Council split on remuneration policy

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

After town council struggled to agree on changes to its remuneration policy on June 9, it pushed the decision forward to the June 23 meeting. After revisiting the proposed policy changes, council still couldn’t agree on any standardized revisions, so the policy remained as is. No changes were mandatory, but the policy must be reviewed and approved every four years as per the Municipal Government Act.

  The policy was last amended 12 years ago in May 2013 and in 2025 the administration  proposed several wording changes for clarification of the monthly salary, per diem and meals, and travel expenses.

  The administration recommended the removal of section 2.5 of the policy that makes reference to establishing a three-person committee of public members to review and provide recommendations on council remuneration during the fourth year of a council term. The recommendation suggested that using a committee would add additional bureaucracy to a sensitive issue.

  The recommended changes are shown as follows with the proposed deletions in parentheses.

  The first proposed change in section 2.1 was as follows: “Mayor and Councillors will receive a monthly salary (with a travel and subsistence allowance) for the required attendance at Council and Committee meetings and various community events.”

  Section 2.2 would read,  “Mayor and councillors will receive (remuneration) per diem for the required attendance at out-of-town functions as an official representative of the Town of Taber.”

  Section 2.5 would be struck entirely to eliminate “(Council may establish a three person member-at-large committee to review remuneration in the fourth year of a Council term to provide a recommendation for remuneration to Council for consideration prior to the annual budget meeting.)”

  The June 23 discussion ended in disagreement and with no changes, though it still fulfilled the mandatory review process. Some councillors preferred the idea of keeping the travel and subsistence allowance in place, and there was further debate over whether a three- or five- person public committee was needed to maintain the integrity of the policy.

  Some councillors were for the committee and some were opposed to it. Coun. Bekkering felt that a committee “would no doubt ask the same questions…and get the same results” as council would if it handled the process on its own.

  Coun. McLean was also an advocate for making the policy a council decision, not a committee one. Her reasoning suggested that council would be making policy decisions for a future council – one which those councillors might not be members of.

  She said, “I think that (we are) members of the public, we are still taxpayers ourselves. We know what this job entails, so we have a better idea of what the time commitments are and all the things that this job does entail.”

  Couns. Firth and Sorensen disagreed with the idea of self-contained council decisions about the policy and wanted to maintain the option to receive committee input.

  McLean offered a motion to approve the revised policy changes as outlined, and though the discussion went back and forth for another five minutes, the motion was defeated with a split three to three vote. The mayor, Sorensen, and Firth opposed it and the other three approved it. Coun. Brewin was absent.

  Ultimately, the policy was reviewed according to the MGA and will remain as is.