The SPCA has started a drive to move to a better place. They have purchased some land north of the river where they propose to build new facilities, and have started a new fund-raising campaign - A New Leash on Life.
Council members were invited to visit the current facility. I took up the offer a couple of weeks ago, and was toured about by one of the dedicated staff. I was appalled, to put it mildly. The animal rooms are small and overcrowded, and the staff make do in conditions that most work places wouldn't tolerate. That staff have to use as their lunchroom the room where animals are euthanized is unbelievable. While donations of such things as a new furnace have certainly helped, there is no doubt that a new facility is desperately needed.
And this is where council is between a rock and a hard place, largely of our own making. Our support for other facilities (which are not in the need category, but in the nice to have area), our unnecessary spending on such things as spiffing up our own meeting area, our putting off street and sidewalk repair and maintenance so that we could brag about having a zero per cent tax increase this year (after two consecutive years of 6 per cent increases), our decimation of the reserve fund, our decision to dedicate taxes directed for the debt elimination fund to pay for the new soccer centre for the next several years - all of these decisions have left us with very little room to support a new, desperately needed facility. And with the election looming, apparently we don't want to talk about it, either.
The services provided by the SPCA are crucial to the well-being of the city. While most people think of the SPCA as a place where you can go to pick up a kitten or a puppy, every day staff and volunteers are there, taking care of all animals that are brought in to them, some in pretty rough shape. If a dog is running loose, they take care of it. If stray cats are trapped, the SPCA is where they end up. Abandoned animals end up there. Staff don't just give animals away to anyone who walks in; they ensure that people understand the responsibilities of pet ownership before adoption, because they see the results when people don't understand, for example, how important spaying and neutering are.
These services are crucial, but services and buildings cost money, and unfortunately, they don't have a lot of fund-raising options. Unlike facilities like the Art Hauser Centre, the Rawlinson Centre, and the soccer centre, we don't have many ways of charging user fees. The animals can't pay, and some people feel that the adoption fees are too high. The SPCA does get the bulk of the dog licence fee (more than four dollars of the five dollar licence fee), but other than that, the only support provided by the city is a small grant each year. This year the grant was larger than in the past - $80,000. To put that in perspective, we gave the Golf Club $48,000 this year to help them pay for their hundredth anniversary party - a party to which most if not all of the guests could have, I'm sure, paid their own way.
I give the staff and volunteers at the SPCA full credit for doing an amazing job. Their dedication and love for the animals is obvious, and they don't waste much time in whining. They do some creative fund raising - they have a big garage sale once a year, and their walk-a-pet-a-thon was last weekend. I'm sure that they'll come up with other good ideas, and I encourage everyone to help out in whatever way that they can.
But I do think that the city needs to figure out a way of providing better ongoing support. Saskatoon licenses cats as well as dogs, and Andrea was sure that Grethyll Adams had been behind a drive to implement cat licences. But when I went to City Hall to buy licences for Hendrix, Hunter and Gracie last week, I was told that there was no such thing. But that could be an area to explore. And if, along with the licence, you were able to have your cat microchipped, then when strays are brought in, the owners could be found, reducing the numbers that have to stay there, hoping for adoption.
Perhaps if members of council sacrificed their meals paid for by the taxpayer, that would provide a bit more money that could be channeled to the SPCA. The animals certainly need feeding more than councillors do. Despite the tightness of the budget that some members of council have apparently just become aware of, we need to find ways of better supporting this facility.
And here's something that anyone who owns a computer can do - go to http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/, click to automatically donate food, then click on the part that says to vote for your favourite animal shelter. Type in Prince Albert SPCA, and you will have voted for the Prince Albert SPCA to receive a share of $100,000. The top prize is $20,000, and it could be tough to outvote American shelters, but there are two $1,000 prizes for Canadian shelters which get the most votes. If enough people find out about this, who knows? You can vote once a day until mid-December. I figure that it's worth a shot. And it won't cost the city anything.
Quick, go click.
"We call them dumb animals, and so they are, for they cannot tell us how they feel, but they do not suffer less because they have no words." - Anna Sewell
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Some Thoughts on Openness and Accountability
The PA Herald had an editorial last week wondering if there was any way to show how each council member votes, every time. Currently, unless a request for a recorded vote is made by a member of council before the vote, a quick (sometimes very quick) show of hands is used. And some members of the public have noticed that some members of council sometimes do not participate in this show of hands, which could be seen as abstaining (or of having slow reflexes, I suppose). While abstaining on a vote is allowed under the Cities Act, if one does choose to abstain, the reason for abstention is supposed to be recorded. This doesn't happen here.
Anyway, the editorial suggested that being able to see how each councillor voted would add some much needed transparency to council goings-on. I agree, and would add that it would remove some of the opportunity for fence-sitting on contentious issues that is there under the current practice.
Then Barb Gustafson, a former council colleague, provided information in a letter to the editor on how some communities deal with the issue, by not closing the vote until everyone has voted, and by making the results clearly visible – right now, the cameras only show one side of council, so at best, you can see how half of the members vote. These are good suggestions, and perhaps the next council will investigate the costs of these options, to see if it would be feasible for Prince Albert.
