I’ve long been opposed to reducing the size of Halifax council. I won’t reiterate all the reasons now, but you can read my take on the issue here.
Still, let’s run a thought experiment. We already have, in effect, a prime example of what could go wrong with a fewer-councillors scheme: Peter Kelly.
The mayoral seat in Halifax is the furthest extreme of reducing the number of councillors. For the mayoral position, there are not 23 districts, not 20 districts, not 15 districts, but just one district. Question: does this small number of seats for mayoral (one) give us the best possible mayor? I think not.
And if reducing the number of council seats from 23 to 15 or whatever reduces “parochialism,” then reducing the number of seats all the way down to one should reduce it even further, right? So, is Peter Kelly the best possible representative of the municipality as a whole, or do his policies (such as they are) reflect a sensibility of a narrow niche of the population that exclude broad concerns for many people who are essentially unrepresented? I think you know the answer to that.
There’s also the absurd argument that our prime concern should be to reduce “bickering” on council— as if council isn’t supposed to be about airing political differences and fighting for constituents. Imagine a situation where we only had one councillor— Peter Kelly. No doubt the “bickering” would be non-existent; Kelly would simply do whatever he wanted, without any other councilor raising a stink, or asking for a motion of reconsideration, or going to the press to air dirty laundry. Bickering solved! But would it be the best possible government?
Of course, no one is arguing that council size should be reduced to just one seat. But the thought experiment raises the same concerns I have about reducing council size, even to 20 or 15: larger districts exclude marginal, less-connected populations; a reduced number of councillors means a less-broad political spectrum sitting at council, and certainly less room for dissent, and the “bickering” that is so needed to check abuses of power.
Peter Kelly’s continued re-election should give us pause: collectively, the electorate as a whole of HRM has proven itself to be pretty stupid. When we break that electorate down into smaller chunks, however, we find that we get here and there better representatives elected, and some responsible voices come to council.
This article appears in Jun 16-22, 2011.
Good points Tim, but consider this… Portland,
Oregon is a beautiful, world-renowned ‘green’ city
with free public transportation on electric trains
in the downtown core. Portland has only four Councillors
(they’re called Commissioners), a Mayor and an
Auditor. The population of Portland is 583,000.
Kathleen, your post would be more interesting if it was accurate.
“Portland holds the title of being the most populous city in the state of Oregon, currently with more than 500,000 people living in the city. If you include the Portland Metropolitan Area (MSA), that number mushrooms to over 2,000,000 people.”
source : http://www.portland.com/portland/articles/…
Portland is a large urban area, Halifax is NOT a large urban area.
Before amalgamation the population of the City of Halifax was 115,000; in Dartmouth it was circa 60,000 and Bedford about 15,000.
Portland is useless for purposes of comparison because Halifax has nothing in common with Portland.
The council has no land use planning powers, that issue is dealt with by Metro :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(Oregon…)
What is Metro :
Metro serves 25 cities in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties (as well as unincorporated parts of those counties):
Beaverton (district 3)
Cornelius (district 4)
Damascus (district 1)
Durham (district 3)
Fairview (district 1)
Forest Grove (district 4)
Gladstone (district 2)
Gresham (district 1)
Happy Valley (district 1)
Hillsboro (district 4)
Johnson City (district 2)
King City (district 3)
Lake Oswego (district 2)
All of which have a council and councillors.
If you wish to change how we are governed just say so and then provide the links and the reasons why Portland is an example of better municipal gocernement.
Portland uses the Strong Mayor system.
In the strong-mayor form the elected mayor is given almost total administrative authority and a clear, wide range of political independence, with the power to appoint and dismiss department heads without council approval and little, or no public input. In this system, the strong-mayor prepares and administers the city budget, although that budget often must be approved by the council. Abuses in this form led to the development of the council–manager form of local government and its adoption widely throughout the United States.
OH BOY THAT SOUNDS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don Mills is back with his Zany Circus of Fun: Citizens for Halifax!!!
