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
Thursday, December 31, 2009
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
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Quest for Coherent Logic
Sometimes, I come out of a council meeting wondering if I've mysteriously lost my ability to speak English - perhaps there's some kind of encoding that happens between my utterance and when it makes its way across council chambers. Perhaps that open space in the centre is a Bermuda Triangle for ideas. I certainly felt that way at last Monday's council meeting, after my motion to have a report prepared, as well as a draft bylaw, on the feasibility of a cat licensing system in the city was defeated.
I don't expect that everyone on council agrees with the need for such a bylaw, but I did think that the logical next step would be to have a report outlining the options, to provide the necessary information that council would need before moving forward with a bylaw. However, the reasons given by some council members defied logic - the statement was made that we don't want to commit ourselves to a bylaw. Perhaps a review of the difference between having a report prepared (provision of information), versus voting on a bylaw (making the final decision) is required for some councillors. Until a bylaw is actually given three readings, it has not been passed, and council has not committed itself to anything.
Another councillor said that he felt that the current bylaw needs to be reviewed and updated, but he felt that we should have a report first. This is when I started worrying about whether I had lost the power of understandable speech - that was the first part of my recommendation, and if that was the only part of the recommendation that could be supported, then the councillor could have asked for an amendment that he could support.
So my recommendation was defeated, although not totally without support. If there were logical reasons for not supporting this (if, for example, one felt that the current situation was fine, that there is no need to find additional ways of funding the SPCA, that sort of reason), I could understand that. But with the reasons that were given, one might wonder if the actual motive was to not support a suggestion of a particular member of council, possibly for personal reasons.
Now, one wouldn't want to believe that - not from a council less than a month old, which had members at the first meeting talk about the need for greater cooperation and working together. Surely those weren't just words said for show, without any intention of following those words up with actions that would demonstrate commitment to those ideas. A member of council has to put aside personal feelings in doing what is best for the city, otherwise we wouldn't be doing our jobs and upholding our oath of office. We owe each other the respect of listening to everyone's ideas, and figuring out how we can make change work, otherwise we're not respecting the people who elected us to do those very things.
Since we won't have licensing fees to help the SPCA anytime soon, remember to go to http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/, and vote for the Prince Albert SPCA. We've gone from eighty-something place in Canada when I first posted about this opportunity, reached as high as twenty-third place, but have now slipped to twenty-fifth. You can vote once a day until December 20th.
No council or executive meeting this week - I'm not sure why. We have many things to talk about, from the finally released second bridge report, to the new committee recommendations, to the ever-changing numbers for soccer centre operational costs. But we won't be starting any of those discussions until December 7, our next Executive Meeting. Unless, of course, it's decided that we need a special meeting before then.
"What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I don't expect that everyone on council agrees with the need for such a bylaw, but I did think that the logical next step would be to have a report outlining the options, to provide the necessary information that council would need before moving forward with a bylaw. However, the reasons given by some council members defied logic - the statement was made that we don't want to commit ourselves to a bylaw. Perhaps a review of the difference between having a report prepared (provision of information), versus voting on a bylaw (making the final decision) is required for some councillors. Until a bylaw is actually given three readings, it has not been passed, and council has not committed itself to anything.
Another councillor said that he felt that the current bylaw needs to be reviewed and updated, but he felt that we should have a report first. This is when I started worrying about whether I had lost the power of understandable speech - that was the first part of my recommendation, and if that was the only part of the recommendation that could be supported, then the councillor could have asked for an amendment that he could support.
So my recommendation was defeated, although not totally without support. If there were logical reasons for not supporting this (if, for example, one felt that the current situation was fine, that there is no need to find additional ways of funding the SPCA, that sort of reason), I could understand that. But with the reasons that were given, one might wonder if the actual motive was to not support a suggestion of a particular member of council, possibly for personal reasons.
