A sudden lunge to pay itself a retirement benefit averted
While many of us were watching the World Cup games on Monday, West Vancouver mayor and council were in the process of scoring an own goal. It thankfully saved the ball as it was about to cross the goal line.
The near-blunder involved a last-minute addition in the agenda that introduced a retirement provision for the mayor and council.
I want to be clear: I do not object in principle to discussing whether elected officials should have reasonable compensation. Serving on Council demands time, experience and sacrifice. If we want people from different stages of life and different financial circumstances to consider public office, compensation should be fair and transparent.
But this proposal was far from ready for approval. It misread the public mood and misused the public process. And its timing was terrible: at the last minute, on the eve of an election campaign, to be voted upon by its recipients as soon as this fall.
What was before council, rather out of the blue, was not simply a housekeeping update to an existing remuneration policy. It would have created a new retirement savings allowance: a lump-sum payment after a mayor or councillor leaves office.
That may sound straightforward. It is not.
The public has not been told the precise contribution rate that will apply, the estimated annual cost, the potential cost for each current member of council, whether the payment applies to all past service or only future service, whether one term is enough to qualify, whether there is a maximum amount, or how this benefit changes council’s total compensation compared with other municipalities.
In other words, council was being asked to approve a benefit before taxpayers have been shown the bill.
Members of this council were being asked to vote on a new payment that they themselves may receive after leaving office. Even if that is legally permissible, it is poor public-policy practice. Public confidence requires a higher standard than “we can do it.”
No one was taking credit (or blame) for the measure. Only the mayor, who sets the agenda, would know and he wasn’t saying.
The proper approach is simple.
First, refer all council remuneration, benefits and retirement provisions to an independent public review that compares total compensation—not just salary—with truly comparable municipalities.
Second, publish the full cost, assumptions and eligibility rules before any vote.
Third, any new retirement benefit should apply only to the next Council elected after the 2026 election, not to those today.
That is not anti-council. It is pro-accountability.
At a time when residents are being asked to absorb higher taxes, utility costs and major regional liabilities, West Vancouver should not create new elected-official benefits through an unclear formula and an opaque process.
After some discussion, council caught its snap and deferred this proposal to refer it to the municipality’s finance and revenue advisory committee. There it can obtain an independent review, calculate and disclose the full cost, and ensure that no one voting on the benefit would be eligible to receive it only after the next term of office. Let’s see how it comes back before the election.