Newmarket Council Members Are Paid to Show Up At Community Events So Why Don't They Attend?

Every time we bring up the issues of council member expenses, our elected officials get awfully prickly and defensive.

David Dingwall famously declared, "I am entitled to my entitlements." With that kind of attitude, he would fit in perfectly with Newmarket Council.

Let's review Newmarket Council's entitlements:

Our Mayor is amongst the highest paid politicians in this country.  But unlike most others, he has a unique taxpayer funded subsidy that allows him to keep more of his paycheque than the other elected officials do.  When Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne makes $208,974 annually, she pays income tax on that amount.  Although Tony Van Bynen's salary is slightly below hers, his take home pay is greater because 1/3 of his Mayor's salary is not subject to income tax.

This 1/3 tax free benefit is a holdover from a previous era when politicians used to pay out of their own pockets to attend community events or send newsletters. When taxpayer funded expense accounts were introduced, most municipalities did away with the 1/3 tax free benefit.

Not Newmarket.  Our Mayor and Council members get to have their cake (1/3 tax free) and eat it too (with a taxpayer funded expense account).  It's an embarrassment of riches.

Earlier I wrote about the atrocious attendance of our Council members at scheduled meetings.  (Click here if you want to review their attendance track record).  But attendance at community events is even worse.

Should we expect our Council members to show up at community events?

- YES -

We are giving Council members a 1/3 income tax free subsidy plus an extremely generous expense account and yet they still won't show up.

Yesterday's Big Brothers Big Sisters bowling fundraiser is a good example.

Newmarket Era reporter Chris Simon and Mayor Van Bynen's wife were called in to fill in when not enough Council members showed up to participate.  And despite the low turnout, John Taylor left halfway through not caring that his absence meant that the "team" would be undermanned.  Only three of the potential 9 Council members put in the time with the community to earn their extra perks.

This one example demonstrates what your members of Council are doing with the 1/3 income tax free subsidy and their publicly funded expense account.

If Council members don't want to feel obligated to show up to community events then they should refuse the extra take home pay and the publicly funded expense account.

The public can only expect that these Council members "show up" to community events as long as we are paying for these perks. If the Council member refuses the perks, then the public would have no right to complain when a Council member decides to stay home.

So now it is up to these members of Council.  Will they show up and earn the extra money that the public is allotting to them?  If not, will they have the integrity to refuse these funds?