Now, one wouldn't want to believe that - not from a council less than a month old, which had members at the first meeting talk about the need for greater cooperation and working together. Surely those weren't just words said for show, without any intention of following those words up with actions that would demonstrate commitment to those ideas. A member of council has to put aside personal feelings in doing what is best for the city, otherwise we wouldn't be doing our jobs and upholding our oath of office. We owe each other the respect of listening to everyone's ideas, and figuring out how we can make change work, otherwise we're not respecting the people who elected us to do those very things.
Since we won't have licensing fees to help the SPCA anytime soon, remember to go to http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/, and vote for the Prince Albert SPCA. We've gone from eighty-something place in Canada when I first posted about this opportunity, reached as high as twenty-third place, but have now slipped to twenty-fifth. You can vote once a day until December 20th.
No council or executive meeting this week - I'm not sure why. We have many things to talk about, from the finally released second bridge report, to the new committee recommendations, to the ever-changing numbers for soccer centre operational costs. But we won't be starting any of those discussions until December 7, our next Executive Meeting. Unless, of course, it's decided that we need a special meeting before then.
"What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Cat Question
At the first council meeting of this new council, I announced my intention to look into the feasibility of a cat licensing bylaw. This has provoked a bit of reaction - the local paper ran an electronic poll, asking if people would be in favour of this (a small majority appear to be), and a number of people, ranging from Andrea's co-workers to our vet, have commented on it.
I do not hate cats, as some have suggested. I'm not particularly fond of them, either. I'm actually allergic to them. However, I am part of a family that is made up of cat people, which is why we have them as pets.
I recognize the value that cats (and dogs) bring to a family - they provide companionship, affection, and a non-judgemental ear. And while there are those who claim that cats are less attached to individuals than dogs, there is no denying that Hendrix recognizes Guthrie's step when he comes home from work, and runs to greet him.
I'm sure that most pet owners do their best to be responsible, recognizing that having a pet is a responsibility, not a right. And, like many things, it's the irresponsible few that cause problems for the rest of us. Too many people look on pets as being somewhat disposable, and can't be bothered with the basics of pet ownership, like spaying and neutering, which is why the SPCA is forced to take drastic measures, like the current offering of free adoption of cats, to try to reduce the current volume.
All of the cats in our home are the result of irresponsible pet owners. Hendrix, adopted from the SPCA four years ago, was one of a litter of kittens that was trapped by the animal control officer. He was extremely withdrawn in the first few weeks with us, staying completely within Guthrie's room. It was only after a couple of months that he ventured into the rest of the house - surprisingly, now he's probably the cuddliest of the cats.
Hunter was a stray who showed up on our doorstep three years ago, a half-grown kitten with a tremendous purr. He hung about the yard for a day or so before Andrea brought him in after he almost was hit by a car. We assume that he was abandoned by someone who moved out of the neighbourhood.
Two years ago Guthrie brought Gracie home - she was from a home where they don't believe in spaying or neutering, so usually have litters of kittens about. And most recently, we've been found by Maggie, a stray who hung about the yard all summer, usually running off whenever one of us got too close. She got very friendly when the cold weather came, and now is living in our basement - a long-haired tortoiseshell whose owners cared enough to have her spayed (the vet estimates that she's three or four years old), but who seem to have left her behind when they moved. We were going to take her to the SPCA, but realize their capacity issues right now, and Guthrie was worried that, because of her age, she was unlikely to be adopted. If you know anyone in the midtown area who's missing such a cat, give us a call.
So, how would a licensing bylaw help in controlling the cat situation? My initial thought that it would be a way of increasing revenues to the SPCA, an organization that survives because of the dedication of its staff and volunteers. Requiring that cats be licensed also might help to return cats that have wandered away from home, particularly if, as part of the licensing process, the cat could be microchipped. That might even be a way of providing owners with a tangible benefit of getting a licence.
Saskatoon has had a cat licensing bylaw for a few years - we could review their bylaw, and get a sense of how it's working. I've spoken with the guys at bylaw enforcement - they agree that our pet bylaws need review, and that now is as good a time as any. For instance, we do have a bylaw that limits cat ownership to six, and requires that all cats over six months of age be spayed or neutered unless the owner has a breeding licence. However, our lack of a licensing requirement means that we have no way of knowing where the cats are, or enforcing whether they are able to breed.
