Sunday through Wednesday last week was the annual SUMA convention, this year held in Regina. I look on these conventions as opportunities for learning, both formal and informal. The sessions labeled education sessions are meant to be exactly that - presentations from experts on various aspects of municipal governance and management. This year's topics included climate change, waste management, budgeting, and bylaws. There's also a keynote speaker, a speech from the Premier, and the opportunity to meet with individual cabinet ministers, and with cabinet as a whole. There's a trade show, so that you can find out about new products that might benefit your community, and social events, both formal (a banquet) and informal (a reception on the first evening, a hospitality night on the second). The banquet and the opening night reception weren't included in the convention cost, so Andrea and I opted out of those, instead sampling a couple of restaurants that were within walking distance of our hotel.
Probably the most informative session that I attended was the one on bylaw development. I had a particular interest in how bylaws could help us deal with boarded up houses, a long-standing problem for which we seem to be having difficulty finding a solution, in fact, I have been told a couple of times that there is no solution. When I asked the question of the experts, I was relieved to find out that other communities have dealt with the problem through development of a nuisance bylaw - the trick, of course, is to enforce the bylaw once it's developed.
The news from the premier that the share of the sales tax will not be increased this year was not a surprise to most of us - it will make budgeting this year even more difficult, and I think that council needs to look at cutting costs, big and small, wherever we can. The news about civic terms being increased to four years after the next election was a bit more of a surprise, since the discussions about that were more than a year ago. Personally, I don't think that the longer commitment will dissuade people from running for council, since most members of council run for multiple terms anyway. My approach to the job is the same in the first year of the term as the last, so I don't buy the argument that the last third of the term is spent campaigning, although I suppose some might approach it that way. But I do agree that the cost savings to the community will be considerable, although our costs also include school board elections, which right now still have the three year term.
Like most things in life, SUMA is something that you can always learn from, if you avail yourself of the opportunity. I do think that it would be more useful if it were more focused on cities - my preference would be to have a separate conference for cities, and another one for towns and villages, since our problems tend to be quite different. But I did enjoy the opportunity to learn some things, to meet up with colleagues from other communities, and to have a couple of evenings out with some of my fellow councillors and their spouses, sharing perspectives, ideas and a great deal of laughter.
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Albert Einstein
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Rules of Engagement
Like many workplaces today, City Hall has a sign posted where you pay your bills. It says, in effect, that rude and abusive behaviour will not be tolerated. The main purpose is to provide staff with a first level of defence against that sort of behaviour, but underlying it is recognition that this sort of behaviour just isn't civilized, or productive.
Unfortunately, there are some people who don't think that the same rule should apply to their elected representatives. They seem to have the attitude that, because we've been elected, we should cheerfully put up with being insulted, called names, and having our ethics questioned, both publicly and privately. I was even booed once when I entered council chambers. And then, if you don't respond, they become even more abusive, because apparently being elected means that you owe them a response.
I'm more than willing to engage in respectful discussion. But I'm not willing to enter into discussion with anyone who calls me names, who suggests that I'm not being truthful, or who accuses me of voting for any reason other than my sincere belief that I'm making the best decision possible. To my mind, these individuals don't want discussion, they want to vent their anger in a not very productive way, and I don't see why I should subject myself to their unpleasantness.
Now, I will admit to getting angry and venting, but I do my best to keep it private, with my wife, family, or other close friends. I try to keep my cool in public, and to not respond in kind, because that sort of behaviour doesn't lead to solutions, it leads to problems. When people start calling names, the focus then becomes on the name-calling, not on the actual problem. And Prince Albert is a small town - you never know when you're going to run into a friend or relative of the person that you've insulted - they may not take too kindly to your insults either.
For those who choose to do the insulting publicly, they should remember that behaviour whenever they bemoan the lack of good candidates for any elected office - more than a few people have spoken to me about how they would never run for office, because they wouldn't want to take that sort of abuse.
I often hear talk about how the behaviour of politicians at the provincial or federal level needs to be more respectful and cooperative. I would enlarge the arena for that sort of improvement to include civic politics, and to include all those who take advantage of the opportunity they have to speak at council meetings to share their ideas and opinions - let's all try to remember the old adage about treating others as we like to be treated.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Plato
Unfortunately, there are some people who don't think that the same rule should apply to their elected representatives. They seem to have the attitude that, because we've been elected, we should cheerfully put up with being insulted, called names, and having our ethics questioned, both publicly and privately. I was even booed once when I entered council chambers. And then, if you don't respond, they become even more abusive, because apparently being elected means that you owe them a response.
I'm more than willing to engage in respectful discussion. But I'm not willing to enter into discussion with anyone who calls me names, who suggests that I'm not being truthful, or who accuses me of voting for any reason other than my sincere belief that I'm making the best decision possible. To my mind, these individuals don't want discussion, they want to vent their anger in a not very productive way, and I don't see why I should subject myself to their unpleasantness.
