In a scientific experiment, having the same variables, the same environment, and the same treatment will generally produce the same, if not at least similar, results. The city council compensation review committees in Calgary and Edmonton just proved that paying politicians is anything but a science.

Having politicians decide how much to pay themselves has, not surprisingly, caused some strange outcomes.

Sometimes politicians opt to generously increase their own compensation, leading to anger from ratepayers. Immediately after Edmonton's 1977 civic election, city council voted themselves a 60 per cent pay hike. This outrageous hike landed council in court where a judge ordered they subject the raise to a plebiscite. Correctly presuming the outcome of any plebiscite, council backed down.

Other times, politicians likely trying to avoid a similar backlash from taxpayers, opt to leave their compensation low. As a result, they end up deterring others from seeking that elected office. (That being said, former Calgary Mayor Rod Sykes argues in the book Take Back City Hall that increasing political compensation has led to less qualified candidates seeking office because the compensation has created professional politicians thereby replacing "civic duty.")

Regardless, in an attempt to avoid either situation, politicians have more recently opted to appoint "independent commissions" to review their compensation.

Both Edmonton and Calgary recently went through this process, with Edmonton's compensation committee releasing their report on June 15th and Calgary's on July 13th.

Both Edmonton and Calgary's city councils pay their council members a base salary that is one-third tax-free and adjusted annually based on the Average Weekly Earnings of Albertans as calculated by Statscan -- a move that gave both councils a 5.76 per cent raise this past year.

Both cities also provide a deputy mayor allowance that is one-third tax-free, and a car allowance that is one-third tax-free.

These "allowances" in both cities are non-receiptable and non-accountable, meaning that nothing has to be done to receive them. In fact, a council member doesn't have to own or even know how to drive a car to receive the car allowance. It's simply extra cash in their pockets.

Both councils have severance packages that pay an exiting politician regardless if they chose to quit, retire, or are fired by their constituents -- a perk that never would be acceptable in the private sector.

But that's where the similarities end.

Calgary's compensation report focused on the fundamental issue of transparency. They rightfully pointed out that the special tax status and various "allowances" made their compensation far from transparent.

The Calgary report recommended scrapping the tax-free status and suggested the deputy mayor allowance be rolled into a single and fully taxable salary. They also recommended a six per cent raise for aldermen, and nothing more for the mayor.

Edmonton's compensation report was unfortunately very different. In addition to suggesting the special one-third tax-free status was acceptable, they recommended massive increases to the base pay and "allowances" of both the mayor and council. These increases amount to a 21 per cent raise for city councillors and 14 per cent for the mayor.

The Edmonton committee also ignored virtually every piece of public input they received.

Two very similar councils, two very similar pay structures, two very different outcomes. Calgary's committee focused on transparency, Edmonton's committee focused on lining city council pockets.

Let's hope Calgary's leadership is contagious. All governments, be they municipal, provincial or federal have been steadily eliminating tax exemptions for their politicians. It's time not only for Edmonton to follow suit, but other Alberta cities, and of course our provincial MLAs.