People need to become more aware that cats (or any pets) aren't disposable - that there are basic needs that need to be met. If the small cost of getting a licence discourages people from getting a cat - good. That is the smallest cost of pet ownership. And if it provides more funds for the SPCA, and reduces the number of cats who have to be put to sleep because their owner can't be found, all the better.
Next to recycling bins and parking woes, I probably get the most phone calls and complaints about cats, and how to control them. I'm not saying that licensing cats will solve all of these problems, but I think that it's a possible solution that is worth investigating.
"The problem with a kitten is that, eventually it becomes a cat." - Ogden Nash
I do not hate cats, as some have suggested. I'm not particularly fond of them, either. I'm actually allergic to them. However, I am part of a family that is made up of cat people, which is why we have them as pets.
I recognize the value that cats (and dogs) bring to a family - they provide companionship, affection, and a non-judgemental ear. And while there are those who claim that cats are less attached to individuals than dogs, there is no denying that Hendrix recognizes Guthrie's step when he comes home from work, and runs to greet him.
I'm sure that most pet owners do their best to be responsible, recognizing that having a pet is a responsibility, not a right. And, like many things, it's the irresponsible few that cause problems for the rest of us. Too many people look on pets as being somewhat disposable, and can't be bothered with the basics of pet ownership, like spaying and neutering, which is why the SPCA is forced to take drastic measures, like the current offering of free adoption of cats, to try to reduce the current volume.
All of the cats in our home are the result of irresponsible pet owners. Hendrix, adopted from the SPCA four years ago, was one of a litter of kittens that was trapped by the animal control officer. He was extremely withdrawn in the first few weeks with us, staying completely within Guthrie's room. It was only after a couple of months that he ventured into the rest of the house - surprisingly, now he's probably the cuddliest of the cats.
Hunter was a stray who showed up on our doorstep three years ago, a half-grown kitten with a tremendous purr. He hung about the yard for a day or so before Andrea brought him in after he almost was hit by a car. We assume that he was abandoned by someone who moved out of the neighbourhood.
Two years ago Guthrie brought Gracie home - she was from a home where they don't believe in spaying or neutering, so usually have litters of kittens about. And most recently, we've been found by Maggie, a stray who hung about the yard all summer, usually running off whenever one of us got too close. She got very friendly when the cold weather came, and now is living in our basement - a long-haired tortoiseshell whose owners cared enough to have her spayed (the vet estimates that she's three or four years old), but who seem to have left her behind when they moved. We were going to take her to the SPCA, but realize their capacity issues right now, and Guthrie was worried that, because of her age, she was unlikely to be adopted. If you know anyone in the midtown area who's missing such a cat, give us a call.
So, how would a licensing bylaw help in controlling the cat situation? My initial thought that it would be a way of increasing revenues to the SPCA, an organization that survives because of the dedication of its staff and volunteers. Requiring that cats be licensed also might help to return cats that have wandered away from home, particularly if, as part of the licensing process, the cat could be microchipped. That might even be a way of providing owners with a tangible benefit of getting a licence.
Saskatoon has had a cat licensing bylaw for a few years - we could review their bylaw, and get a sense of how it's working. I've spoken with the guys at bylaw enforcement - they agree that our pet bylaws need review, and that now is as good a time as any. For instance, we do have a bylaw that limits cat ownership to six, and requires that all cats over six months of age be spayed or neutered unless the owner has a breeding licence. However, our lack of a licensing requirement means that we have no way of knowing where the cats are, or enforcing whether they are able to breed.
People need to become more aware that cats (or any pets) aren't disposable - that there are basic needs that need to be met. If the small cost of getting a licence discourages people from getting a cat - good. That is the smallest cost of pet ownership. And if it provides more funds for the SPCA, and reduces the number of cats who have to be put to sleep because their owner can't be found, all the better.
