There have been some well-publicized examples of band members trying to get band leadership to disclose finances. I'm not sure it's as simple as getting council members to disclose their salaries, but it's more about revealing possible conflicts of interest and nepotism.

The issues as I see it:

It's one thing for band members to want to have this information disclosed to them, but it is another to have outsiders insist they need to know everything that is going on. Generally, it's none of our business. Now before people come screeching that bands are funded through tax dollars, and therefore the Canadian public has a right to know where every cent goes... well, not really. Public monies given to bands are meant to meet the obligations of The Crown. This isn't to say there aren't obligations on the part of band councils to be accountable - it's more about setting new conditions after an agreement has been reached. If a band signed a treaty where they agreed to full transparency to the Canadian people, then fine. I would be very interested to see if anyone can dredge up such a treaty obligation.

Additionally, the rhetoric from outsiders regarding transparency tends to steer itself towards a small, but vocally racist segment of our population. Not to say that everyone thinks that way (your post doesn't indicate such a tone), but I suspect that we will see some threads here that are clearly anti-indigenous (to put it mildly).

To put it another way, it is best not to make direct comparisons between band and municipal governments. There's much more context needed beyond the size of the group. What works for one, might not work for the other. Municipal governments are far from perfect anyway, and I am reticent to recommend them as a blanket model.