Alberta PC's way out front

[Slava]

I'm going to pose a question here, just to gauge some opinions. I think that an MLA makes about $130k a year, or at least thats close enough. The committee pay in question would've been roughly $48k ($1000/month x 4 years). Is it reasonable to expect that MLAs have that kind of cash sitting around? Frankly if someone came to me today and said "hey, you were paid too much, albeit in good faith, and we need a cheque for roughly 1/3 of your income" I'd be pretty upset!

I don't mean to suggest that this whole committee issue is right, and am not trying to suggest that people get paid for nothing. I just have a hard time thinking that most of the MLAs in question have that money just sitting there waiting to pay it back.

[Jacks]

MLA's earn their pay as far as I'm concerned but this is a little different. The thing that pisses people off is that nobody said anything for so long. They knew they were getting paid to do nothing but were happy to take the cheque and hope nobody noticed. This is the same as when they voted themselves a huge pay increase right after the election.

They should just be up front about their pay, have an independant body figure out a fair pay structure and then tie any increases to inflation.

Edit: to answer you're question. I don't expect them to pay it back. The voters should take their character into account when voting though.

[ricoFlame]

that titty bus is hot action.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm going to pose a question here, just to gauge some opinions. I think that an MLA makes about $130k a year, or at least thats close enough. The committee pay in question would've been roughly $48k ($1000/month x 4 years). Is it reasonable to expect that MLAs have that kind of cash sitting around? Frankly if someone came to me today and said "hey, you were paid too much, albeit in good faith, and we need a cheque for roughly 1/3 of your income" I'd be pretty upset!

I don't mean to suggest that this whole committee issue is right, and am not trying to suggest that people get paid for nothing. I just have a hard time thinking that most of the MLAs in question have that money just sitting there waiting to pay it back.

As I understand it the committee pay structure started ~ 40 months ago. It was at same time the PC's passed a 35% pay increase for themselves.

Thing is they do it ass-backwards. They say "you get $1000.00/mo. for committee work, up t a maximum of $3000.00" Then they turn around and make sure that everyone (in governing party) is on at least 3 committees. But withhold committee work from opposition as (some type of) punishment.

As far as paying it back, they would be all over the map in terms of how much it is. For Guy B. it is $4000.00 as he only recently got onto that committee, Heather is at 40K, I think Paul's figure in the 12+K range.
For PC Prins, chair of committee, he would be looking at 60K.

So far as I know this is part of their taxable income, so what do they pay back? Just the net they got? Or do they pay the net plus the top up on the source deductions? Do they pay back the gross and have their taxes reassessed? Where's Locke when you need him...LOL

More to your question though. I suspect they could do it in payments.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Jacks

MLA's earn their pay as far as I'm concerned but this is a little different. The thing that pisses people off is that nobody said anything for so long. They knew they were getting paid to do nothing but were happy to take the cheque and hope nobody noticed. This is the same as when they voted themselves a huge pay increase right after the election.

They should just be up front about their pay, have an independant body figure out a fair pay structure and then tie any increases to inflation.

Edit: to answer you're question. I don't expect them to pay it back. The voters should take their character into account when voting though.

The Wildrose (Paul Hinman) put out a release in 2007 when this was first being bantered about. It never grew legs.

The Liberals brought it up (2009 'ish I believe) again, it never gained traction.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

The Wildrose (Paul Hinman) put out a release in 2007 when this was first being bantered about. It never grew legs.

The Liberals brought it up (2009 'ish I believe) again, it never gained traction.

Well Paul just thought he deserved more! Probably hundreds of thousands of dollars I think? So down to earth!

The Liberals voted against the pay increase, whereas the three floor crossers who now sit as WRA said absolutely nothing.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by First Lady

The Wildrose (Paul Hinman) put out a release in 2007 when this was first being bantered about. It never grew legs.

The Liberals brought it up (2009 'ish I believe) again, it never gained traction.

Didn't know that, goes to show that nobody made a ton of noise about it and the press pretty much ignored Hinman.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by llama64

Except that it's a story fed from Canadian Press...

Don't tell me you actually think that the CP wrote that headline.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Liberals voted against the pay increase, whereas the three floor crossers who now sit as WRA said absolutely nothing.

It's not as though they thought voting against it was going to matter in the end. How many of them refused to take the money?

How did Raj vote?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

It's not as though they thought voting against it was going to matter in the end. How many of them refused to take the money?