I’ve been known to request that a vote be recorded when I think that people will be particularly interested in who votes how. I’ve also been subject to some eye-rolling when I do this, from other members of council who appear to feel that actually verbalizing their vote is some sort of imposition. The eye-rolling doesn’t stop me, though. We have various tools to improve how we deliver democracy, and I believe in using them as I see fit.
Another area where we fail at openness is our habit of holding discussions in camera, or privately, of matters that should be discussed in the open. Once again, our direction in the Cities Act is that the only discussions not to be held in public are those which involve collective bargaining, personnel matters, legal opinions, and land negotiations. Discussions about the nuclear survey done last year is one example of something kept in camera that should have been public; a very recent one is the Green Industrial Park proposal, which we received at an in camera meeting on Monday. That presentation should have been public, and wasn’t. When I question these matters, the justification is usually that it’s strategic planning. That’s all well and good, but the law does not include strategic planning as an allowed reason for secrecy. The result is often that plans are well underway before the public has the option to comment and make suggestions, and then, time is usually too short for full discussion.
Interestingly, Saskatoon City Council reviewed concept plans for their public library expansion at an in camera meeting last week. Following the meeting, the city clerk admitted that doing so had been a mistake, even though no decisions were made. The Star Phoenix found this troubling enough to write an editorial castigating their council for keeping this discussion private, saying that doing so raised questions about what other issues that should be public were being discussed in private, and that it limited the opportunity for the public to be involved in discussions.
As city council members, we are often our own gate-keepers when it comes to following the rules. It’s easy to forget, to try to do things the expedient way, to feel that following the law will just take too long. We should be doing our best to ensure that we follow not just the letter, but also the spirit of the law.
Yes, more transparency is needed. Yes, it’s possible. But more members of council need to feel this way for any kind of change to happen.
Perhaps a simple and no-cost first step would be for us to vote more slowly, and for whoever is chairing the meeting to ensure that everyone has voted, before saying "Motion carried". We were elected to make decisions – the least each of us should do is make a decision, clearly, every time, even those decisions which might upset some people.
"Speak your mind and fear less the label of crackpot than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost." – Thomas J. Watson
Anyway, the editorial suggested that being able to see how each councillor voted would add some much needed transparency to council goings-on. I agree, and would add that it would remove some of the opportunity for fence-sitting on contentious issues that is there under the current practice.
Then Barb Gustafson, a former council colleague, provided information in a letter to the editor on how some communities deal with the issue, by not closing the vote until everyone has voted, and by making the results clearly visible – right now, the cameras only show one side of council, so at best, you can see how half of the members vote. These are good suggestions, and perhaps the next council will investigate the costs of these options, to see if it would be feasible for Prince Albert.
I’ve been known to request that a vote be recorded when I think that people will be particularly interested in who votes how. I’ve also been subject to some eye-rolling when I do this, from other members of council who appear to feel that actually verbalizing their vote is some sort of imposition. The eye-rolling doesn’t stop me, though. We have various tools to improve how we deliver democracy, and I believe in using them as I see fit.
Another area where we fail at openness is our habit of holding discussions in camera, or privately, of matters that should be discussed in the open. Once again, our direction in the Cities Act is that the only discussions not to be held in public are those which involve collective bargaining, personnel matters, legal opinions, and land negotiations. Discussions about the nuclear survey done last year is one example of something kept in camera that should have been public; a very recent one is the Green Industrial Park proposal, which we received at an in camera meeting on Monday. That presentation should have been public, and wasn’t. When I question these matters, the justification is usually that it’s strategic planning. That’s all well and good, but the law does not include strategic planning as an allowed reason for secrecy. The result is often that plans are well underway before the public has the option to comment and make suggestions, and then, time is usually too short for full discussion.
Interestingly, Saskatoon City Council reviewed concept plans for their public library expansion at an in camera meeting last week. Following the meeting, the city clerk admitted that doing so had been a mistake, even though no decisions were made. The Star Phoenix found this troubling enough to write an editorial castigating their council for keeping this discussion private, saying that doing so raised questions about what other issues that should be public were being discussed in private, and that it limited the opportunity for the public to be involved in discussions.
As city council members, we are often our own gate-keepers when it comes to following the rules. It’s easy to forget, to try to do things the expedient way, to feel that following the law will just take too long. We should be doing our best to ensure that we follow not just the letter, but also the spirit of the law.
Yes, more transparency is needed. Yes, it’s possible. But more members of council need to feel this way for any kind of change to happen.
Perhaps a simple and no-cost first step would be for us to vote more slowly, and for whoever is chairing the meeting to ensure that everyone has voted, before saying "Motion carried". We were elected to make decisions – the least each of us should do is make a decision, clearly, every time, even those decisions which might upset some people.
"Speak your mind and fear less the label of crackpot than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost." – Thomas J. Watson
Monday, September 7, 2009
Some Summer Reflections
For me, Labour Day always marks the end of summer, probably because where I grew up, school always started the next day. Technically, I know there's a couple of weeks left of summer, and certainly this year it didn't even feel like summer until last week, but to me, tomorrow will mark the first day of fall.