Next to recycling bins and parking woes, I probably get the most phone calls and complaints about cats, and how to control them. I'm not saying that licensing cats will solve all of these problems, but I think that it's a possible solution that is worth investigating.
"The problem with a kitten is that, eventually it becomes a cat." - Ogden Nash
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
And We Begin Again
Monday evening was the first meeting of this new council. As is usual for the first meeting, the bulk of it is taken up with the swearing in ceremony, and the actual meeting agenda is quite light. And between the ceremony and the actual meeting, we break for fifteen minutes or so for the family and friends in attendance to take pictures and offer congratulations. Then most of the crowd leaves, and we take care of mostly administrative details, like who's going to be deputy mayor when.
Every councillor gets about six weeks of deputy mayor duty, which mostly means chairing the Committee of the Whole section of the council meeting. In the past, we've usually gone in alphabetical order, but sometimes trades happen, because someone is going to be away on extended holiday during their proposed term. Usually the schedule is discussed ahead of the meeting; this didn't happen this time, which led to amendments on the spot, as Councillor Dionne and I traded spots to deal with his planned holidays (we had discussed this before the meeting), then Councillor Martin Ring asked to trade with Councillor Zurakowski for the same reason. If nothing else, this highlighted the importance of council matters being discussed by council as a whole, rather than decisions being made without participants' input.
So far I feel good about this new council. The new council members all seem prepared to work hard for the betterment of the city as a whole, and to understand that, until the whole city is considered a good place to live, we haven't finished the job.
We had an orientation meeting the Monday before the first meeting. At this meeting we were also informed that there would be more meetings during the week, and a bus tour of city facilities on Saturday morning. The lack of notice and my previous commitments to other organizations and family meant that I wasn't able to take advantage of those opportunities. While I'm quite familiar with city staff and most facilities, I would have appreciated being able to spend some time with my new colleagues. However, we do have the next three years of working together, and hopefully there will be more advance notice of meetings - most councillors have busy lives that have just gotten busier, and that needs to be recognized.
I will miss having Councillor Williams to bounce ideas off, and to have open and honest discussions with about city problems. For the past couple of years he's had to commute from out-of-town work opportunities to get to council meetings, and I don't think that other members of council fully appreciated the extra effort and costs that this entailed, nor was there ever any effort made to accommodate his rather special circumstances. Shawn represented the people of his ward well, he wasn't afraid to speak up for what he believed was right, and he refused to be bullied - not always an easy thing to do.
But I'm hopeful that the members of this new council will also remember their constituents and speak up for what they believe is right - if enough of us do that, we should be able to make positive changes to the city over the next three years.
"No man is wise enough by himself." - Plautus
Every councillor gets about six weeks of deputy mayor duty, which mostly means chairing the Committee of the Whole section of the council meeting. In the past, we've usually gone in alphabetical order, but sometimes trades happen, because someone is going to be away on extended holiday during their proposed term. Usually the schedule is discussed ahead of the meeting; this didn't happen this time, which led to amendments on the spot, as Councillor Dionne and I traded spots to deal with his planned holidays (we had discussed this before the meeting), then Councillor Martin Ring asked to trade with Councillor Zurakowski for the same reason. If nothing else, this highlighted the importance of council matters being discussed by council as a whole, rather than decisions being made without participants' input.
So far I feel good about this new council. The new council members all seem prepared to work hard for the betterment of the city as a whole, and to understand that, until the whole city is considered a good place to live, we haven't finished the job.
We had an orientation meeting the Monday before the first meeting. At this meeting we were also informed that there would be more meetings during the week, and a bus tour of city facilities on Saturday morning. The lack of notice and my previous commitments to other organizations and family meant that I wasn't able to take advantage of those opportunities. While I'm quite familiar with city staff and most facilities, I would have appreciated being able to spend some time with my new colleagues. However, we do have the next three years of working together, and hopefully there will be more advance notice of meetings - most councillors have busy lives that have just gotten busier, and that needs to be recognized.
