Herald Column - MLA Pay Promises Go Out The Window

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Premier's response to the MLA compensation review, and how that response clashes with her previous promises:

Last fall, in announcing the creation of an MLA compensation review, it appeared as though Premier Alison Redford had finally set us on a course to a fundamental overhaul of the way Alberta politicians are paid. Instead, we have a fair amount of uncertainty as to what’s going to change. Additionally, we have what clearly amounts to a broken promise from the premier herself.
With the tabling of the report last week from former Supreme Court justice John Major, we now know the specifics of what this MLA compensation review process has concluded is appropriate for elected Alberta politicians.
We do not know, however, what from this report will become reality.
Perhaps, then, given the controversial nature of some of Major’s recommendations, some uncertainty might be preferable. However, certainty is what we were promised. This was made clear on many occasions during the recent election campaign.
For example, a news release from the PC party, dated April 9, makes several unequivocal declarations.
We are told that, “Premier Redford has committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of MLA pay,” and that, “Premier Redford’s plan takes MLA pay out of the hands of politicians.”
But one need not rely solely on what the Tory war room was churning out. In the televised leader’s debate, Redford was just as unambiguous.
In one exchange, Redford committed to “accept the recommendations of that report.” She then challenged Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith to “decide if you want an independent process or to control your own salary.”
Later, Redford reiterated that we “had to accept the recommendations of the Major report.”
Yet, barely two weeks removed from election day, and less than a week removed from the release of the report, we can already conclude that the government’s response will not be the response that was promised.
The day after the report’s release, Redford was asked for her thoughts on Major’s recommendation that the salary for the premier rise from its current level of $211,000 to $335,000 over the next two years.
Redford admitted she was “surprised” by that recommendation, and immediately rejected it.
But wait, if this was truly an independent process, shouldn’t every recommendation come as a “surprise” to the premier? Were her promises on the campaign trail based upon assumptions as to what Major’s recommendations would be?
Remember, this premier did not commit to “consider” or “review” Major’s recommendations. She did not pledge to use them as a “guide,” nor did she pledge to implement only those she liked or those she thought made sense. She promised to “implement all the recommendations.”
By deciding what the premier’s salary should or shouldn’t be, Redford is now herself exerting the sort of control over salaries that she explicitly warned against.
Once the legislature resumes, this report will be referred to the member services committee, whose members will review it further. Other recommendations may fall by the wayside as MLAs decide which aspects of the report ought to be implemented.
In other words, the very plan, which was to “take MLA pay out of the hands of the politicians,” seems, for the moment, to be placing it directly into the hands of the politicians.
To be sure, there are flaws in some of Major’s recommendations. Even the scope and mandate of the review itself was problematic, in that MLA salaries are compared to other salaries in the public sector without any consideration as to why the latter has so rapidly ballooned.
Additionally, there is no comparison to how politicians in other jurisdictions are compensated, or for that matter, any evidence offered that higher levels of compensation really do attract better people and lead to better governance.
Nonetheless, this is the process we got. And these are the recommendations resulting from it. If the premier is true to her word, she should commit to implementing all the recommendations, and if she dislikes her higher salary, I’m sure there are charities that could use the extra money.
Regardless of whether the premier’s new position of reviewing and considering each recommendation is the correct one, it is clearly at odds with her previous position.