I filed my papers for the election this past week. While others announced their intentions weeks, even months ago, I like to take my time before making the decision. It's making a commitment for the next four years, and there are a lot of factors to take into consideration. But after much discussion with family and friends, and many inquiries and much encouragement from Ward 3 residents, I decided that I still have a great deal to offer. More than one Ward 3 resident, in encouraging me to run, said that council needs more people like me, who aren't afraid to ask the hard questions. If I don't run, then that's one less person.
My objective in being on council is the same today as it was when I first ran - to make Ward 3, and Prince Albert, a better place to live. Substandard housing, increasing crime rates, aging infrastructure and inequitable distribution of recreational amenities across the city are all issues that are not solved quickly, but I can look at various actions that I've encouraged during my time on council that have made a difference, and I continue to look at new and better ways of doing things.
A frequent refrain in the comments section on local media is that a whole new council is needed. In my experience, what usually happens is that we get a mix of new councillors and veterans, and that works well. Too many new faces means that there is greater reliance on administration making decisions, and people should remember that administration wasn't elected. A couple of council terms ago that ended up with the police budget being withheld from council, and it took a couple of years to pry the details loose so that all of council could see how more than a third of our budget was spent. It's helpful to have veterans on council in those situations, particularly people like me who aren't afraid to call bull puckies when appropriate.
Many candidates talk about grandiose projects that they would like to see - a new arena has been mentioned, and of course a second bridge is a perennial goal. I prefer to see council focus on fundamentals - replacing century-old pipes, as was done last summer during the Big Dig project, may not be sexy, but these are the necessities to keep water running. Maintaining infrastructure, which has been a focus of this last term of council has the added advantage of not adding to our ongoing financial responsibilities, unlike some of the big ticket items that previous councils felt were the best use of tax-payers' money, and have left us with new ongoing costs that weren't discussed when the projects were first proposed.
There is also the misconception that new people are needed on council to provide new ideas - in fact, many new candidates will say that very thing, without providing examples of what these new ideas might be. I would say that anyone, no matter how long they've been on council, has the ability to generate new ideas. Just last week I suggested to the deputy police chief that doing patrols down back alleys might be a more effective way of discouraging crime than driving along the streets, because the back alleys are where people trying to avoid being seen tend to gather. He hadn't thought of deploying forces that way, and couldn't see why police couldn't start doing that. A new way of doing something, without any increase in expenditure required - to me that's the kind of new idea that's needed.
I would also caution people that just because an idea is new, doesn't mean that it's good, or that further scrutiny isn't required. Think of the Borealis Music Festival, where my questions about the budget were ignored, and which ended up costing tax-payers over $100,000, counting the original support plus the bail-out. A new idea, but not an idea that was well-thought-out.
I often say that being on council is the only job where you have to reapply every few years. But that's how democracy works. I only hope that my hard work over the past 16 years is appreciated by the residents of Ward 3, and that they put their confidence in my ability to do the job once more.
"Regardless of who wins, an election should be a time for optimism and fresh approaches." - Gary Johnson
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Crime Reduction - Is There a Magic Wand?
In any survey, including the community meetings held over the last year, the number one issue that comes up is the need to reduce crime in the community. For me personally, it comes up in phone calls, and in conversations with people who see me downtown or at the grocery store, or who drop by for a visit. It's a no-brainer, really, people want to feel safe where they live, they want to feel comfortable in their yards, they want to feel safe when they're out in the community, they want to feel safe in parks and playgrounds. And I share their concerns - I too want to live in a safe neighbourhood.
I don't know anyone on council who hasn't wrestled with this issue. It's one of the reasons why the single biggest expenditure in the budget is for police services - it's a priority, and we emphasize that priority by allocating financial resources accordingly. We've also invested in longer term initiatives like the Hub project, which tries to coordinate efforts at preventative levels. Unfortunately, longer term initiatives like the Hub take longer to show results, and people want problems to be fixed now.
I was interested in the Saskatoon police chief's comments following the release a few weeks ago of national crime statistics, when once again Saskatchewan communities ranked at the top - one of the lists no city wants to be at the top of. He said that the underlying causes of crimes are poverty, racism and poor housing - all problems that can't be solved by more boots on the ground.