As if to emphasize the point, tomorrow's council meeting will be back at the regular time, 7 p.m. rather than 4 p.m. We were reminded at last week's executive meeting that we'll be expected to be back in "business" attire as well - back to the suit and tie.
So, looking back on this weather-challenged summer, what were some of my highlights? Well, I spent quite a bit of time working on the house this summer. After many years of thinking about it, we finally replaced our ancient boiler for a new, energy efficient model. Doing this required removing the old, asbestos-encased monster, which I did myself. I had to shave my beard (for those of you who might have wondered why I look different), so that I could have a tight seal around the safety mask as I removed the asbestos. The boiler itself had to be cut up - in total I hauled more than 600 kilograms of rusty metal out of the basement. The new boiler is about 1/4 the size of the old one, and is supposed to be 95% efficient. The plumber estimated the efficiency of the old one at maybe 20%. At the same time we replaced the water heater with an on-demand one that runs through the boiler. Although there were some glitches with start-up (when it's 29 degrees outside the rads inside shouldn't be warm), all appears to be working well. The guys from Mr. Plumber did a great job.
I also put in hardwood flooring in the upstairs hallway. Fortunately the subflooring was in decent shape, so I didn't have to remove everything down to the joists, as I did last year when I put in hardwood in the downstairs hallway. Much less inconvenience for everyone, and no cats fell through to the lower floor this time.
And if you've driven by, you may have seen me working to get an old Mercedes in running condition. I've always liked tinkering with cars, but this is the first major restoration I've done since I rebuilt a Volkswagen beetle when I was in high school. Actually, according to Andrea, when I'm working on the car I'm playing, since that's for fun. She gets an odd look in her eye when people ask about the Mercedes - if I'm not careful she'll pick up another cat as revenge.
I made it to the downtown events this year - the street fair in June, the Cinema for Change outdoor movie, also in June, and we're regulars at the farmers' market twice a week. Andrea's partial to the vine-ripened canteloupe; I've been picking up potatoes, beans, broccoli, zucchini. Despite the less than ideal growing season, the selection has been great. And Lyn Brown has some delightful flower-based spreads and dips that we have really enjoyed.
I make a point of attending these events because I believe that the only way to make the downtown a vital space is to use it as much as possible. I wish that I saw more of my council colleagues at these events. Council talks a great deal about revitalizing the downtown area, but we don't follow that talk up with enough action. I was very disappointed when the Business Improvement District lost their funding for the Downtown Ambassadors, who were a good, visible part of making the downtown a more comfortable place to be. While the city provides some funding to the BID, I don't think that we give nearly enough to a group that has proven to be very efficient and cost-effective, with their actions speaking more than their words. Perhaps if some of the old Neat and Clean funding had been directed towards the BID, they could have increased such things as garbage pick-up in the downtown area. Instead, Neat and Clean money went to such things as signs telling people not to litter (but without providing garbage cans), new furniture in the mayor's office, new carpeting and paint in City Hall, and new chairs in council chambers for both councillors and staff. And a program that was the focus of the first year of this council is sadly remembered as a considerable waste of money, and doesn't appear to have had any discernable effect outside of City Hall.
If I had a wish for the last eight weeks of this council, to try to improve our collective legacy, it would be that we become what we say we are - open and accountable, without discussing things secretly, then bringing them to council meetings as a done deal. We would be clear about what our goals are as a council, and, with the help of staff, set out plans for achieving those goals. Such things as setting out a timetable for paving all city streets, instead of continuing to oil in some areas, replacing lead service connections so that everyone's water is safe - these are the sorts of things that would give us a sense of accomplishment, and would make this city a better place to live.
"The trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never scoring." - Bill Copeland
As if to emphasize the point, tomorrow's council meeting will be back at the regular time, 7 p.m. rather than 4 p.m. We were reminded at last week's executive meeting that we'll be expected to be back in "business" attire as well - back to the suit and tie.
So, looking back on this weather-challenged summer, what were some of my highlights? Well, I spent quite a bit of time working on the house this summer. After many years of thinking about it, we finally replaced our ancient boiler for a new, energy efficient model. Doing this required removing the old, asbestos-encased monster, which I did myself. I had to shave my beard (for those of you who might have wondered why I look different), so that I could have a tight seal around the safety mask as I removed the asbestos. The boiler itself had to be cut up - in total I hauled more than 600 kilograms of rusty metal out of the basement. The new boiler is about 1/4 the size of the old one, and is supposed to be 95% efficient. The plumber estimated the efficiency of the old one at maybe 20%. At the same time we replaced the water heater with an on-demand one that runs through the boiler. Although there were some glitches with start-up (when it's 29 degrees outside the rads inside shouldn't be warm), all appears to be working well. The guys from Mr. Plumber did a great job.
I also put in hardwood flooring in the upstairs hallway. Fortunately the subflooring was in decent shape, so I didn't have to remove everything down to the joists, as I did last year when I put in hardwood in the downstairs hallway. Much less inconvenience for everyone, and no cats fell through to the lower floor this time.
