17 Feb MLAs’ pay and public begrudgery – feedback

Contrarian reader Kirby McVicar responds to our post on MLAs’ pay and public begrudgery:

The question that springs to my mind is: “Who are you and what have you done with Parker Donham?”

Resigned MLA Richard Hurlburt

What I hear you say is, “Well, MLA’s only stole a little bit, and it’s the media’s and the public’s fault for not providing adequate salary.” Are you serious?

What does this line of thinking say to all the honest MLA’s who did not steal from the public purse: “You missed out on an opportunity we, the public and the media, set up for you. How stupid of you!”

I agree that politicians need an independent body to set remuneration policy that is binding, but this issue should not be confused with theft from the public purse.

Where is the CBC Parker, from the “Harry and Parker Show” who would have spent 15 minutes railing against such a rationale? Has the election of an NDP government outed you?

I was out of the country, but wasn’t it a Tory MLA who resigned? After the jump, more reader reaction.

Reader Ruth Davenport also weighs in:

I definitely agree that, in the call for yet more regulations, there runs the risk of wrapping the whole system so tightly in red tape that nothing constructive ever happens. The example of poring over Tim Horton’s receipts is bang-on. It’s not necessary.

However, I’m a little puzzled by the comparison with Newfoundland and Britain. Yes, this is thin gruel. No, there’s no swimming pool. But there are some indications of “testing the water.” If, for example, an MLA pulls off the expensing of an $8,000 generator (actual value still to be determined) unchallenged, then why not make a swimming pool the next step? Do we want the thin gruel to turn into a big bowl of really fatty pork? Doesn’t it make sense to draw attention to “questionable purchases” now before they become outright abuses?

No question, the reaction has been a tad hyperbolic, and definitely a lack of context that might make these expenses easier to understand. I don’t know how many computers and flat screen TVs it takes to run a constituency office. I don’t know whether Bill Estabrooks’ performance as a cabinet minister suffers because of his army/navy filing cabinets and his 10-year-old computer. I don’t know how Judy Streatch’s performance was enhanced by an espresso machine in her office. In short, I’m uncomfortable getting outraged over a list of expenses alone without knowing what the items purchased were actually used for – but on the other hand, there are definitely some items that don’t pass the “sniff test,” i.e. Chris d’Entremont saying he needs both a desktop in his office and a laptop for travel. As the Herald pointed out, a laptop can be used in an office. Does he really need both?

Being an MLA can’t be easy, but I’m not sure that spending freely on the public dime is the way to smooth the road. Witless moralizing is the peril of any society that permits free speech, but no matter how irritating it may be, if it gets the next elected representative to think twice before buying another TV, or gets them to choose the $500 digital camera instead of the $2100 version, I think it’s worth it.

Reader AN says Premier Darrell Dexter showed poor judgment putting a leather briefcase on his expense account. He contends that a private company would expect an executive to buy her own, and the same standard should apply.

None of these readers addressed the core issue I tried to raise: that of public begrudgery toward politicians. I think it’s a big problem — much bigger than an extravagant espresso-maker, or an warranted generator.