Editor: I’ve been following the back and forth in the news, columns and letters about the city council retirement payout debate. Even those who support the policy refer to it as a substitute for the pension that elected officials are not eligible for.
I agree with the assessment that since sitting on council is a job, it should be compensated properly, and rolled my eyes at the New West Progressives’ implication that the tiny amount of hypothetical budget ($226,000 out of $124 million if the entire current council were to leave at the same time) that goes into the payouts would be a silver bullet to solve problems and improve services.
But if the payouts are meant to be a pension substitute, perhaps they should have an age restriction so they’re only given to councillors who are in fact retiring and not to officials who will be shifting to a different career path after moving on from council far before typical retirement age.
Not because there’s anything wrong with the payouts in principle, but just in the name of closing that age loophole to create a little more fairness.
Julian Legere, New Westminster
