Pay increases for MPs

Perhaps I spoke too soon. It's beginning to seem as if the UBP's principled opposition to the proposed salary increases wasn't so principled after all. Or indeed, opposition.

Writing in Friday's Royal Gazette, Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert said:

"We as servants of the people cannot put ourselves ahead of the people. There has been no justifiable argument made to the people of this country as to why their Legislators need salary increases of this magnitude in the face of so many pressing social issues. For this reason alone if there were no other, the United Bermuda Party cannot and will not endorse the recommendations."

Yet on the very same day, in the House of Assembly, backbencher Grant Gibbons said:

"Just because the Salary Review Board has made a decision does not mean we have to take it," he said, adding that a current salary of $39,000 for a MP should be increased to $60,000 – $10,000 higher than the $50,000 recommended in the Report tabled in the House last week...

Senators should make $40,000, he said, much more than the $26,000 the Board recommended.

Was Dr. Gibbons speaking for his party or himself? Mr. Furbert may not have ruled out pay rises for MPs, but the clear implication of his piece in the Gazette was that they should be lower than those recommended, not higher.

According to Shadow Attorney General Trevor Moniz, MPs last had a pay raise in 1994. But as I understand it, MPs have had cost-of-living increases since then, they've just not had an above-inflation rise.

I can see two justifications for giving MPs such a rise: either their responsibilities have increased or their job needs to be made more attractive to new recruits. I'm sceptical of the former reason, although you might argue that the move to single-seat constituencies has increased the workload on MPs. I'm more sympathetic to the latter, but I still don't think that our politicians should expect to get something for nothing.

Our politicians should offer something in return: greater accountability. They might start by cracking down on those MPs who rarely show their faces in the House of Assembly. Make attendance compulsory. After all, isn't that part of what we're paying them for? Or how about they introduce a recall mechanism to allow the public to eject incompetent or dishonest MPs before the end of their term? Without a culture of resignation, I think that's an essential component of accountability.

Wayne Furbert's piece in the Gazette did hint at the need for some reforms. He recommended a code of conduct for MPs, extra teeth for the Members' Registrar of Interests, anti-corruption legislation and a political commission to investigate and advise on democratic reform. But he did not explicitly link these to the pay increases.

If the UBP intend to accept these increases, despite their supposed opposition to them, it's the least they can do.

Comments

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.03.06 at 09:31]

Limey,

I fully endorse your comments regarding mandatory attendence at sessions of Parliament. I believe that just as you need to advise your employer for non-attendence at work MPs need to give a legitimate reason for their non-attendence in Parliament.

Any MP who does not show up for Parliament without a legitimate reason should have their pay ducted for that session. Famly vacations does not cut it because just as a school teacher must plan his/her family vacation around the school vacations MPs need to plan their's around the days that the House is in recess. That is part of the sacrifice of public service.

[Rossini on 21.03.06 at 09:39]

ah the sweet silence that balanced reporting brings...good for you Limey....it'll be a slow day if this is all you've got for the usual wolfpack.....they'll be spending the day trying to get you back on the script !

[sandgrownan on 21.03.06 at 09:47]

Rossini - do you feel you are getting value for money out of your unelected representatives? Sorry, did i say unelected? And if so, how and why?

[b,w&p?? on 21.03.06 at 10:19]

Unlike you Rossini, and the merry band of thieves and liars you support, the 'wolfpack' that runs here fully supports and endorses truth in media and has no intention of shooting the messenger. Kudos to Limey for telling it like it is!
According to my neighbour, a servant of the public used to get 7 shillings for attending parlimentary sessions - no attendance, no pay. I support Limey's and Guilden's call for mandatory attendance.

[Bill Cook on 21.03.06 at 10:24]

Correct me if I am mistaken but was it not ROSSINI who wrote that catchy toon

Overture To a Theiving Magpie ?

[Tiger Bay on 21.03.06 at 10:27]

Attendance is defined as being in the House for a portion of the daily Session. The only way to know who is there is to record how MPs vote on issues.

MPs votes should be part of the public record. No more voice votes.

As we have reduced the number of MPs in the House, the impact of "the Whip" has grown. Public records will help voters determine if their MP is truly representing them.

[sandgrownan on 21.03.06 at 10:31]

Hear! Hear! b,w&p.

Perhaps there should also be league tables of performance for ministers with plus points for attendance and success stories (hard to find I admit) and minus points for PR howlers, lying in public, refusing to answer questions and ministerial fuck ups.