And if you've driven by, you may have seen me working to get an old Mercedes in running condition. I've always liked tinkering with cars, but this is the first major restoration I've done since I rebuilt a Volkswagen beetle when I was in high school. Actually, according to Andrea, when I'm working on the car I'm playing, since that's for fun. She gets an odd look in her eye when people ask about the Mercedes - if I'm not careful she'll pick up another cat as revenge.
I made it to the downtown events this year - the street fair in June, the Cinema for Change outdoor movie, also in June, and we're regulars at the farmers' market twice a week. Andrea's partial to the vine-ripened canteloupe; I've been picking up potatoes, beans, broccoli, zucchini. Despite the less than ideal growing season, the selection has been great. And Lyn Brown has some delightful flower-based spreads and dips that we have really enjoyed.
I make a point of attending these events because I believe that the only way to make the downtown a vital space is to use it as much as possible. I wish that I saw more of my council colleagues at these events. Council talks a great deal about revitalizing the downtown area, but we don't follow that talk up with enough action. I was very disappointed when the Business Improvement District lost their funding for the Downtown Ambassadors, who were a good, visible part of making the downtown a more comfortable place to be. While the city provides some funding to the BID, I don't think that we give nearly enough to a group that has proven to be very efficient and cost-effective, with their actions speaking more than their words. Perhaps if some of the old Neat and Clean funding had been directed towards the BID, they could have increased such things as garbage pick-up in the downtown area. Instead, Neat and Clean money went to such things as signs telling people not to litter (but without providing garbage cans), new furniture in the mayor's office, new carpeting and paint in City Hall, and new chairs in council chambers for both councillors and staff. And a program that was the focus of the first year of this council is sadly remembered as a considerable waste of money, and doesn't appear to have had any discernable effect outside of City Hall.
If I had a wish for the last eight weeks of this council, to try to improve our collective legacy, it would be that we become what we say we are - open and accountable, without discussing things secretly, then bringing them to council meetings as a done deal. We would be clear about what our goals are as a council, and, with the help of staff, set out plans for achieving those goals. Such things as setting out a timetable for paving all city streets, instead of continuing to oil in some areas, replacing lead service connections so that everyone's water is safe - these are the sorts of things that would give us a sense of accomplishment, and would make this city a better place to live.
"The trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never scoring." - Bill Copeland
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Doing the Right Thing
In my nine years on council, when a controversial issue comes to council, often people will crowd into council chambers to make impassioned pleas about why we should vote one way or another. This is, of course, their right. But all too often, the arguments put forth are based on emotion, not fact. And all too often, some members of council have let the presence of the public, and that emotion, influence their vote.
My first experience of this was when residents of a neighbourhood found out that a home in their area housed young men recently released from the penitentiary - and had, without incident, for more than two years. But emotion ruled the vote that day nine years ago, and I was the only councillor to vote against the immediate change to zoning that closed that home. The closure of that home didn't stop former inmates from being released into the community; it merely removed a supportive environment for them to be released to. And it was a decision based on emotion, not logic.
More recently, about four years ago, proponents of a new soccer centre crowded council chambers with young soccer players, insisting that the city invest millions that we didn't have so that these young people would have a place to play. In that case, some members of council got caught up in the euphoria of the crowd, and city residents will be paying for that euphoria for the next several years, and no doubt beyond that, since we still don't know what the operating costs for the soccer centre will be.
So it's no wonder that some residents of the west hill thought that if they came to council meetings to say that they didn't want a piece of privately owned property rezoned to allow for about twenty per cent of it to have duplexes built on it, claiming that this would remove green space from their neighbourhood, then council would bow to the emotion in the room, and vote down the zoning change. The position of the the proponents, that this development will provide affordable housing to working people, taking a small portion of privately owned land, not green space, had no impact on the arguments of the residents. They first came in June, when the decision was postponed to the meeting this past Tuesday.
On Tuesday evening, although there was a motion proposed to delay the decision once again, that motion was defeated. The next motion, to change the zoning, passed. Those who had come to the meeting hoping to influence the decision were understandably disappointed, claiming a lack of consultation by council, but there have been two council meetings, plus a meeting put on by the proponent for residents that was attended by some members of council. As well, several emails were sent by residents, putting forth their arguments, and I, and I'm sure other members of council, had many phone conversations with residents on this matter. Consultation means that we listen and discuss, not that we necessarily agree.
I trust that those disappointed residents will realize and respect that, as a council, we need to act in a way that is the best for the whole city. As I mentioned in a previous blog on this topic, this council has committed to "promote diversity and equal opportunity in housing". This decision, and another decision made Tuesday evening, to allow for secondary suites throughout the city, will provide more affordable housing, and provide more options for lower income residents, too often limited to substandard housing.
I would still like to see a landlord registry, with strict standards set for all rental housing. I think that would be the next logical step, that might alleviate some of the real fears of residents, that these new duplexes will bring down the value of their homes. I live in a diverse neighbourhood, with a range of incomes and housing opportunities. The new duplex built less than a block away a couple of years ago is definitely an improvement over the vacant lot that was there before, and the new owner of a corner property that used to be a party house is doing a great job of cleaning out the yard. Another home a couple of blocks away that was placarded as being unfit to live in a year ago has been cleaned up and is now home to a family that takes great pride in their home and yard - we have shared renovation stories.