These are also problems that point more toward dealing with situations before a crime has actually happened, not afterward, and they are problems that require the entire community to take action. It's only common sense that putting more effort into prevention rather than punishment will pay greater dividends.
Of these three areas, poverty and racism are outside the scope of city council. However, the third, poor housing, is something that council has some control of. I've been advocating for improved housing standards for as long as I've been on council, even trying to coordinate such basics as placarding houses as unfit to live in where the water has been turned off, so that these houses are not available as rentals. I've also advocated for a landlord registry, and for quicker action against derelict properties. Again, these are not quick solutions, since we are often restricted by court proceedings, but I think that there are many situations where council could be less forgiving, and set our expectations higher. I've also suggested that we look into incentive programs to develop vacant lots within current neighbourhoods - these are lots that are already serviced, and everyone would benefit by encouraging new housing on what can otherwise be an eyesore in an area. You can see the positive results in any Habitat for Humanity home.
To answer my original, and somewhat rhetorical question - of course there is no magic wand. But we, the community as a whole, need to look at the whole scope of the problem, look at a wider scope of potential solutions, and do something wherever we can, not just with empty promises, but with real action.
"Prevention is a whole lot less costly than treatment, and maybe more effective." - Debbie Adair
I don't know anyone on council who hasn't wrestled with this issue. It's one of the reasons why the single biggest expenditure in the budget is for police services - it's a priority, and we emphasize that priority by allocating financial resources accordingly. We've also invested in longer term initiatives like the Hub project, which tries to coordinate efforts at preventative levels. Unfortunately, longer term initiatives like the Hub take longer to show results, and people want problems to be fixed now.
I was interested in the Saskatoon police chief's comments following the release a few weeks ago of national crime statistics, when once again Saskatchewan communities ranked at the top - one of the lists no city wants to be at the top of. He said that the underlying causes of crimes are poverty, racism and poor housing - all problems that can't be solved by more boots on the ground.
These are also problems that point more toward dealing with situations before a crime has actually happened, not afterward, and they are problems that require the entire community to take action. It's only common sense that putting more effort into prevention rather than punishment will pay greater dividends.
Of these three areas, poverty and racism are outside the scope of city council. However, the third, poor housing, is something that council has some control of. I've been advocating for improved housing standards for as long as I've been on council, even trying to coordinate such basics as placarding houses as unfit to live in where the water has been turned off, so that these houses are not available as rentals. I've also advocated for a landlord registry, and for quicker action against derelict properties. Again, these are not quick solutions, since we are often restricted by court proceedings, but I think that there are many situations where council could be less forgiving, and set our expectations higher. I've also suggested that we look into incentive programs to develop vacant lots within current neighbourhoods - these are lots that are already serviced, and everyone would benefit by encouraging new housing on what can otherwise be an eyesore in an area. You can see the positive results in any Habitat for Humanity home.
To answer my original, and somewhat rhetorical question - of course there is no magic wand. But we, the community as a whole, need to look at the whole scope of the problem, look at a wider scope of potential solutions, and do something wherever we can, not just with empty promises, but with real action.
"Prevention is a whole lot less costly than treatment, and maybe more effective." - Debbie Adair
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Exceptions for Some, But Not for Others
City Council is a funny group. Not the laughing type of funny, the hard to explain kind of funny.
One of the things that demonstrates this is its willingness to give some people breaks, but not others. The people who get the breaks - usually the ones with more resources than your average individual. The people who don't - usually those who are already disadvantaged.
This came up at the last council meeting, where we had a resident who had received a water bill of more than $6,000, that the resident does not have the resources to pay.
Now there is fault on both sides. The resident had had a water leak in the basement that caused part of the problem, which they neglected. But the city also bears some responsibility. Administration is supposed to note when a water bill is unreasonably high, and notify the resident - this did not happen. As well, if we were billing monthly, presumably the problem would have been identified when the bill was only a third the size that it ended up being.
And billing is supposed to happen monthly. In May 2013, council voted to start monthly billing for water starting in 2014. More than two years later, and billing is still done quarterly, with no explanation from administration as to why they didn't follow council's direction.