[silencedogood on 21.03.06 at 10:31]

Rossini,

I wouldn't read too much into silence. I think silence on the blog means one of three things generally:
1) agreement with nothing to add,
2) disagreement with exasperation i.e. no point putting your dog in that fight, or
3) no one is minding the store at that moment.

Put me in the #1 slot on this issue. I'm sure there are others.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.03.06 at 10:44]

Tiger,

Just for clarification, when I talk about attendence I mean attendence and participation with the affairs of the House of Parliament.

I think the electorate is owed more than just an elected offcial, it is owed an elected official that first shows up for work and while at work he is constructive.

The times MPs come and leave from Parliamentary sessions should be recorded. These records should be made public so that the electorate can know how much time its elected officials are spending on the job.

I also agree with you on recording the way each MP votes.

[sleepy on 21.03.06 at 10:47]

I think the UBP's position has been misunderstood.

As you pointed out in the quote Phil, the UBP said they didn't see the report as adequately *justifying* their recommendations and the *magnitude" of the increases. Furbert suggested sending the report back and have the rationale fleshed out.

I listened to the debate by the way, and Gibbons did indeed point out that he's now just another backbencher and was speaking for himself about his own take on the issue.

The way I read Furbert's letter and heard in the debate was that they didn't like the idea of changing things mid-term and that there was more that needed reforming than just compensation. Maybe they could have tied them together more, but I'd agree with that position.

I think the other thing the UBP said was that while $200,000 for the Premier may seem ok, the position comes with other compensation that didn't seem to have been considered. (ie. accomodation, car, etc.)

I'd agree the UBP didn't take a 'principled stand' against the increases. They said the report was inadequate and needed to provide more substance on the conculsions they'd reached. Seems reasonable to me.

[Bill Cook on 21.03.06 at 10:50]

Limey,

Has anyone ever indicated the actual hours put in by our MPs both Gov and Opp. ?

It seems to me that the tax payer needs or deserves to know what he or she gets for the money paid to these folk.

It seems that some MPs work very hard and some do little or nothing on both sides and all should be held accountable.

Is the total cost to the taxpayer available to study at present ?

[Bill Cook on 21.03.06 at 10:54]

Sorry Guilden was posting before seeing yours it seems we are asking same questions.

[SmokingGun on 21.03.06 at 10:57]

"The times MPs come and leave from Parliamentary sessions should be recorded. These records should be made public so that the electorate can know how much time its elected officials are spending on the job.

I also agree with you on recording the way each MP votes."

Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.03.06 at 10:44

Guilden, thanks my dear friend. You have just shot the hell out of any chance of us ever getting live broadcasting of Parliament Sessions on our new GovTV. :-)

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.03.06 at 11:11]

SmokingGun,

My view is that the MPs should have no say on whether or not Parliamentary sessions are broadcast over the visual media. This is something that when DEMANDED by the electorate should be implemented.

[SmokingGun on 21.03.06 at 11:18]

Guilden - where do I sign the petition? And yes I do hope it's printed in large type so I will know what I am signing. ;)

[Douglas De Couto on 21.03.06 at 12:16]

What Phil doesn't say is that inthat same article, Gibbons also points out salary increases that he considers far too high. That is, he was saying some should come up, and some should come down. Complicated again by the fact that some would be full and some part-time.

[Rossini on 21.03.06 at 12:53]

Truth for you b,w&p is a relative thing in this country.I am amused by how the focus of the posts here is about the attendance of MPs in the House and Seantors at the Senate as opposed to the clear divergence of views on this issue from within the Opposition and their hypocrisy as evidenced by their leaders past and present. For completeness, I too believe in more strict monitoring of attendance by Legislators and sanctions for missing without excuse. FYI the Rules of House direct that when an MP will be away he / she should write to the Speaker advising him of it.

[Phil on 21.03.06 at 13:01]

Earlier today I received the following email from UBP spokesman Jamahl Simmons:

Just saw your posting and wanted to clarify a few things 1) Grant Gibbons was speaking for himself and not the party 2) we do believe that increases should be linked to the recommendations we made of a code of conduct, drug testing, strengthened members interest register and a political commission.

[Tired of Idiots Running This Island on 21.03.06 at 13:07]

The UBP should hold firm and not accept the pay rise, it would give them some creditbility. But you know they won't, they'll not only show that they are wishy-washy, but are just as greedy as the PLP. And that is why they will not win the next election, despite what everyone on this blog thinks.

[Phil on 21.03.06 at 13:16]

Bill

I'm not aware of any record of MPs' attendance in the House.

