Four Year Terms for Council?
Ron Bolin — September 24, 2010
Letter to the Editor:
Tom Fletcher’s piece, “Municipal politicians to vote on four-year elected terms” (Bulletin, Sept. 23, 2010) raises an important question: When was the public asked for their approval to give four year terms to municipal politicians? Does the public have any say in this matter or have we somehow given permission to our elected city officials to give themselves a longer reprieve against our disapproval?
The U.S. House of Representatives must ask the public for their approval every two years. For a century, Nanaimo Councils were elected annually, then came 2, 3 and now proposed 4 year terms in rapid succession. Do we feel that our oversight is no longer required so frequently as we all approve of what is happening to our town? Are elections so onerous that raising money for elections is getting harder for the businesses and unions which are their primary funders? Who should be voting on four year terms, the governors or the governed? Is this the kind of vote that we are sending our Councillors to Whistler to take on our behalf? Should we not be demanding our say in this matter?
Ron Bolin
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
I would appreciate knowing whether the reason that this topic is getting no comment is due to people feeling that this weakening of ballot control is not a problem because the people elected need no control (would a five or ten year term be even better), or because it doesn’t make any difference as changing the rascals on the roster still leaves the rascals in control. Please help me understand.
Ron, can you link to the story you refer to. A search at the Bulletin site didn’t produce it. I’m sure it’s there but I find the new Bulletin site slow and hard to navigate.
Here’s background on the Provincial Government / Union of BC Municpalities task force on the Local Government Task Force and its report that was released May 31…
http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/news.html
It’s almost funny that the report justifies 4 year terms with this statement:
“The Task Force recommends a four-year term of office to provide local governments more time to plan and implement their vision, and to reduce the potential for voter fatigue over time.”
Once we get that damn voter fatigue thing looked after we should be ok.
The fox has again declared what’s best for the hens.
Oddly, this story which appeared on page 5 of the Bulletin on Sept. 23, cannot be found on the Bulletin’s web site. I will contact the editor to see if it can be put on the web or if we can be given permission to reprint the story on the blog.
The vote at the Union of BC Municipalities this week, if passed, request that the BC Government change the term to 4 years from 3 years. It should be noted that there is also a vote to keep the current 3 years. It will not become into being after the vote at the conference this week. It is only a request that needs a majority vote. http://bit.ly/cIBWIO scroll down to page 19 which is actually page 5 (reminds me of a couple of politicians;))
I just pick myself up from laughing about the voter fatigue when I remember I read recently that UBCM VP Barbara Steele was quoted recently as saying the Provincial Government has told them the recommendations will be rubber stamped after the convention.
Here’s Jonathan Baker, a municipal lawyer and former Vancouver City Councillor, quoted in the Province newspaper: “the terms should be shortened to two years rather than extended to four. I think it’s disgusting and corrupt, quite honestly,” he said. “It’s the last thing that was needed.
“The three-year term was too long as it is. They feel that what the hell, we don’t have an election coming up so we can do anything the public remembers for eight weeks so it’s ok.”
I’ll forward this post to MLAs Cantelon and Krog and ask their opinion,
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Municipal Elections Task Force
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:56:17 -0700
From: Frank Murphy
To: ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca, leonard.krog.mla@leg.bc.ca
Leonard and Ron — I’m very curious to learn your and your parties’ views on the recommendations of the Province of BC and the BC Union of Municipalities Municipal Elections Task Force report. I’m pleased that this important level of government is coming under what I feel is overdue Provincial review. That the UBCM is the main perspective sought I find confusing… You may notice my reference to foxes and hens in this civic affairs blog post:
https://nanaimocityhall.com/2010/09/24/four-year-terms-for-council/
I know that you are both, in different ways, very knowledgeable about municipal government. Ron, in your case of course first hand as a City Councillor. It’s long been clear to me that the municipal level of government that suffers from such poor voter representation and operates so dramatically differently than do our senior levels of government within the parliamentary system, is in need of reform, perhaps overhaul.
How can we bring real reform and improvement to the level of government that arguably most impacts our day to day life.
As for the Task Force, if it sought much input from citizens its efforts to reach out certainly didn’t reach me.
Thanks for giving this some thought and I hope you can provide some insight.
Frank Murphy
Johnathon Baker has it exactly right. Even I might think that a single year is too short, but the hand on the ballot box is important.
