Bucking a relentless PR campaign from the Chamber of Commerce, last week Halifax council voted not to reduce the number of councillors from the present 23. But we haven’t heard the last of the issue. City staff is now preparing an application to the Utility and Review Board to redraw district boundaries to better match population distribution across those 23 districts, and you can be sure that the Chamber and other business groups will continue their campaign behind the scenes and that the UARB will be pressured to overturn the council’s vote.
For that reason, the city’s submission to the UARB needs to set out clear reasons why reducing the number of councillors is a rotten idea, and people in the community should see the move for a smaller council for what it is: a power grab.
A smaller council necessarily limits access to government for those who are not already connected. Business groups like the Chamber will always have access to politicians, no matter how many or few councillors, so the Chamber’s real aim is to limit access for other people—people whose opinions about what’s best for the city don’t align exactly with the Chamber’s well-funded lobbying efforts.
See, when those other people have representation on council, some councillors might (gasp!) dissent from the party line. There might be (horrors!) debate or (clutch your pearls!) “bickering.” Far better, from the Chamber’s perspective, to just let their bought-and-paid-for pols run the show without any protest, without any of the pesky little people getting in the way.
Lately, the advocates for a small council have been trotting out the line that we’re “over-governed.” By this they don’t mean they’re opposed to security certificates, which allow Canadian courts to use secret evidence to prosecute people. Nor are they objecting to ballooning police budgets and the 24/7 police surveillance state. Rather, they fear citizens might have too much democracy, too much say in how they are governed.
Last week, councillor Tim Outhit used the example of Prince Edward Island, population 130,000, which has 27 elected members in its legislature. This compares to HRM’s population of about 400,000, which has 23 elected councillors. PEI’s arrangement is “appalling,” said Outhit.
But voter turnout on PEI has been over 80 percent in 12 of the last 13 provincial elections (the 13th had “just” 78 percent), and PEI consistently has among the highest voter turnout of any jurisdiction in North America. In comparison, even with a celebrated internet and phone voting system that made it painless to vote, in the last Halifax election voter turnout plummeted to a record low 37 percent. I’d say it’s Halifax’s turnout that is appalling, not PEI’s.
To be sure, a lot determines voter turnout rates, including demographics, history and, in PEI’s case until very recently, a scandalous tradition of spoils (a tradition shared by Nova Scotia). Maybe it’s not fair to look at that one example.
So I asked Bobby O’Keefe, who works at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the right-wing think-tank based in Halifax, what he thought. Using data AIMS has collected, O’Keefe took 10 Canadian cities with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 and looked at the population per council district and voter turnout. His conclusion: “The more people you’ve got for each councillor, the lower voter turnout tends to be. Is the number the only thing at play? No, of course not. But if you want your city’s citizens engaged, taking away voices from the council table might not be the best path.” (I’ve linked to O’Keefe’s blog post on this, as well as to a larger database of more cities, at thecoast.ca/bites.)
This makes intuitive sense: the smaller the districts, the more the likelihood that residents personally know their councillors—and the people challenging their councillors—and the more intimately the councillors know what’s going on in the districts. City Hall becomes not just a bureaucratic abstraction, but rather a truly representative body that can be engaged with positively.
We’re fighting a lot of different battles in the war for greater voter participation, including increased apathy and a sense of civic hopelessness. The last thing we need to do is lessen citizens’ voice at City Hall by reducing the number of councillors.
This article appears in Aug 12-18, 2010.
Well said, Tim.
“Over-governed”? Isn’t that the mantra of our wing-nut neighbours to the south, The TeaBaggers?
The Chamber is the power behind this, Citizens for Halifax is the astroturf grassroots organization, and Fusion, well, they’re the young up and comers looking to network, network, network.
I like Tim, “not a full-time job”, and Barry “The Ponderer” are two of the biggest fans of this. Anything that would keep the pesky public from their doors.
Nicely done Tim. I think you should write a related piece on the Chamber of Commerce and their influence at City Council. That would be an eye-opener for a lot of citizens of HRM I suspect.
What do you think about changing Council’s voting policy so that the Chair (mayor or acting mayor) doesn’t have a vote but in the event of a tie, the Chair can cast the deciding vote?
What do you think of changing Council’s voting policy so that the Chair (mayor/acting mayor) doesn’t have a vote except in the event of a tie, and then can cast the deciding vote?
Thank you , Tim. This campaign against the present size of Council was one nasty piece of business.
