Seeing the lack of accountability, lack of respect, and lack of desire on the part of most of our Council to hear what the public has to say, to hear any ideas on direct election of the chair other than those put forth by politicians (at the regional level) who have their own reasons for wanting to retain control over who becomes Chair - perhaps it is time for Clarington to appoint an ombudsman for the people. Or even an integrity commissioner since there is no one to police them other than that same public who is not consulted on major issues such as election of the Chair, nor respected for their opinions, since those opinions and ideas are clearly not wanted by this council.
Isn't it possible that some members of the public might have valid and even compelling reasons for wanting direct election of the chair? Why were we all good enough and smart enough to elect our municipal politicians, but apparently not smart enough to be heard on electing the top position in the region?
The new Municipal Act, Bill 130, gives more powers to both upper and lower tier municipalities. To promote accountability and transparency, municipal councils now have the power to establish codes of conduct for members of council and members of certain local boards. They can appoint an integrity commissioner, an ombudsman, an auditor general and a lobbyist registrar. Since this council voted on Monday night to ratify their "vehement" objection to Regional Council's decision to support direct election of the chair, and so far have refused to hold a public meeting on this issue but went right ahead and made the decision without any public consultation at all, then we could reasonably assert that an ombudsman is sorely needed. How else to get them to listen?
Since this is an issue that will not just go away since they have voted on it, and is a major issue confronting the entire region, we may have to begin serious pressure and lobbying to have that ombudsman or integrity commissioner appointed (or both, preferably). I would venture to guess this will not be a popular issue with this council, but are we not deserving of having a government official to hear and investigate complaints by private citizens against our municipal politicians when there is apparently no other way to be heard?
Yes, we have heard arguments for the status quo.
1. Only three of eight municipalities which included the referendum question on the Nov. 13 ballot -- represent well over half the total population in Durham. Yet, no more than a quarter of those worthy citizens bothered to vote for the officials who will guide their communities for the next four years. Why would the voting turnout be any greater to choose just one person as chairman, especially when the candidates are just as likely to come from far-flung communities such as Brock, Uxbridge or Scugog?
A. Why does voting turnout have to be any greater? What counts are the actual votes cast. Those who want to have a say in who runs our municipalities or our region do make the effort to vote. Those who don't care, don't have a say if they don't vote. What is the problem here?
2. Regional council can now say, after asking just 25 per cent of people in three of eight municipalities, that the "majority" of Durham residents want to elect their chairman. If this is really about catering to the will of the people, then let them hire a consultant to conduct a proper region-wide poll that will be accurate within a few percentage points.
A. Why did the other municipalities in Durham Region refuse to put the question on the ballot when it wouldn't have cost much to add the one question to the November Election ballots? Did those councils not care what the people thought about this issue, or were they afraid to hear it, knowing it would not jive with the position they wanted to take (and have taken)? So sure go ahead and conduct a region-wide poll, but make the question CLEAR (remember the Clarity Act?). A simple straightforward question. No push polls.
3. If the regional chairperson position is direct-elected, north Durham municipalities may be at a disadvantage because "all our votes together (from the north) doesn't compare to one municipality down there." The chance of having a northern candidate elected in a public vote, would be much less because they don't have the exposure, despite the fact that north Durham combined with Clarington represent the largest geographical area in the region. They do not represent the largest population centres.
A. What makes them think the entire population of Oshawa, for example, would vote for someone from Oshawa? Is the voting public (notice I said VOTING public) incapable of looking at contenders with a view to electing the best for the region, rather than being automatons and voting for the person who lives closest to them? We really don't get much credit, do we? And what makes them think that the decision made at the regional level by council as is done now is not a purely political exercise, with potential candidates lobbying the 28 who will make that decision, rather than taking their platform, ideas, concerns, qualifications for the job - to the public they will eventually be elected to serve?
4. The cost of running a campaign region-wide would be prohibitive, and will lead to large donations being needed and accepted by special interest groups.
A. What do they think happens right now, for municipal elections? For Provincial and for Federal elections as well. Yes there is "party" support for candidates now, although kept low-key. But look at who are the campaign workers for many of the candidates, and who donates money to them. There were a few "developer-free" campaigns in this election and most did quite well. A smart campaign is worth more than a big campaign. With the media exposure each candidate would have in the local publications as well as internet access, and candidate debates (local and televised), a successful, smart campaign could be run. It would not be for everyone as there would be a lot of foot-work to do, but give the voting public some credit. Presently, lobbying of 28 people is all it takes, and don't kid yourself that there are no promises made...
So why not make it less political and let the people decide. We were good enough to elect the present representatives, but not good enough to elect a regional chair?
I am sure that others could give many more compelling reasons than I have given here. But why not give them the opportunity to do so? Why not hold a public meeting on this issue if you really care what we have to say. Why just take the ideas of a few people at the region and not even bother to listen to others ideas that may be just as valuable, just as compelling, just as valid? We deserve to at least have these questions answered in a public forum. I'm hearing a lot of anger out there over this issue and our council's motion and vote. It's not going to just go away.
Maybe it is time to make that push for a municipal ombudsman. Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bravo! An ombudsman sounds like a great idea. But we need council to enact it, right? Oh-oh.
ReplyDeleteHow about the "City of Durham" reason given by some? We already might as well have a city of Durham, the way decisions are made at the region. With proportional representation, what is the difference between letting the people vote and having only 28 people vote on a chair? The larger municipalities have more representatives on regional council. But more voters come out in the smaller municipalities to cast their votes than do in the bigger cities (population-wise). Wouldn't that give the smaller municipalities a bit bigger voice than they already have through their smaller representation on council right now?
ReplyDeleteI'm just disapointed that our opinions (the taxpayer of Clarington) aren't even wanted. And how obvious it was made to us by the way this vote took place and wording of the motion (vehemently opposed).
ReplyDeleteI'm vehemently opposed to the actions of our council.
ReplyDeleteI vehemently object to being equated to a lynch mob by Councillor Foster.
ReplyDeleteAn ombudsman is not the answer. Having an engaged electorate that holds politicians to account is. Let's face it, no one is going to withdraw or give support to a candidate solely on their position for or against the election of a regional chair. If the representative has done an excellent job, this will not change your vote. And if they have done a poor job, their position on this issue will not be relevant either.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that very few people take the time to become educated about what happens in their municipality. Even with the wretched vote-by-mail system, voter participation is still very low. I could problem find enough friends and family members in Clarington to give me a realistic chance of winning if I ran.
How do we engage people, but to do so in a well educated way, to make politicians accountable (not just at the municipal level either)? Even a good politician has to worry about the general public turning on them for one unpopular position that they may take. Therefor for most politicians, the safest position to take is the status quo. If I don't do anything, then no one can get angry at me. It worked for Mr. Mutton for the 9 years he was on council. We as an electorate are culpable and responsible for the current state of the political landscape that we have before us, and until we change, the politicians won't.
It's not the council's position on this matter (elect the chair) as it is that they have refused at every step to listen to the public - to those who do care enough to get involved. To those who actually do vote. It is the fact that they worded a motion in such a way that implies a very solid backing from constituents, which is not at all the case. They refuse to give taxpayers (voters) the time of day on this matter, which affects us all where we live.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, it will make me think twice about giving the 5 who intentionally ignored us my support. The two who at least listened I am more apt to give my support to, even though the vote went the other way.