These are the kind of opportunities that we owe to everyone in the city. I thought that council took a great step on Tuesday evening in removing some of the barriers to that kind of diversity, and I'm proud to have been part of that decision.
"Common experience shows how much rarer is moral courage than physical bravery. A thousand men will march to the mouth of a cannon where one man will dare espouse an unpopular cause." - Clarence Darrow
My first experience of this was when residents of a neighbourhood found out that a home in their area housed young men recently released from the penitentiary - and had, without incident, for more than two years. But emotion ruled the vote that day nine years ago, and I was the only councillor to vote against the immediate change to zoning that closed that home. The closure of that home didn't stop former inmates from being released into the community; it merely removed a supportive environment for them to be released to. And it was a decision based on emotion, not logic.
More recently, about four years ago, proponents of a new soccer centre crowded council chambers with young soccer players, insisting that the city invest millions that we didn't have so that these young people would have a place to play. In that case, some members of council got caught up in the euphoria of the crowd, and city residents will be paying for that euphoria for the next several years, and no doubt beyond that, since we still don't know what the operating costs for the soccer centre will be.
So it's no wonder that some residents of the west hill thought that if they came to council meetings to say that they didn't want a piece of privately owned property rezoned to allow for about twenty per cent of it to have duplexes built on it, claiming that this would remove green space from their neighbourhood, then council would bow to the emotion in the room, and vote down the zoning change. The position of the the proponents, that this development will provide affordable housing to working people, taking a small portion of privately owned land, not green space, had no impact on the arguments of the residents. They first came in June, when the decision was postponed to the meeting this past Tuesday.
On Tuesday evening, although there was a motion proposed to delay the decision once again, that motion was defeated. The next motion, to change the zoning, passed. Those who had come to the meeting hoping to influence the decision were understandably disappointed, claiming a lack of consultation by council, but there have been two council meetings, plus a meeting put on by the proponent for residents that was attended by some members of council. As well, several emails were sent by residents, putting forth their arguments, and I, and I'm sure other members of council, had many phone conversations with residents on this matter. Consultation means that we listen and discuss, not that we necessarily agree.
I trust that those disappointed residents will realize and respect that, as a council, we need to act in a way that is the best for the whole city. As I mentioned in a previous blog on this topic, this council has committed to "promote diversity and equal opportunity in housing". This decision, and another decision made Tuesday evening, to allow for secondary suites throughout the city, will provide more affordable housing, and provide more options for lower income residents, too often limited to substandard housing.
I would still like to see a landlord registry, with strict standards set for all rental housing. I think that would be the next logical step, that might alleviate some of the real fears of residents, that these new duplexes will bring down the value of their homes. I live in a diverse neighbourhood, with a range of incomes and housing opportunities. The new duplex built less than a block away a couple of years ago is definitely an improvement over the vacant lot that was there before, and the new owner of a corner property that used to be a party house is doing a great job of cleaning out the yard. Another home a couple of blocks away that was placarded as being unfit to live in a year ago has been cleaned up and is now home to a family that takes great pride in their home and yard - we have shared renovation stories.
These are the kind of opportunities that we owe to everyone in the city. I thought that council took a great step on Tuesday evening in removing some of the barriers to that kind of diversity, and I'm proud to have been part of that decision.
"Common experience shows how much rarer is moral courage than physical bravery. A thousand men will march to the mouth of a cannon where one man will dare espouse an unpopular cause." - Clarence Darrow
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Benefits of Being on Council
The civic election is just over ten weeks away. Compared to last time, it's been remarkably quiet. A few individuals have announced that they're running for council, but so far, no incumbents (including me) have indicated their intentions, and nobody has announced that they're running for mayor.
I like to see the interest from individuals in being part of council - being willing to step forward and help to guide the city and its residents to a better life is admirable.
I did a blog last November on things that I thought potential candidates should consider before running for public office - it's not for everyone, and I know that some members of council were surprised, for example, at the volume of material that has to be reviewed before each meeting. But there are also benefits (and costs) to being on council, that people might not be aware of.
To start with, it is a paying job - the local paper recently published the city accounts of what people employed by the city were paid in the past year. The average payment to councillors was $25,457.99; the mayor was paid $73,329.06. That's a basic salary, plus $100 for a vehicle allowance monthly, and also includes per diems - if a councillor spends an entire day doing council work, for instance at a conference, a per diem rate is paid. This is based on the assumption that being on council, whether as a mayor or councillor, is not intended to be a full time job, but if you do have to take a day away from your other job, you will be paid extra. That's why regular council meetings are in the evenings.
There is also a $500 communications allowance each year. For this, when you make an expenditure that qualifies, you submit a receipt and get reimbursed. Unlike the vehicle allowance, you don't just get the $500. Things like computers are allowable expenditures, cell phones are not. Of course, the mayor has a computer and phone provided.
