Mining more salt...

Perham

thumbs-up 155
30 thumbs-down
Committee recommends $15.6K annual pay boost for councillors, $8.2K more for mayor
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
23
The remuneration committee drifted into personal commentary, and a process like this should remain professional and stick to facts. A pay increase should come with stronger governance. Council needs to be more assertive in holding the City administration accountable and ensuring staff reports are clear, balanced, and present real options so that council sets direction - not City staff. Councillors also need to be more assertive at the provincial level. The North is often last in line when provincial funding and decisions are made, and stronger advocacy is essential. If both council and staff commit to higher standards of accountability and reporting, the community will benefit from better decisions and stronger public trust. A councillor’s job is time-consuming, demanding, under-appreciated, criticized, and at times lampooned, but that is the nature of public office and a choice they make. Fair remuneration is warranted, but it will come with greater scrutiny.
1
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
17
As the medical profession has long predicted, the fallout is now beginning. Unfortunately, it is the younger generation who will bear the brunt of the impact from decisions made by their parents. No doubt many will later point fingers and expect medical solutions to problems created by declining immunization rates. Yes, vaccines can cause adverse reactions, including severe outcomes, but these occur at a rate of roughly 1 per million people vaccinated. In contrast, measles causes serious complications in about 1 in 1,000 cases, and death in about 1 in 1,000 infections in Canada (far higher in low-income nations). The question is: do we accept the extremely rare risks associated with vaccinations, or the far greater risks posed by widespread infection? For the current generation, the genie is already out of the bottle — through no fault of their own.
6
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
21
The recommendation to remove public members from future remuneration committees is a ludicrous proposal. That would allow Council to shape its own pay framework weakens trust and independence.Any potential conflicts of interest between committee members and councillors should be formally declared, and there is an argument that some current committee members should never have been approved in the first place. The optics were poor and this undermined the credibility of the process, ensuring that any legitimate case for pay increases would face public backlash. Councillors do deserve fair compensation, but that must be linked to professionalism, transparency, and performance.The solution is not less transparency but better structure. A hybrid model should be adopted: vetted public members for legitimacy, independent compensation experts for technical rigor, and staff support for data only. This approach strengthens credibility instead of eroding it.
1
15
Despite good intentions, has Mayor Yu become just another cog in City Hall’s hamster wheel? Once elected, a mayor owes the community active leadership and accountability. Prince George needs a proactive mayor, not one who speaks only when prompted or through formal channels. We rarely hear from Mayor Yu directly. A modern city deserves steady, independent updates, not sound bites solely filtered through official channels. We at least deserve brief bi-weekly posts and fuller monthly reports. A mayor should shape the narrative, demand transparency, and address challenges openly.Mayor, use your social media. Use your website. This isn’t about being disruptive; it’s about forging your own path. Residents need to know what’s happening behind the scenes, including the pushback. Leadership requires visibility, not silence. It’s not too late to step up, own the role, and be the communicator Prince George needs. Your audience is us, not councillors and city hall dignities.
3
12
Another toothless law. The Pay Transparency Act is a prime example of how our legislators waste time and taxpayers’ money.Designed to avoid offending anyone over gender identity, it actually prevents employers from using the gender data they already have. The result is a reporting system so restricted that the numbers it produces are incomplete, inaccurate, and essentially useless — a self-defeating piece of legislation.
5
11
The article presents the 2025 cash surplus as a major turnaround, but fails to mention how the $500,000 loan in 2024 contributed to that recovery. Without that injection, they would still be running an operating deficit, even with higher admissions, staff cuts, and the new gallery. The article should have disclosed how much of the $500k remains and how it was used, so readers can judge whether this is a genuine financial turnaround.
3
12
It’s hard not to conclude that this new model will drive even more patients to the already overburdened ER during the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. window. Wouldn’t a hybrid system, offering both pre-scheduled appointments and walk-ins throughout the day, have been a more practical and patient-friendly solution?
1
11
Have our councillors just been hoodwinked by city staff? The change they approved weakens the significance of public input. Council needs full addresses at submission to judge whether comments come from affected neighbours or outside interests. Removing this information strips away essential context and makes letters easier to manipulate, diluting the voice of real residents. Privacy concerns are easily solved by redacting addresses before publication, which protects people and avoids link issues without compromising integrity. Yes, it requires extra effort, but that’s sometimes necessary to uphold genuine democratic values. Choosing administrative ease over accuracy signals that resident letters don’t carry meaningful weight. This decision reduces transparency, undermines trust, and lowers the quality of the consultation process.
1
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
6
Public organizations and departments, including City Hall itself, constantly argue they need more funding. At some point council must say no. Tax payers are not an infinite cash cow and cannot absorb endless tax increases. Council needs to stop defaulting to higher taxes and start enforcing real cost discipline. A city-wide efficiency target of 5% savings across all departments over the next five years would protect taxpayers while forcing modernization and better management. Staffing reductions are the easiest and most effective savings lever, especially in administrative and non-frontline roles where public-sector productivity lags the private sector. Many back-office functions remain overstaffed and inefficient compared to the private-sector. These changes can be achieved without cutting essential frontline services such as safety, emergency response, and core community support. Endless budget growth is unsustainable for taxpayers.