Now, I will admit to getting angry and venting, but I do my best to keep it private, with my wife, family, or other close friends. I try to keep my cool in public, and to not respond in kind, because that sort of behaviour doesn't lead to solutions, it leads to problems. When people start calling names, the focus then becomes on the name-calling, not on the actual problem. And Prince Albert is a small town - you never know when you're going to run into a friend or relative of the person that you've insulted - they may not take too kindly to your insults either.
For those who choose to do the insulting publicly, they should remember that behaviour whenever they bemoan the lack of good candidates for any elected office - more than a few people have spoken to me about how they would never run for office, because they wouldn't want to take that sort of abuse.
I often hear talk about how the behaviour of politicians at the provincial or federal level needs to be more respectful and cooperative. I would enlarge the arena for that sort of improvement to include civic politics, and to include all those who take advantage of the opportunity they have to speak at council meetings to share their ideas and opinions - let's all try to remember the old adage about treating others as we like to be treated.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Plato
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Strategic Planning - the Pros and Cons
Council spent all day Friday and most of Saturday in a strategic planning session. This meant two days of meeting with managers of the various departments, getting updates on their activities and plans, discussing various issues and ideas, and getting information about some ongoing problems.
It was a good opportunity to hear from everyone, without the restrictions that we have in a council meeting of having to follow procedures, make motions, call for votes, etc. Just listen, ask questions, and talk about possible solutions. And we weren't expected to show up in suits and ties, which also makes for a more relaxed session.
It probably would have been better if such a session had happened earlier, because right now the major focus is on the upcoming budget, which looks as though it's going to be a tough process, and it really wouldn't be fair to staff to expect them to cost out new initiatives when we're going to have to figure out how to deliver on current commitments without costing residents more than we have to. That didn't stop new initiatives being floated out for comment, but I think that we realize that spending for things that aren't necessities isn't going to be acceptable.
I would have found a council retreat to be even more beneficial. What's the difference? A retreat is more of an opportunity for members of council to share ideas, without being restricted to a preset agenda that deals with each department in turn. My preference would have been to have a council retreat shortly after the election, followed by a strategic planning session. I like to do the big picture thinking first, then get into the more specific details later.
On the whole, it was a good couple of days. There were still questions cut short, because they were in areas where solutions are difficult. To my mind, that doesn't mean that we don't ask the questions - we ask them, and try to figure out the solutions. And if there isn't a readily available solution out there, that shouldn't stop us from developing our own by-laws - we have that ability, but seem to be reluctant to use it. One area that I will continue to press for finding a solution is that of boarded up houses - they are a blight in any neighbourhood where they occur, reduce property values, and are a fire hazard, which costs the whole city. Fortunately, I'm not alone in my concerns in this area, so the topic is sure to be raised until we figure out some options.
On another topic, I thought that I would provide a couple of comments on Mr. Simonite's comment on my last blog. While we obviously have different opinions and interpretations, which I'm not going to get into, and I feel that it's unlikely that he might agree with any explanations that I provide, he did wonder where I got the idea that he or his family wanted to drive the bar in question out of business. I wasn't quoting him or any member of his family; I was quoting another resident from an article in the local paper, who said "We're hoping that someday, Belly Up will go belly up." To me, that sounds like they wish that it would go out of business.
The other point that I will respond to is his allegation that I always vote against the mayor and Councillor Dionne for personal reasons. This is not true. While I agree that I often disagree with other members of council, and we have diametrically opposed viewpoints at times, I have never been one to check the front of the room to see how I should vote, whether for or against. I vote based on my interpretation of the facts, and what I think is the best option for the city. I respect that other members of council may have differing ideas on the same topic, but I wasn't elected just to go along. And interestingly, in the last contentious issue that came to council, the approval of a duplex in the West Hill, the mayor and I voted the same way.
I also don't vote based on how other people think I should vote, whether they are council members or members of the public. To do so would be to cave to peer pressure, in effect, which isn't why I was elected. I can appreciate that there are usually two (or more) sides to any argument; my job is to make the best decision that I can, which is all that any of us can do.
And finally, the Animal Rescue Site has another opportunity to vote for the Prince Albert SPCA, to see if it can get some funding through Petfinder. Just go to http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/, and follow the prompts. When last I checked, we were in 67th place in Canada; I'm confident that we can do better, and wouldn't it be great if we made it to the top!
"You can't base your life on other people's expectations." - Stevie Wonder
It was a good opportunity to hear from everyone, without the restrictions that we have in a council meeting of having to follow procedures, make motions, call for votes, etc. Just listen, ask questions, and talk about possible solutions. And we weren't expected to show up in suits and ties, which also makes for a more relaxed session.