If you're a councillor, you'll have to set up your own office space in your home, at your own cost. You'll need message manager on your phone, because you will be your own support staff. Only the mayor has an office at City Hall and support staff - at last count, I believe he had two adminstrative assistants. These staff also provide occasional help to councillors (for instance, in making travel arrangements), but for the most part, if you're a councillor, you're on your own. Councillors used to be able to use a room next to the reception room on the second floor, where we had access to a phone and one drawer in a filing cabinet. However, this adminstration converted this room to a media room for the mayor, and moved the councillors' filing cabinets down to the room outside council chambers where council meals are served - hardly a good work space.
While the salary is appreciated, it's certainly not going to make anyone rich, and I don't think that anyone who runs for public office is in it for the money. The greatest benefits that I've received from being on council are the intangibles - the phone calls of appreciation when I've helped a neighbourhood get their street paved or helped to get a problem house placarded; the messages of support when I've held a minority position at a council meeting; the many new friends that I've made, both in the ward and in the city as a whole. It is time-consuming, it is frustrating, it is not always fun, but I do know that doing my best in this job is the important thing to remember.
Whether I decide to run again or not, I hope that the next council is more diverse than this one - not so much in age or race or gender, although that would be good, but in ideas and openness. That would provide an experience for all members of council that would leave a positive legacy for future councils.
The next few weeks, as election plans get finalized, will be interesting.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." - Abraham Lincoln
I like to see the interest from individuals in being part of council - being willing to step forward and help to guide the city and its residents to a better life is admirable.
I did a blog last November on things that I thought potential candidates should consider before running for public office - it's not for everyone, and I know that some members of council were surprised, for example, at the volume of material that has to be reviewed before each meeting. But there are also benefits (and costs) to being on council, that people might not be aware of.
To start with, it is a paying job - the local paper recently published the city accounts of what people employed by the city were paid in the past year. The average payment to councillors was $25,457.99; the mayor was paid $73,329.06. That's a basic salary, plus $100 for a vehicle allowance monthly, and also includes per diems - if a councillor spends an entire day doing council work, for instance at a conference, a per diem rate is paid. This is based on the assumption that being on council, whether as a mayor or councillor, is not intended to be a full time job, but if you do have to take a day away from your other job, you will be paid extra. That's why regular council meetings are in the evenings.
There is also a $500 communications allowance each year. For this, when you make an expenditure that qualifies, you submit a receipt and get reimbursed. Unlike the vehicle allowance, you don't just get the $500. Things like computers are allowable expenditures, cell phones are not. Of course, the mayor has a computer and phone provided.
If you're a councillor, you'll have to set up your own office space in your home, at your own cost. You'll need message manager on your phone, because you will be your own support staff. Only the mayor has an office at City Hall and support staff - at last count, I believe he had two adminstrative assistants. These staff also provide occasional help to councillors (for instance, in making travel arrangements), but for the most part, if you're a councillor, you're on your own. Councillors used to be able to use a room next to the reception room on the second floor, where we had access to a phone and one drawer in a filing cabinet. However, this adminstration converted this room to a media room for the mayor, and moved the councillors' filing cabinets down to the room outside council chambers where council meals are served - hardly a good work space.
While the salary is appreciated, it's certainly not going to make anyone rich, and I don't think that anyone who runs for public office is in it for the money. The greatest benefits that I've received from being on council are the intangibles - the phone calls of appreciation when I've helped a neighbourhood get their street paved or helped to get a problem house placarded; the messages of support when I've held a minority position at a council meeting; the many new friends that I've made, both in the ward and in the city as a whole. It is time-consuming, it is frustrating, it is not always fun, but I do know that doing my best in this job is the important thing to remember.
Whether I decide to run again or not, I hope that the next council is more diverse than this one - not so much in age or race or gender, although that would be good, but in ideas and openness. That would provide an experience for all members of council that would leave a positive legacy for future councils.
The next few weeks, as election plans get finalized, will be interesting.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." - Abraham Lincoln
Monday, August 3, 2009
Special in Name Only
The past couple of years, this council has reduced the number of regular meetings during the summer - instead of council meetings every two weeks, only one in July and one in August. This isn't difficult to understand - things do slow down in the summer, it makes it easier for members of council to take time off without missing meetings, and because staff tend to take holidays then, it puts fewer demands on the staff who have to cover for them.
So it may surprise you to know that in July, we had one regular council meeting, one regular executive meeting, but two special meetings. Not only did we have two special meetings, but we had them in the same week, one last Monday, the next on Friday. And rather than have meetings at the usual time, both were held over the noon hour, with lunch provided at the Monday meeting, not just for members of council, but also for city staff.
The Cities Act does provide for special meetings, as long as twenty-four hours' notice is given. In the case of Friday's meeting, we didn't even have that, so the city clerk had to call each member of council to ask that we waive that requirement. But the provision is clearly meant for emergencies, for matters that cannot wait for a week or so, not for meetings to be called due to impatience.
Special meetings do not provide the public with much notice to attend, and the materials for the meetings are not available to those who may be interested. This contradicts our oft-claimed principle of being open and accountable. They also cost the city - in staff time, to set up for the meetings, notify council members, and attend. And at Monday's meeting, taxpayers paid for lunch, which is an extra cost that, considering the state of our budget, we shouldn't even be contemplating.
What were the crises that needed to be dealt with so quickly?
