County News
Compensation clash
Council hits reset on remuneration debate
Council will revisit the contentious issue of remuneration later this month after a lengthy and at times heated debate ended without a clear decision last Tuesday night.
After nearly an hour of discussion, Council found itself deadlocked on two competing approaches to councillor compensation. A proposal to maintain the current remuneration framework failed in a 6-6 recorded vote, while a proposal to increase compensation to match the average paid by comparable single-tier municipalities also failed by the same margin.
With neither option receiving majority support and two members absent, Council ultimately voted to reconsider the matter and defer it to its June 23 meeting, effectively wiping the slate clean and allowing all options to be considered again.
The debate highlighted a fundamental question facing Council: how should the role of a councillor in Prince Edward County be valued, and what level of compensation is necessary to attract future candidates?
Mayor Steve Ferguson acknowledged that remuneration discussions are always difficult, but argued the issue extends beyond simply determining what elected officials should be paid.
He said the County faces a growing challenge in attracting people willing to seek office, noting the workload, public scrutiny and lack of benefits associated with the position. Compensation, he argued, is one factor that can either encourage or discourage participation.
“We will paint ourselves into a corner if we do not make running for council and a council position, representing the public, as a highvalue employment option,” Ferguson said.
Several councillors echoed concerns that the current remuneration structure may limit who is able to consider serving on council.
Councillor Phil St-Jean argued that increasing compensation is not about enriching elected officials, but instead about improving access to public service. He suggested that lower pay can create barriers for younger residents, working professionals and others who may struggle to balance council responsibilities with employment and family obligations.
“The expectations of this job deserve a better and higher remuneration, without a doubt,” he said. “My biggest worry is, if we keep this at under $30,000, we are going to eliminate all these people the opportunity for them to step up and put their names on a ballot.”
Similarly, Councillor Kate MacNaughton said a modest increase could broaden the pool of potential candidates and improve voter choice during municipal elections.
“Voters need the best choices possible,” she said, describing higher remuneration as a relatively low-cost way to encourage more residents to consider running for office.
Councillor John Hirsch also expressed concern about the lack of new candidates entering the upcoming municipal election. He suggested Council first needs to determine its overall compensation philosophy before selecting a specific salary level.
“What we really need to do as a council is decide what is our overarching pay philosophy,” Hirsch said.
He noted that the various options presented to Council reflected different assumptions about the nature of the job. One approach viewed the role as largely parttime and relied on municipal comparisons, while another incorporated living-wage considerations and recognized the increasing demands placed on elected officials.
The remuneration review was conducted by the Stratford Group and supplemented following concerns raised during Council’s initial discussion earlier this year.
The revised analysis expanded the comparator group from 13 to 19 municipalities and also provided a separate review of comparable single-tier municipalities. According to staff, the results varied significantly depending on which municipalities were used for comparison.
Under the broader 19-municipality comparison, current council remuneration is generally in line with the median paid elsewhere. However, when only comparable single-tier municipalities are considered, County councillors and the mayor fall below the average.
The report also introduced a living-wage lens, responding to comments from some councillors that remuneration should be evaluated partly through an equity and accessibility perspective.
Not all councillors agreed that an increase was necessary.
Councillor Brad Nieman, who has never supported a council pay increase during his 12 years on council, argued the existing system remains appropriate. He questioned the decision to revisit the consultant’s original findings and suggested council service can still be successfully combined with full-time employment, as many past councillors have demonstrated.
“You can be as busy as you want to be as a council member,” said Nieman.
Councillor Phil Prinzen also opposed increasing compensation, arguing the current council should avoid imposing additional financial obligations on future councils and taxpayers.
Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer asked whether remuneration decisions could be left to the next council following the October municipal election, as part of its first budget deliberations.
Councillor Roy Pennell agreed, saying a newly elected council would be in a better position to determine its own compensation structure and future priorities.
The discussion became increasingly tense as councillors debated whether the matter should be deferred until all members could participate. Some argued that absent councillors should have an opportunity to weigh in on such an important issue, while others objected to postponing the decision after Council had already debated the matter extensively.
Councillor Chris Braney objected strongly to the suggestion.
“We are stacking the God-damn deck. If we are waiting for two people to come, that’s not right,” he said.
As the discussion stalled, Municipal Clerk Catalina Blumenberg suggested deferring the issue entirely, noting the late hour and the lack of consensus around the council table.
Council eventually agreed, approving motions to reconsider its earlier votes and defer the matter to June 23.
The result leaves all four compensation options back on the table and ensures the debate over council remuneration will continue later this month.
For now, Council remains divided not only on how much elected officials should be paid, but also on the broader question of what public service in Prince Edward County should look like in the years ahead.
