To the editor,
Regarding the current city council composition survey, I think that the present number on council ensures that we don’t end up with a small dictatorial club.
A small group of super councillors would surely be looking for more money and any savings would be lost. As it is, with 13 on council, I have been lucky to get one or two responses to my emails to all on council.
All parts of Thunder Bay need to be represented on city council. Having a ward system allows for this. If anything, I could see increasing the number of wards but maintaining a total of 12 city councillors.
Having said that, what this survey ignores is any discussion of how council is elected. Consider that on any given issue brought before city council, all members of city council can vote on that issue.
This is regardless of whether the issue relates to a specific ward or the city in general. It only makes sense that all of Thunder Bay’s electorate should be allowed to elect all positions of city council and not just the at-large positions and their individual ward councillor.
Suppose you have a councillor in a ward other than my own who is wasting my taxes by pursuing a pet project when our city is greatly in debt. I should be able to vote for another candidate for that ward. This would be the democratic thing to do. As it is, it’s not fair that we are only allowed to elect just over half of city council.
As for the survey, it’s not that long and should include some evaluation. When asked about how we interact or communicate with city council, we should also be asked about how well members of city council respond to our communication.
I sat through three deputations at one council meeting and council seemed to totally ignore their presentations. There was absolutely no follow up discussion of what had been presented. I have had very little feedback from letters to the editor that I have passed on to city council. I would say that communication with members of city council needs to be more two-way and less council-knows-best.
Another idea that needs consideration is that of setting term limits for city councillors. If a councillor has not achieved his or her goals after two or three terms, it’s time to give it up.
True, that a financially astute councillor who is not hell bent on increasing the city’s already bursting debt would be good for our city. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen this in recent years.
This committee conducting the City Council Composition Survey needs to think outside the box and not more of the same old, same old.
Gary Dennis