I will miss having Councillor Williams to bounce ideas off, and to have open and honest discussions with about city problems. For the past couple of years he's had to commute from out-of-town work opportunities to get to council meetings, and I don't think that other members of council fully appreciated the extra effort and costs that this entailed, nor was there ever any effort made to accommodate his rather special circumstances. Shawn represented the people of his ward well, he wasn't afraid to speak up for what he believed was right, and he refused to be bullied - not always an easy thing to do.
But I'm hopeful that the members of this new council will also remember their constituents and speak up for what they believe is right - if enough of us do that, we should be able to make positive changes to the city over the next three years.
"No man is wise enough by himself." - Plautus
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Some Post-Election Thoughts
The election is over, and we have a new council. Changes to four of the nine seats, which might change the dynamics. And three of the new councillors are women, which will provide some long-needed gender diversity to what is often termed as an old boys' club. I think that an election that results in significant new blood, while maintaining some veterans is a good thing - you end up with a good mix of experience and new perspectives, which is healthy for any organization.
If all members of council are wise, they will pay attention to the issues that were raised during the election. I heard a lot of questions about our increasing debt load, deteriorating infrastructure, the new bridge, and the lack of openness of council. We need to do what we can to answer those questions and change our behaviours, quickly.
Those of us fortunate to be returning shouldn't take our re-election as blanket endorsement of our actions over the last term - the significant number of votes that were directed towards an individual with no council experience, and with relatively little life experience, told me that there were people out there who wanted to plant a vote somewhere, but who weren't willing to select either of the experienced options, no doubt remembering Jerry Garcia's line that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. And those of us who were fortunate enough to be acclaimed need to be aware that it might not have been the right time or place for potential challengers - it doesn't mean that everyone in our wards agrees with everything we have done over the past three years.
And we can't ignore the fact that most eligible voters in Prince Albert chose not to vote. I don't know what the answer to voter apathy is - I suspect that it isn't one single answer, but several. Four acclamations may be seen as having reduced the reason for voting in half the city, but I don't think that that's the only reason for the low turnout.
I don't think that it's that getting to the polls is particularly difficult. Electronic voting may be worth investigating, or setting up more polls, but honestly, people had several days to find a few minutes to exercise their right, and many didn't. In Saskatoon, advance polls were set up in malls, and their turnout was also pretty pathetic.
Perhaps part of it is that people didn't like their choices, that there wasn't someone particularly inspiring to vote for. Not every election can feature a Barack Obama, who can ignite crowds with energy and a sense of being part of positive change. That doesn't change the responsibility of the individual to study the issues, make a choice, and vote. Actually, you don't even have to study the issues - the only questions that you're asked as you register have to do with where you live, and for how long. In fact, we had a brief moment of levity when we went to vote, when Guthrie turned to Andrea (who had finished casting her ballot) to ask which school board he was voting for - knowing nothing about it didn't stop him from voting (although he did recognize some of the names on the ballot, apparently).
I think that a large part of voter apathy comes from the feeling from many people that, no matter who they vote for, once the election is over, their concerns will be forgotten, so why bother. That's important for each member of council to remember - getting elected is one thing. Being an effective member of council, truly representing and standing up for your constituents, even the ones who may not have voted for you, is a whole new game. But that's the game we're into now.
Perhaps if we all do our jobs well over the next three years, the next election will generate interest, excitement, and the sense that getting involved in leading the city is a worthwhile endeavour. More candidates, more interest, more clearly discussed issues and options, should result in more likely engagement of voters.
To the new faces around the table - welcome. Don't forget the people who elected you, who are now trusting you to represent them. They are now your bosses, and will have the opportunity to fire you in three years if they feel ignored. Treat your vote at council as a trust that shouldn't be violated, and don't let others around the table try to influence you in doing anything but following your own conscience when you vote. Learn the actual rules of the game, and don't hesitate to follow them, even if others at the table get a tad cranky. The democratic process has evolved over time in the way that it has for good reasons; it can serve us well if we remember that.
