IT TOOK AWHILE, but Orangeville Mayor Rob Adams has come up with an entirely appropriate approach to dealing with the matter of appropriate remuneration for the work he and his council members undertake.

The decision to rescind increases in councillors' "honouraria" must have caught Nick Garisto, chairman of the Committee to hold Council Accountable, off guard when he and his supporters filled the council chambers to speak out against the pay raises and disclose that a petition opposing them had raised more than 2,600 signatures.

The mayor announced that the issue of how best to determine appropriate remuneration for councillors will be turned over to a broadly based committee that will be asked to report back no later than January 26, 2009.

Acknowledging that the current economic climate has brought "a time for leadership," he said he had heard taxpayers' concerns and understood them. "When Council made the decision to undertake the salary review the economy was in good shape. Recently, the situation with the global economy has changed dramatically. People are losing their jobs and retirement investments have dropped dramatically."

The mayor recalled that when he was elected two years ago, "I committed to listen to the people and I have been listening to them at Council meetings and community events. In deciding to increase salaries, Council followed past practices. However, it has become clear that the process needs to be reviewed, updated, and changed. We need to make the right decision and taking this action is the right thing to do."

The committee will be asked to review the process and awarding of council pay raises and make recommendations "for improving the process to ensure openness, public input and transparency."

In the circumstances, our only regret is that the council didn't adopt a similar approach when it received the consultant's report confirming that the existing pay scales were well below those for councils in other cities and towns with populations close to Orangeville's.

Had a broadly based committee been appointed in September, council would have had valuable input in support of increases beyond a simple cost-of-living adjustment.

We have no doubt that what council did in October was both legal and rational. Nor is there much doubt that ratepayer opposition would have been relatively subdued if most of the increases had been timed to take effect after the 2010 municipal elections.