It probably would have been better if such a session had happened earlier, because right now the major focus is on the upcoming budget, which looks as though it's going to be a tough process, and it really wouldn't be fair to staff to expect them to cost out new initiatives when we're going to have to figure out how to deliver on current commitments without costing residents more than we have to. That didn't stop new initiatives being floated out for comment, but I think that we realize that spending for things that aren't necessities isn't going to be acceptable.
I would have found a council retreat to be even more beneficial. What's the difference? A retreat is more of an opportunity for members of council to share ideas, without being restricted to a preset agenda that deals with each department in turn. My preference would have been to have a council retreat shortly after the election, followed by a strategic planning session. I like to do the big picture thinking first, then get into the more specific details later.
On the whole, it was a good couple of days. There were still questions cut short, because they were in areas where solutions are difficult. To my mind, that doesn't mean that we don't ask the questions - we ask them, and try to figure out the solutions. And if there isn't a readily available solution out there, that shouldn't stop us from developing our own by-laws - we have that ability, but seem to be reluctant to use it. One area that I will continue to press for finding a solution is that of boarded up houses - they are a blight in any neighbourhood where they occur, reduce property values, and are a fire hazard, which costs the whole city. Fortunately, I'm not alone in my concerns in this area, so the topic is sure to be raised until we figure out some options.
On another topic, I thought that I would provide a couple of comments on Mr. Simonite's comment on my last blog. While we obviously have different opinions and interpretations, which I'm not going to get into, and I feel that it's unlikely that he might agree with any explanations that I provide, he did wonder where I got the idea that he or his family wanted to drive the bar in question out of business. I wasn't quoting him or any member of his family; I was quoting another resident from an article in the local paper, who said "We're hoping that someday, Belly Up will go belly up." To me, that sounds like they wish that it would go out of business.
The other point that I will respond to is his allegation that I always vote against the mayor and Councillor Dionne for personal reasons. This is not true. While I agree that I often disagree with other members of council, and we have diametrically opposed viewpoints at times, I have never been one to check the front of the room to see how I should vote, whether for or against. I vote based on my interpretation of the facts, and what I think is the best option for the city. I respect that other members of council may have differing ideas on the same topic, but I wasn't elected just to go along. And interestingly, in the last contentious issue that came to council, the approval of a duplex in the West Hill, the mayor and I voted the same way.
I also don't vote based on how other people think I should vote, whether they are council members or members of the public. To do so would be to cave to peer pressure, in effect, which isn't why I was elected. I can appreciate that there are usually two (or more) sides to any argument; my job is to make the best decision that I can, which is all that any of us can do.
And finally, the Animal Rescue Site has another opportunity to vote for the Prince Albert SPCA, to see if it can get some funding through Petfinder. Just go to http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/, and follow the prompts. When last I checked, we were in 67th place in Canada; I'm confident that we can do better, and wouldn't it be great if we made it to the top!
"You can't base your life on other people's expectations." - Stevie Wonder
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Making Decisions Based on Fact, not Emotion
The decision to approve a parking lot for the Belly-Up Bar, with conditions attached, was approved at last week's council meeting. As expected, the decision has not been a popular one with the local residents. I understand that they want a peaceful neighbourhood, and they are concerned that they may be losing this. But I would hope that they would have an appreciation for my perspective, which is that I have to vote according to the legal facts of the situation, as well as the actual evidence that we have.
My vote was based on the following facts:
First, the land in question is zoned commercial, C-2, and has been for many years. The previous council was mis-informed by a member of the city administrative staff, when we were told that it was zoned residential, R-5. Because it is zoned for commercial use, council has no discretion over this decision, and it should never have come to council for a vote. People may be confused, because there was a house on the land, but residential housing has been built on land zoned commercial. Before we lived in our current house, Andrea and I lived in a little house on 13th Street East that was (and is) in a similar situation - the whole block is zoned commercial, but there are residences along the north side of the street, businesses along the south side, although when we first lived there a couple of homes were built in between the businesses on the south side of the street - closer to 6th Avenue East, that is still the case. If you live adjacent to commercial development, this may well be your situation.
Second, the lot in question has not been used as a parking lot, so I'm not sure why residents are so positive that allowing it to be used for parking, especially with the sound and security accommodations that have been proposed by Mr. Tesar, will lead to the dire consequences that they are predicting. A restaurant and lounge are located directly across the street, with a parking lot in the rear, and this doesn't seem to be a problem for residents. To not allow it in this case would be discriminatory.
Third, our requirement of commercial licensees is that their establishment has adequate parking for patrons - Mr. Tesar is trying to comply with this requirement, and is willing to meet additional conditions that other businesses owners have not had to, in an effort to allay the residents' concerns. There doesn't seem to be much appetite from the residents to meet him half-way, which is unfortunate. Quotes from residents indicating that they hope to drive the business to failure indicates that they aren't even interested in looking for a win-win situation.
