Calgary city council needs more sense, less dollars

Article content

The recent push by Calgary city councillors to overturn rejected meal expenses from their trip to Quebec shows that what’s needed downtown is more common sense, not bigger expense accounts.

The motion by councillors Andre Chabot and Dan McLean to increase the daily hosting allowance from its $100 maximum to reflect “current market conditions” is bad timing, bad policy and bad politics.

Article content

These expense rules were made for a reason. In 2021, Calgary taxpayers paid nearly $64,000 for an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and improper expense practices by at least one elected official. This $100 limit was reviewed and found to be reasonable, allowing councillors to do their jobs without overspending.

Councillors are suggesting that this amount should now be merely a “recommendation” rather than a hard limit. This alone should give taxpayers pause.

One could argue that it doesn’t reflect inflation or the rising cost of meals and hosting. While that may be true, it’s not like costs haven’t risen for everyone else, either. Councillors could have suggested increases with inflation. But that’s not what they did. Instead, they’re asking to throw out the limit entirely — and that makes absolutely no sense.

This call to increase council perks ignores the economic challenges facing Calgarians right now. At a time when many families are tightening their belts and businesses are navigating financial hardships, it’s vital that city leaders show solidarity and fiscal restraint.

Article content

Article content

Next is the argument that this is a relatively small amount of money; the two councillors only stand to gain $346.18 each in retroactive payments. Postmedia reported McLean as saying: “(The city) can spend billions of dollars on a lot of things, but we can’t buy some people their (dinner)?”

The notion that city hall spends lots of money on other things but can’t cover a few hundred bucks here misses the point. It’s not about the amount; it’s about setting a precedent for responsible spending. If this motion passes, it will certainly open the door to further requests for relaxed restrictions, ultimately eroding the safeguards put in place to protect public funds.

All other points aside, the biggest issue is councillors getting personally involved in matters affecting their bottom line. Rather than voting themselves pay raises or special payouts, city council should protect themselves — and the public — by establishing a binding and independent volunteer committee of community and business leaders to review their compensation, benefits and expense practices.

Article content

This committee should have real-world experience, study what’s appropriate for work of similar complexity and make recommendations for adjustments. Pay and benefits would be frozen within each four-year council term, and any changes would only take effect after the next election, rather than immediately. This would greatly improve public trust and better model best practices in the business world.

Our elected officials should lead by example, especially if they insist on increasing taxes and spending. Calgary city council doesn’t need bigger expense accounts.

Instead of loosening the purse strings, they should focus on making the most of what they have.

Jeromy Farkas served as a Calgary councillor from 2017 to 2021. Following his defeat in the 2021 mayoral election, he kept his promise to turn down the city council “golden pension” and transition allowance. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, this decision saved Calgary taxpayers an estimated $308,234.

Article content