Gaffaw as they attempt to run candidates in the last election!
Gasp as they (south-end) tell you (the great unwashed) what is best for you!
Stare in amazement as one of the most vocal proponents of the CommonWealth Games tells the URB that HE knows a way to save money!
Yes, and for the kiddies there’s Fusion Halifax! Lots of laughs and rides as they spin,spin,spin Citizens For Halifax’s broad(narrow) message to other creepy, hyper-networking types!
Come one,come business interests to the Lamest Show on Earth
*Note your wallet must be this thick to ride this ride.
If the Mayor was a purely ceremonial position as it is in many places in Britain, and the mayor serves just one year after being chosen by his/her council colleagues do you think HRM councillors would vote for Peter Kelly ?
Yes
No
Vote now
Tim, a city council isn’t a make-work project. It’s just supposed to be an administrative group for the group of people that elected it. With too many people involved the group itself becomes the problem and not much gets done.
There are problems here that don’t exist elsewhere, like not parking in the winter and not being able to hail a cab. These aren’t real problems, just examples of a group of people that can’t get their act together.
This silly little place just takes itself way too seriously; it’s just a town like so many other. People need to grow up and solve problems instead of just talking about them.
Well, people are definitely becoming more engaged.
Parochial is a funny word. It’s certainly the word of the week. It seems to be used recently to describe the variety of mind, manners and opinion you get when you look very closely at an issue in small or local groups or when you consider the opinions of individuals that have a different point of view.
Halifax has a great opportunity here; we are learning to live in a mature democracy with a thinning and aging population. This isn’t behind the times. This is the cutting edge of an issue that will be the defining problem of the developed world in the coming century. How we learn to deal with this issue will literally determine the fate of the world.
Things aren’t looking good so far. There is a faction in our community that has gone beyond ambivalence toward democracy; they’ve gone beyond simply not understanding democracy – they are openly hating the democratic process. They hate the people who offer for public service, the hate the bickering process. In fact, they seem to hate the never ending clash of ideas, big and small, that is literally the definition of democracy.
I for one, and speaking only for myself, hope that this battle of ideas never ends and is never completely resolved. I think local municipal government is a proving ground, a school of sorts for people interested in government.
As Municipal Government Expert Jack Novak concluded in his report to the UARB on Council size,
“Changes to local government need to be examined in terms of whether or not they strengthen the political role of local government. If local government is only about its administrative or service delivery role then its real utility must be challenged. To strengthen the political role means to strengthen the ability of local government to identify and respond to community needs, to engage in the peaceful resolution conflict, to foster good citizenship, to improve access in all of its manifestations and to advance democratic values. The efficacy of changes to the current number of councillors (greater or less) needs to be judged against this backdrop. Arbitrary decisions ought to be avoided.”
We need to think of the larger purpose of municipal government and understand that many of the things we say we don’t like about it, the personalities, bickering, lack of resolution and parochialism are actually central features that we must fight to maintain. Other things, especially where for the sake of ease we abandon our citizen sovereignty to agencies, boards and commissions as well as bureaucratic experts and petty potentates all to willing to take up the helm of power in their self-styled fiefdoms need to be considered skeptically and improved on with great caution.
We live in a country that has never known a government other than by the people. If we vexed the entire purpose of the country and our way of life for the sake of perceived expediency or the control of dissenting voices, history shows we’d miss democracy once it was gone.
Good ol’ JWC, the Noam Chomsky of HRM.
We need to start writing draft amendments to the HRM Charter and put in writing the thoughts of the two profs interviewd by Stephanie Domet on CBC Radio and also take note of the comments from Carol Macomber and her description of ‘the Old Boys Club’ at City Hall and TCL.
Let us not wait for the CAO and the Audit committee.
Think of the word ‘shall’ and then prefix it with ‘ the Mayor’ or ‘the Council’ or ‘the CAO’.
Then draw new lines of authority and reporting and a new Organisation Plan.