Doug

It's true that Dr. Gibbons also said he thought some salaries should be lower than those recommended. However, Wayne Furbert's piece in the Gazette did not give the impression that he thought some should be higher and some lower. It implied that all should be lower. Still, since we now know Dr. Gibbons was only speaking for himself, perhaps that is still the UBP's official position.

Rossini

Since we now know that Dr. Gibbons was not speaking for the party, I don't think this is such a big deal. Backbenchers often disagree with their leadership, even in Bermuda: just look at Renee Webb.

However, I'd certainly be interested to know how the UBP's MPs voted on this, if indeed this was put to a vote.

[Rossini on 21.03.06 at 13:30]

ah.....and Trevor Moniz, for whom was he speaking....?

[Phil on 21.03.06 at 13:34]

A reader emailed me to clarify a few points:

The motion was a take note motion, therefore no vote took place.

There is a record off attendance as measured in the House Minutes. But attendance simply means that they walked in, identified themselves to or were noticed by the clerk and could proceed to go home, sleep in the back room or listen on the radio from their offices (as quite a few do).

[sandgrownan on 21.03.06 at 13:38]

Rossini - I'm not sure what is hypocritical about a backbencher holding a different view from the party leader.

[Rossini on 21.03.06 at 13:44]

There is a precedent in this country for an MP to donate his salary to charity for a number of reasons. The hpocritical stance is to argue against it, whether it be too high or too low, and still accept it. There is no rule of law that says that an MP must accept his salary. The principled Mr. Furbert should donate his to charity along with the others who share his view that its not warranted. Whilst DR. Gibbons and those like him who think its not enough should also refuse to accept it until they get what they want. Those would be principled stands worthy of respect from both sides of the divide.

[sleepy on 21.03.06 at 13:51]

Interesting to watch the attempts to shift attention away from the PLP's initiative for unpopular pay raises onto the UBP for speaking against the process and conclusions.

I imagine the assumption was that the UBP would support this and give the Government political cover.

Once they didn't follow the script plan B was invoked.

[sandgrownan on 21.03.06 at 13:52]

There's no rule of law that says anyone has to accept their salary. I think I'm paid too little, so I should make a "non-hypocritcal" stand and not accept it on principle? That's ridiculous.

[Rossini on 21.03.06 at 14:04]

Dear me there are some entrenched, blinkered ones on today.Sleepy,the review of MPs' slaries is meant to be a regular process. It is not a government initiative hence the employment of an independant body mostly of accountants and an actuary (I think) to produce a report to the Speaker of the House. Sandgrownan, it was a UBP MP who donated his to charity.....your work is employment, an MP's work is service....

[Prospero on 21.03.06 at 14:06]

"The hpocritical (sic) stance is to argue against it, whether it be too high or too low, and still accept it ..."

Just like the PLP did in the late '70s, eh? When the PLP leadership told Parliament the MPs en bloc would refuse a pay increase and donate the surplus to charity. At the end of the next fiscal year it was, of course, revealed in a routine Auditor's Report that not a single penny from a single PLP MPs' newly expanded pay packet had gone to a single charity ... Suppose they decided charity really did begin at home ... ;)

[sandgrownan on 21.03.06 at 14:06]

I provide a service for which I'm paid...?

[Prospero on 21.03.06 at 14:08]

"your work is employment, an MP's work is service...."

A "service" with a built-in gratuity no trade union would dare ask for ...

[Zoom on 21.03.06 at 14:09]

The ole "it's ok cuz the PLP used to it" argument? Next thing ole Grant will be wearing a beret!

[Yet Another Limey on 21.03.06 at 14:15]

I think there should be a referendum on the pay rises (after all my boss decides my pay rise and an MP’s boss is their constituents).

And if the MPs don’t receive the pay rise they think fair they have the option to go on strike!
Imagine, Alex Scott and Wayne Furbert side by side, placard waving outside the house of assembly. The country would simply grind to a halt in a matter of decades.

[stuart J Hayward on 21.03.06 at 14:59]

For the first year or so I was in Parliament, I kept —tried to keep— a log of MP's attendance. The log got extremely complicated because MPs go in and out, into the gallery, into the Speaker's chamber for one piece of business or another, into the office, into the Members' lounge, into the bathroom, and so on. I attempted several times to make enough sense of the log to publish the information — it just seemed impossible.

Certainly I couldn't make a case that one MP or another was or wasn't doing the peoples' business because there was no way to determine whether a Member's absence was in line with his/her duties or not.

