An ad hoc committee on Orangeville Council remuneration has drafted a final report which will propose cost-of-living increases for the current council and a phasing in of a new pay scale for the council elected in 2010.

The report is to be presented to council on February 9.

At its meeting Tuesday night, the committee amended a motion, passed at its Jan. 6 meeting, which recommended that the council's remuneration, "as at January, 2008, be accepted as a reasonable base for council remuneration for this term of council."

As amended, the motion has an addendum that "the remuneration grid for members of Council will be adjusted in 2009 and 2010 in accordance with the Town's salary pay grid adjustment for non-union salaried staff."

The primary motivation behind the addendum was the committee's decision that council is entitled to cost-of-living increases.

The committee was struck by Mayor Rob Adams after council passed a controversial bylaw that gave itself substantial pay raises effective Jan. 1. It prompted a severe public outcry as to the size of the increases, as well as criticism of the process followed.

The committee was formed as an "independent third party" with the mandate to "review the reasonableness of the recommended changes, the comparator's report and relevant information, and make recommendations to council."

While applauding the efforts of the committee, Mayor Adams expressed concern that the committee based its remuneration motion on the information in a staff-prepared comparator's report and did not approach Council, the body whose actions it was investigating, for more information.

"I'm very interested in receiving the recommendations of the committee and giving them thorough consideration," the mayor said.

"I'm a little surprised that (the committee) didn't contact me and ask about any background material I may have used to make my decision (regarding the pay increases). There seemed to be an assumption that the staff report was the only thing that went into my decision, and that certainly was not the case."

Committee chair Todd Taylor disagrees, saying the responsibility of the committee, as a representative public body, was to make a decision based on information immediately available to the public.

"We were sticking to the letter of the law and doing what we had to do. Based on the information we have, we found it unreasonable for them to get the cost increases they requested."

One of the main recommendations of the committee is that any increases not be awarded during a term, and only at the beginning of the next one.

At a meeting held last Thursday, member Bob Long didn't agree that council salaries should be frozen and pointed out that council "often forgoes an increase and, every couple of years, there has to be catch up."

The city of Stratford, with a population slightly over 30,000, has emerged as a model for public participation in determining council members' pay rates. Currently, the city's mayor is paid $60,000 per year plus compensation for "out of pocket expenses." In 2007, those expenses were reported to be close to $10,000.

At the same meeting, fellow member J. J. Roy stated: "Council raises should remain (relatively) stagnant for this term. But there should be raises for the following council. I feel strongly about that."

At the same time, the committee was in strong agreement that a process for awarding council pay increases be open to the public at all times.

While agreeing that it would be more appropriate for trained professionals, such as consultants, to come up with salary recommendations, the committee is adamant that a public committee should be formed to review the recommendations and make its own recommendations.

As well, it was agreed that any pay raise should be phased in over the course of a four-year term.

For example, if a raise of 30 per cent was appropriate, the committee decided the best way to disperse it would be to award five per cent the first year, and 8.3 per cent for each of the following three years.

"It would smooth out large increases," explained committee member John Murray.

Another point brought up by the committee was that members of future council remuneration committees should declare, at the time of their inclusion, that they are not planning to run for council.

This could preclude anyone from having an opportunity to use the committee to push for large increases, then run for a seat on council to cash in.

While acknowledging that it's legally impossible to prevent any qualified candidate from running for council, the committee concluded that any future committee member who did make that choice will be in the spotlight and have to explain himself/herself to the electorate.