You may not be aware that only half your water bill is for actual consumption - the remainder is for infrastructure and sewer charges. Administration proposed removing these charges from the bill, which would reduce it by half. Unfortunately, that amount is also unaffordable for the resident. The amount that was offered was $300. The motion to accept this offer was defeated.
This is a council that thought that the right thing to do for businesses who got stiffed by the Borealis Music Festival was to give them $82,000 to pay off their debts, over and above the $30,000 in cash and in-kind support that we'd already given them, despite their wildly unrealistic expectations. And this was after nobody responsible came to council to explain why they should be bailed out.
And while this resident had to make her plea in public, if a business wants to argue to have its taxes reduced, they get to do that in camera, so the public doesn't know. And if they don't pay their taxes, it isn't made public, even though the amounts owing make $6,000 look like pocket change. These are businesses, who can deduct such expenses from their earnings - residents have no such backstop for their water bills.
In my opinion, we'd get far more bang for our buck if we would spend more time chasing the big tax evaders, rather than going after the little people who have few if any resources to fight City Hall.
Council has spent quite a bit of time developing a strategic plan. One of the operational themes of this plan that is supposed to guide our approach to operations and projects is that we are compassionate - the exact quote is "Understanding that the services we provide are valued, and understanding the needs and challenges of the end user and working to make their experience positive." I'd say that we missed the mark on this one.
I don't like exceptions, but I understand that sometimes there is no other practical solution. Let's stop going after the little guy so relentlessly, and put some of that same effort into collecting from the big guys.
"Most bad luck is the misfortune of not being an exception." - Mason Cooley
One of the things that demonstrates this is its willingness to give some people breaks, but not others. The people who get the breaks - usually the ones with more resources than your average individual. The people who don't - usually those who are already disadvantaged.
This came up at the last council meeting, where we had a resident who had received a water bill of more than $6,000, that the resident does not have the resources to pay.
Now there is fault on both sides. The resident had had a water leak in the basement that caused part of the problem, which they neglected. But the city also bears some responsibility. Administration is supposed to note when a water bill is unreasonably high, and notify the resident - this did not happen. As well, if we were billing monthly, presumably the problem would have been identified when the bill was only a third the size that it ended up being.
And billing is supposed to happen monthly. In May 2013, council voted to start monthly billing for water starting in 2014. More than two years later, and billing is still done quarterly, with no explanation from administration as to why they didn't follow council's direction.
You may not be aware that only half your water bill is for actual consumption - the remainder is for infrastructure and sewer charges. Administration proposed removing these charges from the bill, which would reduce it by half. Unfortunately, that amount is also unaffordable for the resident. The amount that was offered was $300. The motion to accept this offer was defeated.
This is a council that thought that the right thing to do for businesses who got stiffed by the Borealis Music Festival was to give them $82,000 to pay off their debts, over and above the $30,000 in cash and in-kind support that we'd already given them, despite their wildly unrealistic expectations. And this was after nobody responsible came to council to explain why they should be bailed out.
And while this resident had to make her plea in public, if a business wants to argue to have its taxes reduced, they get to do that in camera, so the public doesn't know. And if they don't pay their taxes, it isn't made public, even though the amounts owing make $6,000 look like pocket change. These are businesses, who can deduct such expenses from their earnings - residents have no such backstop for their water bills.
In my opinion, we'd get far more bang for our buck if we would spend more time chasing the big tax evaders, rather than going after the little people who have few if any resources to fight City Hall.
Council has spent quite a bit of time developing a strategic plan. One of the operational themes of this plan that is supposed to guide our approach to operations and projects is that we are compassionate - the exact quote is "Understanding that the services we provide are valued, and understanding the needs and challenges of the end user and working to make their experience positive." I'd say that we missed the mark on this one.
I don't like exceptions, but I understand that sometimes there is no other practical solution. Let's stop going after the little guy so relentlessly, and put some of that same effort into collecting from the big guys.
"Most bad luck is the misfortune of not being an exception." - Mason Cooley
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Is There a Place for Party Politics at City Council?
One of the things that I like best about being on City Council is the fact that I'm independent - nobody tells me how to vote (or at least, not successfully), I'm free to express my own opinions, and there's no party line that I have to follow or support publicly.
