Councillors Dan Boyd and Samson Hartland have continued to take a stand against changing the city’s council remuneration bylaw which sets out how much council members will be paid.

On Monday evening, they were the only two members of council to vote against third reading on the changes.

“I believe these changes are significant,” Boyd said.

City staff brought forward the changes in an effort to provide more clarity on exactly what councillors can claim per diems on.

Boyd and Hartland go further than that, beyond what the current council should be voting on for itself.

Traditionally, the current council only votes on changing the remuneration bylaw as it nears the end of its term to come into effect when the following council is sworn into office so that it’s not voting on its own compensation.

The bylaw sets out the mayor’s full-time salary of $87,942 and benefits, as well as the annual pay for councillors, currently set at $20,496 along with additional per diems for certain events.

Councillors are eligible for per diems of $100 for certain events between one and four hours long and $100 for events of more than four hours.

The changes that have been adopted now make it clear that council members will not be paid the per diem for attending additional sessions that are shorter than an hour, noon-hour meetings of council and senior management officials, regular or special council meetings during the noon hour or normal working day, or regularly scheduled committee meetings where they are representing council.

The bylaw goes on to clarify that per diems will be paid when councillors represent the city at a pre-approved event, attend scheduled evening or weekend sessions outside of the weekly council meetings such as strategic planning workshops, for travel that has been pre-approved, or when they are required to act as mayor in the mayor’s absence.

Boyd argued things like strategic planning sessions should be part of a councillor’s regular duties and not see additional pay.

Hartland said changes should not be made until council is nearing the end of its term for the next council. Council members, he said, should not be voting on their own pay.

“We need to do things the right way,” he said.

Other council members acknowledged Hartland’s and Boyd’s points but also argued clarity is needed in the document.

“It is unusual to make changes at this time, but in the interest of clarity (it needs to be done),” Coun. Rob Fendrick said.

In the past, he added, some council members have submitted claims for certain events while others haven’t because the bylaw wasn’t clear on what could be claimed.

Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu agreed, pointing out that the actual pay is not being changed, but rather greater clarity is being provided.

Meanwhile, Mayor Dan Curtis (who is paid for full-time work and not eligible for the additional pay) continued his defence of the changes.

He noted that councillors at times end up having to miss work and lose pay from their regular full-time jobs in their councillor roles. They should be compensated for going over and above their regular councillor duties, Curtis said.

He suggested that council members who disagree with the changes could choose not to submit claims for the additional payments or could donate them to a charity.