Tim B. – I again ask you to meet with me and to take a tour of Bedford with me. You continually painting me as a right-wing individual led by big business causes great amusement to anyone who knows me. I come from a Liberal and NDP family, and I lead a left of centre think-tank. One can be left of centre and still have some business sense and the recognition of how important business and small business are to our economy and our future. This is therefore would logically lead to support the need for a Chamber of Commerce and to defend its right to comment on matters of interest to the business community.
You and I agree on many things such as: the expanded role and empowerment of Community Councils, too many in-camera meetings, too many private contracts, and the support for public and active transit. We have disagreed on Tax Reform, but in my opinion you must put this one issue behind and re-establish your objectivity in regard to other issues and all Councillors. You will recall that in the past I complimented, appreciated, and used your research on the sewage treatment plant and on the temporary domed arena in Bedford.
Nova Scotia has approximately 441 elected representatives for a population of approximately 900,000 residents. I believe, and I believe that the vast majority of residents believe, that we are over-governed. The fact that NS still has 55 municipalities is also “appalling”. The fact that an entire province of 130,000 people has three levels of government is arguably an example of over-governing!
You are a champion and defender of democracy, and so am I. So, your stand confuses me. Depending on which poll you view, support for a smaller Regional Council ranges from 58% to 92% from the PEOPLE. Why should Council not listen to the PEOPLE on this issue? We agree that the people from all HRM Districts would benefit from the empowered Community Councils. They deal with local issues within their “community of interest”. The issues that would continue to come to Regional Council would be dealt with by a smaller group of Councillors. Therefore, individual Councillors would have to convince a smaller number to support an issue or policy that is of interest to their residents (the PEOPLE).
In my view and those of many residents, expanding district boundaries combats parochial thinking, which I believe is holding back our region. To suggest that a city with more Councillors than HRM is more democratic, is at best sketchy and arrogant. To suggest a district of 14,000 voters is more democratic than a district of 20,000 (and this difference presently exists in HRM) is an example of grasping at straws to protect the status quo. It has never been easier to contact your Councillor, and that is a good thing. Every Councillor deals everyday with his / her residents on large and small issues. That is the way it should be, and the way it should continue. Today alone, I have dealt with a policing issue, a sign, a flood, mowing, community centre planning, and now a governance issue. It did not change when the districts served by Councillors Harvey and Rankin increased by several thousand after amalgamation and it won’t change in 2012
I kow you slightly, and thus I cannot understand why you would support “districtism”, parochial thinking, ignore public polls, and support folks protecting their jobs (supposedly in the name of democracy)? Further, we all agree on our Council that “downtown” is vital. In fact, I believe that HRM has one downtown and that it located on both sides of our harbour! I further believe that with the unique concerns and issues of a downtown, both sides of the harbour could have the same Councillor (or at least be in the same Community Council). Why do you support the fighting this kind of “forward-thinking”?
Matthew Luther – once again, when will you publicly identify which member of Council you are? Also, and once again, I have NOT said Council is a part-time job. I have said that the hours we keep as Councillors do allow us to keep “one foot in the real world” by doing other jobs. I have cut back my pay and my hours at novaknowledge, but I have had no difficulty keeping on top of issues for my residents or attending meetings. Some residents like and respect the fact that I have business experience and training. They also like they fact that I can relate to those fired, firing, laid-off, laying-off, trying to find skilled workers, and that like many of them I have awakened at night with sweat pouring down my forehead wondering how to make payroll or pay a bill! I am no better or no smarter than any other Councillor, and I have much to learn. But, like several of my colleagues, I do bring balance and a different perspective to the table. Surely, you are not opposed to balance and diversity?
“By this they don’t mean they’re opposed to security certificates, which allow Canadian courts to use secret evidence to prosecute people. Nor are they objecting to ballooning police budgets and the 24/7 police surveillance state. Rather, they fear citizens might have too much democracy, too much say in how they are governed.”
this hits the nail on the head. those lobbying for “less government” are actually lobbying for less democracy. they’re fine with the state being strengthened in areas where it can serve their interests like those you’ve mentioned. where it serves the people’s interest is another matter: those functions need to be scaled back. given their very selective zeal for limiting the state’s power, the right wing/corporate attack on “big government” is mostly self-serving fraud and class warfare.
excellent article Tim.
I don’t see why the amount of councillors (or any other political group) isn’t goverened by population size. If for example 1 councillor for every 50,000 people or 30,000 but make it a system that can grow & contract as the population increases or decreases.
As for 23 councillors here…why is it that Calgary has a much higher population, but they have only 15 councillors ?
It seems to work out fine there…why do we have to have the burden of paying for a much larger group ? That is how I see it. We the tax payers are on the hook for a much larger payroll & that money has to come from us.