Now I realize that at higher levels of government, provincial or federal, some sort of organization is necessary to coordinate direction, and that without political parties, trying to run a large government would be like herding cats. The downside to that is the expression of individual opinions at that level is discouraged, and straying from the party line, especially in voting, is usually punished. So while constituents elect their representatives, once elected, the constituents become less important to their representative than the party leader.
But in such a small group as council, nine individuals, we don't need to be divided into groups to ensure that we don't go madly off in all (or nine) directions. Each member of council is free to form their own opinions, express their own ideas, and be influenced by others' good suggestions. In fact, what can happen is that an idea, after open discussion, can morph into an even better idea that can get support from all members of council. Of course, we all tend to one or the other side of the spectrum, but it's best when we can meet in the middle and come up with a solution that is best for the city, not for one political party or another.
Now, I understand that for some people on council, as for many individuals, they have firm beliefs that align with a particular political party, and they extend their support to being members, sometimes quite active, of whatever party they wish. I'm not disagreeing with their right to do this, in fact, I've belonged to different parties over the years, usually after being asked by a friend to support them in a nomination battle. But I decided a few years ago that tying myself to a particular party line wasn't the best way to represent Ward Three, so I no longer hold membership in any party. Each party has ideas that I can support - this way I'm free to select what I see as the best option, without feeling that I should support a particular stance because I'm a party member. It also means that I'm free to speak up about anything that I disagree with - open criticism is the first step in changing things.
Another reason for not belonging to a particular party is that, as a council, we have to be able to work with higher levels of government, no matter what the political stripe of the party in power. We don't need additional artificial barriers to conversations that might block positive discussions because of misconceptions about where we stand on various issues. One of the things that members of the public often say is that we need more cooperation, focusing on what we have in common, rather than holding fast to opinions based on what the party has decided.
One of the odd things that I've noticed is that sometimes, when we've had a vote at council that was unanimously supported, after the meeting, a council member or two will disavow their support for the vote that they just made, perhaps because it didn't match the direction made by the party that they belong to. Why they felt the need to vote with council, then try to take it back, is a mystery to me. I think that in every vote, each council member should vote for what they believe is the best option, not try to sit on the fence in a vain effort to please everybody.
I know that some members of council will disagree with me on this - that's fine, they too are entitled to their opinions. But over the years I've had many constituents tell me that they appreciate that I'm not afraid to speak up and ask questions, and that they value the fact that I stand behind my own opinions. Frankly, I work for those constituents, not for any other member of council, or any political party.
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Out loud." - Coco Chanel
Now I realize that at higher levels of government, provincial or federal, some sort of organization is necessary to coordinate direction, and that without political parties, trying to run a large government would be like herding cats. The downside to that is the expression of individual opinions at that level is discouraged, and straying from the party line, especially in voting, is usually punished. So while constituents elect their representatives, once elected, the constituents become less important to their representative than the party leader.
But in such a small group as council, nine individuals, we don't need to be divided into groups to ensure that we don't go madly off in all (or nine) directions. Each member of council is free to form their own opinions, express their own ideas, and be influenced by others' good suggestions. In fact, what can happen is that an idea, after open discussion, can morph into an even better idea that can get support from all members of council. Of course, we all tend to one or the other side of the spectrum, but it's best when we can meet in the middle and come up with a solution that is best for the city, not for one political party or another.
Now, I understand that for some people on council, as for many individuals, they have firm beliefs that align with a particular political party, and they extend their support to being members, sometimes quite active, of whatever party they wish. I'm not disagreeing with their right to do this, in fact, I've belonged to different parties over the years, usually after being asked by a friend to support them in a nomination battle. But I decided a few years ago that tying myself to a particular party line wasn't the best way to represent Ward Three, so I no longer hold membership in any party. Each party has ideas that I can support - this way I'm free to select what I see as the best option, without feeling that I should support a particular stance because I'm a party member. It also means that I'm free to speak up about anything that I disagree with - open criticism is the first step in changing things.
