MLA Pay - Committee Money for Nothing

[GP_Matt]

There has been a lot of publicity about the "Money for Nothing committee" so I thought I would post Rob Anderson's explanation of how the salary of an MLA works. I know everyone complains about politicians pay so knowing exactly what they make would help the discussion. There is partisan spin on the information but I believe the numbers are correct.

Every MLA is paid roughly $125,000 per year in salary - so about $10,500 a month. However, the PCs didn't want to be truthful about that so they set up a weird system to pay MLAs with that would confuse the public into thinking they weren't making as much as they actually were and give the Premier the power to punish MLAs that step out of line on their paychecks

• Roughly $60,000 is base pay
• Roughly $36,000 is paid to MLAs for their "committee" work. In order to claim the $3000 per month ($36,000 per year) an MLA has to sit on 3 committees. The problem is however, the Government picks and chooses how many opposition MLAs can sit on each committee. Guy Boutilier and Heather Forsyth, for example, did not want to be on this ridiculous do-nothing privileges committee, they wanted to be on another committee instead, but the PCs came back and told them that they couldn't have more than 1 Wildroser on the committees they wanted, and so if they wanted their full salaries they would have to sit on one of the - what I call - "do-nothing" committees. The reason the PCs do this is so if a government MLA or opposition MLA gets out of line - like Heather Forsyth did when she criticized Ed Stelmach during the last election - they can cut back that MLAs salary as punishment. In Heathers' case the government wouldn't let her sit on any committees thus reducing her pay by $3000 for a time before later allowing her to be on 3 committees that they chose for her. Essentially its a way for the Premier to be able to bully dissenting MLAs on their paychecks
• Finally, there is a tax free allowance for MLA work-related expenses for about $30,000. Again this is done so the PCs can brag they only make a salary of $60,000...which is ridiculous of course
• There is also the big severance packages as well (3 months pay for every year served) - and do not forget that Cabinet gets about $100,000 in addition to what I've outlined above
• In addition PC MLAs get further pay to sit on committees that generally meet once a year (one got $16,000 per year to Chair the Idaho-Alberta relations council if you can believe it - and they didn't meet once). This is done to reward PC MLAs who didn't make it into Cabinet - a way of giving them Cabinet pay without them being Cabinet Ministers. The opposition does not sit on any of those committees...and we shouldn't because those committees shouldn't even exist in my opinion and we will get rid of them if elected

My question is, How much money do you think MLA's should get paid? I used to lean towards paying top dollar to attract the best people but lately have been leaning towards governing being a public service so running is your way of giving back.

[malcolmk14]

The executive branch of government (Cabinet, Premier, etc.,) are essentially executives running a business with a $30+ Billion/year revenue. A few hundred thousand a year is nothing, really.

[Northendzone]

for the most part i don't have a problem with their direct compensation.

i tend to think that their pension plan, and golden handshakes are redonkulous.......

[GP_Matt]

I would love to see a system that bases their pension on how well they stuck to their election promises. Maybe they go before a tribunal when they retire and layout their campaign literature and election interviews and then state what they did to accomplish their promises. The committee can then decide what percentage of their pension they should receive. A system that holds them to their promises would go a long way to attracting quality people and I wouldn't mind paying them what they are worth.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I would love to see a system that bases their pension on how well they stuck to their election promises. Maybe they go before a tribunal when they retire and layout their campaign literature and election interviews and then state what they did to accomplish their promises. The committee can then decide what percentage of their pension they should receive. A system that holds them to their promises would go a long way to attracting quality people and I wouldn't mind paying them what they are worth.

Oh man, that's the kind of judgement system that would swamp courts and waste even more taxpayer money. You'd have to have some serious metrics systems in place to make that effective, and even then, alot of it would be arbitrary. Would a statistical number be sufficient or a qualitative assessment? There is some grey areas on that one.

[Knalus]

All I want is straightforwardness and honesty. The income isn't the problem, the hiding is. It's dishonest.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Oh man, that's the kind of judgement system that would swamp courts and waste even more taxpayer money. You'd have to have some serious metrics systems in place to make that effective, and even then, alot of it would be arbitrary. Would a statistical number be sufficient or a qualitative assessment? There is some grey areas on that one.

I am not saying it is practical, but some of the campaigns seem to be about the biggest lie. In B.C. they stated prior to the election that HST wasn`t being considered when they had been in negotiations all along. Or how many times GST was promised to be scrapped.

[TurnedTheCorner]

...and the chicks for free.

[Wormius]

I wish the Canadian Taxpayer Federation would create a political party in Alberta. I guess Wildrose is the closest thing though if Danielle Smith sticks to her guns.

[Sylvanfan]

These committee's are silly. You're an MLA, you get a nice salary no problem. But having these committee's and using them to justify bonuses is an insult to the tax payer.

How can a MLA be on board with budgeting for a 1% raise for something like teachers salaries, than collect his $1000 a month for sitting on a ghost committee?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

for the most part i don't have a problem with their direct compensation.

i tend to think that their pension plan, and golden handshakes are redonkulous.......

What pension plan?

Originally Posted by Wormius

I wish the Canadian Taxpayer Federation would create a political party in Alberta. I guess Wildrose is the closest thing though if Danielle Smith sticks to her guns.

