During the 2016 campaign for mayor and council in the CBRM, I became increasingly optimistic with District 4 candidate, Steve Gillespie. I saw similarities between our campaigns (I ran in District 7). Gillespie seemed to share my thinking that the $140 weekly travel allowance for councillors was a bad idea.

In fact, Gillespie was even more conservative than I was on the issue. Whereas I supported replacing the $140 with mileage claims that would increase the fairness for councillors with larger districts, he advocated for eliminating it entirely. While his premise was based on his feeling that the role was similar to that of any community volunteer, I advocated for fair expenses.

Gillespie's suggestion of eliminating it all together was, however, not entirely distant from the original intent of the CBRM councillors' remuneration plan. You see, the Mayor and Council members have one-third of their salary tax free, based on Canada Revenue Agency rules, as a legal method of assisting them with their expenses while performing their duties.

In 2005, Council - including several presently serving councillors that are still in those seats 13 years later - gave themselves an additional incentive. They each would receive $140/week regardless of how far they had to travel, or how often they actually did so.

Gillespie and I adamantly insisted that this policy was inappropriate. When Gillespie insisted that Council should also have term limits I also fully agreed, as Council seats should not be a place to offer an income to councillors well into their retirement - especially if the income was the primary motivation. And the approximately $40,000 a year (one-third tax-free) has apparently been quite the incentive.

Before I transition to a critique of Councillor Gillespie, I want to acknowledge an unfair advantage I have at present time. Gillespie was successful in his bid to become a council member. I was not. And while Gillespie went on to be tested on how committed he really was to his campaign promises, I wasn't. So it remains to be seen how I would have reacted if the voters had seen fit to give me the privilege of representing them.

Councillor Gillespie brought the $140 issue to the floor and moved a motion that would have allowed Council to successfully eliminate it.

And then he faced some opposition and backtracked. 

Council pushed the $140 decision ahead to budget talks. Then they quietly kept the budget in place. Councillor Bruckschwaiger (who was among those who created the policy in 2005) suddenly didn't seem to understand the mileage claim alternative and announced his claim to switch back to the $140 method in an open council session.

As a consolation for giving up, Gillespie decided that he wasn't taking the $140 and he wasn't claiming any expenses at all.

That was a noble gesture, but it wasn't his campaign promise. He was very clear that the $140 was to be eliminated. In fact, he was quite clear that he wasn't sure that the councillors that were in place during his campaign (many of whom are still there now) actually had the CBRM's best interests in mind.

Three freshman councillors, one of whom won a seat vacated by a former councillor who past away during his term, and two progressives who surprised some by knocking off popular incumbent councillors, took a different approach.

Earlene MacMullin, Kendra Coombes, and Amanda McDougall stayed true to their pledge of not taking the $140.

Instead, they claim mileage within the rules of what the Municipal Government Act allows. The other councillors shamelessly collect on the $140 policy.

At the time, Gillespie suddenly decided he didn't want to "rush" the matter.

The April 2017 budget talks kept it in place. The Mayor and Council actually asked for an issue paper on new ways to increase their compensation and wanted to think about the idea of introducing pensions. The version of Gillespie that was campaigning would have been ill at such suggestions. The council version of him mounted no opposition.

Now the upcoming April 2018 budget will be one year later. What is Gillespie going to do now?

Some councillors like to use the expression "kicking the can down the road" when talking about delays in taking action. Council is absolutely kicking this can down the road. And the reason is that none of them want to give up the $140/week or $7,200 per year in extra income they are getting - with the exception of MacMullin, Coombes, and McDougall who actually have to justify their claims to get reimbursed, and Gillespie who claims no expenses for himself.

Councillor Gillespie had the opportunity to show leadership on this issue. If he doesn't make this an issue now for the current budget consultations, it's quite clear he isn't going to be the change candidate he represented before the election.

The residents of District 4 should demand that he fulfill his campaign promises. Keeping his council colleagues on good terms isn't a part of the job description. If he feels constrained by his relationships with advertisers in his sales career, he needs to do a serious evaluation of whether not he can be effective in the role. The Gillespie that campaigned was someone who was going to fight for change and that's what the CBRM needs from him.

MacMullin, Coombes, and McDougall have certainly been living up to the expectations they set. Gillespie now has an opportunity to be a part of the positive change, the continued push for greater transparency and accountability, and movement towards a more democratic Council... like the three women who, with assistance from Ray Paruch, are somehow successfully making gradual improvements. And they're doing so from a minority position with strong support from the people of the CBRM.

I'm going to share a video that showcases Gillespie's campaign promises (Information Morning) versus his position on the $140 policy once he arrived at Council. I think it's important for the people of the CBRM to see the difference. Perhaps more importantly, I think it's necessary for Gillespie to see the difference.

I know that if it were me, these inconsistencies in promises and actions would really tear away at me.

What Gillespie Said During His Campaign:

• "I think more councillors are concerned about getting re-elected than they are about doing the work that's in front of them"
• "My main platform is to look at and open the dialogue for term limits for councillors"
• "I just think that people that have been serving for 25 and 30 years may not be the right people anymore"
• "I don't understand why councillors are voting themselves this raise, $140 a week for travel allowance... I think it's, again, it's one of those things you look and think why would they do something like that?"
• "Honestly, I don't think it should be anything" (in response to the question of what should be done for travel reimbursement)

What Gillespie Said During Council on March 7th, 2017

• "Rushing this is just going to miss something that we're probably just going to have to address again"
• "We've all heard stories of councillors losing the election, been in there for a number of years, and then not knowing what to do with their lives after that, situations with employment after that, that councillors do not qualify for the same pension after serving 20, 25, and 30 years..."
• "I would hope that we don't rush this just for the sake of having that April 1st issue..."

Note: The following table was compiled while I was challenging councillors to commit to not taking the $140 during their campaign. Bruckschwaiger and Doncaster have since backtracked and are now taking it.

NOTE: The views expressed above are my own and do not represent lokol (goCapeBreton.com). Read more