The Editor,
Re: "School trustees to consider changing up wages," the Now, March 12.
Our trustees should realize that there is never a good time to give yourself a raise. Whether it is before the budget or after the budget, it doesn't matter. There is always a school, a classroom, a student in need of that funding - that is where extra funding should go, not into trustees' pockets.
Trustees should be content with their current honourarium of $30,800 and expenses, plus an additional $1,500 and $3,000 for the vice-chair and chairperson.
Right now, the public has no idea what the trustees have been doing for the compensation they receive, since trustee reports have been removed from the agenda at each of the last three public board meetings.
As the only trustee in 2012 and 2014 to vote "No" to the CPI annual pay raise, I am wondering why the trustees would be looking for another way to give themselves their annual raise? Does the CPI not give them enough of a raise? Do they need more than the usual $500 to $600 raise per year?
Chair Shawn Wilson said, "It's not like a trustee's pay is what you'd live on."
I am not sure what Wilson means by this but is he saying that trustees have other income and the trustee honourarium is just a bonus? If so, then why do they need a raise or a different way to calculate it?
I am sure there are many people in Surrey who would be happy to have $30,800 to live on, including employees who work for the school district. An education assistant comes to mind - having been an EA before, during my term as a trustee and currently. I know there are more than a few EAs in Surrey who would be more than pleased to have an annual salary of $30,800, along with an expense account.
Surrey trustees should focus on utilizing the funds in the best possible way for the benefit of the students and not be concerned with how and when they are going to get their next raise. A yearly salary of $30,800 for the next four years is more than enough.
Charlene Dobie
Surrey