2
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
5
Public organizations and departments, including City Hall itself, constantly argue they need more funding. At some point council must say no. Tax payers are not an infinite cash cow and cannot absorb endless tax increases. Council needs to stop defaulting to higher taxes and start enforcing real cost discipline. A city-wide efficiency target of 5% savings across all departments over the next five years would protect taxpayers while forcing modernization and better management. Staffing reductions are the easiest and most effective savings lever, especially in administrative and non-frontline roles where public-sector productivity lags the private sector. Many back-office functions remain overstaffed and inefficient compared to the private-sector. These changes can be achieved without cutting essential frontline services such as safety, emergency response, and core community support. Endless budget growth is unsustainable for taxpayers.
2
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
5
The year-end wrap from Northern Health reads more like PR than a serious performance review. It lists activity but avoids substance: no explanation for ongoing ER closures, physician shortages, or how the toxic drug crisis will actually improve. The reality for people in the North is longer wait times, more service disruptions, and declining access to care. No doubt the board will endorse this “progress” and award the CEO another pay rise — so perhaps they should share the performance criteria publicly. We are entitled to see it. Stop hiding behind FOI requests and be transparent.
1
5
The budget report presented to council was far from balanced. Staff offered no meaningful alternatives to tax hikes, no efficiency options, and no service-level scenarios. At minimum, the report should have shown what a 0%, 2%, or 4% increase would look like and the trade-offs involved. Instead, it framed rising costs as unavoidable and taxes as the only solution. Council and the public deserve transparent choices, not a predetermined outcome. For Councillors to make informed decisions, they need to insist on neutral, option-based reports rather than guided by a one-sided narrative. Yet again, city staff push their agenda without presenting plausible alternatives - a troubling pattern that appears to be repeating.
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
5
Yes, the CEO’s remuneration is publicly available, but the criteria used by the Board to award the substantial increase—from approximately $350,000 in 2022/2023 to about $450,000 in 2024/2025—are not disclosed. A significant portion of that increase appears to be tied to performance-based metrics. Another notable increase is likely this year. The question is whether these pay increases are justified, which is why full transparency is essential.
Prince George needs addiction recovery services, but has the Council compromised the secular governance principles that underpin our province? While residents at Set Free Recovery do not need to be religious, they are expected to attend weekly church services and Bible study as part of the program’s structure.Faith-based organizations have the right to structure their programs around their beliefs. However, when those beliefs extend into the public sphere, as in this case, democratically elected Councils tasked with upholding secular governance should not approve temporary zoning permits for organizations that embed religious activities into their recovery model, potentially limiting accessibility. Religious-based recovery should offer choice, not obligation.
3
2
Credit to Merrick and Roy for proposing a structure to bring coherence to a crowded and unfocused landscape. Fewer, better-coordinated providers would mean more public funding reaching the front line. That said, council has again missed an opportunity to assert leadership. This type of system-level oversight is precisely what council should have been examining years ago. Council controls the levers—permissive tax exemptions, grants, leases, and its collective voice to lobby senior levels of government for funding. Non-profits are incentivized to survive, not to consolidate, and expecting voluntary self-reduction is unrealistic. The fragmentation we see today is not a service-provider failure but a governance failure. Without council setting clear rules, enforcing standards and aligning funding to outcomes, inefficiency predictably flourishes. Council has effectively offloaded its responsibility onto these groups, and the results are evident to everyone.
1
2
City staff are trying to rewrite the one-employee model into a barrier between Council and the experts they need to hear from. While the draft policy allows Councillors to speak to Senior Management, it explicitly bans them from communicating with the actual subject matter experts—the engineers, planners, and accountants who do the work.The report hides a critical contradiction: it claims to support role clarity, but the fine print forbids Councillors from asking non-senior staff any questions related to their professional expertise.In effect Councillors are being cut off from the people who know the truth. Instead, every technical question must go through a Senior Manager. This turns the administration into a gatekeeper, ensuring Council only hears the management version of the story rather than the raw facts needed for proper oversight. That isn’t transparency, it’s an information bottleneck and a gagging clause.
2
A 25%+ tax increase over the last four years is not responsible fiscal governance. Council should be setting direction — not rubber-stamping spending requests from City Hall and publicly funded organizations. A clear policy is needed: the maximum annual tax increase should be capped at 2.5%, except under clearly defined exceptional circumstances. The current bottom-up process allows spending to dictate taxes. That must change. Council needs to be proactive, control fiscal policy, set firm limits, and require organizations to prioritize within those limits instead of automatically passing costs on to residents. Currently City Hall and public organizations dictate to Council. Council holds the authority - they need to act on it.
1
The obstetrics shortage scare in Prince George highlights how stretched essential services have become. Yet while patient wait times rise and satisfaction drops, the CEO still received a 13 percent performance related pay increase over the last two years, bringing total compensation to about $459 K a year - that is despite a budget deficit last year. While there maybe a plausible explanation for the board’s decision to award this pay increase, no clear indicators or results have been disclosed to the taxpayer to justify it. Without transparent accountability for measurable outcomes, public confidence in Northern Health’s leadership will continue to erode.
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
No doubt the Prince George Public Library is an important resource, but the numbers indicate an independent external review is necessary. Visits have dropped nearly 40% since 2019, yet staffing levels and operating costs remain virtually unchanged. The library ran a deficit last year, and there’s limited public data showing that digital usage or outreach has grown enough to justify current funding. With a board made up mostly of public-sector professionals, there’s little private-sector perspective to challenge spending or drive efficiencies. A review would help determine whether services, staffing model, and building use still match demand. It’s not about cutting value, it’s about ensuring accountability and long term sustainability. An independent review would take 4 - 6 months and cost approx $100k. On a yearly budget in the order of $4.5 million, a review would be money worth spending to highlight any shortfalls and secure long term viability.
Mining more salt...