I personally would lik eto see taxes come down & CUTTING areas where we don’t cut services but do cut costs is IMO a good way to look at it.
I hope Tim Outhit can come forward with a peer reviewed report into the governance of municipalities.
As an aside, how many directors were on the Board of Bristol Communications when it was flushed down the bankruptcy toilet ?
Less councillors will tend to entrench maost of them and fails to recognise the value of dissent from group think commonly referred to as “The Team”
Once again Tin Bousquet you have it all wrong we need a more effective council and the only way it going to happen is to have less councillors. We do not need 23 for a city of 400,000 people.
i did not know we lived in a democracy.thats what the left keeps telling me, “this is not a democracy.”
i am confused now.
Haliguy32 – HRM is not a city of 400,000.
Peninsula Halifax has a populationof just 65,000.
It is a collection many communities rolled into one administrative region. I invite you to drive around the outer bpundaries and talk to the residents.
Why will 16 councillors be more effective than 23 councillors ?
What do you mean by effective ?
Give me an example of an issue where they would have been more effective with 16 councillors.
Toronto has 44 councillors, each councillor has 2 full time staff and an office located in each district. HRM has a few staff to support 23 councillors and no district offices. The city is so effective the transit staff sleep on the job without any consequences.
Voter turnout in Halifax has been decreasing for years while the number of Councillors has increased. The real issue in HRM is that this democracy has no check and balance (and no one with enough foresight to devise a check and balance). There’s no planning, no budgeting, and no accountability. Back when we had 4 municipalities we had competition to keep taxes low and active ratepayers associations to keep councils frugal. Now, after taxes have risen 500% for many, we have no way of stopping or slowing the spendaholic socialists on Council and 4 years is too long a term without accountability.
My vision of democracy:
1. People and communities should vote for number of didtricts and councilors.
2. Number of councilors should be reduced to max of 10 ( 4 could be sufficient)
3. Councilor’s job should be a FULL TIME position ( no part time gigs on site and definitely councilor cannot hold full time job)
4. Performance review should be send to residents on yearly basis ( similar to every job, you get peer review, performance review, et.)
5. Election of councilor could be hold every 4 years however his salary increase would be based on performance review done by public.
I believe only then we can achieve democracy.
Please do not be naive. Maybe Mother Theresa could be altruistic ( and even though I would question that ) Politician will always have some agenda and self interest on their mind.
How do you expect councilors to vote themselves out ? By pulling a short straw ? By saying ok, Steve can you hit the road for the team ?
I’m glad I read the Coast if for nothing other than the humor content. Even if it is unintentional, like the off-the-wall references to security certificates and the police that come out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion about council size.
If 23 councillors makes us more of a democracy than 14, why not advocate for 46 or 50? Surely that would support democracy even more? Just imagine the gong show that would result in. The number of people around the table has little to do with the degree of democracy one enjoys. With our current merry band of 23, I receive no representation whatsoever, because my councillor is (a) an idiot in general and (b) no longer responds when I try to provide my opinions on the issue du jour after having giving him a right dressing down over his absurd position advocating rounding up and killing cats. A council made up of persons like this provides no democracy regardless of how many sit around the table. A small council made up of people who truly want to listen and who have a sense for what the community needs, as opposed to what the loudest squeaky wheel wants, would be a brilliant example of democracy.
The fact of the matter is that our band of 23 has shown that they are incapable of playing well together, are parochial and split along rural/urban lines, and spend far too much time wallowing thanks to our hopelessly inept mayor. A smaller group would, if nothing else, be more manageable and thus has a chance of being more effective.
The commentator who thinks the Chamber of Commerce has influence on council obviously needs to recalibrate his influence-meter. If they had any influence at all, the anti-development policies regarding the downtown and HRMs out of control spending would be history.
Tim Outhit: Thanks for taking the time to respond to the maniacal ramblings of Tim B.
Unfortunately, Tim B. gets paid to be controversial, not to make sense or argue rationally. It’s about clicks and page impressions, not what’s best for the future of Halifax. So I’m afraid you’re wasting your time on him. In a way, Tim B. is the Glenn Beck of The Coast.
I like the ‘loudest squeaky wheel’ reference. I’m getting the feeling that if Tim B. has the option between a room-full of loud squeaky wheels and another room with 5 industry captains, he’ll happily drown himself in the stagnant bliss of room #1.
After all, zero progress is infinitely better than Tim B’s wildly imagined mass conspiracy by corporate Halifax to strike down democracy, ship poor people to the mines, and hoard all the good beer in town.