Another reason for not belonging to a particular party is that, as a council, we have to be able to work with higher levels of government, no matter what the political stripe of the party in power. We don't need additional artificial barriers to conversations that might block positive discussions because of misconceptions about where we stand on various issues. One of the things that members of the public often say is that we need more cooperation, focusing on what we have in common, rather than holding fast to opinions based on what the party has decided.
One of the odd things that I've noticed is that sometimes, when we've had a vote at council that was unanimously supported, after the meeting, a council member or two will disavow their support for the vote that they just made, perhaps because it didn't match the direction made by the party that they belong to. Why they felt the need to vote with council, then try to take it back, is a mystery to me. I think that in every vote, each council member should vote for what they believe is the best option, not try to sit on the fence in a vain effort to please everybody.
I know that some members of council will disagree with me on this - that's fine, they too are entitled to their opinions. But over the years I've had many constituents tell me that they appreciate that I'm not afraid to speak up and ask questions, and that they value the fact that I stand behind my own opinions. Frankly, I work for those constituents, not for any other member of council, or any political party.
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Out loud." - Coco Chanel
Monday, August 1, 2016
Can We Learn Anything from the Water Crisis?
Into our second week of dealing with water restrictions, what longer term thinking could this difficult situation inspire?
First, it's a classic example of how needs and wants differ. One of the basic services that the city provides to its residents, safe drinking water, was put in jeopardy through circumstances totally beyond our control. I want to commend the city staff who wasted no time in getting on top of the problem, figuring out potential solutions, and communicating with residents. Last weekend was a constant stream of phone calls from residents wondering mostly about whether the water was safe to drink; once the information flyer was delivered on Monday, those calls have decreased considerably.
Clean drinking water is a need. Other water uses have been identified as wants, and actions taken accordingly. Residents have certainly responded positively in reducing their discretionary use of water - I know that we're not the only family who has cut back on showers, laundry, and toilet flushing, and who stockpiled water that we're using for cooking and making coffee. This kind of community support has proven invaluable in stretching out our available water reserves.
But the emergency has also pointed out that our reserve capacity may be lower than it should be. Perhaps, instead of building more facilities that use water, we should look at investing in more reserve capacity. It's not just our growing population that we need consider, but our commercial arrangements with surrounding RMs also need to be considered - have we increased our capacity to match these growing needs?
We also need to consider the wisdom of allowing city facilities to use water without paying for it. As far as I'm concerned, the cost of water should be included when user fees are calculated; right now, they aren't, meaning that tax payers are subsidizing recreational users. I find it interesting that when the golf course couldn't use potable water for irrigation, they managed to find a solution by accessing non-treated water. Perhaps, instead of investing $2 million in a new irrigation system that will continue to use potable water to keep the greens nice, we should be looking into a system that doesn't use our most expensive water for what is definitely a want, not a need.
At present, we don't know when things will get back to normal. Temporary solutions, which will lessen the pressure on our reserves, appear to be close, but these solutions are only temporary. It will be important, over the next weeks and months, to continue to be careful in our water usage. And it will be just as important, when we are able to once again use water directly from the river, to think about changes that we can make, to reduce the impact of future situations, not just go back to business as usual.
"You don't miss the water till the well runs dry." - Anonymous
First, it's a classic example of how needs and wants differ. One of the basic services that the city provides to its residents, safe drinking water, was put in jeopardy through circumstances totally beyond our control. I want to commend the city staff who wasted no time in getting on top of the problem, figuring out potential solutions, and communicating with residents. Last weekend was a constant stream of phone calls from residents wondering mostly about whether the water was safe to drink; once the information flyer was delivered on Monday, those calls have decreased considerably.
Clean drinking water is a need. Other water uses have been identified as wants, and actions taken accordingly. Residents have certainly responded positively in reducing their discretionary use of water - I know that we're not the only family who has cut back on showers, laundry, and toilet flushing, and who stockpiled water that we're using for cooking and making coffee. This kind of community support has proven invaluable in stretching out our available water reserves.
But the emergency has also pointed out that our reserve capacity may be lower than it should be. Perhaps, instead of building more facilities that use water, we should look at investing in more reserve capacity. It's not just our growing population that we need consider, but our commercial arrangements with surrounding RMs also need to be considered - have we increased our capacity to match these growing needs?