November 8 will be the first meeting of this new council - I'm looking forward to my fourth term. And don't worry - I won't be agreeing to the third reading in the same meeting if I think that further discussion and public input is required.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill
If all members of council are wise, they will pay attention to the issues that were raised during the election. I heard a lot of questions about our increasing debt load, deteriorating infrastructure, the new bridge, and the lack of openness of council. We need to do what we can to answer those questions and change our behaviours, quickly.
Those of us fortunate to be returning shouldn't take our re-election as blanket endorsement of our actions over the last term - the significant number of votes that were directed towards an individual with no council experience, and with relatively little life experience, told me that there were people out there who wanted to plant a vote somewhere, but who weren't willing to select either of the experienced options, no doubt remembering Jerry Garcia's line that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. And those of us who were fortunate enough to be acclaimed need to be aware that it might not have been the right time or place for potential challengers - it doesn't mean that everyone in our wards agrees with everything we have done over the past three years.
And we can't ignore the fact that most eligible voters in Prince Albert chose not to vote. I don't know what the answer to voter apathy is - I suspect that it isn't one single answer, but several. Four acclamations may be seen as having reduced the reason for voting in half the city, but I don't think that that's the only reason for the low turnout.
I don't think that it's that getting to the polls is particularly difficult. Electronic voting may be worth investigating, or setting up more polls, but honestly, people had several days to find a few minutes to exercise their right, and many didn't. In Saskatoon, advance polls were set up in malls, and their turnout was also pretty pathetic.
Perhaps part of it is that people didn't like their choices, that there wasn't someone particularly inspiring to vote for. Not every election can feature a Barack Obama, who can ignite crowds with energy and a sense of being part of positive change. That doesn't change the responsibility of the individual to study the issues, make a choice, and vote. Actually, you don't even have to study the issues - the only questions that you're asked as you register have to do with where you live, and for how long. In fact, we had a brief moment of levity when we went to vote, when Guthrie turned to Andrea (who had finished casting her ballot) to ask which school board he was voting for - knowing nothing about it didn't stop him from voting (although he did recognize some of the names on the ballot, apparently).
I think that a large part of voter apathy comes from the feeling from many people that, no matter who they vote for, once the election is over, their concerns will be forgotten, so why bother. That's important for each member of council to remember - getting elected is one thing. Being an effective member of council, truly representing and standing up for your constituents, even the ones who may not have voted for you, is a whole new game. But that's the game we're into now.
Perhaps if we all do our jobs well over the next three years, the next election will generate interest, excitement, and the sense that getting involved in leading the city is a worthwhile endeavour. More candidates, more interest, more clearly discussed issues and options, should result in more likely engagement of voters.
To the new faces around the table - welcome. Don't forget the people who elected you, who are now trusting you to represent them. They are now your bosses, and will have the opportunity to fire you in three years if they feel ignored. Treat your vote at council as a trust that shouldn't be violated, and don't let others around the table try to influence you in doing anything but following your own conscience when you vote. Learn the actual rules of the game, and don't hesitate to follow them, even if others at the table get a tad cranky. The democratic process has evolved over time in the way that it has for good reasons; it can serve us well if we remember that.
November 8 will be the first meeting of this new council - I'm looking forward to my fourth term. And don't worry - I won't be agreeing to the third reading in the same meeting if I think that further discussion and public input is required.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Don't Believe Everything You Hear on the Campaign Trail
A couple of elections ago, I got a phone call from a Ward Three resident. Apparently, one of the councillor candidates, who didn't live in the ward, was doing some door-knocking, and when one resident asked why he was running in the ward if he didn't live there, responded that Lee Atkinson didn't live in the ward either. That resident then gave me a call to find out if I'd moved. I assured him that I hadn't; he assured me that I still had his support, then scoffed at the other guy, who was now guaranteed not to get this guy's vote ever, for anything, because not only did he not live in the ward, but he was also a liar.
I've never believed in campaigning by trying to convince people of the other candidates' weaknesses - I believe that it's best to focus on why I think I have the skills and experiences that will make me a good councillor, and not worry too much about the competition. But to resort to mis-statements about other people to try to build yourself up - well, if you lie about the little things, how can you be trusted on the bigger things?