A party Whip, for example, might be in the building for all the hours that Parliament was sitting on a given day, yet spend very little time in the debating chamber.

As far as a voting record, this only occurs if there is a call for "names", then the vote is recorded.

And then there was the occasion I was geared up to participate in a debate (on the Clean Air Act) and the vote. In the middle of the debate, in preparation to make my contribution, I went to the mens' room. The Minister closed the debate and held the vote before I could take a leak and return. I sat in the Chamber the entire day, from gavel to gavel, leaving only to relive myself, but I would have been recorded as absent for that vote. To add insult to the injury, the then Editor of the Gazette labeled my being cut out of the debate as a dereliction of duty on my part.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.03.06 at 15:01]

YAL, that was awesome. "...a matter of decades." HA!

As for service and employment...

Bullshit.

We, the people hired them to do the job of running the country. That is their job. End of story.

If they want a raise, then fine. Over a decade is too long between raises.

HOWEVER... Like all of us working stiffs, they have to do their job. I consider the platform they were elected in on to be an agreement as to what they promise to do. They can have the raise, but I will be expecting them to do their bloody job, regardless of who it is, UBP, PLP or NL... *PFFFFFT* sorry... I tried to say that last one with a straight face...

[Point Finger on 21.03.06 at 15:13]

Stuart,

Don't they have set times for debate, and then have a set break for bathroom etc. Having MPs walking in and out of parlimentary debate seems ridiculous.

This would make a log account easier as well.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.03.06 at 15:22]

Point Finger,

Maybe what happened to Stuart was done by design because as I recall he had very strong views on environmental issues and he might have actually brought something sensible to the debate.

[Save De Cut on 21.03.06 at 15:24]

There is a simple fair way of looking at this issue.

1. since there has not been an increase in quite some time, they are entitled to slight increases based on inflation.

2. If any more is requested then it should be attached to performance.

How many out there received raises in their workplace for stagnant work?

I never recieved a raise for doing the same amount of work or level of work as previous. I either took on more responsibility or did something to deserve it......in other words earned it. So it seems to me that we need to impliment some sort of tool to measure performance. I dont think there would be any problems swallowing this if performance was visible.
One simple example: EDUCATED DEBATES, A bit of research on a topic before entering the House to speak. Show the people you did at least one hour of homework.

[SmokingGun on 21.03.06 at 15:43]

"For the first year or so I was in Parliament, I kept —tried to keep— a log of MP's attendance. The log got extremely complicated because MPs go in and out, into the gallery, into the Speaker's chamber for one piece of business or another, into the office, into the Members' lounge, into the bathroom, and so on. I attempted several times to make enough sense of the log to publish the information — it just seemed impossible."

Stuart - I think I can find a few taxi drivers who would be happy to help rectify that problem.

[silencedogood on 21.03.06 at 15:47]

Stuart,

I think technology could solve the issue now. If every MP had a swipe card required to enter or leave the room a computer could log the in's and out's. Probably a good idea from a security aspect too.

I would have thought they had something like this already for security. If so, it's just a matter of dumping it into a report that's intelligible and making that public.

Government could have that done by 2025 for only $100 million or so.

[SmokingGun on 21.03.06 at 15:57]

Prospero - say it isn't so..... if there's one thing I hate more than a lying cheat it's a lying cheat who got false credit and stiffed someone in need.

Man that really blows.

[silencedogood on 21.03.06 at 16:16]

In the whole spirit of giving the public a tighter grip on its officials I would suggest the following five reforms:

1) Fixed term elections every 4 years.

2) Pay review every four years that must be approved by the public through a referendum held in the mid-term. Options could be given to vote on, for example:

Super-Majority approval (2/3) could be required to decrease pay, raise pay beyond a % cap (such as 10%) for any MP, to raise pay for appointed officials, or raise pay for part-time officials.

Regular-Majority (51%)could be required to adjust salaries according to cost-of-living indices, or to raise pay for full-time officials beyond the cost-of-living up to a % cap (such as 10%).

These pay increases could go into effect after the next election and would be a great way for the public to comment mid-term on government's performance even if they don't want to throw out that government at the next election.

3) An MP code of conduct. If MP's are found to have violated various parts of the code then financial penalties could be attached. For example:

An MP who is chronically late or not present for sessions could lose a % of compensation.

An MP who tests positive for drugs could be subject to community service hours, fines, and/or loss of privileges.

Increases could be tied to the code of conduct as well so that if a MP is subject to discipline they might forfeit their increase.

