Reducing council size means less democracy
Posted By IAN CHADWICK
Posted 2 months ago
Some of my council colleagues want to reduce the size of council, from seven to five. With mayor and deputy mayor, that would mean seven at the table, not nine.
I strongly oppose this change.
First, it would mean fewer councillors on boards and committees, to attend community events and meet social obligations-- less representation among the very community groups we depend on and should listen to. Many of us already serve on three or four committees or boards. Remove two members and that representation would either have to be shared among the remainder or dropped--to the detriment of those organizations and the relationship council has with them.
The experiment of reducing council's representation on boards and committees was tried in a previous term and proved disastrous. Not only did the community feel it had less or no contact with its elected officials, but council had no idea what direction the committees were taking and what their goals were.
There was a lot of resentment and anger over the lack of council participation. Committees and council were at loggerheads over many issues. At budget time, no one at council could speak for or champion a committee that lacked representation.
There are also numerous social obligations, ad-hoc and one-time meetings, planning and site-development meetings, conferences, seminars and presentations we attend. Reducing the number would mean increasing the load on any individual considerably--or obligations dropped.
If two of the seven members were away simultaneously, a majority decision could be passed by three remaining members.
Three councillors could make binding decisions on the business of the town, the allocation of funding, budget, development decisions, our future and our strategic direction.
In 2004, former CAO, Jay Currier, wrote a report that showed that for council size, Collingwood is squarely in the middle for about 20 Ontario communities of our population. His report showed no apparent advantage to reducing the numbers.
The small financial gain--about $40,000 a year--would not represent any real savings to taxpayers. The money would probably be allocated to other uses, possibly even as a salary increase to the remaining group (justified given the increased responsibilities they would have to assume).
Right now councillors represent about 3,000 residents per member.With five, it would be more than 4,000 per member--further distancing elected representatives from the people they are supposed to serve.
A reduction in seats could radically change the nature of the election, tipping the balance to those with deeper pockets. In general, those who can afford more advertising get more votes. Well-funded special interest groups could dominate the election.
And a smaller council would mean fewer viewpoints, fewer opinions, fewer ideas at the table. While it might shorten debate, it would mean the cross section of community representation is smaller.
More participation by council equals more democracy in the community. Fewer members means less participation, less democracy. Ian Chadwick is a municipal councillor for the Town of Collingwood. The Enterprise-Bulletin has invited Collingwood council members to provide a once-a-month column on municipal issues.