We also need to consider the wisdom of allowing city facilities to use water without paying for it. As far as I'm concerned, the cost of water should be included when user fees are calculated; right now, they aren't, meaning that tax payers are subsidizing recreational users. I find it interesting that when the golf course couldn't use potable water for irrigation, they managed to find a solution by accessing non-treated water. Perhaps, instead of investing $2 million in a new irrigation system that will continue to use potable water to keep the greens nice, we should be looking into a system that doesn't use our most expensive water for what is definitely a want, not a need.
At present, we don't know when things will get back to normal. Temporary solutions, which will lessen the pressure on our reserves, appear to be close, but these solutions are only temporary. It will be important, over the next weeks and months, to continue to be careful in our water usage. And it will be just as important, when we are able to once again use water directly from the river, to think about changes that we can make, to reduce the impact of future situations, not just go back to business as usual.
"You don't miss the water till the well runs dry." - Anonymous
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Getting Information Before We Make a Decision - Now There's a Concept
For about ten years now (it dates back to the previous mayor), the city has picked up green waste from the back of people's homes. The principle of green waste pick-up is sound, as it reduces the amount of recyclable material going to the landfill, but the way we do it has always seemed inefficient to me. Waste is either in clear plastic bags or, in the case of branches, bundled. It's picked up by three guys in a 5 ton rear-loading garbage truck. While residents are asked to put it out on the same day as their recycling day, it may or may not get picked up that day. And for those who still have large communal bins, they have no scheduled pick-up day. Often, to make up for being badly behind schedule, pick up is done on the weekend, with overtime being paid to the three guys on the truck. When the program started, there was another individual out at the landfill, whose job was to slit and empty the bags of waste; now the bags are slit and emptied at pick up, but I'm not sure how or where the plastic is disposed of. And, of course, not everyone uses the program - people still put green waste in with their garbage, because it's easier.
When this would come up as part of the sanitation budget every year, I would ask for the cost, and suggest that this could be a service that we could cut to reduce costs. The answer was always that it cost $100,000 a year, but we were never given details. Another block to even considering change is that some members of council are reluctant to reduce services, even those that are only used by a minority of residents.
Then a few years back, I found out that Saskatoon offers a green waste recycling program, Green Cart, that is a subscription service. It uses the same automated trucks that we use for the roll-out garbage and recycling bins (which have one operator rather than three), and picks up both yard and food waste in green bins. Waste does not have to be bagged, which saves residents the cost of bags, and the city the costs of removing the bags or unbundling the branches. The program operates from early May until early November, and costs interested residents $55 per year. For those not interested, there's no cost. To me it seems like a good solution - subscribers pay less than $10 a month, and the program runs more efficiently because the trucks know exactly where to go. That's got to save time and money over three guys in a truck going down every alley and street, looking for bags and bundles that may or may not be there.
A further impending cost of the current program is the need to upgrade the composting building at the landfill. This is where the waste is taken and mixed with sludge, with the resulting mixture used as overlay for the landfill. The equipment within this building, fans and such, is reaching the end of its lifespan, and it will be helpful to find out if there are cheaper alternatives.
Fortunately, I finally got unanimous support from my colleagues at last week's Executive Committee meeting. We have directed administration to prepare a report on the costs of the current program, and the costs of changing to something like the Green Cart program. And we've asked for this report to be presented to us by the end of September, as so often reports are requested without a target date, which means that it can be months or years before a report is presented. So we haven't decided to make a change; we've decided to get the information needed before deciding whether to make a change.
I'm looking forward to seeing this report, which hopefully will contain better information than we've been given so far. I find it hard to believe that the costs of our current program have held steady at $100,000 per year for the last several years - it would be the only city program I'm aware of where costs haven't increased over the years. Once council has the report, we'll be able to make a decision made on facts and information, not on emotion. If we do move to a subscriber program, that means the costs will be borne by the users, not by all residents, and I would hope that the savings would be reflected in the sanitation budget. That would bring some fairness into a system that too often makes everyone subsidize programs utilized by a few.
"In the absence of information, we jump to the worst conclusions." - Myra Kassim
When this would come up as part of the sanitation budget every year, I would ask for the cost, and suggest that this could be a service that we could cut to reduce costs. The answer was always that it cost $100,000 a year, but we were never given details. Another block to even considering change is that some members of council are reluctant to reduce services, even those that are only used by a minority of residents.