Gross abuse or violation of the MP office could forfeit up to the entire salary since the last election as a penalty, as well as facing expulsion, criminal charges, etc.

4) An independent, non-political, non-partisan post elected directly by the public, whose salary and budget is voted on by the public, and who is not part of cabinet or any other government body whose sole purpose is to act like a watchdog for corruption.

They could be granted the power to call a referendum for legislation necessary to carry out their duties; impose penalties on government ministries, departments, and MP's; or to compel access to information.

5) Recall referenda whereby the public could eject any member of government by the vote of a super-majority (2/3).

[SmokingGun on 21.03.06 at 16:24]

You were doing good until....

"An MP who tests positive for drugs could be subject to community service hours, fines, and/or loss of privileges."

What? Our court system's not good enough for our public servants.

[silencedogood on 21.03.06 at 16:24]

P.S. If you really want to get the MP's by the short and curlies make the decreases or forfeiture of increases due to violation of the MP Code of Conduct permanent.

In effect a MP censured under the code would permanently have that hit to his/her pocketbook unless the public approved the reinstatement of their former salary at the next referendum. Quite an incentive to stay clean or to make amends after going astray.

[silencedogood on 21.03.06 at 16:26]

Smokin'

I'm thinking in addition to the courts. I wouldn't expel an MP for smoking weed once, but if a "chronic" pattern emerges sure.

[Prospero on 21.03.06 at 16:37]

"Prospero - say it isn't so..... if there's one thing I hate more than a lying cheat it's a lying cheat who ... stiffed someone in need. Man that really blows."

Man, that's about par for the course among Bermuda's politicos. Shame so many people around here have such short-term memories. The partisanship on both sides of the UBP/PLP political divide here at Limeyland is just laughable given the sorry track records of both parties when it comes to lining their own pockets. Another example comes to mind. Mr. Hayward was actually elected to the House because of the popular backlash against Finance Minister Clarence James engineering a controversial pay rise for MPs during the middle of a recession; Hayward was on record as being against it from the time the pay hike was announced so I could never cite him for hypocrisy. But the PLP all rallied round Clarence when he went to Parliament with the pay increases, then of course attacked him viciously during the '89 election campaign (again, of course, they all pocketed the difference).

[SmokingGun on 21.03.06 at 16:50]

Prospero - I know. Things work both sides of the bench and I am sure there must be a million stories that come up under the UBP. The thing is how can we get the facts out on the table so that people start making all politicians accountable.

Maybe all pols recieving public compensation should have to declare what else they make ie: salaries, fees, comps etc. Just noticed a comment on BFS about how pols take positions on exempt companies and get annual stipends. That's the kind of stuff that should be declared with full disclosure. If our MP's are expecting to take higher salaries and get rich off of the backs of the Bermudian tax payer on top of their "other" income then we should have a say.

BTW - so since Alex get's a free house to live in does he rent his own out to someone in IB for a sweet monthly amount?

[Tiger Bay on 21.03.06 at 16:53]

Votes can be scheduled or, as in the case of the US Congress, a warning bell can be rung throughout the complex in advance of a vote occuring allowing congressmen to return to the floor.

[sleepy on 21.03.06 at 17:45]

They do ring a bell for formal roll call votes. They've got 5 minutes warning. The vast majority of votes however are "all in favour say aye".

[Denis Pitcher on 21.03.06 at 20:22]

If we're going to institute a swipe card based tracking system for when MPs enter and leave parlimentary sessions (which I support and know isn't hard to build).

Why not utilize a similar electronic system of voting?

In front of each seat is a card reader that they insert their card into and press a button to vote. Their vote is tracked, tallyed and reported to the public.

Done and done.

[stuart J Hayward on 21.03.06 at 20:31]

Point Finger writes:
"Don't they have set times for debate, and then have a set break for bathroom etc."

Parliament has strict procedures but timed debates is not one of them. The only limits in debate are

a) during the budget debate when there is a total allotment of 42 hours (if my memory serves me correctly). The Opposition then decides which Ministries are debated and how long for each, and

b) during the motion to adjourn when each Member who chooses to speak is limited to twenty minutes.

Oh yes, congratulatory or obituary sppeches are limited to three minutes.

On all other debates, any Member can speak (so the number of speakers varies according to the topic) for as long as he/she can be coherent.

"Having MPs walking in and out of parlimentary debate seems ridiculous."

It may seem so but having been a Member, one can appreciate the need — we'd go bonkers if we were bound to listen to all of every contribution.

"This would make a log account easier as well."

Maybe yes, maybe no...