In slow economic times, it's not out of line to drive down the salaries of public-sector executives.

by Charlie Smith on August 24th, 2013 at 5:49 PM

1 of 1 2 of 1

What is it with those public-sector executives' salaries?

Earlier this month, TransLink revealed that its CEO, Ian Jarvis, collected $394,730 last year.

Vancouver city manager Penny Ballem was up to $366,009 in the city's last statement of financial information.

Former Provincial Health Services Authority CEO Lynda Cranston was in the same range when she quit her job this year.

That was after awarding $651,000 in unauthorized salary hikes to 118 staff.

Meanwhile, the highest paid police officer in the province, Vancouver's chief Jim Chu, also makes well over $300,000.

UBC's president, Stephen Toope, topped $531,000.

And this week, B.C. Ferries chairman Donald Hayes defended CEO Mike Corrigan's annual compensation, which was listed at $503,930 in a document filed this month on sedar.com.

His actual salary for 2013 is $364,000, which was supplemented by $64,421 under the annual incentive plans, and $75,509 in the value of his pension.

The previous year, the CEO's pay pack added up to $915,615, including $358,638 under the long-term incentive plans.

According to B.C. Ferries statement of executive compensation, executive vice president and chief financial officer Robert Clarke collected $492,207 in the last fiscal year, which ended on March 31.

The executive vice president of human resources and corporate development, Glen Schwartz, scooped up $491,643, according to the sedar.com document.

Clarke's bonus was $133,711; Schwartz's bonus was $127,008.

This is for a money-losing monopoly that has seen reductions in traffic and consistently higher fares.

I don't blame the public-sector executives who take the money.

The real culprits are the boards and politicians who grant these salaries for what are supposed to be "public-service" jobs.

Contrast this with the Vancouver park board, whose members are only paid $8,000 per year to oversee a $100-million budget. The chair gets $10k. Whoop-tee-doo!

Or Vancouver city councillors, who receive $65,860 per year to oversee a $1.1-billion budget.

Something is seriously out of whack.

We're in a slow-to-no-growth economy, and that's not likely to change for many years to come.

It's a buyer's market when it comes to hiring talent.

Someone somewhere should introduce a motion or a private member's bill to cut the salaries of those making the highest sums after their contracts expire—and in the case of the City of Vancouver, ensure that some of the savings go to the commissioners who are overseeing Vancouver's parks.

There are undoubtedly many executives who would be willing to do these types of jobs for a maximum of $250,000.

To quote beleaguered Toronto mayor Rob Ford, it's time to stop the gravy train.

Comments

12 Comments

Canadian Xpat

Aug 25, 2013 at 5:25am

It is a strange and good day when Charlie Smith and Rob Ford are on the same page of the same issue.

Argulion

Aug 25, 2013 at 8:28am

When comparing any government's intent to other existing entities the best comparison is to a non-profit organization with the luxury of being able to control their funding sources.

Why do bureaucrats feel they need to attract private / for-profit business experts to run a non-profit organization when they really need people that have successfully managed a non-profit organization. Dedicated people in the non-profit world are very skilled at using limited funds to the maximum benefit of the most people while business experts are skilled in maximizing profits and personal self interest. Government is not a private for-profit business.

The theory that you need private sector pay scales to attract business experts into government is not working. If it was, governments and departments should all be in the black by now.

Alan Layton

Aug 25, 2013 at 10:36am

Charlie Smith sticking up for politicians!!! I guess maybe politicians are actually doing their jobs for the benefit of the people/region after all.

Natty

Aug 25, 2013 at 10:41am

You've hit the nail on the head. "Years of experience" and not necessarily on the job success are the reason these costly duds keep finding themselves in positions of power. Millennials, unlike Boomers and older Gen Xs, haven't had the world handed to them on a plate simply because they possess a university degree. It's time to pass the torch. Afterall, the fresh blood would be cheaper and couldn't exactly do a worse job when it comes to tanking organizations like ICBC, Translink and BC Ferries.

Hazlit

Aug 25, 2013 at 11:45am

Walter Summerson to the contrary--our public gangs are the corporations. Driving down the salaries of the private sector would automatically drive down the salaries of the public sector because most private sector people use the public purse to fund their private lives. The stigma attached with working for the public instead of being beholden only to ones crony's on a board means that financial regulation should start at home (e.g. in the private sector and at the top) before moving down the chain. To solve the financial problems (indeed the world's financial panacea) you must be obsessed with limiting PRIVATE sector CEO salaries. Remember, the local nature of resource based economies--as in BC—makes this VERY easy.

HellSlayerAndy

Aug 25, 2013 at 11:58am

"Something is seriously out of whack."

No what's out of whack is the structure of Vancouver's city council. Vancouver remains a complete anachronism in comparison to the rest of the free world that have city wards systems.
1) If TO city Councillors make 100K -- it's a full time job.
Vancouver city Councillors get 70K for at best a part time job? In fact using a slate system Councillors is incentive for 'safe' Councillors to attend a minimum number of Tuesday NIGHT meetings? A ward system ensures attendance because the 'eyes' of the ward are focus on their rep, not some overall 'party'. Ergo much more accountability.
Since it is a part-time -- they are perfectly free to continue working their regular jobs? Under a ward system, Councillors require more money because they usually having to do their own fundraising.
In a 'at large' system most are elected by a registered slate that does most of the financial heavy lifting for their 'employees'?

2) As far as parks board -- get rid of it like most cities?

In a ward system, you rep your ward, but you are also required to sit on a committees that meet separately with their own hearings, agendas, powers to discuss everything from schools, parks, infrastructure, special projects, transit, policing, etc etc? This condition requires a Councillor NOT to be only thinking of his own ward and develop wider city issues?

3) Why invoke Rob Ford? Executive pay ACROSS the board is excessive, unwarranted and unconscionable and much much more in the private sector. So you LIKE ROB FORD, ignore that fact and simply pick on the gubmint gravy train? Next time maybe invoke the Swiss who passed a referendum limiting executive pay across the board?

4) Feel free to vote it down...but seriously the onus then is on you to explain how it is that every other city is wrong in a system of greater accountable involvement of elected leaders instead of a vast bureaucracy (24 jurisdictions) feeding policy to part time politicians who really don't have the time to give these policies consideration in light of their job description -- representing the PUBLIC interest.

tedo

Aug 25, 2013 at 2:23pm

wont be lean Christmas in Point Grey

HellSlayerAndy

Aug 25, 2013 at 2:43pm

You'll didn't want to post my full comment...so here is the short version?

Why are you suggesting paying more for a 70K part-time job like a City Councillor is unfair?
You know damn well that a City Councillor is under our system is ONLY required to attend a minimum number of Tuesday chamber sittings? They can leave anytime?
You know that NO city Councillor is restricted in their ability to have a full time job?
So why the dishonesty?