Judgment day for local politicians is a few months away, and voters are already getting a little twitchy.
It’s never easy figuring out who should come and who should go, and then living with the municipal election results for the next four long years. Critics believe there are insufficient ways to even make an educated decision about the fate of 93 local politicians across the South Island.
There are inconvenient truths.
To our dismay, there’s no municipal government for Greater Victoria that’s directly responsible to voters.
Instead, there’s a patchwork of 13 neighbourhood municipalities, three electoral areas and the Capital Regional District that delivers 200 or so services region-wide or through a shared-service delivery model.
Only one small problem: As a result of this convoluted governance model, the 24-member CRD board cannot respond effectively to serious regional issues such as crime, health and transportation. Members for the most part are responsible only to their own municipality.
Next, there’s the frequent meetings closed to the public held in accordance with the Community Charter. To encourage transparency, these in-camera meetings are supposed to be held in very specific circumstances, for example, discussion of a legal or human resources matter.
But some local councils spend more time in closed-door meetings than they should, especially during the past two tumultuous years. If there’s a controversy or a sensitive topic, transparency disappears and meetings sometimes default to a shut door.
There’s a grey area around what justifies a closed-door meeting and senior administration — employed by council — usually make the ruling. Voters get the sanitized, short version of the discussion later, if at all.
It’s an inconvenient truth when legal disputes — that reflect poorly on the performance of a local council — often don’t reach the ears of the public.
If you sit around a corporate board table, directors demand to know who is suing the company, the result and the cost of any settlement. It’s one way to judge the competence of organizations and the management.
There were several lawsuits in conjunction with the Johnson Street bridge replacement fiasco, for example, and we still don’t know the outcome. Perhaps the governance structure should change to avoid lawsuits next time around. Perhaps the performance of council was exemplary and there were no payouts.
Annual reports, statements of financial information and the rest of the verbiage that comes out of municipal halls don’t report on lawsuits, the results and costs. Although councils must follow the rule of law, sometimes you never learn about the liabilities put on the taxpayer.
There’s also a challenge to all councils to represent all voters, not just those who voted for them or represent one faction.
Some do this better than others while recognizing there’s a finite amount of budget dollars, various priorities and sober choices to be made.
A dose of fiscal reality is required to moderate ideologically based policies, councillors chasing their pet projects, or hell-bent on changing the world.
The business community often says privately they are afraid of reprisals if they speak out and so avoid running for council. Some chambers of commerce rarely take a controversial stand and function more as a social club than a partner in leading the community.
On the other hand, some councils have plenty of business representation, arguably to the detriment of broader community representation and focus on critical issues.
Finally, the quality of reliable information taxpayers receive is inadequate and inconsistent.
A priority for most municipalities — particularly in the months prior to an election — is to put out endless public-relations stories. The controversial stuff is censored or eliminated.
If asked by the media about sensitive issues, municipalities will often hide behind freedom of information legislation and delay informing the public.
Media increasingly run one-source stories instead of providing varying views. At one time journalists would be told to find another job if they ran a sole-source story.
Social media outlets and the trolls that frequent them — such as Local Governance 2.0 — seem to spend more time on sniping than civil discussion.
Taxpayers are often forced to go to the municipal online source itself and to believe the government version.
At the end of the day there are various inconvenient truths around local governance. These roadblocks are often designed to sustain the status quo and present a sanitized version of municipal governance.
Fortunately, there are other ways to hold your council more accountable. Do your research and arm yourself with as much knowledge as possible before heading to the poll.
A better informed electorate holds our local governments more accountable and gets better value for our tax dollars.
• To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