So I was somewhat concerned at the mayoral debate, to hear several statements made as if they were true, when they are not. When the statement was made that the previous council had fired every senior manager or given them early retirement, I turned to the former councillor sitting next to me, and asked him who we had fired. Nobody, he said. Some senior staff had left for other jobs - that has happened with this council as well. We had also done some organizational restructuring, and some staff had taken early retirement in that process. And some senior staff who were there then are still around.
Statements were also made that the consultant's report on the new bridge was flawed. Apparently the flaw was that the completion of the report took so long because so many changes were requested, that there wasn't enough money left in the budget for the consultants to present the report to council. So the flaws aren't in the report, but in the lack of a presentation, caused because members of this council weren't happy with the first answer that was provided.
Further strange statements have been made since - for example, the soccer centre project isn't over budget. Well, maybe not over the budget after it was adjusted this year, when an additional two years of taxpayers' contributions have been added, just for the construction costs. Originally, your involuntary contributions were to end in 2013 - you'll now be paying until 2015. To me, that means that it's over the original budget.
An even stranger statement was made concerning the operating costs for the centre: apparently, the city manager announced publicly that operating costs for the centre will be $225,000 per year. You may be wondering how you missed that announcement. That's because it was part of an in camera report to council, not a public announcement. In camera means not public, which is allowed for a range of reasons under The Cities Act. In the past, when information provided in camera has been made public, some members of council have been outraged, and suggested that investigations be made to find out who breached council confidentiality. I guess that the investigation won't have to go too far to find the leak this time.
Confidential or not, it's public now, and we don't know what is included in those costs - do they include staffing costs, maintenance, power and electricity? If you remember that the city contributes $300,000 each year to the operation of the Rawlinson Centre (which underestimated its original utility costs by $120,000, which the city has had to make up), and that the Art Hauser Centre had an operating deficit last year of $600,000, then $250,000 probably seems suspiciously low.
Another question was asked about increases to city staffing, with the answer given that staffing levels haven't increased. I'm amazed, because when I've asked for staffing levels, I've been told that they can't provide me with a number, because it's too difficult, since some jobs are part time, some are casual, some are seasonal, and so forth. I find that hard to believe. I also know that there are now two administrative support staff in the mayor's office, where before there was only one, and that there has been a new social development manager position created and filled with a new staff person, with associated new support staff. Unless this council has fired a number of people, I have to believe that those are more positions that taxpayers are supporting. And there were also several seasonal positions associated with Neat and Clean in the first year - those were new too.
There has also been much emphasis made about this year's 0% tax increase. Let's remember that that was this year - the previous two years each featured 6% tax increases. So over the term of this council, your taxes went up 12%, or an average 4% a year. And that doesn't include the ongoing increases to your water rates - 8% compounding every year until 2013. That, of course, is for residential users. Commercial user rates remain the same. Technically, it's not a tax increase. Neither is the increase in sanitation charges that you're now paying. But these are increased costs for living in this city, brought to you by this council.
In my dealings with people, I've found that they can be quite understanding of mistakes that you may make, but they really hate it if you try to deny your mistakes, if you try to cover things up, if you try to blame other people when you should have known better. Nobody's perfect, and we shouldn't be afraid to admit that.
It basically comes down to trying to maintain an image, or being able to demonstrate the substance behind the image. I hope that in this election, people look behind the image, and make their decision based on substance.
If you've already voted at an advance poll, great. If you haven't, please remember to vote on Wednesday. People often feel that a single vote doesn't count - tell that to the village in Newfoundland, where their recent election was determined by drawing a name out of a hat, after the polls ended in a tie. Here in PA, my first win was by 34 votes; other wards have been witness to margins of 10 votes or less. And of course, if you don't vote, you've given up your right to complain about civic government for the next three years.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln
I've never believed in campaigning by trying to convince people of the other candidates' weaknesses - I believe that it's best to focus on why I think I have the skills and experiences that will make me a good councillor, and not worry too much about the competition. But to resort to mis-statements about other people to try to build yourself up - well, if you lie about the little things, how can you be trusted on the bigger things?
