19 Feb MLAs’ pay and public begrudgery – yet more feedback

Previous installments here, here, and here. A longish dissent from reader Jay Wilson:

The way you make it sound, we, the public, are the ones who indirectly caused this problem by forcing our poor beleaguered elected representatives underground and into making the kinds of reckless spending judgements they made. I take issue with that.

As you said in your blog, “Upon taking office, most MLAs set aside established careers in exchange for a job with far less security than comparable positions in the private or public sector.” That once was the case, for a good reason. Once upon a time, MLAs made very little money as elected representatives. To offset their costs of travel, constituency responsibilities, etc, they were given expense money. Fine.

Then more people from different walks of life started getting involved in politics who didn’t necessarily make as much as the usual assortment of doctors, lawyers and businesspeople who had mostly made up the elected ranks. Not to mention the complaints from the very sorts of individuals you referenced: People from higher-paying occupations who said it wasn’t enough to live on and they could make more in the private sector.

Over time, a new sensibility developed along the lines of “Let’s pay them a better salary so that they can afford to live while serving our best interests.” In the interests of fairness, the thought occurred to some that the money spent on expense accounts and the like could be decreased as now these elected officials would actually be making more. That’s not what happened.

In fact, as salaries continued to increase, so did money for expenses and then it diversified into a whole host of different expense categories. MLAs were getting money for everything and the kitchen sink, and who made these changes? Who increased their salaries and expense money? Who made the rules so deliberately ambiguous and full of holes so wide you could drive a tank through them? They did, behind closed doors and in quick legislative motions, with cursory mentions in the local press for the most part.

Please don’t try to excuse MLAs for their sorry behaviour. This is about three things: A pronounced sense of entitlement, a disconnect from reality and pure abject greed. Maybe it isn’t on the same scale as the scandals in Britain and even Newfoundland, but those three things are present in each situation and they are things we should all be vigilant against.

And this isn’t even the first time we’ve been faced with this in Nova Scotia. Ideally, it should have been dealt with at that time through proper legislation and a fair setting of clear rules and guidelines so that there’s no room for misinterpretation or error. But it wasn’t and there’s a reason for that. If there’s enough “grey”, then everyone can still cover their asses.

I think you are correct in saying that we should refrain from nitpicking over expenses on the scale of a Tim Horton’s coffee, but then that really isn’t what this outcry is about. Case in point: former MLA Richard Hurlburt, a man who from what I understand is quite wealthy from his private sector life, making good money as an MLA and cabinet minister, expensing an $8,000 generator plugged into his home and over $3,000 for a TV (which no one can seem to locate). Now, he’s apparently paid that sum of money back, but think about that for a moment. That’s over $11,000, which most people wouldn’t be in a position to dish out at the drop of a hat but this guy could. That in itself just begs the question, “Why did you charge it to the taxpayer to begin with?” The short answer is, because he could.

This is a culture of entitlement that’s been passed on from one group of MLAs to another and the only way it’ll ever change is if the setting of rules, salaries and expenses is taken completely out of their hands.

First, some points of agreement. We need clear rules for paying MLAs and reimbursing authorized expenses.  Even under the existing, fuzzy rules, Richard Hurlburt’s expenditures, and a handful of others, were unreasonable. But Hurlburt, constantly cited by those heaping abuse on our elected officials, was the outlier. Most MLAs did not buy $8,000 generators and wire them into their garages — or anything remotely like that. And Hurlburt has paid the money back, and resigned — considerable pubishment.

Second, it is just silly to contend that MLAs should have to pay for travel back and forth to Halifax out of their own pockets — what occupation requires this? — or that wealthy MLAs should earn less than those of modest means. Those who insist we should treat MLAs as presumed crooks say more about themselves than our elected officials.