Then a few years back, I found out that Saskatoon offers a green waste recycling program, Green Cart, that is a subscription service. It uses the same automated trucks that we use for the roll-out garbage and recycling bins (which have one operator rather than three), and picks up both yard and food waste in green bins. Waste does not have to be bagged, which saves residents the cost of bags, and the city the costs of removing the bags or unbundling the branches. The program operates from early May until early November, and costs interested residents $55 per year. For those not interested, there's no cost. To me it seems like a good solution - subscribers pay less than $10 a month, and the program runs more efficiently because the trucks know exactly where to go. That's got to save time and money over three guys in a truck going down every alley and street, looking for bags and bundles that may or may not be there.
A further impending cost of the current program is the need to upgrade the composting building at the landfill. This is where the waste is taken and mixed with sludge, with the resulting mixture used as overlay for the landfill. The equipment within this building, fans and such, is reaching the end of its lifespan, and it will be helpful to find out if there are cheaper alternatives.
Fortunately, I finally got unanimous support from my colleagues at last week's Executive Committee meeting. We have directed administration to prepare a report on the costs of the current program, and the costs of changing to something like the Green Cart program. And we've asked for this report to be presented to us by the end of September, as so often reports are requested without a target date, which means that it can be months or years before a report is presented. So we haven't decided to make a change; we've decided to get the information needed before deciding whether to make a change.
I'm looking forward to seeing this report, which hopefully will contain better information than we've been given so far. I find it hard to believe that the costs of our current program have held steady at $100,000 per year for the last several years - it would be the only city program I'm aware of where costs haven't increased over the years. Once council has the report, we'll be able to make a decision made on facts and information, not on emotion. If we do move to a subscriber program, that means the costs will be borne by the users, not by all residents, and I would hope that the savings would be reflected in the sanitation budget. That would bring some fairness into a system that too often makes everyone subsidize programs utilized by a few.
"In the absence of information, we jump to the worst conclusions." - Myra Kassim
Sunday, July 17, 2016
The Ongoing Quest for Diversity
A couple of weeks ago I got an email from Maclean's magazine - I assume my colleagues did as well. The magazine is working on something about diversity, or the lack of it, on city councils, and wanted to confirm that Prince Albert City Council is like most other city councils - largely made up of white males. They identified me as a white male, asked me to correct this if it was wrong, and asked if I had any thoughts on how to correct the imbalance.
They weren't wrong, obviously; I am a white male. And so are most of the other members of council. And I'm not sure how to fix the visible imbalances, or even if that should be the only objective - to be able to look at a picture of council and say that, yes, it contains the correct proportion of gender and race balance.
To me, it's also important to ensure that council has a diversity of perspectives. It's not really diverse if everyone at the table represents the same viewpoint, and votes as one. There are some members of council who think that's how it should be - at least one councillor thinks that council should vote the same way that the mayor does, since he's supposedly the boss (he's not, of course), and another councillor who believes that if everyone votes the same way, then nobody can be blamed for bad decisions. That's not diversity; that's behaving as if council was just a big rubber stamp.
I believe one of the factors that has led to more diversity on council is the ward system. When council was elected city-wide, most councillors and mayors came from the higher income areas of the city. Not surprising - it takes a lot of money to run a campaign across the city, and to get the name recognition that is essential to getting elected. It's much easier and more affordable to get your message out across a ward. And while it isn't required that you actually be a resident in the ward in which you run, I believe that it's most effective to be represented by someone who lives in the ward, who can truly appreciate the issues that residents of a ward have to deal with every day. And for the most part, that is the case in Prince Albert.
Of course, there are other roadblocks to achieving council diversity. One is that many people just aren't interested in the job, for a number of reasons. One of the reasons that I hear most often is the level of public abuse that seems to go along with the job - people just aren't prepared to have their decisions, and often their motives, subject to all sorts of insults and insinuations from people who don't even bother to call to get your side of the story.
The time required to do a good job is also a factor for many people - if you have a full-time job, a family, and other commitments or interests, finding the appropriate balance is difficult. I'm betting you could ask any member of council and get good examples of times when council commitments meant that they had to miss something else important.