The arguments that have been made since this decision are based on emotion, not on providing additional factual information. I can't speak for any other member of council, but I have made it my practice of voting according to the facts, not based on emotion, threats, insults, or personal aspersions on my character, none of which help to find solutions.
The last time this came to council, one of my fellow councillors accurately pointed out that we hadn't solved the problem, and it would continue to drag on, which it has. My suggestion at that time was that the city should try to work with Mr. Tesar to find an alternate solution. Wouldn't it be great if we could get someone with his obvious business talents to set up downtown, which desperately needs more development to get people there in the evenings, after the offices have closed and the daytime occupants have left. This would be moving toward a solution that would benefit all parties, plus the city as a whole.
We also need to develop plans for dealing with future potential conflicts, since, as I've indicated, similar residential areas are zoned for commercial use. In the meantime, we need to focus more on finding creative solutions and compromises, not on delaying decisions or making them based on emotions and personalities - that only causes long-term pain, as we are seeing now.
And finally, as a council, let's learn to listen to each other respectfully, and not act as though disagreement is to be taken as an opportunity for questioning each others' commitment, capability, or understanding of the job. Those of us at the table should understand better than anyone how difficult it is to make decisions on these matters, and should appreciate that we're each, in our own individual way, trying to do our best for the city.
"Hating people is like burning down your house to get rid of a rat." - Harry Emerson Fosdick
My vote was based on the following facts:
First, the land in question is zoned commercial, C-2, and has been for many years. The previous council was mis-informed by a member of the city administrative staff, when we were told that it was zoned residential, R-5. Because it is zoned for commercial use, council has no discretion over this decision, and it should never have come to council for a vote. People may be confused, because there was a house on the land, but residential housing has been built on land zoned commercial. Before we lived in our current house, Andrea and I lived in a little house on 13th Street East that was (and is) in a similar situation - the whole block is zoned commercial, but there are residences along the north side of the street, businesses along the south side, although when we first lived there a couple of homes were built in between the businesses on the south side of the street - closer to 6th Avenue East, that is still the case. If you live adjacent to commercial development, this may well be your situation.
Second, the lot in question has not been used as a parking lot, so I'm not sure why residents are so positive that allowing it to be used for parking, especially with the sound and security accommodations that have been proposed by Mr. Tesar, will lead to the dire consequences that they are predicting. A restaurant and lounge are located directly across the street, with a parking lot in the rear, and this doesn't seem to be a problem for residents. To not allow it in this case would be discriminatory.
Third, our requirement of commercial licensees is that their establishment has adequate parking for patrons - Mr. Tesar is trying to comply with this requirement, and is willing to meet additional conditions that other businesses owners have not had to, in an effort to allay the residents' concerns. There doesn't seem to be much appetite from the residents to meet him half-way, which is unfortunate. Quotes from residents indicating that they hope to drive the business to failure indicates that they aren't even interested in looking for a win-win situation.
The arguments that have been made since this decision are based on emotion, not on providing additional factual information. I can't speak for any other member of council, but I have made it my practice of voting according to the facts, not based on emotion, threats, insults, or personal aspersions on my character, none of which help to find solutions.
The last time this came to council, one of my fellow councillors accurately pointed out that we hadn't solved the problem, and it would continue to drag on, which it has. My suggestion at that time was that the city should try to work with Mr. Tesar to find an alternate solution. Wouldn't it be great if we could get someone with his obvious business talents to set up downtown, which desperately needs more development to get people there in the evenings, after the offices have closed and the daytime occupants have left. This would be moving toward a solution that would benefit all parties, plus the city as a whole.
We also need to develop plans for dealing with future potential conflicts, since, as I've indicated, similar residential areas are zoned for commercial use. In the meantime, we need to focus more on finding creative solutions and compromises, not on delaying decisions or making them based on emotions and personalities - that only causes long-term pain, as we are seeing now.
And finally, as a council, let's learn to listen to each other respectfully, and not act as though disagreement is to be taken as an opportunity for questioning each others' commitment, capability, or understanding of the job. Those of us at the table should understand better than anyone how difficult it is to make decisions on these matters, and should appreciate that we're each, in our own individual way, trying to do our best for the city.
"Hating people is like burning down your house to get rid of a rat." - Harry Emerson Fosdick
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Opportunity to Recycle Plastic
Since this past fall, Prince Albert residents have had the opportunity to recycle household plastic. Crown Shred & Recycling has a pilot project for residential recycling, similar to programs that they currently have in Regina and Moose Jaw. As vice-chair of the North Central Waste Management Authority, I figured that I should be setting a good example, so we signed up right away.
