The CBRM travel policy of $140/week without expense claims has been around since March 2005. Would you believe that nobody except for the Chief Financial Officer, Marie Walsh, seems to be able to understand it?

The January 10th, 2017 council meeting was painful to watch. The level of confusion regarding the policy and its alternatives was frustrating. Though Mayor Clarke demonstrated he was the last one that should try to explain it in simple terms, Walsh did. And yet, the room still didn't seem to catch on.

This controversy predated my interest in the management of the CBRM. The policy began right around the time I left the island, not to return for 9 years. Now I'm watching as many councillors who agreed to elimination of the $140 (including Mayor Clarke) have turned the discussion into how they can effectively increase their salary. You don't have to believe me. I'm going to let them tell you in videos below.

I would challenge the mayor and councillors to go back and review their statements from pre-election through the council meetings since their (re)election. They should pay attention to how their positions have adapted. With some time, it's easy enough to line them up side by side in video format, as you'll see an example of below.

Before I demonstrate one particular case, let's be clear that Mayor Clarke was elected on a platform that included eliminating the $140.

Not only was it in his platform, it was his stated priority #3 out of 100:

During the campaign in 2016, besides myself, the councillor that most vigorously went after removal of the $140 was Councillor Steve Gillespie, successfully elected in District 4.

By comparing what he saying while campaigning to what he was saying as of March 7th, 2017 - there is quite the difference in tone. You would be doing yourself a favor in watching this 5 minute video. If you don't, I'll post a few key quoted excerpts for your attention below.

This video shows what Gillespie was saying in his campaign interview with Information Morning in Sept 2016, compared with what he's now saying. He went from a desire to eliminate the $140 and imposing term limits on councillors to a great concern about fair travel expense compensation and whether or not councillors get a pension after serving over 25 years.

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 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..."

The April 1st issue was his own motion to remove the $140 travel allowance as of April 1st, 2017. And it passed.

What happened to the version of Gillespie that insisted councillors should get no travel reimbursement and that they should be imposing term limits for councillors, instead of the version of him that is worrying about pensions for a lifetime of service?

Councillor Doncaster wanted to take this to an in camera (i.e. private meeting) that the public could not see. Though council rejected that notion, they decided it would be best discussed in a workshop which the public also doesn't get to observe. I can understand why many of them would want to get away from the camera, though Councillor MacDonald of Glace Bay seemed confident to state his position with cameras rolling. I'll oblige him with a larger audience:

What did Councillor MacDonald Tell Council on March 7th, 2017?

• "And I left that day, and I still don't know what mileage we're allowed. So here I am nine years later and I haven't got a clue what mileage is allowed..."
• "I think the $140 was put in there because probably back 9 or 10, 15 years ago because there was maybe confusion"
• "We shortchange ourselves unless we get some increases"
• "We should have followed Marie's advice and put the $140 on 8 years ago and we'd be all happy today" (referring to adding it to their salary)
• "I'm not going to be shortchanged though, I have no problem. I don't have have to look for votes out there. So I'm not going to leave any of these rooms any of these days making less than I'm making now"
• "And I don't mind saying that with the cameras rolling"
• "We've gotta get some kind of discussion, and maybe get some kind of increase some way or whatever"

I pause for a moment to wonder what kinds of things he does mind saying with the cameras rolling.

This comes full circle when we start thinking about the controversy of George MacDonald, Mayor Clarke, and other councillors serving on the Port of Sydney Development Corporation Board. As I've stated so many times, the board was supposed to be comprised of professionals in various designations that could help move economic development around the port forward.

Now consider Councillor MacDonald's comments again:

The $140 travel policy has been around since 2005, and is frequently a topic of controversy over the last several years. And yet MacDonald, a former educator, doesn't understand the policy.

In a moment, I'm going to show you what that policy is. I'll let Marie Walsh tell you. It takes her 32 seconds on video. First, I'll show you the motion that was passed on March of 2005. It's a one line amendment.

I'm quite concerned when I see twelve councillors around a table, most of whom appear to be confused about this policy despite having access to a Chief Financial Officer who can explain it in less than a minute.

I'm doubly concerned when some of these councillors are given assignments over complex International business projects with valuations over a billion dollars.

There's really no gentle way to say this. If you have trouble understanding how to claim mileage on an 11 year old policy, how are you going to understand complex issues like container port development, business cases for cruise ship berths, or what the concept of ROI (return on investment) is and how it relates to buying $120,000 worth of flowers?

Here is the motion passed in 2005:

Since there were no term limits back then in 2005, like Councillor Gillespie used to promise to his constituents, it leads to an interesting observation.

Did you know that five councillors that serve on our current council voted to approve that same motion back in 2005?

Here is a list of the councillors, outlined in red, who should have a pretty firm grasp on that $140 policy they passed 11 years ago.

Here is CFO, Marie Walsh Explaining How Mileage is Claimed Without the $140 on January 10th, 2017:

That 32 second explanation should be a valuable resource to councillors.

She tells us that the mileage claim is governed by the Municipal Government Act. And it covers reimbursement for only one official committee or council meeting per day. 

Now pay close attention to what she says next:

"Regular travel within your district would be covered under the 1/3 non-taxable allowance that is included in your salaries" - CBRM CFO, Marie Walsh, January 10th, 2017

Do you know why 1/3 of mayor and council salary is not taxed?

As the CFO just told us, the tax break is to cover regular travel within the district.

One of their new options is increasing their own salaries by $7,280 per year for each councillor and $20,161 for Mayor Clarke.

In addition to not paying tax on 1/3 of their salary, they would now stop paying tax on 1/3rd of $7,280 per year (or 1/3rd of $20,161 per year) for the mayor.

It's a big raise in salary masked as related to travel. In fact, for the mayor, it would be adding $15,000 more than he actually claimed in travel expenses in 2013-2014 (about $5,000).

Do you know what the next big question is?

For Mayor Clarke, former Councillors Cormier and Saccary, and anyone else who has claimed expenses for local travel instead of taking the $140, have they been doing so only for official committee and council meetings?

As was clear in 2005 in the motion, and per the very clear explanation of our CFO Marie Walsh, the CBRM knows fully well what that policy allows and what is permitted under the Municipal Government Act.

Remember when councillors like George MacDonald start suggesting they are shortchanging themselves, he also admits to not understanding an 11-year-old policy that our CFO explained directly to him during his question before council on January 10th, 2017.

Also keep in mind that at least 5 of them are likely already receiving a pension of one form or another. Councillor MacMullin works full time for Marine Atlantic, Councillor Gillespie works for CJCB/theCAPE94.9/MAX98.3 radio, and Eldon MacDonald is a hair stylist. So there are at least 8 out of 12 councillors that already have an income before they receive their $40,246 salary and $7,280 travel allowance for those who take it.

For perspective, 2010 data suggests the median household total income (pre-tax) in Cape Breton was $47,224. Over 1/3rd of Cape Breton children live in poverty conditions based on family income.

Instead of eliminating the $140 travel allowance, councillors just received a requested issue paper that includes giving them a large pay raise.

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