So I was somewhat concerned at the mayoral debate, to hear several statements made as if they were true, when they are not. When the statement was made that the previous council had fired every senior manager or given them early retirement, I turned to the former councillor sitting next to me, and asked him who we had fired. Nobody, he said. Some senior staff had left for other jobs - that has happened with this council as well. We had also done some organizational restructuring, and some staff had taken early retirement in that process. And some senior staff who were there then are still around.
Statements were also made that the consultant's report on the new bridge was flawed. Apparently the flaw was that the completion of the report took so long because so many changes were requested, that there wasn't enough money left in the budget for the consultants to present the report to council. So the flaws aren't in the report, but in the lack of a presentation, caused because members of this council weren't happy with the first answer that was provided.
Further strange statements have been made since - for example, the soccer centre project isn't over budget. Well, maybe not over the budget after it was adjusted this year, when an additional two years of taxpayers' contributions have been added, just for the construction costs. Originally, your involuntary contributions were to end in 2013 - you'll now be paying until 2015. To me, that means that it's over the original budget.
An even stranger statement was made concerning the operating costs for the centre: apparently, the city manager announced publicly that operating costs for the centre will be $225,000 per year. You may be wondering how you missed that announcement. That's because it was part of an in camera report to council, not a public announcement. In camera means not public, which is allowed for a range of reasons under The Cities Act. In the past, when information provided in camera has been made public, some members of council have been outraged, and suggested that investigations be made to find out who breached council confidentiality. I guess that the investigation won't have to go too far to find the leak this time.
Confidential or not, it's public now, and we don't know what is included in those costs - do they include staffing costs, maintenance, power and electricity? If you remember that the city contributes $300,000 each year to the operation of the Rawlinson Centre (which underestimated its original utility costs by $120,000, which the city has had to make up), and that the Art Hauser Centre had an operating deficit last year of $600,000, then $250,000 probably seems suspiciously low.
Another question was asked about increases to city staffing, with the answer given that staffing levels haven't increased. I'm amazed, because when I've asked for staffing levels, I've been told that they can't provide me with a number, because it's too difficult, since some jobs are part time, some are casual, some are seasonal, and so forth. I find that hard to believe. I also know that there are now two administrative support staff in the mayor's office, where before there was only one, and that there has been a new social development manager position created and filled with a new staff person, with associated new support staff. Unless this council has fired a number of people, I have to believe that those are more positions that taxpayers are supporting. And there were also several seasonal positions associated with Neat and Clean in the first year - those were new too.
There has also been much emphasis made about this year's 0% tax increase. Let's remember that that was this year - the previous two years each featured 6% tax increases. So over the term of this council, your taxes went up 12%, or an average 4% a year. And that doesn't include the ongoing increases to your water rates - 8% compounding every year until 2013. That, of course, is for residential users. Commercial user rates remain the same. Technically, it's not a tax increase. Neither is the increase in sanitation charges that you're now paying. But these are increased costs for living in this city, brought to you by this council.
In my dealings with people, I've found that they can be quite understanding of mistakes that you may make, but they really hate it if you try to deny your mistakes, if you try to cover things up, if you try to blame other people when you should have known better. Nobody's perfect, and we shouldn't be afraid to admit that.
It basically comes down to trying to maintain an image, or being able to demonstrate the substance behind the image. I hope that in this election, people look behind the image, and make their decision based on substance.
If you've already voted at an advance poll, great. If you haven't, please remember to vote on Wednesday. People often feel that a single vote doesn't count - tell that to the village in Newfoundland, where their recent election was determined by drawing a name out of a hat, after the polls ended in a tie. Here in PA, my first win was by 34 votes; other wards have been witness to margins of 10 votes or less. And of course, if you don't vote, you've given up your right to complain about civic government for the next three years.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)