The hours of work submitted by the Mayor and Council [elected] positions vary in what each person is capable of giving, due to their personal situation. There are no set hours. There are no set days. So, the question remains, how much to pay these positions when we have no idea what each individual person is capable of providing their particular elected position. This should be stipulated in any pay-scale being considered. What do we need to do – have our Council submit detailed time-sheets each week at Shire Hall, in order to pay each person appropriately for the work they do, with a maximum salary being stipulated for the position of Mayor and Councillor? Here are some facts to ponder over:
NOTE: Part/Full Time designation for PEC’s Mayor/Councillors
Verified from Clerks Dept. and Corporate Customer Service Coordinator:
These are neither part-time/ nor full-time positions held by the Mayor and Council. It is an elected position whereby each member has the autonomy to work the number of hours needed to perform their duties as outlined in sections 224-226 of the Municipal Act.
NOTE: A Ward Councillor’s Obligations/Communications with the Ward Residents
Verified from Clerks Dept.:
1. Are the Councillors under any obligation, whatsoever, to tell the residents of the Ward who elected them, just what they’ve been doing on behalf of that Ward [NOT PEC as a whole, but the Ward itself] and, if so, how often is a reasonable expectation for them to give that report? [ie quarterly, annually?]
Response:
We encourage Councillors to connect with their ward residents in the way they see fit. Some choose to host town hall meetings, while others prefer to send regular newsletters. Ultimately, the approach depends entirely on each individual Councillor’s leadership style and the specific expectations provided to them by their constituents. To that end, the public also needs to actively communicate their expectations to their ward Councillor regarding how, and how often, they wish to receive updates.
Furthermore, as the leader of the team, the Mayor should also play a key role in setting clear communication and accountability expectations for Council as a whole. Because there is no standard, legislated timeline (such as quarterly or annually), establishing that direct dialogue, paired with leadership from the top is the best way to ensure a ward’s unique communication needs are being met.
NOTE: What is a “Living Wage” in PEC?
Verified by Human Resources and Organizational Development [Shire Hall]:
1. What is considered a “Living Wage” for a full time position in Prince Edward County? In 2026, the living wage is $22.20 per hour, which is the equivalent of $46,176 per year.
2. How many hours per week would that entail? This various by position. In most of our unionized roles, a full-time worker works 40 hours per week.
3. What would the hourly rate be? $22.20.
Prince Edward County is a member of the Ontario Living Wage Network, which is a non-profit organization which promotes the payment of a living wage to Ontario workers. Every year, they conduct research and then publish and communicate the Living Wage within various geographic areas across Ontario (because this changes depending on where a worker lives – obviously the cost of living is higher in Toronto than it would be in say, Timmins). PEC falls into the Eastern Ontario area. As a member of the OLWN, as a minimum, we pay the Living Wage to anyone who works at the County: full-time, part-time, casual, students.
NOTE: PEC Qualifications of CAO / PEC Qualifications of Mayor & Councillors
Verified by Executive Assistant to Mayor Ferguson:
Also Note: Please note below that according to what has been given to me, the CAO is a “professional”, our elected members of Council apparently are not. And yet, they were qualified enough to appoint the CAO. And while our CAO is appearing to do a great job, he has never held this position in his career, and so he “is learning on the job” regardless. While attempting to acquire the qualifications of our CAO as this recent position had not been advertised publicly [which eventually ended in my placing a Freedom of Information Request which should not have been necessary], I received the following response:
The Mayor and members of Council are elected officials. They are chosen by the electorate to provide political leadership, set policy direction, and represent the interests of the community. There are no prescribed educational or professional qualifications required for elected office, as these positions are not careers, but democratic mandates held for a fixed term.
The Chief Administrative Officer, by contrast, is a professional, non-elected position and the most senior employee of the municipality. The CAO is appointed by Council and is responsible for the administration of the municipality, including:
Implementing Council’s decisions and policies
Overseeing all municipal departments and staff
Managing municipal operations, budgets, and resources
Providing professional, non-partisan advice to Council
There is no single legislated credential or licensing requirement for a CAO under Ontario law. Instead, qualifications are determined by Council at the time of recruitment and typically include a combination of education, senior level management experience, and demonstrated expertise in public or organizational administration.
In practice, CAOs are commonly appointed based on:
Extensive leadership and executive experience
Proven knowledge of governance, administration, and organizational management
Strong financial, strategic planning, and human resource oversight skills
Experience gained through progressively senior roles over many years
This is not on-the-job training in the sense of learning the role from scratch. A CAO is expected to arrive with substantial prior experience and professional competence and then apply that expertise to the specific municipal context.
Council is responsible for determining whether a candidate meets the qualifications and experience required for the role. In this case, Council has made that determination and has expressed its confidence in the appointment.
We trust this explanation clarifies the distinction between elected office and senior administrative leadership, and we consider your questions addressed.
[Note also, I questioned how this was worded by the Executive Assistant, as I’d found it a little offensive concerning the credentials of our elected officials, when there is absolutely no professional qualifications for the position of a Chief Administrative Officer [I know. I checked.]. However, I was provided with verification of the wording and it is official.]