A reduction in the number of council members will result in an NDP dominated council.
The Dippers control the most seats on the School Booard, most provincial seats in metro & HRM and half the metro MPs.
They can out-organise the other parties and have spent the last 25-30 years solidfying their presence in the political spectrum that was one the domain of Tories & Liberals.
If the Chamber of Commerce is happy to have the NDP running the planning rules then I am sure they will tell us of their newly found love of the lefties.
All I know is that the number of city councillors is not the biggest problem we have in city government, nor is it in the Top 5 or Top 10. There are enough variables when it comes to political structures that I believe it would be impossible to say whether 15, 23 or 30 councillors would be best. So why not leave that be.
The first question I’d have for all the serving councillors is, do they think amalgamation was a success? I’ve lived in Dartmouth since the mid-60’s, and I’ll never think of myself as living in HRM. To me Halifax, Bedford and Sackville are different towns and cities, and I quite frankly don’t care much about them when it comes to local issues, let alone Tantallon or Sheet Harbour. More to the point I don’t know too many other people who think of HRM as one genuine municipality either. Given that, why are people surprised that there’s low voter turnout? It’s got little to do with how many councillors we have, I’m pretty certain of that.
” Business groups like the Chamber will always have access to politicians, no matter how many or few councilors, so the Chamber’s real aim is to limit access for other people”————————————————————————————————————————–
Wow! Just Wow! Take off the tinfoil hat please. If the Chamber of Commerce has so much sway with the city why is our downtown retail district a near ghost town of vacant storefronts. Tim I think you really need to go spend some time in other Canadian cities like Victoria, Quebec city, Calgary ect to see that a vibrant and vital downtown is key for a cities success. I wish our C.o.C. had the sway your delusional mind thinks they have. Our bloated city council is one of the main reasons why this city has stood still for over 25 years. Time after time our council proves they incapable of doing anything productive for the city. Your articles are just getting more and more bizarre.
newsnews — The Chamber doesn’t give a shit about downtown.
If they did, they wouldn’t have moved their offices out to Burnside.
Also, while the downtown business groups have shown up to speak against breaking the regional plan to increase suburbanization, the Chamber hasn’t said a word about it.
The Chamber doesn’t care about downtown.
Fewer reps, not less reps…
FEWER reps, not LESS reps… grrr… 🙂
Tim. what’s it matter where their office is located? The provincial legislature is on Hollis Street, does that mean they do not care about Pictou County? For someone who follows municipal politics so closely you should have long ago realized the biggest bane of our downtown is the bloated dysfunctional city council and its administration. Take for example any large scale development proposals in downtown Halifax. It takes a developer years just to attempt to go through the approval process with the city. I can easily give you examples of this…..”The Twisted Sisters”….this took so long to go through the city hoops that the economy had turned and the developer had decided to delay/stop development of this empty lot. Starfish Properties proposal for the Roy building on Barrington Street. The development at Hollis and Duke where the province had to step in to have this approved.
We also have proposals by our downtown councilor such a “toll into the downtown area” and “monthly parking permits for areas within walking distance to downtown”. It’s as if she is trying to put the final nail in the coffin. Our “democratic” city council spends our taxes arguing about cats and chickens. They propose changes to property tax evaluation then vote along the lines of what is best for their own personal situation.
Then we have people such as yourself who go so far as to publish misinformation. i.e. Corporate Research Association convention centre poll, that help mislead the public on their opinion of downtown development. Sometimes I wonder if the “save the view” organization and you will only be happy when the downtown consists solely of vacant crumbling old buildings and blasted out empty lots. Tim the new and the old can coexist in a prosperous vibrant downtown. Once again I suggest you spend some time in other Canadian cities that have managed to properly and successfully develop both their downtown and suburban regions.
Reducing or increasing size of council will not solve anything in HRM, for the most part. Personally, to me, the Council, as it stands, is rotten from within. We have members who are looking out for specific agendas (Rankin, Outhit, or any number of rural reps) or idiotic obsessions (Dalrymple) or just plain don’t care (Wile). They’re not concerned about doing what Council is supposed to do: govern. Meanwhile, the populace becomes less involved, and the Council becomes more brash and self-indulgent. This latest issue is a symptom of this self-indulgence.
The only good news to come out of all of this is the increased power to community councils. The rest of it just plain stinks.
newsnews – Calgary’s downtown? Retail district? Vibrant? Buh? Calgary is the poster child for urban sprawl, the city core is a complete ghost town outside of working hours.
Fewer reps who represent the people who elect them rather than the down town business establishment would be a great step forward. Also do away with discresionary spending