There is a nominal cost - $10 per month, which translates to $120 per year, paid in advance. I was quite impressed - the day after signing up on-line, two blue boxes, about 24 by 18 by 18 inches, were delivered to our door. Since we waited for seven years (paying every year via our water bill) for our back alley recycling bin, it was nice to have the service provided as soon as it was paid for. Now, every second Wednesday morning, we carry the bin out to the edge of the yard, and by the end of the day, it has been emptied.
What sorts of things go into the box? Well, at this moment, our bin holds a shower gel bottle, a dish detergent bottle, a courier bag, a milk jug, a parmesan cheese container, several yogurt containers, a cottage cheese container, take-out coffee lids, and a couple of cake and sandwich trays. They weren't all ours - Andrea has taken to bringing plastic home from work or church, to help the cause. The program accepts kitchen, bathroom and laundry room plastics, but not oil or antifreeze containers. If you check the number inside the little recycling symbol, they take anything with a number from 1 to 7.
While ours isn't a huge amount, it has reduced the amount of garbage that goes into the back alley dumpster. And while I realize that the milk jug could go in the communal blue bin in the back, I'm familiar enough with the difficulties that these bins have posed for recycling to know that the contents may end up in the landfill, rather than being recycled.
And that's my main reason for subscribing to this service. I know that using this will help, in a small way, to reduce the amount of material going to the landfill, and thus prolong our ability to use that site. In the long run, if enough people took advantage of this opportunity, we could extend the life of the landfill and reduce the costs that will come when we have to develop a new site.
I know of one conscientious family who live outside the city, where the service is not available. However, they have partnered with someone in the city who lives alone, and share the costs - an ingenious solution that works for them, and illustrates for their children the importance of taking small actions that collectively, will make a difference.
I'm surprised that the city hasn't done more to publicize this opportunity, since it's the city that stands to gain the most benefit. Relatively few homes have signed up for the program - I'm hoping that by the end of this year, enough residents will have decided to take this small step so that the pilot project can become permanent. If you haven't, I encourage you to go to their web-site, http://www.crownshredandrecycling.com/, and see how you can become part of the solution.
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Mahatma Gandhi
There is a nominal cost - $10 per month, which translates to $120 per year, paid in advance. I was quite impressed - the day after signing up on-line, two blue boxes, about 24 by 18 by 18 inches, were delivered to our door. Since we waited for seven years (paying every year via our water bill) for our back alley recycling bin, it was nice to have the service provided as soon as it was paid for. Now, every second Wednesday morning, we carry the bin out to the edge of the yard, and by the end of the day, it has been emptied.
What sorts of things go into the box? Well, at this moment, our bin holds a shower gel bottle, a dish detergent bottle, a courier bag, a milk jug, a parmesan cheese container, several yogurt containers, a cottage cheese container, take-out coffee lids, and a couple of cake and sandwich trays. They weren't all ours - Andrea has taken to bringing plastic home from work or church, to help the cause. The program accepts kitchen, bathroom and laundry room plastics, but not oil or antifreeze containers. If you check the number inside the little recycling symbol, they take anything with a number from 1 to 7.
While ours isn't a huge amount, it has reduced the amount of garbage that goes into the back alley dumpster. And while I realize that the milk jug could go in the communal blue bin in the back, I'm familiar enough with the difficulties that these bins have posed for recycling to know that the contents may end up in the landfill, rather than being recycled.
And that's my main reason for subscribing to this service. I know that using this will help, in a small way, to reduce the amount of material going to the landfill, and thus prolong our ability to use that site. In the long run, if enough people took advantage of this opportunity, we could extend the life of the landfill and reduce the costs that will come when we have to develop a new site.
I know of one conscientious family who live outside the city, where the service is not available. However, they have partnered with someone in the city who lives alone, and share the costs - an ingenious solution that works for them, and illustrates for their children the importance of taking small actions that collectively, will make a difference.
I'm surprised that the city hasn't done more to publicize this opportunity, since it's the city that stands to gain the most benefit. Relatively few homes have signed up for the program - I'm hoping that by the end of this year, enough residents will have decided to take this small step so that the pilot project can become permanent. If you haven't, I encourage you to go to their web-site, http://www.crownshredandrecycling.com/, and see how you can become part of the solution.
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Mahatma Gandhi
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Looking Back, and Looking Ahead
Like many people, I find that as the year comes to an end, I look back at the previous year, noting various landmarks and events, and look ahead, hoping that, since change is inevitable, the changes in my life will be mostly positive.
While the year in review articles in the media tend to focus on events that affect a broad range of society, my year in review tends to be more personal. I think that most people's lives are like that - while we are aware of larger events, it's our own personal landmarks that are the most memorable for us.
