of meals on meeting nights and drinks after meetings, and this was part of the costs council had to bear in its operations.  After the meeting I pointed out to the Mayor Geoff Neil, that as a senior member of the press gallery I found Cr. Letchford's remarks offensive, because of an implication that the press 'gathered at the trough' at the expense of ratepayers, and the further implication of an implicit obligation involved in accepting council hospitality.  

Our reporters only accept specific invitations from the Mayor, or Chief Executive, to attend councillor dinners.  Usually the reason is that there is a guest speaker (such as the recent visit by VCAT chief, Justice Stuart Morris) the reporters can ask questions of.  In my own case, I can only recall about 5 such dinners in the past 4 years I have attended. 

MRRA knows who it would rely on having their facts right.  Good for you, Don.

MRRA Submission On Councillor Allowances:   Reduce Mayoral Allowance And Redefine Mayoral Role

(15/5/06 - C)   More openness, accountability, transparency and consultation please

Click here to see what MRRA said.

Have Your Say On Councillor Allowances:  Be Quick, Submissions Close May 12

(9/5/06 - C) What do you think your Mayor and Councillors are worth?  They are about to set their allowances for the next 3 years so if you have something to say, say it now!

Are our Councillors underpaid and overworked?  Are they worth the amount they already receive?  Should they work for nothing?  Macedon Ranges' Councillors are considering how much of our money they will pay themselves for the next three years.  You owe it to yourself to take an interest in this issue.  Click here for more information.