Monday's meeting was about adding a vice-chair to the Heritage Committee, reviewing a tender,and discussing some long-term financial matters in-camera.
At the Friday meeting, we were asked to vote to approve expenditures for the water treatment plant, and to approve the issuance of a Request for Proposal to study the current transit system. We received the report outlining the RFP the evening before, so weren't even given enough time to review this lengthy report before we were expected to approve it. I had several questions, but got the predictable response from other members of council - either the matters that I raised would be part of something else (not sure what), or I could have attended the Transportation Committee two days earlier (which didn't have quorum, so couldn't make any recommendations on the proposal), or that other councillors planned to make suggestions for changes later, after they had time to read the report, even though it was going to be approved by council, and thus shouldn't be able to be changed. I'm not even sure if anyone who actually uses the transit system on a regular basis was consulted in the preparation of the report.
Were any of these items so time-sensitive that they couldn't be deferred to the next meeting of council? Or were they matters that, with a bit better organization, could have been brought to the regular July meeting, but the necessary reports just weren't ready in time? I think that both council and administration need to work better together to ensure that all materials required for meetings, particularly those which are going to require a decision, be provided to members of council and the public well in advance of any meetings. And we should be trying to minimize the number of times that we ask both council and administrative staff to meet to discuss only a couple of relatively minor matters, especially if it will take staff away from their actual jobs.
I didn't see any need for either special meeting. It seems to be more a matter of impatience, of wanting to finish things off without taking the time needed for full and open discussion. If we would just slow down and plan, we'd get where we want to go a lot more quickly. When we call special meetings without a true urgent need, but to rush through matters without full consideration, and without giving the public the opportunity to comment, we don't give the impression of operating efficiently or of moving systematically towards our goals, whatever they may be. Instead, we run the risk of appearing to be like the hero in the Stephen Leacock story, who "flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions". We may be moving fast, but we don't appear to be making any progress.
"More haste, less speed." - Anonymous
So it may surprise you to know that in July, we had one regular council meeting, one regular executive meeting, but two special meetings. Not only did we have two special meetings, but we had them in the same week, one last Monday, the next on Friday. And rather than have meetings at the usual time, both were held over the noon hour, with lunch provided at the Monday meeting, not just for members of council, but also for city staff.
The Cities Act does provide for special meetings, as long as twenty-four hours' notice is given. In the case of Friday's meeting, we didn't even have that, so the city clerk had to call each member of council to ask that we waive that requirement. But the provision is clearly meant for emergencies, for matters that cannot wait for a week or so, not for meetings to be called due to impatience.
Special meetings do not provide the public with much notice to attend, and the materials for the meetings are not available to those who may be interested. This contradicts our oft-claimed principle of being open and accountable. They also cost the city - in staff time, to set up for the meetings, notify council members, and attend. And at Monday's meeting, taxpayers paid for lunch, which is an extra cost that, considering the state of our budget, we shouldn't even be contemplating.
What were the crises that needed to be dealt with so quickly?
Monday's meeting was about adding a vice-chair to the Heritage Committee, reviewing a tender,and discussing some long-term financial matters in-camera.
At the Friday meeting, we were asked to vote to approve expenditures for the water treatment plant, and to approve the issuance of a Request for Proposal to study the current transit system. We received the report outlining the RFP the evening before, so weren't even given enough time to review this lengthy report before we were expected to approve it. I had several questions, but got the predictable response from other members of council - either the matters that I raised would be part of something else (not sure what), or I could have attended the Transportation Committee two days earlier (which didn't have quorum, so couldn't make any recommendations on the proposal), or that other councillors planned to make suggestions for changes later, after they had time to read the report, even though it was going to be approved by council, and thus shouldn't be able to be changed. I'm not even sure if anyone who actually uses the transit system on a regular basis was consulted in the preparation of the report.
Were any of these items so time-sensitive that they couldn't be deferred to the next meeting of council? Or were they matters that, with a bit better organization, could have been brought to the regular July meeting, but the necessary reports just weren't ready in time? I think that both council and administration need to work better together to ensure that all materials required for meetings, particularly those which are going to require a decision, be provided to members of council and the public well in advance of any meetings. And we should be trying to minimize the number of times that we ask both council and administrative staff to meet to discuss only a couple of relatively minor matters, especially if it will take staff away from their actual jobs.
I didn't see any need for either special meeting. It seems to be more a matter of impatience, of wanting to finish things off without taking the time needed for full and open discussion. If we would just slow down and plan, we'd get where we want to go a lot more quickly. When we call special meetings without a true urgent need, but to rush through matters without full consideration, and without giving the public the opportunity to comment, we don't give the impression of operating efficiently or of moving systematically towards our goals, whatever they may be. Instead, we run the risk of appearing to be like the hero in the Stephen Leacock story, who "flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions". We may be moving fast, but we don't appear to be making any progress.
"More haste, less speed." - Anonymous
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Where Did the Benches Go?
Until last spring, the fountain in front of City Hall was surrounded by benches - nothing fancy, just comfortable metal park benches that could be used to sit for a moment, enjoying the spray from the fountain on a hot day, before moving on. Staff from City Hall used them on breaks or at lunch; I'd even sat on them a time or two, often when I ran into someone with a quick question or suggestion.
