A small item in the newspaper recently reminded us of one of the quirks of Vancouver’s city charter.
The city has extended the deadline for applications to the Vancouver Salary Review Commission, a previously nondescript board that found itself in the middle of a maelstrom a couple years ago.
You remember, don’t you? The commission is charged with setting salaries for the mayor, mayor pro tem and city councilors. In 2016, it for some reason decided that a 117 percent raise for the mayor would be appropriate. The commission also approved a 57 percent raise for mayor pro tem and a 50 percent boost for city councilors. The increases would have provided essentially full-time salaries for what are deemed as part-time jobs.
Suddenly, the nondescript commission was grabbing attention. Residents took note of the pay increases and raised a ruckus, and former mayors Royce Pollard and Bruce Hagensen helped collect enough signatures to land the issue on the ballot. The city council then referred the raises back to commission members, who came to their senses and approved more modest increases of 4 percent each of the following two years, avoiding a needless election battle. But the truth is that they could have proposed 1,000 percent raises and the public would have no recourse other than a time-consuming petition drive.
This year, the Vancouver Salary Review Commission regained its under-the-radar status while avoiding the previous drama. The commission approved pay increases of 3 percent in 2019 and 2 percent in 2020. Pollard, at a public meeting, told the commissioners, “I wish you luck next time, because I’m sure I and other people will be watching.”
Such scrutiny is warranted, because the salary commission has little oversight. Members are appointed by the mayor and vetted by the council before deciding on raises for those very people. That not only puts the commissioners in a difficult position, but it can be awkward for council members. In 2016, then-Councilor Jack Burkman said he purposely avoided asking would-be commission members their thoughts on salary increases.
That was a reasonable position, but it points out the rock-and-a-hard-place spot of those who hire members of the salary commission. Asking what commissioners think about the task before them could be viewed as fishing for a pay raise. But failing to ask ignores the one thing commissioners have to do. It is like failing to find out whether an applicant for animal control is allergic to cats.
In Tacoma, a seven-member salary commission includes five registered voters chosen by lottery, with one from each of the city council districts; the other two members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the council, with one having experience in human resources and the other having experience in the legal profession. At the state level, a 17-member commission that sets salaries for the executive, legislative and judicial branch includes 10 registered voters chosen randomly by the secretary of state’s office — one from each congressional district.
For now, Vancouver’s Salary Review Commission is seeking new members, with two of them leaving because of term limits. New terms will begin in 2020, and the commission will meet between January and May of that year.
But in the long run, city councilors should propose an amendment to the city charter that improves the system. Having a commission decide salaries for the people who appoint them opens the door for a lot of stupid stuff.
