The Whitefish City Council at its Nov. 18 meeting directed staff to prepare to discuss possible compensation for the council at an early-January work session.
It’s the first direction the council has given on the topic since voters earlier this month approved a charter amendment allowing the council to be compensated for its work. The most recent tally by the Montana Secretary of State’s office shows the charter amendment passed with 2,569 people voting in favor and 2,282 voting against, which comes out to 53% of voters for and 47% against.
The exact nature of that compensation remains unclear, but there will be a public hearing before councilors are given a chance to vote. A salary, stipend, health insurance with the city paying the premium, per diem and mileage allowance are all possible forms of compensation the council could receive.
When the council approved the ballot question about compensation, Whitefish was one of a limited number of local governments in Montana that did not offer compensation to its council.
The upcoming work session, likely taking place on Jan. 6, will begin discussions about what type of proposals city staff should begin drafting. While the charter amendment is effective in the new year, some members of the council have indicated that they may wish for compensation to be available after subsequent elections.
Councilor Giuseppe Caltabiano said that he does not believe it should apply to those currently on the council, a stance that he brought up during previous discussions about council compensation, saying that he thought it was a conflict of interest.
Mayor John Muhlfeld referenced the “slim” margin by which voters approved the amendment, saying he doesn’t think time is a critical issue in making a decision. He suggested the council might not hold a public hearing until February. He also mentioned the possibility that compensation could become effective after a municipal election in two years, or that it could become effective this term. “That’s for further discussion at a future date,” he said.
Muhlfeld, and others on the council, seemed to be in agreement that it should be resolved before May 2025. As Councilor Ben Davis noted, that’s when the registration deadline arrives to file as a candidate for the next municipal election.
Some members of the council who had supported the idea of the council receiving compensation when it was first discussed last year had argued that it would help encourage more people to participate in local government, like younger or working-class people, who might otherwise face financial barriers.
Councilor Rebecca Norton, who has been one of the most vocal proponents of the council compensation, referenced her support for the idea when she served on the local government review commission more than a decade ago.
“Some of us are taking this quite personally but really it’s about the concept of how we keep people engaged in the public process. I do think it’s important that we get people on board because I’ve been waiting 11 years for it. It’s going to be kind of a big discussion of how we do it. I think we’re doing it for the next council, the next mayor, I just think we should look at it as a policy change.”
Councilor Steve Qunell said he doesn’t think the council should rush it, but that he believes they should act quickly.
“I do want to say, there’s been a lot made about whether or not this was an election issue and it was,” Qunell said. He referenced debates, interviews and forums where council compensation was mentioned, and said it was a campaign issue and that the council should take it seriously. “It’s time for the council to take on the fact that the work we do is valuable, and we should value that in some way, and we need to address that sooner rather than later.”