Then, last May, just before the western premiers' three day meeting in Prince Albert, they were removed. I don't know why they were removed; it certainly wasn't a question that came to council, probably because there wasn't much logic to it. There are still benches in front of City Hall, but they're the uncomfortable wooden slat, backless objects that are quite firmly set in concrete along the edge of the square, under the trees- those aren't coming out without a great deal of work. But the comfortable, attractive benches - those are gone. A few people have asked me where they went, and when they're being replaced - I've asked a couple of times, but haven't received an answer yet.
Those benches by the fountain made the area in front of City Hall a more welcoming place, and suggested indirectly that downtown is a welcoming place to be be - a destination where people are welcome to stay for awhile. Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps we subconciously are afraid that, if we provide places for people to sit and rest, the "wrong" people will do so. And we often define the "wrong" people as those who are different from us, ignoring the fact that everyone who lives here should be able to enjoy what the city has to offer. Or perhaps we're trying to discourage people from taking a break, not wanting to appear to be a city that lazes about in the sunshine.
Removing the benches, for whatever reason, discourages everybody from using the area. As the Downtown Business Improvement District people keep reminding us, the more people that use the downtown area, including the riverbank, the safer it becomes. So we should be doing what we can to encourage people to use these areas, not discourage them.
Currently, the area in front of City Hall is rather boring - a nice fountain, and several containers of flowers lined up militarily, some grass that I never see anyone sitting on, the Diefenbaker statue, and the War Memorial. Plenty of room, but very few people. Looking across the street at the courtyard of the Forest Centre, it appears much more welcoming - no straight lines there, but curved beds with a variety of plants, trees and shrubs, and attractive benches, garbage containers and a bicycle rack, all of similar design. And people sit on those benches - staff that work at the Forest Centre are often seen there taking a break and enjoying the sunshine.
Two of the most welcoming cities that I've visited in recent years had lots of benches - Montreal and Quebec City both encourage pedestrians, and part of that is providing places to sit and enjoy the view and watch people pass by. In neither city did I feel threatened by others who also used the benches - and it was a range of people - working people on a break, young families, less fortunate people who looked as though they were spending the day because they had nowhere else to go.
There are nice benches provided by the city, at the south end of Second Avenue, not exactly a park-like ambience, and I can't remember ever seeing anyone sit on those benches. Now that warmer weather is here (I hope), it would be nice if the square in front of City Hall looked welcoming, rather than the opposite, for anyone who wanted to take a break and enjoy the warm weather while it lasts.
"Take rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop." - Ovid
Then, last May, just before the western premiers' three day meeting in Prince Albert, they were removed. I don't know why they were removed; it certainly wasn't a question that came to council, probably because there wasn't much logic to it. There are still benches in front of City Hall, but they're the uncomfortable wooden slat, backless objects that are quite firmly set in concrete along the edge of the square, under the trees- those aren't coming out without a great deal of work. But the comfortable, attractive benches - those are gone. A few people have asked me where they went, and when they're being replaced - I've asked a couple of times, but haven't received an answer yet.
Those benches by the fountain made the area in front of City Hall a more welcoming place, and suggested indirectly that downtown is a welcoming place to be be - a destination where people are welcome to stay for awhile. Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps we subconciously are afraid that, if we provide places for people to sit and rest, the "wrong" people will do so. And we often define the "wrong" people as those who are different from us, ignoring the fact that everyone who lives here should be able to enjoy what the city has to offer. Or perhaps we're trying to discourage people from taking a break, not wanting to appear to be a city that lazes about in the sunshine.
Removing the benches, for whatever reason, discourages everybody from using the area. As the Downtown Business Improvement District people keep reminding us, the more people that use the downtown area, including the riverbank, the safer it becomes. So we should be doing what we can to encourage people to use these areas, not discourage them.
Currently, the area in front of City Hall is rather boring - a nice fountain, and several containers of flowers lined up militarily, some grass that I never see anyone sitting on, the Diefenbaker statue, and the War Memorial. Plenty of room, but very few people. Looking across the street at the courtyard of the Forest Centre, it appears much more welcoming - no straight lines there, but curved beds with a variety of plants, trees and shrubs, and attractive benches, garbage containers and a bicycle rack, all of similar design. And people sit on those benches - staff that work at the Forest Centre are often seen there taking a break and enjoying the sunshine.
Two of the most welcoming cities that I've visited in recent years had lots of benches - Montreal and Quebec City both encourage pedestrians, and part of that is providing places to sit and enjoy the view and watch people pass by. In neither city did I feel threatened by others who also used the benches - and it was a range of people - working people on a break, young families, less fortunate people who looked as though they were spending the day because they had nowhere else to go.
There are nice benches provided by the city, at the south end of Second Avenue, not exactly a park-like ambience, and I can't remember ever seeing anyone sit on those benches. Now that warmer weather is here (I hope), it would be nice if the square in front of City Hall looked welcoming, rather than the opposite, for anyone who wanted to take a break and enjoy the warm weather while it lasts.
"Take rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop." - Ovid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)