1
Arbitrary decisions have no place at council
11 January 2011
It wasn't about the food. It was about the process. And that process was wrong.
That was my first argument, Monday night, when a motion was read to end our pre-meeting meals. That motion read, "THAT Council herein authorize discontinuing the provision of meals prior to meetings of Council for Council and staff that attend, in an effort to reduce discretionary spending."
I have nothing against cost cutting - I argued against the NVCA's 5.1% hike in its annual levy, Monday - but this decision had already been made by the mayor last month and implemented even before our first meeting. Meals were discontinued from that email on.*
Council's approval last night was merely window dressing, a rubber stamp on an already-implemented decision. What council did was condone the mayor making what is essentially a budget decision without council's input, let alone approval. That sets a precedent for this term that I really am uncomfortable with.
Any decision that affects all of council or the town should be made by council as a whole. Apparently I'm the only one at the table who feels that way, because everyone else voted in favour of the motion.
I argued against such arbitrary and undemocratic decisions last term. I'll argue against them this term, although I had really hoped things would change and I wouldn't need to.
Another point was that the amount - $10,000 - doesn't even represent a dime a year to the taxpayer, but it is money that goes back to the local community: the meals come from local restaurants. I didn't want to hurt their income stream after the patio debacle last term already hurt them so much. We could have reduced the meals and achieved the goal of cutting spending, while still supporting our local restaurants.
In the larger picture, we can hardly pat ourselves on the back for this. Cutting a single roundabout from the budget would save more than $1 million: enough to provide meals for the rest of this century without raising taxes. I can't see the public giving us ticker tape parades for responsible fiscal management because we cut out some pre-meeting sandwiches.
My final comment was about team building. As I understand it, if you want to build effective teams, you find ways to bring people together: you look for ways to maximize social interaction, not minimize it. The half-hour before the meeting when council and staff sat down to eat was the one time when we all got together outside the council chamber and our sole opportunity to get to know one another outside the political ring. Now that opportunity has gone, the only reason we all have to get together is for political reasons.**
I don't believe the taxpayers would begrudge a dime of their taxes being spent on something that would enhance council's ability to work together.
But such is the will of council.
Deputy Mayor Lloyd, in his comments, said he supported the motion because he was sure the meetings conducted by our new mayor would be short. That missed the point entirely. The length of the meetings was never an issue. Short meetings don't encourage teamwork or promote social interaction among council and staff. Short meetings don't make arbitrary decision making appropriate.
As the EB notes, a codicil was added, at the discretion of the CAO and chair, if "decide a lengthy meeting is in order that food can still be brought in."
~~~~~
* We were informed of the decision by way of an email on Dec 8 that noted, a selection of "...water, pop, and juice will be provided prior to the Meeting of Council, however if you would like anything other than the above mentioned it will be the responsibility of each individual." On Dec. 9, I responded to the mayor, saying, "...I believe this should really be a budget item, and the decision made by all of council. If you make decisions like this yourself, you risk following the former mayor's footsteps in making autocratic decisions without council." Under the town's code of ethics, which we all sign at inauguration it clearly states that no individual can direct staff, it must be done by council as a whole.
** In my first term of office, Mayor Geddes worked hard to encourage a sense of teamwork among members of council and staff. He engaged us in collective activities like the mayor's annual bicycle tour of the trails, and the Canada Day pancake breakfast. He also ate with us in the pre-meeting meal and encouraged us and department heads to get together after a meeting for drinks and socializing. Last term, Mayor Carrier seldom joined us in the pre-meeting meal, dispensed with most group activities and didn't organize post-meeting get-togethers. The public could plainly see the difference that style made in the way council interacted and behaved. We begin this term by dropping the sole opportunity we had to interact collectively. I suspect people will not want to get together after meetings, this term, but will choose instead to go home to eat.
That was my first argument, Monday night, when a motion was read to end our pre-meeting meals. That motion read, "THAT Council herein authorize discontinuing the provision of meals prior to meetings of Council for Council and staff that attend, in an effort to reduce discretionary spending."
I have nothing against cost cutting - I argued against the NVCA's 5.1% hike in its annual levy, Monday - but this decision had already been made by the mayor last month and implemented even before our first meeting. Meals were discontinued from that email on.*
Council's approval last night was merely window dressing, a rubber stamp on an already-implemented decision. What council did was condone the mayor making what is essentially a budget decision without council's input, let alone approval. That sets a precedent for this term that I really am uncomfortable with.
Any decision that affects all of council or the town should be made by council as a whole. Apparently I'm the only one at the table who feels that way, because everyone else voted in favour of the motion.
I argued against such arbitrary and undemocratic decisions last term. I'll argue against them this term, although I had really hoped things would change and I wouldn't need to.
Another point was that the amount - $10,000 - doesn't even represent a dime a year to the taxpayer, but it is money that goes back to the local community: the meals come from local restaurants. I didn't want to hurt their income stream after the patio debacle last term already hurt them so much. We could have reduced the meals and achieved the goal of cutting spending, while still supporting our local restaurants.
In the larger picture, we can hardly pat ourselves on the back for this. Cutting a single roundabout from the budget would save more than $1 million: enough to provide meals for the rest of this century without raising taxes. I can't see the public giving us ticker tape parades for responsible fiscal management because we cut out some pre-meeting sandwiches.
My final comment was about team building. As I understand it, if you want to build effective teams, you find ways to bring people together: you look for ways to maximize social interaction, not minimize it. The half-hour before the meeting when council and staff sat down to eat was the one time when we all got together outside the council chamber and our sole opportunity to get to know one another outside the political ring. Now that opportunity has gone, the only reason we all have to get together is for political reasons.**
I don't believe the taxpayers would begrudge a dime of their taxes being spent on something that would enhance council's ability to work together.
But such is the will of council.
Deputy Mayor Lloyd, in his comments, said he supported the motion because he was sure the meetings conducted by our new mayor would be short. That missed the point entirely. The length of the meetings was never an issue. Short meetings don't encourage teamwork or promote social interaction among council and staff. Short meetings don't make arbitrary decision making appropriate.
As the EB notes, a codicil was added, at the discretion of the CAO and chair, if "decide a lengthy meeting is in order that food can still be brought in."
~~~~~
* We were informed of the decision by way of an email on Dec 8 that noted, a selection of "...water, pop, and juice will be provided prior to the Meeting of Council, however if you would like anything other than the above mentioned it will be the responsibility of each individual." On Dec. 9, I responded to the mayor, saying, "...I believe this should really be a budget item, and the decision made by all of council. If you make decisions like this yourself, you risk following the former mayor's footsteps in making autocratic decisions without council." Under the town's code of ethics, which we all sign at inauguration it clearly states that no individual can direct staff, it must be done by council as a whole.
** In my first term of office, Mayor Geddes worked hard to encourage a sense of teamwork among members of council and staff. He engaged us in collective activities like the mayor's annual bicycle tour of the trails, and the Canada Day pancake breakfast. He also ate with us in the pre-meeting meal and encouraged us and department heads to get together after a meeting for drinks and socializing. Last term, Mayor Carrier seldom joined us in the pre-meeting meal, dispensed with most group activities and didn't organize post-meeting get-togethers. The public could plainly see the difference that style made in the way council interacted and behaved. We begin this term by dropping the sole opportunity we had to interact collectively. I suspect people will not want to get together after meetings, this term, but will choose instead to go home to eat.
