Pay and pensions deal like a lottery win for MLAs

There's something terrible about the Liberals' move to hand every MLA a windfall the size of a lottery jackpot.
The compensation bill that will be passed within two weeks could mean an average one-time pension contribution payment worth about $400,000 per MLA.
That's not including the wage increase or the cost of the new pension plan going forward. It's what you will pay, as a taxpayer, if MLAs exercise their options to make the pension plan improvements retroactive as far back as 1996.
And that's the just a rough estimate of the average amount. The transfer from you to them will be much greater for the long-serving members.
Tally it up. A raise of 30 per cent for all MLAs and more than 50 per cent for the premier. The current pension plan, which costs taxpayers $6,900 per year per MLA, replaced with a plan that costs taxpayers $35,000 per year - a 500-per-cent increase.
And on top of that, an average $400,000 one-time contribution to each MLAs' retirement plan.
From you, to them.
Of course, notes Mike de Jong, the MLAs who want to buy retroactive pension benefits will also have to pay part of the cost.
Who knows, de Jong said in the legislature, maybe some won't even be able to afford to. It could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, de Jong said.
But here's the deal. For every $1 an MLA spends to improve his retroactive pension benefits, the public - that's you - will put it more than $4.
Maybe there are MLAs who wouldn't grab that chance. Most of us sure would.
But then most of us would never get that kind of chance either. We can't vote ourselves a lottery win.
I'm probably sounding a little bitter here. Partly, I suppose I just feel betrayed. I like most of the MLAs I've met. I've certainly admired most of them, especially for their basic desire to make their communities and the province a better place to live.
And I think they deserve a raise from the current base pay of $76,100. (Most MLAS get extra money for various roles.) Some benefits, like long-term disability, need improving. Cabinet ministers, at $110,000, deserve more. Their deputies now sometimes make twice as much. And the premier, at $121,000, is underpaid.
But these increases are just wrong. A corporate management team that voted itself this kind of compensation package would pilloried for reckless greed.
It's especially wrong because the Liberals' justification is so lame. The pay and pension changes were recommended by a three-person panel. But the panelists - two senior lawyers and a business professor - had average incomes likely well over $200,000. Unlike previous such committees, there were no people who earned the average B.C. wage of under $40,000.
And even the panel didn't really prepare a unanimous recommendation. The three reached agreement and then one member left for Europe. The other two added the rich pension plan recommendations after that.
There have been lots of political games played over the raise.
The Liberals, setting the rules, said that all MLAs had seven days after the bill is passed to accept the raise and the pension, or opt out forever.
The aim was to make the NDP look hypocritical by presenting an all-or-nothing choice. If New Democrats voted against the raise, but took it, they would look bad.
The New Democrats say they'll take the package and give the raise to charity. The public will judge whether that's an acceptable compromise.
Of course, the Liberals decision to play politics comes at a price. Letting MLAs take only part of the package would likely have saved the taxpayers money.
But it wouldn't have been so politically clever.
Going into politics shouldn't mean unreasonable sacrifice. But it shouldn't mean handing yourself a winning lottery ticket, either.
Footnote: For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. One member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members - one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each. Other states have taken similar approaches.