And, like most governments, council decisions are not made as fast as some people would like, which can be seen as frustrating to those watching. We have processes that have to be followed, budgets that limit how much we can do, and we have to work with others - not nearly as fast as working alone, but I believe that it leads to better decisions.
A few years ago I was at a housing committee meeting when one of the members said to me "You need to understand; there are two Prince Alberts - a rich one and a poor one. And the rich one gets to make most of the decisions." That's where we need to ensure diversity - to ensure that our decisions lessen the differences between low and high income areas. But we don't have that diversity of perspectives on council now. We have members of council who think that it's quite reasonable to budget $2 million for golf course irrigation rather than replacing lead water service connections.
I don't know a fast way to get that diversity of perspectives on council while maintaining the principles of democracy (we can't tell people how to vote), but I try - by asking questions, by pointing out the ways that we spend money subsidizing facilities that are used by only a small proportion of city residents, and by advocating for more equitable distribution of amenities like green spaces. I may be a white male, but I try to represent the diversity of my constituents the best I can.
"One of the simplest paths to deep change is for the less powerful to speak as much as they listen and for the more powerful to listen as much as they speak." - Gloria Steinem
They weren't wrong, obviously; I am a white male. And so are most of the other members of council. And I'm not sure how to fix the visible imbalances, or even if that should be the only objective - to be able to look at a picture of council and say that, yes, it contains the correct proportion of gender and race balance.
To me, it's also important to ensure that council has a diversity of perspectives. It's not really diverse if everyone at the table represents the same viewpoint, and votes as one. There are some members of council who think that's how it should be - at least one councillor thinks that council should vote the same way that the mayor does, since he's supposedly the boss (he's not, of course), and another councillor who believes that if everyone votes the same way, then nobody can be blamed for bad decisions. That's not diversity; that's behaving as if council was just a big rubber stamp.
I believe one of the factors that has led to more diversity on council is the ward system. When council was elected city-wide, most councillors and mayors came from the higher income areas of the city. Not surprising - it takes a lot of money to run a campaign across the city, and to get the name recognition that is essential to getting elected. It's much easier and more affordable to get your message out across a ward. And while it isn't required that you actually be a resident in the ward in which you run, I believe that it's most effective to be represented by someone who lives in the ward, who can truly appreciate the issues that residents of a ward have to deal with every day. And for the most part, that is the case in Prince Albert.
Of course, there are other roadblocks to achieving council diversity. One is that many people just aren't interested in the job, for a number of reasons. One of the reasons that I hear most often is the level of public abuse that seems to go along with the job - people just aren't prepared to have their decisions, and often their motives, subject to all sorts of insults and insinuations from people who don't even bother to call to get your side of the story.
The time required to do a good job is also a factor for many people - if you have a full-time job, a family, and other commitments or interests, finding the appropriate balance is difficult. I'm betting you could ask any member of council and get good examples of times when council commitments meant that they had to miss something else important.
And, like most governments, council decisions are not made as fast as some people would like, which can be seen as frustrating to those watching. We have processes that have to be followed, budgets that limit how much we can do, and we have to work with others - not nearly as fast as working alone, but I believe that it leads to better decisions.
A few years ago I was at a housing committee meeting when one of the members said to me "You need to understand; there are two Prince Alberts - a rich one and a poor one. And the rich one gets to make most of the decisions." That's where we need to ensure diversity - to ensure that our decisions lessen the differences between low and high income areas. But we don't have that diversity of perspectives on council now. We have members of council who think that it's quite reasonable to budget $2 million for golf course irrigation rather than replacing lead water service connections.
I don't know a fast way to get that diversity of perspectives on council while maintaining the principles of democracy (we can't tell people how to vote), but I try - by asking questions, by pointing out the ways that we spend money subsidizing facilities that are used by only a small proportion of city residents, and by advocating for more equitable distribution of amenities like green spaces. I may be a white male, but I try to represent the diversity of my constituents the best I can.
"One of the simplest paths to deep change is for the less powerful to speak as much as they listen and for the more powerful to listen as much as they speak." - Gloria Steinem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)