Last year marked thirty years in Saskatchewan for Andrea and me. We arrived here in late September 1979, knowing only a couple of people in town (guys that Andrea had been in university with who worked for PAPCo), and certainly not planning to make any kind of permanent attachment to the community. Now, thirty years later, although we'll always be considered people from away by some residents of the city, I think that it's safe to say that we've each made positive contributions, both professionally and personally, to our adopted city and province. I'm amazed when I look at the changes to Prince Albert over the years. It hasn't grown much in size - while it is a few thousand larger than the 30,000 or so that it was then, it hasn't grown as dramatically as some communities in the same time - we came from Toronto, which has grown from 2 million to more than 3 million in the same time frame, and Saskatoon has added more than 100,000 people over this time as well. We need to recognize that Prince Albert will never be one of the mega-population centres of the province -that's okay, we just need to focus on services and infrastructure that are appropriate and affordable for a community this size.
The year also marked some departures of people from my life. On the personal side, the deaths of friends are always difficult, and leave a gap that will never be filled in quite the same way again. I will particularly miss my friends Alice and Bert, whose humour and common sense never failed to cheer me up. On the professional side, I will miss my former colleague Sharon Karr, who was acting director of the library for more than a year, until a job opportunity in Edmonton, closer to family, was too tempting for her to pass up. I regret that the library board was unable to act quickly enough to give her enough reasons to stay. I also miss Lyn Brown, in her capacity as CEO of the local Chamber of Commerce. She had common sense and the courage to speak up, pointing out where the city could do a better job for its business community - sadly, such courage was not always appreciated by those who see any criticism as being treason.
The civic election this year was my fourth (fifth, if I count the by-election in early 2000 that I lost by 50 votes). Being acclaimed was quite unexpected, and much appreciated. Highlights of council work last year, for me, would be the new provisions put in place by council for secondary suites, and the approval of middle income housing developments in the West Hill - these were both initiatives that helped council meet its objectives for improving housing opportunities in the city. I'm pleased that the new members of the housing committee are continuing to ask the same questions that I asked in my time as chair of that committee - hopefully, their persistence will result in continued improvement in this crucial area.
Looking ahead to the next year, I hope, most of all, for continued good health for my family and friends. As always, these are the anchors for everything that I do - in the end, these are the people who I can trust to give me good advice, support me in whatever decisions I make, and help to put things into perspective whenever I start to feel particularly sorry for myself. Public personas are one thing, but it's the way people treat you day in and day out that really counts.
Professionally, this new council will be facing its first major challenge with the development of the budget. I'm hoping that more common sense prevails, and that we take adequate time to discuss and debate the various options open to us, rather than trying to rush things through as though there were some sort of prize for finishing in the shortest amount of time. I hope that when members of council speak, we hear fewer sound bites and odd metaphors, and more easily understandable statements about what we intend to do. I will continue to hope for more respectful treatment of all members of council, and that some members will realize that treating a councillor with disrespect is, in effect, disrespecting the citizens of Prince Albert who have elected that councillor. And I hope that we start to demonstrate that we are what we claim to be - open and accountable, answering questions that are asked, when we say that we will. Let's keep items that should be open to the public on the public agenda, instead of trying to keep issues that might be contentious within our in camera sessions.
On a personal level, next year Andrea and I will celebrate our thirty-fifth anniversary, and our house will reach the century mark. We'll have to find a good way of celebrating both of these milestones.
For us, far from the rest of our extended family, Christmas and New Year's are always quiet celebrations, which suits us just fine. This year was quieter than usual, since Andrea decided to celebrate with a cold, which she then shared with Ingrid and me. But despite the sniffles and sneezes, it was a good family time, with a few gatherings with friends as well. I hope that your holiday featured similar times of quiet enjoyment and appreciation, and that the new year brings good times for all of us.
" There's nothing worth the wear of winning, but laughter and the love of friends." - Hilaire Belloc
While the year in review articles in the media tend to focus on events that affect a broad range of society, my year in review tends to be more personal. I think that most people's lives are like that - while we are aware of larger events, it's our own personal landmarks that are the most memorable for us.
Last year marked thirty years in Saskatchewan for Andrea and me. We arrived here in late September 1979, knowing only a couple of people in town (guys that Andrea had been in university with who worked for PAPCo), and certainly not planning to make any kind of permanent attachment to the community. Now, thirty years later, although we'll always be considered people from away by some residents of the city, I think that it's safe to say that we've each made positive contributions, both professionally and personally, to our adopted city and province. I'm amazed when I look at the changes to Prince Albert over the years. It hasn't grown much in size - while it is a few thousand larger than the 30,000 or so that it was then, it hasn't grown as dramatically as some communities in the same time - we came from Toronto, which has grown from 2 million to more than 3 million in the same time frame, and Saskatoon has added more than 100,000 people over this time as well. We need to recognize that Prince Albert will never be one of the mega-population centres of the province -that's okay, we just need to focus on services and infrastructure that are appropriate and affordable for a community this size.
