0
Downsizing council versus democracy
28 November 2009
[indent]
This week it was my turn to get a piece in the Enterprise Bulletin as the guest council columnist. Imagine that: me writing for the EB again! Well, it wasn't a paid contribution, just an opinion piece and every other member of council has been given the opportunity to contribute as well. Still, who'd have thought I'd be back in the EB again, with a byline?
I chose to write about an upcoming issue: downsizing council. There are those at the table who feel this is a good idea. I'm not one of them. I want to see local electoral reform - a ward system and a return to the in-person ballot - to improve our local representation. But downsizing council to me does the opposite.
Here's what I wrote. I've added some later comments (not published in the EB) in a different colour:
Some of my council colleagues want to reduce the size of council, from seven to five. With mayor and deputy mayor, that would mean seven at the table, not nine. I strongly oppose this change. I suspect some would also abolish the deputy mayor's position. Certainly the authority of that position has been eroded this term.
First, it would mean fewer councillors on boards and committees, to attend community events and meet social obligations - less representation among the very community groups we depend on and should listen to. Many of us already serve on three or four committees or boards. Remove two members and that representation would either have to be shared among the remainder or dropped - to the detriment of those organizations and the relationship council has with them.
The experiment of reducing council's representation on boards and committees was tried in a previous term and proved disastrous. Not only did the community feel it had less or no contact with its elected officials, but council had no idea what direction the committees were taking and what their goals were. There was a lot of resentment and anger over the lack of council participation. Committees and council were at loggerheads over many issues. At budget time, no one at council could speak for or champion a committee that lacked representation. It was an unsuccessful experiment and council representation was restored to most positions last term. However, this term the mayor changed the rules unilaterally, even eliminating important committees like Public Works, without council debate.
The job of councillor is to represent the community as well as one can, not merely to meet once a week to debate the community's fate. One measure of how well we are doing that job is in how we relate to the numerous committees and boards.
There are also numerous social obligations, ad-hoc and one-time meetings, planning and site-development meetings, conferences, seminars and presentations we attend. Reducing the number would mean increasing the load on any individual considerably – or obligations dropped.
If two of the seven members were away simultaneously (this happens several times a year right now), a majority decision could be passed by three remaining members. Three councillors could make binding decisions on the business of the town, the allocation of funding, budget, development decisions, our future and our strategic direction. Consider that it took five to turn a beautiful proposal for a downtown development into a sorry-looking pond on the main street - imagine what three could get up to!
In 2004, former CAO, Jay Currier, wrote a report that showed that for council size, Collingwood is squarely in the middle for about 20 Ontario communities of our population. His report showed no apparent advantage to reducing the numbers. That hasn't stopped members of council from bringing it back to the table. I suppose some feel we can just keep regurgitating reports and studies until we get the results we want. That precedent was, of course, set by the Admiral Collingwood debacle, early this term.
The small financial gain - about $40,000 a year - would not represent any real savings to taxpayers. The money would probably be allocated to other uses, possibly even as a salary increase to the remaining group (justified given the increased responsibilities they would have to assume). That's less than 10% of what this council wasted on the mayor's futile legal challenge to educational development charges!
Right now councillors represent about 3,000 residents per member. With five, it would be more than 4,000 per member - further distancing elected representatives from the people they are supposed to serve. This could be mitigated by a ward system, but council rejected that idea without even allowing any public input on the discussion.
A reduction in seats could radically change the nature of the election, tipping the balance to those with deeper pockets. In general, those who can afford more advertising get more votes. Well-funded special interest groups could dominate the election. Downsizing will create a much more elitist council - those with the biggest advertising budget - which, while not quite a plutocracy is close enough.
And a smaller council would mean fewer viewpoints, fewer opinions, fewer ideas at the table. While it might shorten debate, it would mean the cross section of community representation is smaller. I personally doubt discussions would be much, if any, shorter, given the loquacity of some members. But even if that were true, the only people it would really affect would be the media people and a few staff. Hardly a reason to lessen democratic representation for an entire community!
Fewer councillors means less dissension. Take away the two councillors with the fewest votes at the table - Labelle and me - and you get five remaining who tend to be the mayor's supporters in most issues. The same group that voted to repeal the legal approvals granted to the Admiral Collingwood development last term. The same group that was recommended on the special-interest group slate last election. If you think that won't happen again next election, you're fooling yourself.