How did Raj vote?

Well Hehr and Taylor were on the committee and voted against the raises. I don't know if Raj was on the committee.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Don't tell me you actually think that the CP wrote that headline.

No, but the Canadian Press story did make the comparison in the first paragraph of the story...have a look here:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201...-setup-120318/

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Julio

No, but the Canadian Press story did make the comparison in the first paragraph of the story...have a look here:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201...-setup-120318/

Err, no. The CP was relating the rhetoric of each party against the other. It wasn't editorializing itself. HuffPo chose to focus on and sensationalize those descriptions.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Err, no. The CP was relating the rhetoric of each party against the other. It wasn't editorializing itself. HuffPo chose to focus on and sensationalize those descriptions.

Plus they picked out some unflattering pictures.

[GP_Matt]

Given the history of the PC party it seems that the choices were vote with the party or you will never be promoted again and you may be kicked out of the party. Doug Griffiths said as much at one of the debates.

So knowing that, and knowing that a culture of bullying exists that could see projects in your riding canceled or not started at all due to your actions the questions becomes is this your breaking point? For the politicians who left the PC's they did so over an issue that was important enough to them that they could no longer sit in silence. Guy stood his ground on the hospice care in his community and was kicked out of the party for it. Raj felt the culture of intimidation within the health community was worth getting fired over. Can you blame them for not quitting over a restructuring of their salaries especially when the issue has already been brought before the media and no one seemed to care? And once the salary structure was in place it was setup so that 30% of their wages required them to join three committees. Not committees of their choice but three that were picked by the party in power and assigned.

[Table 5]

Nice, the titty bus just made Jalopnik.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Given the history of the PC party it seems that the choices were vote with the party or you will never be promoted again and you may be kicked out of the party. Doug Griffiths said as much at one of the debates.

So knowing that, and knowing that a culture of bullying exists that could see projects in your riding canceled or not started at all due to your actions the questions becomes is this your breaking point? For the politicians who left the PC's they did so over an issue that was important enough to them that they could no longer sit in silence. Guy stood his ground on the hospice care in his community and was kicked out of the party for it. Raj felt the culture of intimidation within the health community was worth getting fired over. Can you blame them for not quitting over a restructuring of their salaries especially when the issue has already been brought before the media and no one seemed to care? And once the salary structure was in place it was setup so that 30% of their wages required them to join three committees. Not committees of their choice but three that were picked by the party in power and assigned.

I don't know if thats specific to the PC party though. One MLA for an opposition party felt that he worked really hard and that the province probably owed him hundreds of thousands of dollars. A quick talk with the party brass though and he was all set to pay a bunch of money back to the province!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know if thats specific to the PC party though. One MLA for an opposition party felt that he worked really hard and that the province probably owed him hundreds of thousands of dollars. A quick talk with the party brass though and he was all set to pay a bunch of money back to the province!

So then you agree any criticism of individual voting patterns is really rather useless without understanding the party position and influence?

Especially when labelling certain MLA's as 'hyprocrites'.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So then you agree any criticism of individual voting patterns is really rather useless without understanding the party position and influence?

Especially when labelling certain MLA's as 'hyprocrites'.

Is it asking too much to have some consistency on positions? Why not just say what they actually think; if its a good idea or a policy that makes sense then just go along with it. I don't agree that criticism of individual voting patterns is useless, just that some people will say anything to get elected today and voted a different way in the relatively recent past.

MLAs who voted one way and now support something different are either (a) hypocritical or (b) not that different than what they are against today.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is it asking too much to have some consistency on positions? Why not just say what they actually think; if its a good idea or a policy that makes sense then just go along with it. I don't agree that criticism of individual voting patterns is useless, just that some people will say anything to get elected today and voted a different way in the relatively recent past.

MLAs who voted one way and now support something different are either (a) hypocritical or (b) not that different than what they are against today.

Or (c) doing what is demanded of them by their party.

You are totally ignoring the reality of our political system and then turning it around to suit your ideological leanings.

The reality is that every party whips their members to suit the needs of the party and reflect the will of it's membership. Trying to paint that as hypocrisy is just political grandstanding. Go ahead and argue against a party position all you want, but don't try and pretend it accurately reflects any individuals personal opinion or integrity.

[ThisYear]

Those are some nice ..... wheels?

What wildrose wont do to get peoples attention;