Editor:
Re: “SCRD eyes review of director pay,” March 3.
We should be disturbed at the self-pitying cry of “we deserve more” from SCRD directors who have had an undisputed raise every year since the outgoing board of 2005 raised annual pay to about $20,000 and built in annual increases equal to the rate of inflation. In light of one director’s frequent absence from our board proceedings in the prior year, we set out a base amount for each director with an additional stipend per-meeting attended, for accountability’s sake.
In addition to decent pay for a part-time job, SCRD directors get a few perks: mileage for trips to meetings, the occasional meal, hotel rooms and travel costs for conventions. It could all be set out more clearly in the SCRD budget, with figures referencing the directors individually, but probably differs little from my time on the board.
Not every regular citizen gets such perks for a full-time job, let alone a part-time one. A public airing on pay should encourage people to try for the job when the next election rolls around.
Board chair Gary Nohr’s lament that directors work full time, I simply can’t agree with. His current position as chair requires more time than that of a director but pays more. It does not bring with it responsibilities equivalent to those of a mayor. Regional district chairs are chosen by the directors each year, not by the community as a whole. Done properly, the chair’s job is essentially to liaise with staff and communicate with the public on the board’s behalf. This and fiscal constraints make regional districts in many ways more accountable than does the municipal system.
A director’s job is about meeting to make decisions on a range of matters, for the most part, of a practical nature. Discussion on some topics can span months and generate extra meetings, so continuity of attendance is important. There’s the odd site-visit, the odd convention (neither a hardship nor mandatory) but mostly it’s about meetings, reading reports, a little learning. Nothing really daunting.
If the current directors vote for a raise, knowing what the job pays should incentivize citizens to consider applying, perhaps running on the promise to reverse it. Incumbents like to tout board experience as an asset, but it ain’t necessarily so. It can also make them tired, lazy, entitled and far too buddy-buddy to vigorously and thoroughly subject matters to debate – as with this one.
John Marian, Halfmoon Bay
