COUNCILLORS from all parties are happy. That is not surprising - they are the ones who stand to benefit from the introduction of new pay rates.

City of York Council leader Rod Hills, for example, would see his remuneration rise from £16,000 - the amount, in expenses, he claimed last year - to nearly £38,000. A case of double your money.

Meanwhile Steve Galloway, leader of the main opposition party the Liberal Democrats, could be paid nearly £48,000 for doing the job full time. That compares to the £11,457 he claimed in expenses last year. "As far as I'm concerned," he said today, "there are no significant problems with the proposals."

But as far as the York electorate is concerned, there might be problems. Nobody has thought to ask them.

We are about to see another stride taken towards the introduction of the professional councillor. That is a fundamental shift in the way local government is run. Yet the people who will be directly affected by it, the people who will pay for it, have not been consulted.

No one would suggest that the present system is beyond reform. The typical councillor's workload is substantial, involving many meetings and constituency surgeries. Members of the new council cabinet - another reform introduced without a public vote - are in charge of a budget of millions of pounds.

These sorts of demands come on top of full-time work. So it is not surprising that fewer people are putting themselves forward as councillors.

The question is, how best to change the system. Introducing full-time professional councillors has a cultural as well as a financial implication. At the moment people choose to be councillors because they wish to serve the community they live in. An impressive financial package might lure people into politics for the wrong reasons and dilute that commitment.

The councillors have accepted the independent report. But this is the start, not the end, of the debate. Shouldn't these proposals be put up for the approval of the electorate before they are introduced?