0
Four-year terms for councils
22 February 2006
[indent]Yesterday, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced several initiatives, including extending the terms of municipal council from the current three to four years.
The press release reads:
This has been a recommendation by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for the last few years. The government had originally refused the request, but now seems to have bought into it. The release added,
I believe it is a good decision and I support longer terms for council. Three years is simply too short in today's world.
In fact, most of the AMO members were in agreement. A survey was sent around to AMO members last year, and the overwhelming majority agreed that longer terms were preferred. Many of its committees made strong recommendations for longer terms as well.
Three years has proven difficult for municipal councils because most large-scale projects - especially infrastructure - take longer than three years to plan, let alone complete. What with the requisite studies, environmental assessments, public meetings, planning, tendering - the process often gets interrupted and sometimes even derailed by a new council. Money, time and effort may be wasted.
I have only to point to the problems we faced over the multi-use facility here. Two consecutive councils (all with the same group having) had dealt with the issue. Then the final decision was dumped into the collective laps of a new council with three new members, none of whom (because of provincial deadlines) were given the time to fully study and explore all of the issues, ramifications, read the massive studies and submissions, talk to staff and residents, examine reports and drawings... before we had to make a decision. We all know the result.
Staff must feel exceptionally frustrated at having to re-educate councils every three years. Every three years comes a new group that has to be informed, issues explained, histories and precedents laid out, municipal structures and hierarchies explained. Four years will give them an extra year to do their real work.
Committees will be affected by this as well, since most committees have terms concurrent with that of council. Committees have the same frustrations over duration and turnover every three years. Committees and boards will now be able to do longer-term planning.
Councils are also subject to the electorate and the personalities of their members. New members often come on while experienced members leave each election. Every three years there may be an upheaval that upsets the balance that has been crafted over the last term. It sometimes takes a long time to find a comfort level, a level of harmony where members learn to interact, act as a group, compromise and cooperate.
As a new councillor, I can attest to the lengthy learning curve required to fully understand and appreciate the workings and complexities of municipal affairs. Councillors are expected to make decisions on a broad range of social, engineering, mechanical, recreational, planning, legal and personnel issues. It's an educational process, and require a lot of reading, studying, meetings and questioning just to get to a level of minimal competence.
It usually takes the first year for newcomers to get a proper handle on the system (even though in that period we are still called upon to debate and vote on issues we may not fully understand).
The third year is an election year. Although you may have thought it's always an election year from the obvious campaigning at the table some days, in the third year, councils become conservative - some members think more about their re-election prospects than about their principles, goals and constituents. Few large-scale projects will be undertaken, little controversial legislation gets passed. Councillors concern themselves over image and reputation and don't want to be seen as spending your taxes too lavishly. Nor do many members want to stand out by taking strong stands on issues. It's a sad comment, but it's true.
So the most effective time for councils is the middle year. That's one out of three, and that's not good. With four years, we can expect two good years, two solid, working years in between the learning stage and the re-election phase. Councils, committees and staff will be able to be more productive.
Another difficulty our council and many others face is long-term planning and budgeting. It is difficult to craft a long-term strategic plan for five or more years when your term is only three years.
With three-year terms, that you don't do much long-term planning in year one while you're still trying to learn, but wait until year two. By the time you start, have your meetings, studies and plans drawn up, you have less than two years left to implement anything, and pretty soon run into the election-year barrier when some members are reluctant to spend money or take giant steps in case it hurts their chances at re-election.
Finally, most higher-level governments sit longer than three years. Four to five is common. Changing councils means changing relationships with other government levels. Four year-terms gives councils a longer opportunity to establish relations - preferably good relations - with other levels. This is especially important when councils are trying to undertake a prject that requires other funding - such as the First Street expansion.
Four-year terms will be good for the municipality and will help us accomplish more strategic goals.[/indent]
The press release reads:
Quote
To make municipal governments stronger and more effective, the government will propose four-year terms for local council members and school trustees, putting local officials on par with their provincial counterparts. If this change were adopted, four-year municipal terms could start this fall.
This has been a recommendation by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for the last few years. The government had originally refused the request, but now seems to have bought into it. The release added,
Quote
"We're strengthening our people in rural Ontario so they have every chance at future success," said Premier McGuinty. "Our goal is to give municipalities the respect they deserve -- and the tools they need to become more accountable, responsible partners with Queen's Park and the federal government."
I believe it is a good decision and I support longer terms for council. Three years is simply too short in today's world.
In fact, most of the AMO members were in agreement. A survey was sent around to AMO members last year, and the overwhelming majority agreed that longer terms were preferred. Many of its committees made strong recommendations for longer terms as well.