More participation by council equals more democracy in the community. Fewer members means less participation, less democracy, less dissent, more elitism.[/indent]
I chose to write about an upcoming issue: downsizing council. There are those at the table who feel this is a good idea. I'm not one of them. I want to see local electoral reform - a ward system and a return to the in-person ballot - to improve our local representation. But downsizing council to me does the opposite.
Here's what I wrote. I've added some later comments (not published in the EB) in a different colour:
Some of my council colleagues want to reduce the size of council, from seven to five. With mayor and deputy mayor, that would mean seven at the table, not nine. I strongly oppose this change. I suspect some would also abolish the deputy mayor's position. Certainly the authority of that position has been eroded this term.
First, it would mean fewer councillors on boards and committees, to attend community events and meet social obligations - less representation among the very community groups we depend on and should listen to. Many of us already serve on three or four committees or boards. Remove two members and that representation would either have to be shared among the remainder or dropped - to the detriment of those organizations and the relationship council has with them.
The experiment of reducing council's representation on boards and committees was tried in a previous term and proved disastrous. Not only did the community feel it had less or no contact with its elected officials, but council had no idea what direction the committees were taking and what their goals were. There was a lot of resentment and anger over the lack of council participation. Committees and council were at loggerheads over many issues. At budget time, no one at council could speak for or champion a committee that lacked representation. It was an unsuccessful experiment and council representation was restored to most positions last term. However, this term the mayor changed the rules unilaterally, even eliminating important committees like Public Works, without council debate.
The job of councillor is to represent the community as well as one can, not merely to meet once a week to debate the community's fate. One measure of how well we are doing that job is in how we relate to the numerous committees and boards.
There are also numerous social obligations, ad-hoc and one-time meetings, planning and site-development meetings, conferences, seminars and presentations we attend. Reducing the number would mean increasing the load on any individual considerably – or obligations dropped.
If two of the seven members were away simultaneously (this happens several times a year right now), a majority decision could be passed by three remaining members. Three councillors could make binding decisions on the business of the town, the allocation of funding, budget, development decisions, our future and our strategic direction. Consider that it took five to turn a beautiful proposal for a downtown development into a sorry-looking pond on the main street - imagine what three could get up to!
In 2004, former CAO, Jay Currier, wrote a report that showed that for council size, Collingwood is squarely in the middle for about 20 Ontario communities of our population. His report showed no apparent advantage to reducing the numbers. That hasn't stopped members of council from bringing it back to the table. I suppose some feel we can just keep regurgitating reports and studies until we get the results we want. That precedent was, of course, set by the Admiral Collingwood debacle, early this term.
The small financial gain - about $40,000 a year - would not represent any real savings to taxpayers. The money would probably be allocated to other uses, possibly even as a salary increase to the remaining group (justified given the increased responsibilities they would have to assume). That's less than 10% of what this council wasted on the mayor's futile legal challenge to educational development charges!
Right now councillors represent about 3,000 residents per member. With five, it would be more than 4,000 per member - further distancing elected representatives from the people they are supposed to serve. This could be mitigated by a ward system, but council rejected that idea without even allowing any public input on the discussion.
A reduction in seats could radically change the nature of the election, tipping the balance to those with deeper pockets. In general, those who can afford more advertising get more votes. Well-funded special interest groups could dominate the election. Downsizing will create a much more elitist council - those with the biggest advertising budget - which, while not quite a plutocracy is close enough.
And a smaller council would mean fewer viewpoints, fewer opinions, fewer ideas at the table. While it might shorten debate, it would mean the cross section of community representation is smaller. I personally doubt discussions would be much, if any, shorter, given the loquacity of some members. But even if that were true, the only people it would really affect would be the media people and a few staff. Hardly a reason to lessen democratic representation for an entire community!
Fewer councillors means less dissension. Take away the two councillors with the fewest votes at the table - Labelle and me - and you get five remaining who tend to be the mayor's supporters in most issues. The same group that voted to repeal the legal approvals granted to the Admiral Collingwood development last term. The same group that was recommended on the special-interest group slate last election. If you think that won't happen again next election, you're fooling yourself.
More participation by council equals more democracy in the community. Fewer members means less participation, less democracy, less dissent, more elitism.[/indent]