The year also marked some departures of people from my life. On the personal side, the deaths of friends are always difficult, and leave a gap that will never be filled in quite the same way again. I will particularly miss my friends Alice and Bert, whose humour and common sense never failed to cheer me up. On the professional side, I will miss my former colleague Sharon Karr, who was acting director of the library for more than a year, until a job opportunity in Edmonton, closer to family, was too tempting for her to pass up. I regret that the library board was unable to act quickly enough to give her enough reasons to stay. I also miss Lyn Brown, in her capacity as CEO of the local Chamber of Commerce. She had common sense and the courage to speak up, pointing out where the city could do a better job for its business community - sadly, such courage was not always appreciated by those who see any criticism as being treason.
The civic election this year was my fourth (fifth, if I count the by-election in early 2000 that I lost by 50 votes). Being acclaimed was quite unexpected, and much appreciated. Highlights of council work last year, for me, would be the new provisions put in place by council for secondary suites, and the approval of middle income housing developments in the West Hill - these were both initiatives that helped council meet its objectives for improving housing opportunities in the city. I'm pleased that the new members of the housing committee are continuing to ask the same questions that I asked in my time as chair of that committee - hopefully, their persistence will result in continued improvement in this crucial area.
Looking ahead to the next year, I hope, most of all, for continued good health for my family and friends. As always, these are the anchors for everything that I do - in the end, these are the people who I can trust to give me good advice, support me in whatever decisions I make, and help to put things into perspective whenever I start to feel particularly sorry for myself. Public personas are one thing, but it's the way people treat you day in and day out that really counts.
Professionally, this new council will be facing its first major challenge with the development of the budget. I'm hoping that more common sense prevails, and that we take adequate time to discuss and debate the various options open to us, rather than trying to rush things through as though there were some sort of prize for finishing in the shortest amount of time. I hope that when members of council speak, we hear fewer sound bites and odd metaphors, and more easily understandable statements about what we intend to do. I will continue to hope for more respectful treatment of all members of council, and that some members will realize that treating a councillor with disrespect is, in effect, disrespecting the citizens of Prince Albert who have elected that councillor. And I hope that we start to demonstrate that we are what we claim to be - open and accountable, answering questions that are asked, when we say that we will. Let's keep items that should be open to the public on the public agenda, instead of trying to keep issues that might be contentious within our in camera sessions.
On a personal level, next year Andrea and I will celebrate our thirty-fifth anniversary, and our house will reach the century mark. We'll have to find a good way of celebrating both of these milestones.
For us, far from the rest of our extended family, Christmas and New Year's are always quiet celebrations, which suits us just fine. This year was quieter than usual, since Andrea decided to celebrate with a cold, which she then shared with Ingrid and me. But despite the sniffles and sneezes, it was a good family time, with a few gatherings with friends as well. I hope that your holiday featured similar times of quiet enjoyment and appreciation, and that the new year brings good times for all of us.
" There's nothing worth the wear of winning, but laughter and the love of friends." - Hilaire Belloc
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Committee Appointments - Once Again, Openness and Accountability Come Up Short
At council meeting this past Monday evening, committee appointments were ratified. These are committees appointed by council, at least, according to The Cities Act, they're supposed to be. One would think that, as such, council as a whole would discuss who is to be appointed to which committee, both council members and members of the public. After all, decisions of council should be made by council, not by a single member.
Under different councils, decisions about which council member sits on which committee have been made in different ways. Probably the most open was the year that the different committees were written on ping pong balls, then drawn out of a box. That ensured turnover on committees, gave everyone exposure to different experiences, evened up the workload somewhat, and removed any suggestion that council appointments are some sort of favour to be bestowed on those who have found favour with the decision makers. In other years, at the very least, council had the opportunity to have a full discussion, as a group, before decisions were ratified. In this way, we had the rationale for which committees we were on, as well as the rationale for decisions about public members.
This is no longer the case. The list of who is on which committee, both council and public members, came out of the mayor's office, and council ratified it without discussion. I have no reason why I was removed from two committees of which I was chair (Library and Housing), why I remain on other committees (Saskatoon Airport Authority, North Central Saskatchewan Transportation Planning Committee, the North Central Waste Management Committee, the Joint School Board Committee), or why I was placed on other committees (District Planning Commission, the Heritage Building Committee). I was placed on the Enterprise Zone Committee and the Peter Ballantyne/City Joint Committee, but declined to be on those committees, because they have never met, nor has council referred anything to them. I don't see the need for agreeing to put my name on a membership list for non-functional committees - it's not like I'm interested in padding my resume.
So that's only six committees - not much, compared to the workload some other councillors have been given. In some cases, I'm surprised, since some councillors' attendance at certain committees has been abysmal, and yet they've been appointed to still more committees. However, if you're one of those who see council appointments as plums handed out in return for favours, and some committees as having higher profile than others, and you're interested in furthering your political career, it might make sense from that perspective. However, we shouldn't be approaching our jobs that way - we should be working on the job at hand, not trying to put ourselves in a favourable light for future jobs or future elections.