The CTF is a joke. First of all it's the old "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" issue. When the economy is hot they want taxes cut. When times are tough, cut taxes. It's just not sensible.

The other thing that drives me up the wall is that they are a pure special interest group and purely in it for their own political gain. Who would comprise the CTF? Well, obviously any citizen should? We all pay taxes. We are Canadian citizens. Yet they come out and make political endorsements and virtually campaign for candidates.

The Wildrose is not the great model of fiscal conservatism either. The committee in question had two MLAs who gladly took the money. When the MLA pay raises were doled out three of the four said absolutely nothing that I'm aware of (Hinman wasn't elected yet). The only party that voted against the raises was the Liberal party in fact.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yet they come out and make political endorsements and virtually campaign for candidates.

I've never seen any evidence of this. Care to provide a link?

[DuffMan]

The mental image I have of them is they are all fat with snub noses, sitting around a big table full of food, with grease dripping down their chins, and they tell teachers they get no raises for a few years. Not just teachers but everyone in that kind of industry, nurses, paramedics etc.

[East Coast Flame]

125 k sounds reasonable to me.

To be honest, considering the already low quality of candidates that are attracted to the position for that salary, I wouldn't want to see the quality of candidates that would be willing to work for less than that....

[GP_Matt]

I don't mind the salary, it does seem reasonable to me. How it is structured though seems odd but in line with the bullying image that seems to come from the PC party. Giving the leader the ability to punish an MLA by cutting 30% of their salary seems like a rough way to keep people in line.

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by Slava

What pension plan?



The CTF is a joke. First of all it's the old "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" issue. When the economy is hot they want taxes cut. When times are tough, cut taxes. It's just not sensible.

The other thing that drives me up the wall is that they are a pure special interest group and purely in it for their own political gain. Who would comprise the CTF? Well, obviously any citizen should? We all pay taxes. We are Canadian citizens. Yet they come out and make political endorsements and virtually campaign for candidates.

The Wildrose is not the great model of fiscal conservatism either. The committee in question had two MLAs who gladly took the money. When the MLA pay raises were doled out three of the four said absolutely nothing that I'm aware of (Hinman wasn't elected yet). The only party that voted against the raises was the Liberal party in fact.

Nice rant but these statements are factually incorrect. The CTF do not endorse or campaign for any politician or party. They do not operate for politcial gain because they are not a political party and have no political affiliations. If special interest groups are a reality, what better special interest group could you have than an organization that advocates for efficient use of tax dollars while being funded completely by donations? Lastly, the CTF do not advocate 'no taxation' as you imply. The CTF, through their own research, support quite a number of government programs that they believe bring good value for the taxpayer buck.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I've never seen any evidence of this. Care to provide a link?

Originally Posted by Free Ben Hur!

Nice rant but these statements are factually incorrect. The CTF do not endorse or campaign for any politician or party. They do not operate for politcial gain because they are not a political party and have no political affiliations. If special interest groups are a reality, what better special interest group could you have than an organization that advocates for efficient use of tax dollars while being funded completely by donations? Lastly, the CTF do not advocate 'no taxation' as you imply. The CTF, through their own research, support quite a number of government programs that they believe bring good value for the taxpayer buck.

I don't have a link, but on the radio the day after the budget and alternative budget of the Wildrose the CTF was asked about these. His comment was that while he wouldn't pick directly, that one of the two budgets was balanced and the other was not.

I suppose if you want to nitpick here I'm wrong. They didn't come right out and endorse anyone specifically. Its not exactly hard to draw the line though!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't have a link, but on the radio the day after the budget and alternative budget of the Wildrose the CTF was asked about these. His comment was that while he wouldn't pick directly, that one of the two budgets was balanced and the other was not.

I suppose if you want to nitpick here I'm wrong. They didn't come right out and endorse anyone specifically. Its not exactly hard to draw the line though!

Being a non-partisan organization isn't an easy line to walk; especially one that deals with political issues. As you said, they didn't come out and endorse. They never have. They simply provide facts and let people draw their own conclusions.

We could use the Parkland Institute as an example too. They never "endorse" candidates or parties, but man they sure sound like they are promoting a liberal agenda.

[Cowboy89]

Very few people here are looking at the actual issue. Too many people here take issue with the sticker shock of what MLA's take home in aggregate on their t4 slip, get over it. The CP poll on income wasn't people lying about their income, Albertans really do make that much money and if you don't want a legislature full of Cletus of Simpsons fame replicas you need to pay them salaries that reflect that.

The actual issue is straight up the concept of the PC's using committee pay as a incentive to avoid double crossing them. Being able to cut an MLA you don't like's pay by 33% is BS, undermines democracy, and is just point blank another example of corruption.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't have a link, but on the radio the day after the budget and alternative budget of the Wildrose the CTF was asked about these. His comment was that while he wouldn't pick directly, that one of the two budgets was balanced and the other was not.

I suppose if you want to nitpick here I'm wrong. They didn't come right out and endorse anyone specifically. Its not exactly hard to draw the line though!

Ya I mean, promoting the viewpoint that a government shouldn't spend more than they can afford is just so dastardly and deviously right wing.

Clearly just a ruse.....