Three years has proven difficult for municipal councils because most large-scale projects - especially infrastructure - take longer than three years to plan, let alone complete. What with the requisite studies, environmental assessments, public meetings, planning, tendering - the process often gets interrupted and sometimes even derailed by a new council. Money, time and effort may be wasted.
I have only to point to the problems we faced over the multi-use facility here. Two consecutive councils (all with the same group having) had dealt with the issue. Then the final decision was dumped into the collective laps of a new council with three new members, none of whom (because of provincial deadlines) were given the time to fully study and explore all of the issues, ramifications, read the massive studies and submissions, talk to staff and residents, examine reports and drawings... before we had to make a decision. We all know the result.
Staff must feel exceptionally frustrated at having to re-educate councils every three years. Every three years comes a new group that has to be informed, issues explained, histories and precedents laid out, municipal structures and hierarchies explained. Four years will give them an extra year to do their real work.
Committees will be affected by this as well, since most committees have terms concurrent with that of council. Committees have the same frustrations over duration and turnover every three years. Committees and boards will now be able to do longer-term planning.
Councils are also subject to the electorate and the personalities of their members. New members often come on while experienced members leave each election. Every three years there may be an upheaval that upsets the balance that has been crafted over the last term. It sometimes takes a long time to find a comfort level, a level of harmony where members learn to interact, act as a group, compromise and cooperate.
As a new councillor, I can attest to the lengthy learning curve required to fully understand and appreciate the workings and complexities of municipal affairs. Councillors are expected to make decisions on a broad range of social, engineering, mechanical, recreational, planning, legal and personnel issues. It's an educational process, and require a lot of reading, studying, meetings and questioning just to get to a level of minimal competence.
It usually takes the first year for newcomers to get a proper handle on the system (even though in that period we are still called upon to debate and vote on issues we may not fully understand).
The third year is an election year. Although you may have thought it's always an election year from the obvious campaigning at the table some days, in the third year, councils become conservative - some members think more about their re-election prospects than about their principles, goals and constituents. Few large-scale projects will be undertaken, little controversial legislation gets passed. Councillors concern themselves over image and reputation and don't want to be seen as spending your taxes too lavishly. Nor do many members want to stand out by taking strong stands on issues. It's a sad comment, but it's true.
So the most effective time for councils is the middle year. That's one out of three, and that's not good. With four years, we can expect two good years, two solid, working years in between the learning stage and the re-election phase. Councils, committees and staff will be able to be more productive.
Another difficulty our council and many others face is long-term planning and budgeting. It is difficult to craft a long-term strategic plan for five or more years when your term is only three years.
With three-year terms, that you don't do much long-term planning in year one while you're still trying to learn, but wait until year two. By the time you start, have your meetings, studies and plans drawn up, you have less than two years left to implement anything, and pretty soon run into the election-year barrier when some members are reluctant to spend money or take giant steps in case it hurts their chances at re-election.
Finally, most higher-level governments sit longer than three years. Four to five is common. Changing councils means changing relationships with other government levels. Four year-terms gives councils a longer opportunity to establish relations - preferably good relations - with other levels. This is especially important when councils are trying to undertake a prject that requires other funding - such as the First Street expansion.
Four-year terms will be good for the municipality and will help us accomplish more strategic goals.[/indent]
I doubt that most people who seek election to council do so with the intension of serving for only one term. A shorter term allows for a review of the performance of councillors. Those who show that they are up to the job will ideally be allowed to proceed with their objectives for the community for another term.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall that all of the individuals who created the Multi Use Facility schemozzle were seasoned council members with multiple terms under their belts. Also, it is unlikely that the three newcomers did not hit the ground running on this issue since the election process served to frame it, for any of them who had not been paying attention for the previous two years.
I’m not sure that I buy your 60’s style emphasis on “harmony”. I’d much rather settle for competent representation of all sides of the issues and mutual respect. Your representation of the learning curve required, makes no allowance for the minimum foundation abilities required to be a councillor. Often it appears that we choose representatives who are long on “harmony”, but wanting when it comes to being able to handle the challenges we face.
I guess the greatest concern about adding a year to municipal council terms is that we will be trapped for an even longer term with a council the taxpayers are not happy with. Your academic overview has merit. However, when it is applied to the current council, many would be wary about going the extra year. I think that the current council has lost the confidence of much of the community. We are ready to have our say again.
As you know, I believe that we should all be working together to encourage people with ability and a fresh perspective to step forward and represent us. Some people are optimistic that this may in fact happen. However, in the early speculation that I hear, it appears that we are getting ready to re-shoe a bunch of old warhorses. Perhaps, just because we know that at least they know the ins and outs of being on council.