And, as is so often the case, the process was flawed. Even though it was apparently all right to everyone else on council, that doesn't make it right. Handing over responsibility to one individual to make all the decisions makes a mockery of why we bother electing, and paying, more than one council member. Perhaps some might feel that the result will be inevitable, so why not just go along. The last time I checked, our oath of office didn't include anything about just going along. Perhaps fear of the repercussions of standing up and objecting is top of people's minds. I can sympathize with that - it isn't pleasant to be treated as a second-class member of a council that one is elected to. But acquiescing out of fear isn't the answer either - it's like dealing with the bully who threatens you in the school yard, but then turns on another kid. If you don't stand up with that other kid, because you hope that the bully will now leave you alone, you're sending a message to the bully that he can have his own way, all the time. We've all been elected to do a job, and not doing parts of it because it's easier this way, shouldn't be an option.
As I've mentioned before, the city has sixty-some committees and subcommittees, many of which have vague reasons for existence, some of which never meet. It might have been a better use of council's time if we had decided which committees are needed, which ones various council members had interest in, and moved on from there. We could have discussed rotating some responsibilities (after nine years on the library board, I can see that some might think that I need a change, although I enjoyed working with the library staff, and will miss working with the new director, who I had encouraged to apply for the job), we could have discussed council members' interests, and shared some of the less glamourous (in some people's minds), appointments. We could have discussed not reappointing some members of the public to committees when they have never attended a committee meeting.
But it didn't happen that way. And everyone but me seemed to be okay with that, for whatever their reasons were.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
Under different councils, decisions about which council member sits on which committee have been made in different ways. Probably the most open was the year that the different committees were written on ping pong balls, then drawn out of a box. That ensured turnover on committees, gave everyone exposure to different experiences, evened up the workload somewhat, and removed any suggestion that council appointments are some sort of favour to be bestowed on those who have found favour with the decision makers. In other years, at the very least, council had the opportunity to have a full discussion, as a group, before decisions were ratified. In this way, we had the rationale for which committees we were on, as well as the rationale for decisions about public members.
This is no longer the case. The list of who is on which committee, both council and public members, came out of the mayor's office, and council ratified it without discussion. I have no reason why I was removed from two committees of which I was chair (Library and Housing), why I remain on other committees (Saskatoon Airport Authority, North Central Saskatchewan Transportation Planning Committee, the North Central Waste Management Committee, the Joint School Board Committee), or why I was placed on other committees (District Planning Commission, the Heritage Building Committee). I was placed on the Enterprise Zone Committee and the Peter Ballantyne/City Joint Committee, but declined to be on those committees, because they have never met, nor has council referred anything to them. I don't see the need for agreeing to put my name on a membership list for non-functional committees - it's not like I'm interested in padding my resume.
So that's only six committees - not much, compared to the workload some other councillors have been given. In some cases, I'm surprised, since some councillors' attendance at certain committees has been abysmal, and yet they've been appointed to still more committees. However, if you're one of those who see council appointments as plums handed out in return for favours, and some committees as having higher profile than others, and you're interested in furthering your political career, it might make sense from that perspective. However, we shouldn't be approaching our jobs that way - we should be working on the job at hand, not trying to put ourselves in a favourable light for future jobs or future elections.
And, as is so often the case, the process was flawed. Even though it was apparently all right to everyone else on council, that doesn't make it right. Handing over responsibility to one individual to make all the decisions makes a mockery of why we bother electing, and paying, more than one council member. Perhaps some might feel that the result will be inevitable, so why not just go along. The last time I checked, our oath of office didn't include anything about just going along. Perhaps fear of the repercussions of standing up and objecting is top of people's minds. I can sympathize with that - it isn't pleasant to be treated as a second-class member of a council that one is elected to. But acquiescing out of fear isn't the answer either - it's like dealing with the bully who threatens you in the school yard, but then turns on another kid. If you don't stand up with that other kid, because you hope that the bully will now leave you alone, you're sending a message to the bully that he can have his own way, all the time. We've all been elected to do a job, and not doing parts of it because it's easier this way, shouldn't be an option.
As I've mentioned before, the city has sixty-some committees and subcommittees, many of which have vague reasons for existence, some of which never meet. It might have been a better use of council's time if we had decided which committees are needed, which ones various council members had interest in, and moved on from there. We could have discussed rotating some responsibilities (after nine years on the library board, I can see that some might think that I need a change, although I enjoyed working with the library staff, and will miss working with the new director, who I had encouraged to apply for the job), we could have discussed council members' interests, and shared some of the less glamourous (in some people's minds), appointments. We could have discussed not reappointing some members of the public to committees when they have never attended a committee meeting.
But it didn't happen that way. And everyone but me seemed to be okay with that, for whatever their reasons were.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