The argument that Councillors need years to get up to speed is absurd. If they are not up to speed then why or for who are they running? Leaving aside the Mayor, Council pays a salary equal to the median income in Nanaimo, i.e. a sum which finds half of Nanaimos citizens making less, and the seven which are appointed to the RDN leave an even greater percentage of Nanaimo wage earners behind. This may be a part time job, but it is not a volunteer job
Who on our Council will speak up and oppose this? It’ll be interesting to see… as is the case with other issues of critical importance to the City they refuse to engage in the public discussion and take a principled stand.
“The Task Force recommends a four-year term of office to provide local governments more time to plan and implement their vision, and to reduce the potential for voter fatigue over time.”
I too love this comment. Have to wonder that if given a 4 year term would the Conference centre have gone forward as it did or would they have proceeded to do a Risk Assessment?
I wonder if the reason for eliminating some of the polling stations last election was to help combat voter fatigue? Certasinly resulted in less voters getting out in those areas.
With so many people making a career out of sitting on City Councils expanding the term will just make it even easier. In my opinion they should be looking at maximum number of terms as opposed to lengthening terms.
Ron, you are absolutely right that these decisions should go to the voters themselves and not those in power.
Can a recommendation be made or a demand that we have a referendum on these matters to our council? Or is this something that a reverse referendum is for?
ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS is what I meant instead of reverse referendum :|
Due to an oversight, this story did not appear in the online version of the Bulletin. The editor has now corrected this problem and the story can be reached via an update of our original blog entry or at the following URL:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/news/103885169.html
George et al.:
Before moving to an approval process, alternate or not, we should just email our feelings in this matter to our Mayor and our Councillors: mayor.council@nanaimo.ca No need to prepare for a major battle when we haven’t even tried to parley yet.
But it is most galling that they should even consider such a vote without seeking the opinions of their constituents. This, I am afraid, is yet another show of the contempt in which they hold the public.
You nailed it, Ron.Contempt is the correct word and others such as disdain and disrespect come to mind.Councils (and unelected staff,the latter cemented into their highly paid positions by contractual agreements)couldn’t care less what the public thinks or wants.Imagine a group of small-minded individuals actually thinking they have the authority to decide on the fundamental basis of democracy,that being the right of the people to vote.It will be interesting,to say the least,how the representatives from Nanaimo end up voting on this truly digusting proposal,provided they feel like telling us.
If all goes well then,perhaps, the Provincial Government will ask for seven year terms?
Really!! it’s our decision not theirs.
The contempt with which the politicians hold the electorate is well deserved.
As a group, we are indeed quite ignorant of how we are being ruled over by the new ruling class.
There is truth in this comment.
Which of our councillors went to the UBCM? I can see certain of the long established and at least one other hopeful to be long established voting in favour. The City could have easily scheduled a public hearing on this prior to going. Contempt, disdain and disrespect are too kind.
FYI – I am informed that at this mornings UBCM vote, the four year term was defeated, but by a vote close enough (10-20 votes) that it will get a paper ballot tomorrow. Those who want it really want it. I am told that our delegation not so much.
This just in…. “Attempt to extend to four year term defeated by fairly large margin.”
Ron Bolin said at 26 September 2010 at 10am – “Please help me understand.”
Now, Ron, Don’t you think that is a pretty tall order!!
More on what you have just said … CKNW has now reported that,”a secret ballot this morning, (Sept. 30), saw 354 mayors and councillors voting against the change, and only 280 were in favour.”
Janet. It may be a tall order, but it is one of the reasons I write for this blog…
Email response from MLA Krog to my email to him and MLA Cantelon on Sept 26:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: FW: Municipal Elections Task Force
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:03:19 -0700
From: Krog.MLA, Leonard
To: frankmurphy@shaw.ca
Dear Frank,
Thanks for your email regarding the Municipal Elections Task Force.
Your comments about the foxes and hens, if I wanted to talk to someone about how to dig a ditch, I’d want to talk to a ditch digger first!
On the issue of four year terms, I must admit I lean toward three year terms, I think four is a bit long of a commitment for a position that is not seen, strictly speaking, as full time employment, it is seen as a public service and candidly, a very demanding one if you do it right and well.
The whole process however is a step forward but not as far as I would like it to go. The Task Force was a narrowly appointed body, but that is the way the Liberals operate.
Yours truly,
LEONARD KROG, MLA
NANAIMO
I am glad we can put paid to this topic, at least as far as our Councils are concerned. The reason why the province promoted this idea remains in the background.
My hat is also off to our Councillors who, I am told, voted against the change to a four year term.
End