Councillor Allowances and Councillor Representation

Hello all,

This post is of my own opinion and is purely a reflection

I've read with keen interest the debate around councillor allowances that are paid.  Although I have not seen any official documentation to state this is the case (other than reports in The Advocate Newspaper),  I am of the understanding that Alderman Steve Martin from Devonport City Council sought to have passed a motion by the DCC councillors to have their allowances frozen from rises.  Councillors can elect not to receive their allowance.  Allowance values are set by the Tasmanian State Government and are based on numbers of residents in respective municipalities (e.g. a councillor at DCC would receive more than a councillor at Waratah-Wynyard).  I must note that my annual councillor allowance is set as $12,293 for the 2011-2012 financial year.  This allowance is to cover costs associated with being a councillor - so, in effect, we are volunteers with a subsidy for expenses.


Personally, I believe that Ald Martin's motion was inappropriate as it's each councillor's option to not receive their allowance.  I guess a council could vote to do this but it should be left in the hands of each councillor to decide (although it could bring in a case of peer pressure if one does it and another doesn't).  Ald Martin, personally, can opt to freeze his own if he wishes.  Lets see if he does.

The DCC example is not the issue of this blog post though.  I have used it as a lead-in to discuss the issue of councillor allowances and whether councillors deserve it.  I reflect on Libby Bingham's article entitled 'Mayors say allowance reimburses time and commitment' in The Advocate on Saturday - www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/mayors-say-allowance-reimburses-time-and-commitment/2213665.aspx?storypage=0.

Yes, councillor allowances can add up to tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes several hundreds of thousands when looking at city councils) but, as I said, these figures are based on population size.  There is the debate in the Letters to the Editor that, if two councils were amalgamated, the costs of councillor's reimbursements would fall.  Although I have not 'done the sums', as the allowances are based on population size, I wouldn't expect the overall expense to change much as the individual councillors allowances would go up to compensate (I'll look into this one).

A Mayor's role is a full-time role, especially when councils get larger.  Do we really expect someone to work full-time for the community for free?  I'd be keen to hear your views on this.  In my opinion, it's an issue of social equity if we did and it seriously limits who is capable of doing it.  To work full-time for free assumes that you either have another flexible job to bring in some income, you are on some kind of benefit (e.g. superannuation, a pension), you have a large bank account and/or you have a financially supportive family.  This is why I could never run for Mayor during my working career.  I'd have to leave my current job so that I could attend all of the functions, meetings, meet and greets etc. and take a pay-cut.  I'm not going to do this and can't afford to.  With a young family and a mortgage it's just not possible.  I have had numerous people in the community tap me on the shoulder and ask me to run for Mayor of Waratah-Wynyard.  Sorry people, in this climate it just can't happen (even if I wanted to).

To follow on... Why would someone give up their job to become a Mayor?  It's only a two-year contract!  In the North-West, the Mayor's salary is modest to say the least if you compare it to a chairman of any other multi-million dollar enterprise.  This is why, in my opinion, you end up with a high average age of councillors.  Unless you have a flexible job you can't fulfil the duties of being a councillor and work to feed your family.  Most board members appointed by state governments etc. are paid remunerations + expenses.  A local councillor is, in effect, a board member.

Ms Bingham's article mentions that Mayor Boyd "...famously refused to collect all his mayoral allowance for a number of years...".  Well that's fine for Mayor Boyd but how could someone afford to do this if this was their only income?  Mayor Boyd at the time ran a successful business.

The underpinning argument under all of this is... Do communities want volunteers or experts running their municipality?  It is a demanding job and one that has limitations as to who can, in reality, allocate the time to it.  If you don't pay allowances then you'll only ever be represented by those who have the capacity to.  This also limits the skill sets and age representation required for good governance of a whole of community function.   Even at the current allowance rates I have many friends who won't stand for council due to financial constraints.  Getting generation Y and then Z'ds to run for council is going to be increasingly hard.

I often ask myself the question of why am I a councillor?  I cop scrutiny and angst, and for what?  It's certainly not for 10pm phone calls, weekend obligations and 3am agenda reading.  The only benefit to me is knowing that I'm utilising my skills, leadership and learnings for the future of the municipality.  I enjoy it and will continue to do so as long as I'm not out of pocket.

So in wrapping up I ask... Is it worth it to you to pay councillors an allowance or should it be revoked?

Have fun with this one.  It's only a reflection and I don't have any answers.  I have put across my thoughts... it's really based on what the community expects of a councillor.

Cheers... C.